binAadam: Oh, so you found a hadith from sunan Abu Dawud?
Just imagine that from the hadith you quoted, the rapist turned pious so quickly and even though he was asking forgiveness from Allah, such that the way he was asking Allah for forgiveness, whole community would have got forgiven, still Prophet (SAW), who was Rahmat-ul-lil-Alameen, got him stoned.
Let read another hadith from same book, and think that according to sunan Abu Dawud, how much prophet (SAW) knew about Islam? It seems that Abu Dawud believe (or collected hadith) such that some hadith are completely ridiculous. Read the following hadith and think? Did prophet (SAW) according to this hadith knew about Islamic laws or that he needed people to correct his wrong judgments?
If you believe the hadith you quoted, believe the hadith I am quoting from same book too.
A thief was brought to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him).
He said: Kill him.
The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
Then he said: Cut off his hand.
So his (right) hand was cut off.
He was brought a second time and he said: Kill him.
The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
Then he said: Cut off his foot.
So his (left) foot was cut off.
He was brought a third time and he said: Kill him.
The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
So he said: Cut off his hand. (So his (left) hand was cut off.)
He was brought a fourth time and he said: Kill him.
The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
So he said: Cut off his foot.
So his (right) foot was cut off.
He was brought a fifth time and he said: Kill him.
So we took him away and killed him.
We then dragged him and cast him into a well and threw stones over him.
Conclusion and moral from above hadith: Kill the thief, well if he has no limbs to cut them off as punishment for stealing. Another conclusion is that Prophet (SAW) use to give verdict (to kill) without knowing about crime and needed people to correct him by reminding the crime and nature of the crime. However, people gave up trying to correct Prophet (SAW) in the end, because thief had no limbs left to offer for sacrifice.
Comments on the above hadith:
From the above hadith, it seems that Prophet (SAW) did not knew the punishment as Prophet (SAW) always wanted to get the thief killed but it was people who were saving him and Prophet (SAW) always used to listen to the people (as if he has no knowledge and was always getting corrected by people).
Looks like Prophet (SAW), who was Rahmatul-lil-Alameen, was adamant to kill the thief for crime of theft, but it was ‘Raham’ of people that they always managed to remind and correct Prophet (SAW), and thus use to save the thief from Prophet (SAW) verdict of death for a thief.
Second is that, thief was also a bit adamant and khar demaag (donkey brain), as he was stealing every time people saved him from wrath of Prophet (SAW) [Nauzobillah], and he always use to get caught. Well, he was so adamant that he was stealing even after getting all his limbs (his both hands and both feet) chopped off, maybe he was then steeling with his mouth, only Allah knows best. Seems that after been caught four times and loosing all his four limbs, he was left with no limbs for people to chop off and thus they gave up argument that he was just stealing, hence when Prophet said to kill him, they did not argued or reminded Prophet (SAW) but killed him.
Well, what about hadith in same book regarding killing someone (actually first hadith of kitab-ul-hudud in Abu-Dawud), here it goes:
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) Said: The blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle should not lawfully be shed except only for one of three reasons: a man who committed fornication after marriage, in which case he should be stoned; one who goes forth to fight with Allah and His Apostle, in which case he should be killed or crucified or exiled from the land; or one who commits murder for which he is killed.
Now here how devious Muftis would work: If they want death sentences for those stealing, they would use hadith No 4396: If they do not want death sentence for those stealing, they would use hadith No 4339. I hope you got it
Note: I believe that above hadiths are fabricated (and slanders Prophet (SAW)). Regardless I mentioned above hadith to show how these muftis and mullah work to misguide innocents in believing what they like, by quoting fabricated hadiths they have in their arsenal and by wrong interpretation of Quranic ayahs]
A thief was brought to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him).
He said: Kill him.
The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
Then he said: Cut off his hand.
So his (right) hand was cut off.
He was brought a second time and he said: Kill him.
The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
Then he said: Cut off his foot.
So his (left) foot was cut off.
He was brought a third time and he said: Kill him.
The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
So he said: Cut off his hand. (So his (left) hand was cut off.)
He was brought a fourth time and he said: Kill him.
The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!
So he said: Cut off his foot.
So his (right) foot was cut off.
He was brought a fifth time and he said: Kill him.
So we took him away and killed him.
We then dragged him and cast him into a well and threw stones over him.
Before giving your ignorant remarks over the hadith, a Dajjal like you should embrace Islam and leave the false prophet, Rashad Khalifah Kafir, because if you embrace Islam then you are likely to read Quran al Majeed unlike your kafir prophet Rashad Khalifah, and in Quran al Majeed there is a punishment of Harabah, the above hadith comes under the same category. Since you are a disbeliever, a rejector of the Sunnah of our Nabi Kareem sallAllahu'alayhe wasallam and above all, you are the rejector of Quran al Majeed, as you are denying the punishment of Harabah mentioned in the above hadith, you wouldn't take any notice even if I explain this kind of punishment from Quran and Sunnah.
May Allah guide you, or may my Lord destroy you and disgrace you in the both worlds, Aameen.
I am finishing my discussion with you here, because I am not use to discussing with an ignorant that is also kafir and in discussion, starts calling names (a sure trait of a follower of iblis). So: Auzo-bil-lah-e-manash-Shaitaan-ur-rajeem
Hope that after this sentence, you will disapear if not, then probably you are maha dheet shaitan ::halo: But then, you can keep barking as you have done all your life You wont find any reply from me, because to give reply to children of Iblis (like you) is against my religion, Islam.
Kindly dont get personal guys. Please have a respectable discussion and dont use each other's relations (mothers, sisters) for case examples; it's impolite.
bin adham, i think saleem could not have argued his case better, you have simply refused to listen.
Even in your Hadith of rape which you have mentioned, i fail to understand how come the man was being charged for rape without four witness, he was only being charged on testimony of the victim. Had the real rapist not confessed, the alleged one would have been punished. Where were 4 witness, this proves my stand that rape is not hudd. For hudood either a confession is requiired or 4 witness no less.
what saleem was saying is that less than 4 witness and no punishment, otherwise state will have a monoply to interfere in people's private lives. i am no fan of rashid khalifa however i have seen his site & read some of his translations as well. Do not blame anyone. To me it is real common sense, i do not know why you fail to see the obvious and get nasty in the forum.
Tell me what Zina means in Arabic dictionary of the time of Quran's nazool. Did it cover rape as well?
Bro, this is because you missed to read in the hadith that
'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.'
For hudood either a confession is requiired or 4 witness no less.
And above saleem made a fool of himself that the state can't punish a rapist or an adulterer in the absence of 4 witnesses, which means if there are 3 witnesses or 1 witness of the offence of zina, the state can't punish the criminal. This is such a stupid remark which only an insane person would make or a person who himself is a criminal. Obviously a criminal would try to make the crime look a normal act. And this is what has happened in our so called Women Protection Bill.
Most of the people in the parliament are feudals, western secular agents or mafia gang members. Rape, kidnapping and murder is their hobby and part of their nature, they have to make laws which would help them deceive the law and make it helpless. It was a plus point that the Christian world was backing them with their power and dollar, so they got rid of the Justice which Hudood Laws were giving to the victim ladies.
Secondly, this is so stupid to think that in the absence of 4 witness, the state doesn't have any right to disturb two people doing zina with or without consent. Only a habitual zaani can say so.
A man raping a woman or doing zina with consent of a woman in any case is doing a crime against humanity, families and the state itself.
For example if the zina is with consent of both partners, the man and woman both are deceiving their own families, their future spouses, putting their honour at stake, opening the door to sexually transmitted diseases (as the male can be a habitual zaani) and in all cases, they are doing a crime against two families and ultimately the whole society.
[QUOTE]
i am no fan of rashid khalifa however i have seen his site & read some of his translations as well. Do not blame anyone.
[/QUOTE]
Rashad Khalifah is a KAFIR who claims to be a prophet after Muhammad sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam.
[quote]
Tell me what Zina means in Arabic dictionary of the time of Quran's nazool. Did it cover rape as well?
[/quote]
In zina with or without consent, there is an intercourse occurred between a male and a female illegally or extra maritally.
In zina with consent, both the man and the woman are doing wrong to each other while in zina without consent (rape) only the man is doing wrong to the woman.
[quote]
what saleem was saying is that less than 4 witness and no punishment, otherwise state will have a monoply to interfere in people's private lives.
[/quote]
Brother, I did not write that if there are less then four witnesses, there is no punishment in Hudud-ul-Allah concerning Zina. I only quoted Quran, nothing else, so do not write that I said something, as I just repeated what is there in Quran.
Actually, all accusation and abuses thrown on me earlier for what I wrote (directly quoting Quran), was accusation and abuses thrown not on me but on the quotations and references (that was from Quran). If I was quoting hadith, someone might have said that the hadith is ‘Zaeef’ or 'Maddu' even if I was claiming it to be ‘Sahi’, but there is nothing in Quran that is ‘Zaeef’ or 'Maddu' as all that is in Quran is ‘Sahi’ and cannot be contradicted using any source.
Even one of the criteria of accepting hadith is that it cannot and should not contradict Quran. Prophet (SAW) was walking Quran and obviously nothing can be associated to Prophet (SAW) as his saying (Hadiths), whatever the source of that saying (hadith), if that contradicts obvious commands in Quran.
Quran clearly says that, if there are less then four witnesses, punish the accuser and witnesses (of Zina) and do not touch/punish the accused of Zina (that does not mean that accuse is innocent or guilty, it only means that Allah forbid punishment of accused if four witnesses are not there).
Only kafirs or Munafiqs who do not believe on clear and unambiguous commands of Allah in Quran, mentally retarded or ignorant can deny Quran and say that one can still punish if there are less then four witnesses (for instance, three or less witnesses), as that would mean denying unambiguous and clear commands of Allah in Quran (and only kafirs or Munafiqs who do not believe on words of Allah in Quran can do that).
Just read the following clear and unambiguous Ayahs and decide yourself what Ayahs says and that a person denying these ayahs, who that person could be other than kafirs or Munafiqs who do not believe on clear commands of Allah in Quran, mentally retarded or ignorant. Such people are not only misguided but misguide others too and thus to have them as friend or associate means, hell after death. Now, read the ayahs yourself.
Surah: 4 (An-Nisa): Ayah 15
YUSUFALI: *If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. *
*Now, what Allah is saying in Quran? *
Take the evidence of four witnesses (Allah clearly mentions required number).
*And what? *
That is to only punish accused not only if one finds four witnesses, but also if those four witnesses testify. Word 'if' is very important, as even if there are four witnesses and they are not willing to testify, accused cannot be punished.
*If Allah is commanding Muslims to obtain four reliable witnesses that are willing to testify against the accused, how can a Muslim punish if there are less then four witnesses without disobeying Allah? *
Well, only **kafirs or Munafiqs who do not believe on clear commands of Allah in Quran, mentally retarded or ignorant would do what he likes and disobeys command of Allah.****
**
Is that only one place Allah says that? Not really, so read further.
Surah An-Noor (24): Ayah 4
YUSUFALI: And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;-**
**
*Can you see in above ayah that Allah is asking accuser to produce four witnesses to support the accusations? *
Further, can you see: What Allah is commanding Muslims to do, if accuser cannot produce four witnesses?
Can you answer the above question from the ayah (24:4)? Is it not there in the ayah (Quran 24:4) that Muslims should ‘flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors’
(Note: what I wrote in red above is not my words, but words from Ayah 24:4)
Well, can you answer from the above ayah:
Whom Allah is calling wicked transgressors? **
**(Is it not accusers and witnesses? Just because they were less then four)
Whom Allah is asking Muslims to flog 80 stripes? **
**(Is it not accusers and witnesses? Just because they were less then four)
Allah is asking Muslims that they reject whose evidence ever after? **
**(Is it not accusers and witnesses? Just because they were less then four)
Did Allah end the matter here in Quran? Not really, now read another ayah from Quran.
Surah An-Noor (24): Ayah 13
YUSUFALI: *Why did they not bring four witnesses to prove it? When they have not brought the witnesses, such men, in the sight of Allah, (stand forth) themselves as liars! *
Can you see what Allah is saying of those that accuse and could not bring four witnesses?Is it not that Allah is saying that those who accuse but could not bring four witnesses, in the sight of Allah, they are themselves liars?
Thing to note from above ayah is that, Allah is not saying that they are liars (as they might be telling truth), but in the sight of Allah, truth of accusation (for Zina or lewdness) is conditional, that it should be backed with four witnesses and not less, else accuser and witnesses should be considered as liars.
Now, I hope that you can see that Allah is very clear in Quran (ayah 4:15, 24:4, 24:13) without any ambiguity that a person should not accuse anyone (of Zina, immorality, lewdness) if that person could not produce four witnesses and that if he does accuse without four witnesses, it is not accused that should get punished but accuser and witnesses.
Further, Allah clarified in Quran clearly and without any ambiguity (24:4 and 24:13) that if accuser accused someone (of Zina) but could not produce four witnesses, then in the sight of Allah accuser and witnesses he produced are wicked transgressor, should be considered as liar, should get 80 lashes and their evidences should be rejected, forever.
Now you can see yourself, ‘WHO’ are those that say or write that accused of Zina can (and should) still get punishment (if not Hadd then Tazir), even if there are less than four witnesses, regardless of what Allah command Muslims in Quran (ayah 4:15, 24:4 and 24:13). These people also insists that if accuser could not produce four witnesses, still accusation and witnesses are valid and nothing should be done to accuser and witnesses. **
Just imagine that in: **Surah An-Noor (24): Ayah 4
YUSUFALI: And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; **and reject their evidence **ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;-
Allah is clearly saying in (Quran 24:4) that** if accuser could not produce four witnesses, then to reject their evidence*, **then* how Muslim state could disobey Allah command clearly mentioned in (Quran 24:4) and accept their evidence in order to persecute the accused (if not in hadd then in Tazir), on the basis of the accusation without four witnesses.
Further, from Quran Surah: 4 (An-Nisa): Ayah 15
YUSUFALI:If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. **
**
One can imagine that, four witnesses are not enough, but Allah is clearly demanding that they should be willing to testify. Word ‘if’ means that there is condition attached, that at least four witnesses testify because other option is that ‘if those four witnesses do not testify’ that means no punishment to the accused. Rather, from other ayahs, the command of Allah is that, in the situation where there are less than four witnesses testifying, punish the accuser and witnesses that testified.
**Thus, command of Allah in Quran is that, there is no compromise regarding the requirement of four witnesses. If one look at the ayahs, it is clear that no other evidence can be acceptable, not even forensic evidence or whatever, because Allah is not interested in what really happened, but interested in four witnesses.
Actually, it is obvious that Allah wants to tell Muslims, that such act (Zina or lewdness) if done in public shamelessly, then only punish the culprits, else leave the matter to Allah for punishment on the day of judgment (and do not be nosy in this world).**
**That is why when rape case (zina-bil-jabar case) comes to government, to give justice to the Victim (raped woman), it is duty of government to punish the rapist on basis of ‘Zulum or Atrocities’ on the rape victim (under Tazir law), and not on Zina under hudud-ul-Allah, where four witnesses is must requirement by Allah as proof (that is practically impossible in rape cases).
Under Zulum or Atrocities, state can get any proof (like evidential less than four, medical or other forensic evidences) and can punish the culprit whatever state decides, from huge fine and years in prison to death.**
Well, people that deny clear commands of Allah in Quran, as mentioned above, they cannot be Muslim, they are .... you should know it by now :)**
[Actually, you can clearly see from above ayahs, Allah is showing his anger on those that accuse others without four witnesses, and thus Allah wants to punish them accusers badly (in this world and probably after death too), still it is surprising that these retards keep challenging Allah and his commands in Quran].**
Police on Friday registered first FIR under Women Protection Act against a person for allegedly enticing a girl for marriage. The police charged Zarsanullah, resident of University Town, for allegedly enticing a girl for marriage under section 365-B of the Women Protection Act instead of 11-16 Zina Ordinance of Hudood Law. When contacted the police informed TheNation that on October 2, Abdul Nawaz had lodged a report saying that his daughter, a 1st year student, was kidnapped on marriage pretext by Zarsanullah, son of Awal Baz and his two other accomplices. The police said that investigation suggested that Zarsanullah and his two accomplices kidnaped the girl.
And it means if you catch a couple red handed committing an illegal sex in your office then don't worry, just watch the show with a dislike, don't bother to report this crime even if the girl in the zina is your relative, **simply **because you don't have 4 witnesses, in fact you yourself can black mail the adulterers as you have caught them red handed, take over the guy and have fun, no one is going to stop you.
The worst zaanis (fornicators) will make the above remarks as a better zaani might not distort the meaning of Quran because of his carnal desires.
**
Surah: 4 (An-Nisa): Ayah 15
YUSUFALI: *If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. *
*Now, what Allah is saying in Quran? *
Take the evidence of four witnesses (Allah clearly mentions required number).
*And what? *
That is to only punish accused not only if one finds four witnesses, but also if those four witnesses testify. Word 'if' is very important, as even if there are four witnesses and they are not willing to testify, accused cannot be punished.
*If Allah is commanding Muslims to obtain four reliable witnesses that are willing to testify against the accused, how can a Muslim punish if there are less then four witnesses without disobeying Allah? *
**
May Allah grant you common sense and guidance, and if it is not in your destiny then may Allah curse you and send a painful and disgraceful death upon you for your playing with our Holy Book and for your mind is full of dirt and corruption.
Let me try to make you feel some shame by the use of simple logic.
Suppose you and your two friends catch a couple doing zina somewhere, or suppose you are celebrating a party where a couple of your friends is committing zina and you and two of your friends are the witness of that crime. Since you all are criminals and slaves of desires, no one of you is going to report the police or court because the number of witnesses is less than 4.
Now, do you think Quran is promoting zina because you can't punish this evil couple simply because of the absence of 4 witnesses even if the crime is so evident and open (to 3 people)?
For a second, I take your stance as correct (though it is full of corruption and distortion) that you can't punish this couple because you can't provide with 4 witnesses, then what if the girl is your close relative?
Would you behave like a shameless, dirty freak to tolerate the scene or have some shame and indulge in honour killing (in case you know the meanings of honour)?
After you have found the answer to the above question, I will inshaAllah point out the verses of Quran which oppose a criminal approach you have had from the beginning in case of zina.
In November 2006, Pakistan’s military ruler steamrolled the *Protection of Women Bill 2006 into law claiming to end injustices against women. It was promptly rubber stamped by the National Assembly. In reality, this bill makes it much more difficult to punish crimes against women and provides all kinds of protection to rapists and fornicators. In this blatant attempt to make Pakistan safe for rapists, one can see the true face of “Enlightened Islam” that General Musharraf has been tasked to introduce in Pakistan. * The account is important not just for the people of Pakistan; Muslim women everywhere can expect similar treatment from their “moderate” rulers. *
*The text below is based on an article in Urdu and an interview by **Mufti Taqi Usmani.]
The major “accomplishments” of the bill are as follows:
The hadd for rape has been abolished.
It has been made much more difficult to file complaints for zina deserving hadd and zina deserving ta’zeer. They are also now much more difficult to prove. Further the government can forgive/commute hadd punishments.
The Shariah process of li’an has been tampered. Consequently, a woman in a failed marriage who is accused by her husband of adultery will remain at his mercy. Previously li’an provided her a way out.
Several clauses in the Hudood Ordinance that reduced legal complexities and provided protection for women have been repealed.
In the following discussion it is important to note that the Hudood Ordinance covered two types of punishments for zina:
Hadd: If there were four witnesses to the act of zina, then hadd (immutable Shariah punishment) was to be inflicted on the offender(s).
Ta’zeer: If four witnesses were not available, but the crime was proved beyond doubt, the offender(s) were to be given a ta’zeer (i.e. discretionary punishment).
Abolishment of Hadd for Rape
First, the new bill abolishes the hadd for the crime of rape. The authors claim that the punishment ordained by the Qur’an and Sunnah only applies in the case of adultery, and not in the case of rape.
Proof of Hadd from the Qur’an
The Holy Qur’an prescribes the punishment of adultery in Surah an-Noor as follows: “The female perpetrator of zina and the male, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes.” (An-Noor, 24:2)
In this injunction the word zina is absolute and includes zina bir ridha (adultery) as well as zina bil jabr (rape). It is obvious that rape is a more serious offense, and consequently deserves at least as severe a punishment as that for adultery.
One may point out that this verse mentions both the female and male perpetrators of zina, so this verse could not possibly apply to rape. However, in the same surah the punishment for rape is clarified: it only applies to the man. The Holy Qur’an says:
“And if one forces them (i.e. those women), then, (unto them) after their compulsion, Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” (Surah Noor, Verse 33)
Thus, it is clear that if any woman is forced to commit zina, then she cannot be punished for this, rather the one who transgressed will have to suffer the prescribed punishment (hadd) that has been mentioned in Surah Noor, Verse 2.
Proof from the Ahadith
The stated hadd *of one hundred stripes is to be inflicted on an unmarried offender. From the Sunnah Mutawatar it is further established that a married person is to suffer *rajm (lapidation). The Messenger of Allah, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam did not differentiate between zinabiljabr (rape) and zinabir-ridha (adultery with mutual consent).
In one hadith, Sayyidna Wail bin Hajr, Radi-Allahu anhu, narrates that during the time of the Prophet Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, a woman had gone out to offer the prayer. On the way a man overcame and raped her. The woman cried for help and the man ran away. Thereafter the man admitted that he had raped her. The Messenger of Allah, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam then inflicted the hadd on the man only, and not on the woman.
Imam Tirmidhi related this Hadith in his Jami’ with two different chains of transmission, and he declared the second chain of transmission as reliable. (Jami Tirmidhi, Kitabul Hudood, Bab 22, Hadith Number 1453, 1454)
Similarly, in Sahih Bukhari there is a hadith according to which a slave had raped a slave-girl. Sayyidina Umar, Radi-Allahu anhu, then imposed the hadd on the slave, but not on the slave-girl. (See Sahih Bukhari, Kitabul Ikrah, Bab 6)
It is hence firmly established from the Holy Qur'an, the Sunnah, and the decisions of the rightly guided caliphs, Radi-Allahu anhum, that the same punishment is to be awarded for both adultery and rape and that in the case of rape, only the man is punished. It is by no means correct to say that the hadd mentioned in the Holy Qur'an and in the Ahadith applies only to adultery.
The Propaganda against the Hudood Ordinance
What is the rationale for removing the Shariah punishment for rape? The authors argue that the Hudood Ordinance treated a victim of rape who was unable to produce four witnesses as a criminal herself; she was jailed for allegedly having committed adultery. This claim is simply false.
I myself had been directly hearing cases registered under Hudood Ordinance, first as a Judge of Federal Shariah Court and then for seventeen years as a member of Shariah Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court. In this long tenure, not once did I come across a case in which a rape victim was awarded punishment simply because she was unable to present four witnesses.
In fact it was not possible to do so. First, according to the Hudood Ordinance, the condition of four witnesses only applied to enforcing the hadd for rape. Clause 10(3), which awarded the ta’zeer punishment, did not have this requirement; the crime could be proven through one witness, medical reports, and chemical analysis report. Consequently most rape criminals were awarded punishment as per this clause.
Further, a woman claiming rape could not be punished under Qazf (false accusation of zina) since Exemption 2 in Qazf Ordinance Clause 3 clearly stated that if someone approaches the legal authorities with a rape complaint, she could not be punished in case she was unable to present four witnesses.
The only possibility was that the woman could be awarded punishment for committing adultery with her own free will. Obviously, if the available evidence did prove her guilt, punishing her was the just course of action. However, such cases were rare, since usually there was insufficient evidence to prove that the woman was lying; in 99% of the cases the court was neither convinced that the man had compelled the woman, nor could it prove her guilt and so she was given the benefit of doubt and set free.
This can be verified very easily by analyzing the cases executed under the Hudood Ordinance in the last 27 years. In fact, there was an independent study conducted by Charles Kennedy, an American professor. He surveyed all the data related to the Hudood Ordinance cases and presented the results in the form of a report, which was published in 1991. The report states:Women fearing conviction under Section 10(2) frequently bring charges of rape under 10(3) against their alleged partners. The FSC finding no circumstantial evidence to support the latter charge, convict the male accused under section 10(2)….the woman is exonerated of any wrongdoing due to reasonable doubt rule. (Charles Kennedy: “Islamic Legal Reform and The Status of Women in Pakistan”, Oxford Journal of Islamic Studies 2:1 (1991) page 50)The Behavior of the Police
Thus far we have discussed the legislative issues; it is clear that the punishment for rape is decided by the Shariah and that the Hudood Ordinance’s implementation was just and correct.
One matter remains: the behavior of the police while investigating the crime. It is possible that during police investigations, some rape victims were indeed unjustly arrested as committers of adultery. Unfortunately the police in our country are quite prone to committing such acts of injustice while enforcing the law. This, however, does not mean that the law must be abrogated. For example, keeping heroin in one’s possession is a crime. Yet quite often the police themselves secretly place some heroin with innocent citizens only to pressurize them afterwards. Should we then abolish the law according to which possession of heroin is a crime?
This, in fact, was dealt with by the Federal Shariah Court; it had passed several decisions that effectively set an end to this abuse. However, if one was to assume that the risk has not yet been fully eliminated, one could draft a law according to which no woman claiming to have been a victim of rape could be arrested under any article of the Hudood Ordinance until the court had delivered its final judgment. Besides, one could make laws that prescribed punishment for wrongly arresting a rape victim. But under no circumstances is it permissible to abolish the punishment that the Shariah has decreed for rape.
Zina** in the New Bill**
The second major arena of modifications is in the sections dealing with zina deserving hadd and zina deserving ta’zeer (now called “fornication”). The modifications have little to do with the protection of women, but a lot to do with protecting the perpetrators of these crimes.
First, the offence of zina is no longer under police jurisdiction. Now one must take the witnesses to the court and file a complaint there. Zina deserving hadd requires four witnesses; if four are not available, one may file a complaint of “fornication” which requires two witnesses. In both cases, an FIR (First Information Report, the essential document for criminal investigations) can no longer be registered with the police. Obviously, the courts are no where nearly as accessible as the police, and the police themselves are not allowed to apprehend the offenders, so this modification can only entail protection for the perpetrators of this crime.
Zina and fornication are crimes against the society, not just against an individual. Hence the crimes ought to be under the jurisdiction of the police.
Zina Deserving *Hadd*
While the police are out of the picture, the government is now allowed to interfere in hadd punishments even after the court has awarded them. The new bill eliminates the clause in the Hudood Ordinance that prevented the government from forgoing, altering, or reducing the hadd punishment. This blatantly violates the injunctions of the Qur’an and Sunnah. The Qur’an states:And it becomes not of a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided an affair (for them), that they should claim any say in their affair. (Surah Ahzab, Verse 36) There is also a well-known incident according to which a high-ranking companion had interceded with the Noble Prophet Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, for a woman who had committed theft (as a result of which she deserved hadd). The Noble Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam reprimanded the companion and said:Had Muhammad's (Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam) daughter committed theft, I would have cut her hand off. (Sahih Bukhari, Kitabul Hudood, Bab 12, Hadith Number 6788) When even the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam did not have the authority to reduce a hadd punishment for someone, whence does the government obtain the authority to do so?
Fornication
There are still further modifications with regards to “fornication” (the situation when four witnesses are unavailable, but the crime can still be established using other evidence):
The offence is now awarded a maximum sentence of five years as opposed to the ten years in the original Hudood Ordinance.
To file a complaint in the court, one must go with at least two eye-witnesses, whose testimony will be immediately recorded. If the court deems the case worthy of further proceedings, it will summon the accused. The court will then be limited to demanding a personal bond from the accused to guarantee that he/she present him/herself at the court.
There are several major issues here. First, demanding two eyewitnesses is quite unwarranted. Nowhere in the entire legal system pertaining to testimony—apart from Hudood—is there mention of a certain minimum number of witnesses. At times decisions are made in the total absence of eye-witnesses, only on account of circumstantial evidence. From the Shariah perspective a ta’zeer punishment can be awarded with availability of even one reliable witness as well as in the presence of circumstantial evidence such as medical reports and chemical analyses. The requirement of producing two witnesses at the time of complaint registration provides unnecessary protection to the criminals of fornication.
Similarly, prohibiting the court from demanding any bail besides a personal bond is impeding justice. Court cases vary in their circumstances, which is why Military Act 496 already authorizes the court to decide whether to free the criminal on a personal bond or ask for any additional guarantees it deems necessary. This applies even in case of minor crimes. Yet it has been invalidated for a major crime like fornication.
Further, filing a complaint in the court now carries a huge risk. The judge in his sole discretion may decide that the accusation is false and then without further hearing decide to award punishment to the complainant for false accusation.
Converting Other Cases to Fornication
Further, the new bill disallows converting cases of rape or zina deserving hadd into fornication. In the legal system, if there is not enough evidence to convict the accused under one crime, he may still be convicted under other crimes that can be proved using the available evidence. Yet, in the case of fornication this has been explicitly disallowed.
1. Converting Zina Deserving Hadd to Fornication
According to the original Hudood Ordinance if necessary evidence to enforce hadd was not found against someone but the crime could still be proven otherwise then he could be awarded ta’zeer punishment as per clause 10(3). The new bill has done away with this. Clause 203C, Paragraph 6 states that if someone is acquitted in a case of hadd, he cannot be tried in a case of fornication (i.e. he cannot even be given a ta’zeer punishment).
Now, it is obvious that the extremely strict conditions laid down for enforcement of hadd cannot sometimes be fulfilled merely due to technicalities. In such a situation when otherwise strong evidence is available to prove the crime, the court can neither award any punishment, nor can it even register a case of fornication against the criminal. Is this anything but providing protection to fornication?
2. Converting Rape to Fornication
Similarly, the bill states in article 12A that if someone is accused of rape his case cannot be converted into a case of fornication at any time in future. Consequently if a woman registers a case of rape against someone but some doubt remains in proving that the act was committed by force, the criminal will be released and even a case of fornication will not be made against him.
It is easy to see where this can lead. In the days before the Hudood Ordinance when adultery was not a crime, rape criminals used to adopt the line that what they did was with the free will of the woman. So if the court suspected the woman's connivance it would dismiss the case and free the accused. The Hudood Ordinance did not allow this line of defense because adultery was declared a crime even if it was done with the woman's free will.
And the court that was hearing the case of rape could also award him the ta’zeer punishment. (At the same time, the woman could not be punished as mentioned earlier.) This new amendment has restored the situation wherein if a man accused of rape succeeds in creating doubts about the woman’s being forced then no one will be able to bring him to justice.
The only option is to register afresh a case of fornication. Yet this too would not be possible, since a case of fornication now requires two eye-witnesses, while in this case two eye-witnesses are not available. As a result such a person will go scot-free and no court will be able to take any new action against him.
Now, this bill does list fornication as a criminal offence. So we need to ask its authors the obvious question: is fornication indeed a criminal offence? If so then why is this bill making all these provisions to save the offender from punishment?
Li’an** in the New Bill**
Third, the process of li’an is no longer in accordance with the Shariah. In
Clause 14 of the original Qazf Ordinance the procedure of li’an was mentioned in accordance to the Qur’an: If a man accuses his wife of adultery and fails to produce four witnesses then on the woman's demand he will have to take oath in the process of li’an. After both parties take oaths the marriage will dissolve. The Qazf ordinance stated that the man would be kept under arrest if he did not agree to undergo this process.
In the new bill, the man may now refuse to undergo the process of li’an, in which case the woman will be left helpless—unable to prove her innocence through li’an or dissolve her marriage. How does this relate to the protection of women?
In addition, a woman who admits to adultery during li’an may not be punished. How is it just not to punish a person after she has pleaded guilty—all the while the process of li’an was initiated at her own behest and no one forced her to confess?
Repealed Clauses
Finally, several clauses that resolved legal complexities and simplified legal procedures have been repealed.
**First, the superiority of the regulations in the Hudood Ordinance over other laws has been nullified. **This superiority was coded in Article 3 of the Hudood Ordinance in order to resolve many legal perplexities that arose due to contradictions between the Hudood Ordinance and other laws. It also provided protection to many oppressed women.
Consider divorce: According to family law, the divorce does not take effect until the union council has been notified. On the other hand, the Shariah says that a woman is free to remarry once she has passed her iddat. Suppose a man divorces his wife but does not send a notice to the union council, while the woman, considering herself as a divorcee, contracts a new marriage after having passed her iddat. Now her malicious husband lodges a case of adultery against the woman, because as per the family law she is still his wife.
When such cases were reported, the Shariah Bench of the Supreme Court used Article 3 to order the release of the woman. The argument would be simple: the Hudood Ordinance is based on the Shariah and supersedes all other laws; since the Shariah allows this woman to perform a second marriage, the family law cannot apply here.
The new bill removes this line of defense by both repealing this clause and annulling the definition of nikah from the Hudood Ordinance. Thus, it is again possible that women will suffer in the new situation.
Second, the court is now severely restricted in dealing with crimes relating to zina, even though they may become apparent after testimony.
In clause 20 of the Hudood Ordinance it was stated that if it is proven that the offense committed is a crime punishable by a law other than covered by the Hudood Ordinance but the crime falls under the jurisdiction of the court it can award punishment to the accused.
The new bill has revoked this authority of the court. All punishable crimes similar to adultery/rape have been taken out of the Hudood Ordinance and incorporated in the ta’zeerat-e-Pakistan.
Let us see what can happen now. Suppose a man has been accused of zina which calls for hadd, but after hearing the witnesses it turns out that the man had actually compelled the woman, or say zina cannot be proven, but it can be proven that the man had abducted the woman. The amendment states that the court can neither award a punishment for rape, nor for abduction, rather the court must let the culprit go, knowing perfectly well that he had kidnapped the woman and/or raped her. The only way to try him for these crimes will be to lodge a new complaint for the relevant crime, so that the court takes up its proceedings again.
Don't you American-Kick-Lickers have any shame to at least respect the religious sentiments of Muslims who are in majority in this so called Islamic Republic of Pakistan?
Why the hell would any of the Pakistani Muslims care for political religious parties when the so called Women Protection Bill is an attack to the Islamic identity of Pakistani Muslims and Honour of their Women?
This is not a political issue, you moron, this is an attack from your Kafir supporters in the Christian World who are imposing Kafir Laws upon us through the CIA agent General Busharraf. Since such puppet generals, feudals, politicians, bureaucrats etc are mostly rapists and adulterers, they are making laws which suit them. They are the terrorists, looters and culprits..they have deprived us Pakistanis from drinking water, food, health and education...and now they are trying to make this country a haven to rapists and adulterers in order to please their Kafir-god-Bush who is feeding them with pork wrapped with dollars.
First WPB and soon to come the PAWPB - Prevention of Anti-Women Practices Bill.
Another women bill in next NA session
The ruling Pakistan Muslim League (PML) decided on Friday, to get approved the proposed “Prevention of Anti-Women Practices Bill” (PAWPB) from the National Assembly in its upcoming session. The decision was taken at a meeting of PML women parliamentarians and office-bearers at the PML House with President Chaudhry Shujat Hussain in the chair. Party Secretary General Mushahid Hussain Sayed also attended the meeting, which was organized and conducted by Senator Nilofar Bakhtiar, Central President PML Women’s Wing. **A large number of women parliamentarians from PML and allied parties, PPP-P and MQM also attended the meeting. ** The meeting also decided to constitute a 12-member Media Awareness Committee headed by Senator Anisa Zeb Tahirkheli. The committee will launch an awareness campaign about PAWPB and to meet other political parties to seek support for the proposed bill. “We will bring a separate bill on divorce issue after tabling the Prevention of Anti-Women Practices Bill before the National Assembly session starting from Feb 6,” Shujat told the meeting. He said that his party members would also discuss the PAWPB with the opposition parities in order to evolve a consensus on the bill. “We will also seek guidelines from the Council of Islamic Ideology on it,” he added.
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 ibnUnays 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 wordand 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 **confessionfour 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].
if not, then probably you are maha dheet shaitan ::halo: But then, you can keep barking as you have done all your life