Sexual Assaults Shoots up in Islamic Pakistan...

Society Religion & Philosophy
21

And, then there were three!

All of a sudden we have Actung contesting that 4 witnesses are reqd for Adultery and not rape.

Then, not to be outdone, the great HomiD reinvents the wheel saying that law applies for man as well. Very benevolent of you - HomiD! Does anyone believe that muslim women can have the same break as a man, anywhere in the Islamic world? Its good to be able to hullucinate, is it not, my friend HomiD.

What I posted above is an excert from the Pakistan Human Rights Commission and, the ladies runing the commission are outstanding and beyond doubt! I would believe them anytime rather than the mullahs on this board!

22

I know most of you are going to hate me for this but here is a passage in the Bible that is in context with this discussion.

John 8:1-11
1
Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2
And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4
They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Moral: Don't Judge others unless you are without fault yourself.

23

When I posted this thread-very clear in significane; yet, several people tried to it twist & jerk around the meaning of the law.

This is what ticked them off:
“the cause of the dramatic rise in sex crimes against women was non other than the sharia laws itself. Under the sharia laws, a woman needs 4 male witnesses in order to press sexual assault charges against a man. This made it extremely difficult or next to impossible for a woman to press charges.”

  1. Dehatan, who I believe is a woman, who should be more sympathetic with women issues had this to say:
    “Can I please have the Source for these
    ‘careful studies’??”

2)Achtung, who I am not familar with, was a bit careful in the choice of his words, he appeared to be in conflict with the truth.
He says: “First of all, its called an “Islamic rule”, but it isn’t.”

He probably thinks the Sharia laws of Afghanistan & Saudi Arabia is UNislamic as well!

Next, he says: “..discounting other factors that contribute to increased violence, i.e. poverty, lack of law enforcement, corruption, illiteracy, etc…”

He reminds me of those who blames others for their inadequacies.

Actung still wasn’t done. It appears he was grappling with it all along; this time he contends: “As I understand it, its four witnesses to prove ADULTERY, not rape”

And, he even had the word ADULTERY in Cap letter, just in case.

3)HomiD outdid everyone: “The 4 witneses are also for men to be proven guilty. Also, when two parties commit adultrey, both of them HAVE to be stoned to death but in fornication its 80 lashes.”

Mr. Benevolent, isn’t he?

Here’s the exact excert from the “careful study” which was authored by one of my most admired women in Pakistan: Hina Jilani; link to full document provided:

“The Islamic law of evidence applicable to cases of rape requires the evidence of four adult male Muslims in order for the penalty of had (251) to be imposed. According to the law, testimony of the victim requires strong corroboration for conviction by the court. On the other hand, where sexual intercourse is established, but the absence of consent cannot be proved, the presumption that such intercourse occurred with the woman’s consent can place her at a risk of prosecution.”
http://www.ichrdd.ca/111/english/contentsEnglish.html

Scroll down to WOMEN.

24

Thanks...

Hmmm...she is saying what I suspected, she would be...
Islam being Interpreted to suit the needs of the Political/Politicians' agenda...

However, after reading the article, I don't blame you for saying what you are saying, because she has presented her issues in a wishy washy manner and not, as we say in my profession, as a "closed shut" one...
Her word ain't God's word....smile

Also, assuming you are not a lawyer, if lay people could comprehend and understand "technical" language that easily, and/or
had the required "knowledge" to know that Legal Rules such as the Shari'ah, need to be read in their entirety, as "one" document and not by looking at excerpts or pieces,

the Lawyers wouldn't be making the kind of money they do...smile

[This message has been edited by Dehatan (edited June 03, 2000).]

25

Dehatan,
I believe this is another time that you are resorting to an ego trip about the lawyers' crap.
Here, I shall up the ante for you: SEND me a bill for the time it took you to respond? or, better, yet SUE me for defaming the Sharia laws which to most idiots are the word of Allah?

26

"Dehatan,
I believe this is another time that you are resorting to an ego trip about the lawyers' crap.
Here, I shall up the ante for you: SEND me a bill for the time it took you to respond? or, better, yet SUE me for defaming the Sharia laws which to most idiots are the word of Allah?"

faceup,

Laugh! laugh!!

Keya hua, aap toa Women's Rights kay fighter haiN....
Itni jaldee aik Aurat ki Authoritative position could hit your Male Chauvinistic Achilles heels.....?! smile

Rahi baat "Bill" ki, aray, my education is only 2 years of college,
hum aap ko kis cheez ka bill bhaij daiN?!!

HaaN, bijli ka bhaij sak tay haiN,
the amount of bijli used by my computer, while responding to this topic....smile

Accha, now I am going to End this interesting interaction with you...

Hope no hard feelings....smile

27

Faceup there is no ONE set of Islamic laws. The laws are derived from the interpretation of the Qur'an and the Hadith, as well past precedents. This is why no two countries, that profess that they have established Islamic law, have two laws which are alike. So yes I don't think that certain laws in Afghanistan or Saudia Arabia, or Pakistan for that matter, are Islamic. They are based on one interpretation of Islamic religious sources, an interpretation that I may not agree with (and neither do many Muslims).

When I remind you of other factors that contribute to increased violence, (i.e. poverty, lack of law enforcement, corruption, illiteracy, etc...) it is simply an effort not to discount other factors - to look at the entire picture, rather than solely blaming Islam.

Four witnesses ARE required for adultery, not for rape as far as I understand it. If I'm wrong, someone prove it otherwise.

Also, take a look at this verse:
*
"... ** it would avert the punishment from the wife if SHE bears witness four times ** with an oath by Allah that her husband is telling a lie; and the fifth oath should be that she solemnly invokes the wrath of Allah on herself is her accuser is telling the truth." (24:6-9)
*

In terms of Islamic jurisprudence, this verse would seem to give women an equal footing with men, in domestic cases.

As far as your criticism of Pakistan's hudood law goes, I agree with you, it should change, it is NOT Islamic and the injustices done since its inception are tragic and should be stopped.

Achtung

28

ONLY for Achtung,

Thank you!!!

Precisely my point, It is Interpretation! Interpretation! Interpretation, which is wrong!!

NOT Islam! Islam! Islam! which is wrong!!
But to grasp that, one has to go far and beyond a limited horizon...

29

Faceup! Achtung is very right. Sharia is based in large part on the morals and prejudices of the men who made it (and on Hadith, which is not a solid body of information).

God did not write the Sharia. It is not entirely Islamic, although people would like you to think that it is. Of course women are at an extreme disadvantage in Muslim countries, that is true. But, the problems and injustices in modern-day Muslim societies are a result of hanging onto false traditions and bad interpretations. You should read the Quran yourself before you assume that you know what is in there.

Zara

30

Dehatan,
When you talk about interpretations of Islam, Sharia is a Form of that interpretation and, that interpretations or Sharia law was frozen as of 11th century. This means that most Islam is stuck with 11the century interpretations/laws in the 21st century. Let me ask you this: Do you understand all this?

Achtung! I quoted 4 male witness provision for Rape from the Pak Human Rights report authored by Hina Jilani and, the link is provided.

I'' have to go by what Lawyer Hina Jilani has stated in the well-researched report meant for international distribution rather than personalities of this forum ensconsed in their western comfort. This, coupled with the other inequalities that exists for women, further ascertained by the number of women who have been incarcerated for years and cannot be released because their families would slaughter them for bringing shame to their families.

Equality, my friend there is no equality or Equity. The proof is all before you!

31

Faceup,

I respect Hina Jilani very much myself, and have never disagreed with her. However, it is not likely that when she is explaining so called "Islamic Law" for an international audience that she is going to go into detail about the origins of this law and whether or not it is based on the actual intentions of God. She is concerned with getting rid of the laws against women, and that is probably her only agenda.

And likewise, the international audience does not care what is based on Islam and what is not. They do not differentiate between real Islam and traditions of Muslims. But maybe you should.

Zara

32

These sharia laws are the responsibilities of ulemas and, most of the ulemas have been trained in Saudi Arabia in the science of Islamic jurisprudence; so, to say that Sharia laws do not reflect Islam is a misnonmer. What you can say is that it reflects the taqlid of that particular Fiqh and, most Taqlid are hard core-conservative and that is reflected in those interpretations/laws.

Another excuse one hears a lot and, I am sure readers will disagree is that since Islam is a complete way of life, to say culture & traditions are isolated of the influence of Islam is again a misnomer.

33

Faceup,
One point which I think you are missing is that, just because the traditions of Islam have developed in a particular way, that does not mean that they reflect the intent of God and the religion which is expressed in the Quran. Perhaps to you it is all the same, but it is not all the same to all Muslims. If the Shariah says that adultery is punished by stoning to death, but that law is not found in Quran, then there are people who believe that this law is not a reflection of Islam. Just because a jurist says it is does not make it the truth.

Do you think that the Christianity practices by Christians today was the same religion preached by Jesus? No, it is the result of various additions, subtractions, and twisted interpretations.

Zara

34

Zara, when you say "but that law is not found in Quran"
Agreed that laws are not in the quran; laws are drafted by ulemas and, are the outcome of how the quran, sunnah, precedents are interpreted by ulemas/mujthajids and arrived at ijma (consensus).

Agreed that stoning is not in the quran but, it is in the sunnah; Prophet practised it and it became law. So, dear Zara when you say: "this law (of stoning) is not a reflection of Islam. Just because a jurist says it is does not make it the truth."

Not so! The Law of stoning does reflect Islam and, it does make it the truth! All because stoning is in the sunnah and, sharia laws are based on quran, sunnah, precedents.

In order to get where you want, here is the solution to this dichotomy and, this has been bounced around and, that is to abort hadiths/sunnah that cannot be corroborated in the Quran. Now, the sunnah of the prophet re: stoning cannot be verified in the Quran and, as such, would be aborted/cancelled and, with that, the laws of stoning would be be cancelled as well!

Gee! I should be getting paid to write these gems!

35

[quote]
Originally posted by faceup:
**
In order to get where you want, here is the solution to this dichotomy and, this has been bounced around and, that is to abort hadiths/sunnah that cannot be corroborated in the Quran. Now, the sunnah of the prophet re: stoning cannot be verified in the Quran and, as such, would be aborted/cancelled and, with that, the laws of stoning would be be cancelled as well!
**
[/quote]

Faceup. I believe that we can never know what the Prophet's Sunnah was and what he really said or did. What has come down to us is stories and legends, and that's all. That's why using the Sunnah as a source of law is not good. Besides, isn't God supposed to be the only source? Therefore, I agree with the solution that you proposed above, and have believed it for a long time.

Zara

36

Stoning (or lashes) a Human Being is barbaric to say the least. Whether prescribed by God, Prophets, or Shida Kochwan. No crime equals that of physically hurting a human being. Hadood law of Pakistan sucks big time. It is a backward hop into dark ages.

The only way to make things better for women in Pakistan is to get Religion out of Political and other aspects of life.

Everyone keeps talking about how Islamic Laws are not really Islamic. What are the real Islamic laws then? It is the same as saying that Islam (or Islamic Laws) were only applicable at the time of the prophet. After that it is obsolete (which kinda makes sense).

[This message has been edited by NYAhmadi (edited June 05, 2000).]

37

NY:

There is a way to get Religion out of the political and other aspects of life and, that is:
ENFORCE UNIVERSAL CODE OF HUMAN RIGHTS. At present, as you note, the human rights are being aborted by hudood, zina and other BARBARIC sharia laws, which some attempt or pretend to label as not Islamic.

My friends - if any law in Pakistan are not based on Islam, then, you would have heard from JUI and other Fundamentalist Parties; as Gen Musharraf surely has!

38

Hey Faceup,
The whole sunni Islam is based on Sunnah and most of these sunnahs cannot be verified in the Quran; so, if you think or delude that Sunni ulemas are gonna let you de-frock them, abort most of their sunnahs and leave them Naked; then, man, I would n't mind getting my hands on some of that stuff you're smoking!

And, what's all this about human rights? Don't you know Islam of the Mullahs is the best guarantee for minorities and women, as exemplified by the historical facts and, extolled by Saudia & Taliban!

Me think, you had a lousy week-end!

[This message has been edited by logical (edited June 05, 2000).]

39

I think EVERYONE in this forum is in agreement that the present hudood laws of Pakistan are unjust and should be repealed and reformed.

The item that we seem to disagree on is the source of these laws. We agree that they are derived from an interpretation of Islam and while some of us think the interpretation is incorrect, others will have us believe it concurs with the teachings of Islam.

Nevertheless, whether the laws are Islamic or not, they must be altered. If a certain cultural or religious practice, causes harm to a living thing, it should be examined and if necessary discarded. This is one of those cases where a cultural/religious practice has to change.

The hud punishment (stoning to death) has never been carried out in Pakistan's history and never should be. According to the article posted by faceup, a woman in Pakistan is raped every three hours. Surely Allah would rather us punish the accused rather than the victim. This is common sense and the Islamic answer. The law should be changed to reflect justice and equality. For the people of Pakistan, that justice and equality may have to be derived from an alternate interpretation of religious scripture, simply because this is the language they understand. This is why I don't think NY Ahmadi's recommendation to seperate religion from the legal system is realistic. A more realistic answer would be to look within Islam for legal injunctions which protect women, or alternately look for legal injunctions that protect women, yet are not contrary to Islamic teachings.

Achtung

[This message has been edited by Achtung (edited June 05, 2000).]

40

Achtung,
That is one of the sanest response I've heard on matters of revising laws that do more harm than good!

How about some insights into how that can be accomplished; when the mere mention of revision is met with cries of blasphemy! Is it blasphemy to suggest revision of Islamic laws that do not reflect time & place? To me only Quran and authentic hadiths are eternal but, not the laws which has to reflect time & place! Am I wrong?

Pakistan has never carried out Hud punishment doesn't mean that it may never happen. Pakistan is becoming more similar to Saudia and Afghanistan where Hud laws are carried out. We also march to the tune of the piper or, Saudi Arabia and, its largesse doesn't come without strings attached; those strings are the ways of the wahabiya for Pakistan.

Pakistan had possibilities of leading an Islamic renaissance; but, somewhere along the line it got mixed up with bad company and, lost that destiny forever. With religious extremism so well-entrenched that, even the Army treads carefully, then moderation, in the ways you suggest, is next to impossible. I hope, I am wrong!