Re: Hudood Ordinance Amended!!! (Merged)
Translation of Mr Taqi article: ‘Making Pakistan safe for rapists’ from site:
Making Pakistan Safe for Rapists
In whole article Mr Taqi has done nothing but misguided Muslims who are mostly ignorant of Quran and Hadith. He played the role of Shaitan in such a way that is unimaginable. His comment that present ‘woman protection bill’ makes Pakistan safe for rapists is not only lie rather a statement to misguide ignorant for Shaitan. Its because, it was actually Zia ordinance that was an ordinance that was protecting rapists and this bill would actually persecute rapists.
In past, because of ‘requirement of 4 witnesses even for rape cases under hudud-ul-Zia, rapists were finding protection while raped girls used to get persecuted. Even if by any chance rapist did use to get persecuted, that use to happen when hudud-ul-Zia ordinance was not used and case get transferred to be dealt with according to Tazir-raat-e-Pakistan.
Now, all rape cases would be automatically going to get dealt under Tazir-raat-e-Pakistan and thus no rapist could get the benefit of Hudud-ul-Zia to safe themselves.
Anyhow, let see what Mr Taqi quotes from Quran and how he misguide innocent Muslims and ignorant using Quran and hadith:
Mr Taqi misguided innocent people in his article (as translated on site: ) by quoting two ayah from Quran and twisted the meaning of what is there in the ayahs to prove what he would likes other to believe. In this way, he did not even care for the sanctity of Quran neither he cared about commands of Allah.
The ayah he took from Quran and twisted them to misguide others to prove his own personal beliefs are 24:2 and 24:33. He even used the devious method Jews used to use to misguide others when quoting Torah, that is to quote a part of an ayah in such a way that others might think what they are saying is true. Please read what he writes and then after that read what the ayah really says. Think, use intelligence, and decide yourself.
From Taqi translated article:
Here are the ayahs (I am using translation from three difference sources for clarity):
Surah Noor (24) ayah 1
**
YUSUFALI (24:1):** A sura which We have sent down and which We have ordained in it have We sent down Clear Signs, in order that ye may receive admonition.
**
PICKTHAL (24:1):** (Here is) a surah which We have revealed and enjoined, and wherein We have revealed plain tokens, that haply ye may take heed.
**
SHAKIR (24:1):** (This is) a chapter which We have revealed and made obligatory and in which We have revealed clear communications that you may be mindful.
From above, it can be seen that what ayahs are to follow (ayahs after 24:1 (and others), has no complications but are sent by Allah in clear words, so that people can understand clearly and follow accordingly. So, there is no ambiguity in the ayahs (that includes ayah 24:2 and 24:33 that Mr Taqi quoted).
Surah Noor (24), ayah 2:
**
YUSUFALI (24:2):** The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.
**
PICKTHAL (24:2):** The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment.
**
SHAKIR (24:2):** (As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement.
In Arabic the words used is Al-Zania wa Al-Zani (that means, woman Zani and man Zani).
In Zina, two people are equally involved, that is a man and a woman. One can see that the ayah uses the word ‘wa’ (that means ‘and’), that clearly means that in this ayah, the Zina Allah mentioned is Zina-bil-raza (that includes both fornication and adultery), where both ‘man and woman’ are equally involved and guilty (Yusuf Ali, whose translation is most closes to the actual wordings of Quran used the word guilty in his translation too).
As for Rape case, even if one considers that to be Zina, than also, that Zina is not same as adultery or fornication, as in rape case both ‘man and woman’ involved are not equally involved, that means both man and woman are not guilty but only one is guilty, contrary to the ayah 24:2, that talks of Zina where both man and woman are guilty, hence Zina mentioned in 24:2 could be only Zina-bil-raza and not Zina-bil-Jabar. Thus, it is obvious and contrary to Mr Taqi claim, the Zina mentioned in ayah 24:2 is nothing to do with Zina-bil-jabr (rape), but only Zina-bil-raza.
If Zina mentioned in ayah 24:2 includes rape (Zina-bil-Jabr), then it means, Allah consider that woman that got raped by a rapist is also guilty of Zina. But than, Allah is Just (one of his name is Adil) and no Adil (Just) can consider that victim (girl raped) and criminal (rapist) are same. Thus, anyone (like Mr Taqi) who tries to misguide others by saying that this ayah covers rape too, are actually accusing Allah of being unjust (Zalim).
One more thing that surprises me most is the two faces of people like Mr Taqi and so-called ulemas like him. I am sure that what I would show in a moment would surprise many.
Mr Taqi writes in the article:
So, according to Mr Taqi, the word Zina mentioned in the ayah is absolute and it covers all sort of Zina (well, he thinks that zina-bil-jabr and zina-bil-radha is same). Now, if this Zina in the ayah is absolute, then when it suits them, why he and many so-called ulemas try to make other believe that the Zina mentioned here is only fornication, not even adultery? [Now, when it comes to their interest of misguiding others, Mr Taqi claiming that it is fornication, adultery and rape, everything].
As, those who believe that ‘Hadd’ for adultery (sex when married) in Islam is ‘rajam’ (stoning), and from his own article Mr Taqi also believes that, then this Ayah when mentioning ‘Zina’ could not be absolute, even for Mr Taqi. Cause if it was absolute, then Mr Taqi could not believe on Rajam for Zina (but he does). This shows that Mr Taqi himself does not believe that Zina mentioned in ayah 24:2 is absolute ‘Zina’, even if he believes that rape is same as Zina. That means, when Mr Taqi wrote that article, he was doing ‘munafiqat’ (was intentionally misguiding people), that is, believing on one thing and writing (or telling others) something opposite to misguide.
If Mr Taqi really believes that Zina in ayah 24:2 is absolute than how come he believes on rajam for adultery when this ayah clearly says that there is only 100 lashes for Zina?
Allah has clearly mentioned in 34:2 that the Hadd for ‘Zina’ is 100 lashes, but in his article Mr Taqi himself wrote that punishment for adultery is Rajam. Obviously, Prophet (SAW) could not have changed the law of Allah clearly mentioned in Quran and thus those who believe that there is Rajam for Adultery in Islam; they believe that ‘Zina’ in ayah 24:2 only means fornication (not even adultery).
Nevertheless, further in the article, devious Taqi took another turn to prove his point, so that he can succeed in misguiding people. He wrote that ayah 24:2 includes rape, because in ayah 24:33 of same surah, Allah mentions about rape.
From his article, one can also see that when quoting ayah 24:2, Mr Taqi realises that he was twisting the meaning of the ayah to misguide people. Having that guilty feeling, he himself mentioned and admitted about it in his article. Here it is:
Note his words: **However, in the same surah the punishment for rape is clarified: it only applies to the man. The Holy Qur’an says:’ **
Knowing that 24:2 is nothing to do with rape, justifying his conclusion that ayah 24:2 includes rape, he brought in ayah 24:33. Thus, to misguide people, he quoted ayah 24:33 partly (as Jews use to do): Here what he quoted of 24:33 and further wrote in explanation (his explanation would have been absurd if he had quoted full ayah 24:33):
Well, well, what a devious person Mr Taqi is :). Here he played the same game what Jews use to do, that is hide a part of Allah’s revelations and show a part of Allah’s revelations, so that to misguide and fool others. I am saying this, because when one look at the ayah 24:33 in full, one clearly see that the ayah is nothing to do with rape or hadd punishment but forced prostitution (as Allah mentions in ayah 24:1, this ayah 24:33 is very clear as all other ayahs)
Let see the ayah 24:33, and see what Allah is talking about in ayah 24:33, then compare it with what Mr Taqi likes people to believe.
[Actually, ‘Zina’ topic of surah Noor got finished much earlier in surah and after some other topics (like lian, general behaviour in society, hijab etc), ayah 24:33 is talking about entirely different topic, and sex mentioned here is about forced prostitution].
Surah Noor (24):33**
YUSUFALI (24:33):** Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),
**
PICKTHAL (24:33):** And let those who cannot find a match keep chaste till Allah give them independence by His grace. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them if ye are aware of aught of good in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah which He hath bestowed upon you. Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful.
**
SHAKIR (24:33):** And let those who do not find the means to marry keep chaste until Allah makes them free from want out of His grace. And (as for) those who ask for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess, give them the writing if you know any good in them, and give them of the wealth of Allah which He has given you; **and do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, when they desire to keep chaste, in order to seek the frail good of this world’s life; and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. **
Now, look at all three translations and ask yourself that when Allah is talking about ‘anyone compels them girls or force them girls’ is Allah talking about ‘rapist raping or forcing them girls to have sex with him’ or ‘the owner of slave girls compelling slave girls into prostitution’?. Think yourself that what Allah is mentioning, is this a rape case Allah mentioned where a person forces a woman to have sex without her consent OR what Allah is mentioning in the ayah is a case of forced prostitution (forced whoredom), where girls becomes prostitute (willingly or unwillingly)?
[One should remember that a girl is prostitute (whore) if she gets money for sex, regardless of the circumstances she is in the profession, willingly or unwillingly, be that due to being forced by poverty or by someone who is her master. That is different matter that the girl that is forced into becoming prostitute, we can hope that Allah will forgive her, but that forgiveness is not by state but by Allah, and is regarding forgiveness after death]
I do not know the mental state of Mr Taqi and I do not know that what he is paid by Shaitan for selling his soul and thus doing the job of Iblis in twisting ayahs of Quran and misguiding Muslims, but I can certainly say that, from Mr Taqi article, it is clear that Mr Taqi twisted Quranic ayahs and accused Allah of being unjust (Zalim).
**By saying that word ‘Zina’ mentioned in ayah 24:2 includes rape, Mr Taqi accused all girls that are raped as guilty of ‘Zina’, as ayah 24:2 talks about people (man and woman) who are guilty of Zina. **
**Later by saying that ayah 24:33 is talking about rape, again Mr Taqi accused innocent raped girl of becoming a forced prostitutes (whore). **
Now think, what Mr Taqi wrote in that article and claimed? **He wrote and claimed that a girl that is raped is guilty of Adultery or fornication (‘Zina’) and further, these girls are prostitutes. **
What one should think? Is a girl raped same as girl having sex willingly? Or that is a girl forced into prostitution (whoredom) for whatever reasons, and thus selling her body, same as innocent girl that gets raped (not selling their body but forced into)?
Please read carefully and do not accept blindly what I wrote or what anyone else wrote (like Mr Taqi), but use aqal (intelligence) and look at things, reading carefully, what Allah has mentioned in Quran, not blindly and letting oneself getting misguided by Quran-rejecters and Quran-twisters, but with open eyes.
**Now coming to Hadith: **
Even when considering hadiths, rape case and Zina case are two different things. First let see what Prophet (SAW) said regarding Zina.
According to Hadith in Imam Malik book (Muwatta):
Muwatta of Imam Malik* Book 41, Number 41.2.12: *
Malik related to me from Zayd ibn Aslam that a man confessed to fornication in the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, called for a whip, and he was brought a broken whip. He said, “Above this,” and he was brought a new whip whose knots had not been cut yet. He said, “Below this,” and he was brought a whip which had been used and made flexible.
The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, gave the order and he was flogged. Then he said, “People! The time has come for you to observe the limits of Allah. Whoever has had any of these ugly things befall him should cover them up with the veil of Allah. Whoever reveals to us his wrong action, we perform what is in the Book of Allah against him.”
**
Thus, it is command of Prophet (SAW) that if one commits Zina, one should cover them up with the veil of Allah. That means, a person should keep quite and ask Allah for forgiveness.**
Now, it is clear from the above hadith that if a person unfortunately does get involved in Zina, that person should not reveal it, rather pray Allah for forgiveness. It is obvious that if that person confesses and thinks that he is doing something good then that person must be retarded or does not believe on Allah’s mercy. That person does not even believes on hadith of Prophet (SAW) mentioned above, hadith that does not contradict Quran, rather bolster what is there in Quran, that Allah is most merciful and if a person ask Allah for forgiveness with true intention, Allah could forgive anything.
** Further Hadith**
Muwatta (of Imam Malik)* Book 41, Number 41.2.13:
- Malik related to me from Nafi that Safiyya bint Abi Ubayd informed him that a man who had had intercourse with a virgin slave-girl and made her pregnant was brought to Abu Bakr as-Siddiq. He confessed to fornication, and he was not muhsan. Abu Bakr gave the order and he was flogged with the hadd punishment. Then he was banished to Fadak, (thirty miles from Madina).
Malik spoke about a person who confessed to fornication and then retracted it and said, “I didn’t do it. I said that for such-and-such a reason,” and he mentioned the reason. Malik said**, "That is accepted from him and the hadd is not imposed on him.**
**
That is because the hadd is what is for Allah**, and it is only applied by one of two means, either by a clear proof which establishes guilt or by a confession which is persisted in so that the hadd is imposed**. If someone persists in his confession, the hadd is imposed on him." **
Malik said, “I have not seen the people of knowledge exiling slaves who have committed adultery.”
Thus, one can see from above hadith that, Hadd is only applied if there is clear proof or confession. Now, as seen from past hadith, confession is discouraged and even this hadith discourages confession, as it says that confession has to be with persistence (If someone persists in his confession, the hadd is imposed on him).
As for clear proof, it means (as according to Quran) four witnesses are required. In cases of Zina, witnesses that saw the deed and can confirm that without any doubt is almost impossible. It is because, that means, they must have seen Zina literally happening with their own eyes, not just conjecture, that means, they saw with their eyes entering of male into woman. This type of witnesses is almost impossible; hence the only proof left is confession.
Thus, it means, no way a rapist can be punished if rape and Zina is same and rape comes under Hadd, because, no rapist would confess in their right mind** and regardless, to give justice to the victim (the raped girl), state cannot rely solely on confession of rapist.**
** Anyhow, let see some hadith in this respect too.**
** Hadith regarding ‘Zina-bil-raza’:**
Sunan Abu-Dawud: Book 38, Number 4405:
Narrated Nu’aym ibn Huzzal:
Yazid ibn Nu’aym ibn Huzzal, on his father’s authority said: Ma’iz ibn Malik was an orphan under the protection of my father. He had illegal sexual intercourse with a slave-girl belonging to a clan. My father said to him: Go to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and inform him of what you have done, for he may perhaps ask Allah for your forgiveness. His purpose in that was simply a hope that it might be a way of escape for him.
**
So he went to him and said:**** Apostle of Allah! I have committed fornication, so inflict on me the punishment ordained by Allah.He (the Prophet) turned away from him, so he came back and said: Apostle of Allah! I have committed fornication, so inflict on me the punishment ordained by Allah. He (again) turned away from him, so he came back and said: Apostle of Allah! I have committed fornication, so inflict on me the punishment ordained by Allah. **
**
When he uttered it four times,the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: You have said it four times. With whom did you commit it? **
**
He replied: With so and so. He asked: Did you lie down with her?**** He replied: Yes. He asked: Had your skin been in contact with hers? He replied. Yes. He asked: Did you have intercourse with her? He said: Yes. **So he (the Prophet) gave orders that he should be stoned to death.
He was then taken out to the Harrah, and while he was being stoned he felt the effect of the stones and could not bear it and fled. But Abdullah ibn Unays encountered him when those who had been stoning him could not catch up with him. He threw the bone of a camel’s foreleg at him, which hit him and killed him. They then went to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and reported it to him.
He said: Why did you not leave him alone. Perhaps he might have repented and been forgiven by Allah.
Above hadith clearly shows that hadd punishment get applied when a person confesses four times, thus covering up for the requirement of four witnesses with four separate confessions, and even that, punishment is not to be enforced unless the person wants it.
*Bukhari: Volume 8, Book 82, Number 810: *
Narrated Jabir:
A man from the tribe of Aslam came to the Prophet and confessed that he had committed an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet turned his face away from him till the man bore witness against himself four times. The Prophet said to him, “Are you mad?” He said “No.” He said, “Are you married?” He said, “Yes.” Then the Prophet ordered that he be stoned to death, and he was stoned to death at the Musalla. When the stones troubled him, he fled, but he was caught and was stoned till he died. The Prophet spoke well of him and offered his funeral prayer.
Again it is clear from this hadith in Bukhari that, Prophet (SAW) only ordered punishment for him after he confesses against him four times (throughout Prophet (SAW) was moving his face away from him). Even after he confessed four times, Prophet (SAW) asked him if he was mad.
Muwatta (of Imam Malik) *Book 41, Number 41.1.9: *
Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said from Sulayman ibn Yasar from Abu Waqid al-Laythi that a man came to Umar ibn al-Khattab while he was in ash-Sham . He mentioned to him that he had found a man with his wife Umar sent Abu Waqid al-Laythi to the wife to question her about that.
He came to her while there were women around her and mentioned to her what her husband had mentioned to Umar ibn al-Khattab, and informed her that she would not be punished on his word and began to suggest to her by that, that she should retract. She refused to retract and held firm to confession. Umar gave the order and she was stoned.
Now, it can be easily seen from all above hadiths that state should try that no one confesses ‘Zina’ so that Hadd is not applied. Rather, state should discourage confession in Zina cases and even if confession is made, state should encourage retraction of confession, so that Zani is not punished under Hadd.
The reason is obvious. ‘Zina’ is a sin and the best for Zani is that to not get involved in Zina, but if happened, instead of getting themselves hadd punishment, they should repent and pray to Allah for forgiveness, as mentioned in the hadith (Sunan Abu-Dawud: *Book 38, Number 4405 *mentions referring to Prophet (SAW) that: Prophet (peace_be_upon_him)said: Why did you not leave him alone (from forcefully giving hadd punishment). Perhaps he might have repented and been forgiven by Allah.
Hadith on Zina-bil-Jabar:
Now, here is Rape case mentioned in hadith: The situation here is very different when compared to Zina cases. Just read it and ponder.
*Sunan Abu-Dawud **Book 38, Number 4366: *
Narrated Wa’il ibn Hujr:
When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered (raped) her.
She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: That (man) did such and such to me. And when a company of the Emigrants came by, she said: That man did such and such to me. They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse with her and brought him to her.
She said: Yes, this is he. Then they brought him to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him).
When he (the Prophet) was about to pass sentence, the man who (actually) had assaulted her stood up and said: Apostle of Allah, I am the man who did it to her.
He (the Prophet) said to her: Go away, for Allah has forgiven you. But he told the man some good words (AbuDawud said: meaning the man who was seized), and of the man who had had intercourse with her, he said: Stone him to death.
He also said: He has repented to such an extent that if the people of Medina had repented similarly, it would have been accepted from them.
**One can see here that contrary to Zina case, in this rape case, there is something obvious, that there is no requirement of **confession four times, neither there is discouragement from confession, neither indication after confession that rapist can retract the confession, neither such statement that if rapist does not want to go through Hadd, he should be left alone (as he may repent and Allah forgive him).
**It is obvious, because here there is a victim, that is a woman who need justice and thus the rapist cannot be left alone without punishment. **
Actually, rape does not come under hadd, and thus state can decide the punishment (If rape was under hadd, 4 witnesses of rape to be provided by raped girl would be must and that means, giving protection of ‘4 witnesses requirement’ to the rapist). When people say that if there is no 4 witnesses then case can be dealt under Tazir, are actually admitting that hadd cannot punish the rapist and Tazir is required. (There is not a single case in Pakistan where a rape case is dealt under hadd, 4 witnesses were produced, and rapist got punished because of that).
In above case (mention in hadith) state decided Rajam for the rapist. Since rape does not come under hadd, state can device proof for rape the way state likes; that includes forensic evidence of any type or any suitable evidences, contrary to ‘Zina’ cases, where four eye witnesses or self confession four times is required. Even that confession should be discouraged and should be volunteered (not due to police torture) and even than, if after confession, Zani do not want to get punished, he should be left alone [as hadith (Sunan Abu-Dawud: *Book 38, Number 4405: *says that if Zani after confession wanted to run away, he should be left to run away and people should hope that Allah will forgive him].