Pakistan set to change Islamic rape laws

[Awesome]

Yaar tha's not the point. We can start by making politicies secualr but then slowly slowley people will make the whole damn country secular. Look at malysia, they are devloped, muslims. Unlike pakistan they have 11% non muslims in their population. Yet they all live peacefully. Why can't we do that?

Secular policies do no encourage abandoning Islam or encourage any other faith.

They just say "Ok you choose, we won't choose for you".

If you didn't believe in Allah and I made you goto the mosque and pray five times anyway, would that make you a Muslim?

If you were a promiscous guy and one day I made it really hard for you to socialize with girls and hence never get any... Did you earn your abstinence or did you simply had no choice and never liked it?

Think about it.

Instead if I made several mosques, gave you the option to choose between watching Baywatch or praying in the mosque and if you chose the mosque, well n good you really gave up something for your Muslimhood and I didn't make you become one.

So if people are really going to abandon faith because of secular political polices, then they really didn't have much faith to begin with... And have some faith in your belief system. If it's good, and you truly believe it to be so, they'd follow Islam than anything else.

 

[sigatoka]

There's nothing wrong with secularism at all. It's just keeping religion out of politics. No one's saying live secular lives. Pakistan is 95% Muslim. Secularism won't stop making Pakistan a Muslim land.

Meaning of words change over time, in recent years "secularism" has come to mean putting in place laws to restrict the rights of muslims in practicing their faith. Good eg's would be France's and Turkeys ban on headscarves.

Secularism is also a general term that can have very different and specific meanings for different people. It is quite ironic that when AQ people kill u.s. soldiers they claim to do so for freedom and justice. When U.S. soldiers kill AQ members, they also claim to do so in freedom and justice.

My question is this, "What specifically do you want to see change in Pakistan that it becomes more secular?" is it the banning of headscarves? Or govt. giving more licences for discos?

 

[A.Rahman]

It is true that today, there is not a single state that is applying Islamic Law (Shari’a) in its totality. Unlike other religions, Islam is a complete way of life. As such, the teaching of Islam does not separate religion from politics. One cannot be secularist and Muslim at the same time. When people nowadays use the term Islamic countries , they usually mean countries where Muslims are the vast majority.

This does not mean such a country is an Islamic State, since many Islamic countries are now ruled under non-Islamic laws. The state, which has an overwhelming Muslims majority, by declaring itself secular , in fact excludes Islam from its affairs. In Western countries, which have separated Church from State, it is possible to formulate laws legalizing prostitution, homosexuality, pornography etc. by a simple majority vote, under the pretext of freedom of this and freedom of that. However, in Islam, such laws will not be permissible and a large group of people, by votes, lobbying or other means, cannot change the laws of Shari’a. In many countries, people of corrupt moral behavior could be elected as leaders, with the power of money or support from other vested interests, whereas in Islam, the Shari’a law will prevent such leaders from being elected or even being nominated. Often one hears the media yelping that Israel is the ‘only democracy’ in the Middle-East and so on, as if Muslims are inherently anti-democratic.

In fact Shari’a encompasses the highest form of democracy, justice, personal rights, human rights, rights of all creatures, rights of minorities and so on, while maintaining the supremacy of God’s right, thus guaranteeing that no laws will be enacted by a ‘majority’ of people, for example, to legalize alcohol and so on, defying God's laws. The question as to why there is not one single Muslim country which applies Shari’a fully, is a complex one.

A recent example is that of Algeria – the masses overwhelmingly voted for an Islamic government, but Western powers and other rulers (of neighboring Muslim countries) who feared similar trends in their own lands, saw to it that such aspirations were put down by brutal force. But similar aspirations of people elsewhere, from Poland to Papua New Guinea to South Africa, received full sympathy of the Western world and their direct involvement in bringing democracy to these nations.

 

[A.Rahman]

On Islam - Interview with Prof. Shahid Alam
[FONT=arial, helvetica]11/15/2005 - Social Religious - Article Ref: IV0511-2849
[/FONT]

Secularism is an idea and a system of governance. The idea seeks to create a secular man who lives his life without reference to God. It believes in the sufficiency of reason as a guide to life. Conversely, it rejects the authority of religion, as a source of meaning and values. As a system of governance, secularism is a bit less ambitious. On the assumption that life divides into a public and a private sphere, each neatly separable, it seeks to exclude religion from the public sphere. The objective is to create a system of laws that does not favor any religion.

The conflict between Islam - any religion, for that matter - and secularism as an idea should be transparent. A Muslim lives his life with reference to God, His Book and His Prophet. A Muslim also reasons because God reasons with him. The Qur'an urges man to use his reason and experience to under-stand God, His creation and His Book, and based on this understanding to create-ate a just society. The secular idea is not only incompatible with Islam. In-deed, they must oppose each other.

As a system of governance, secularism can be expansive or accommodating. It can marginalize religion or give it greater sway over society. The actual results depend on a variety of factors. Most importantly, perhaps, it depends on the way the boundaries are drawn between the public and private spheres. Is the public sphere large or small? For instance, does it include education? Secondly, how rigorously does the state exclude religion from the public sphere? And what restrictions does it place on the expression of religion in the private sphere?

One can imagine an extreme form of secular governance. In this case, the public sphere is large - extending over education, media, laws of inheritance, relations between sexes, and modes of dress. It legislates religion out of this large public sphere, taking positions which contradict religious values. In addition, it inhibits the practice of religion even in traditionally private spheres. Very likely, this will breed discontent if a majority or even substantial segment of the population is religious. In the event, this form of secularism would also be incompatible with democracy.

On the other hand, secularism can be minimalist. This is a secularism that works within a limited public sphere, allows the democratic expression of widely-held religious values in the public sphere, and even supports religious organizations without discrimination in some activities (say, education or charitable work) provided they contribute to public order and morality. In-deed, variants of this minimalist secularism were the norm in most of the Muslim Sultanates before they were destroyed or restructured, starting in the nineteenth century, under the impact of Western power. If Muslim countries had enjoyed a measure of democracy over the past decades, this is the kind of secularism many of them would have produced.

In the face of colonial erosion of Islamic values and institutions - followed by suppression of Islamic tendencies under corrupt and often militantly secular governments - many Islamic thinkers have sought to recreate Islamic societies. In several instances this re-Islamization is more ambitious than any recent historical model. This reconstituted Islamic society must recognize the Qur'an and the Sunnah as the ultimate source of legislation on all questions. Some Islamic thinkers believe that this cannot be achieved under democratic governance. Others argue that democracy is compatible with Islam if its laws are subject to oversight by a council of Islamic scholars. It would appear that Iran illustrates this second model.

M. Shahid Alam is professor of economics at Northeastern University. Professor Alam has written extensively on Islam and US politics. His political essays are available in a book, Is There An Islamic Problem (Kuala Lumpur: The Other Press, 2004).

 

[Awesome]

Meaning of words change over time, in recent years "secularism" has come to mean putting in place laws to restrict the rights of muslims in practicing their faith. Good eg's would be France's and Turkeys ban on headscarves.

Secularism is also a general term that can have very different and specific meanings for different people. It is quite ironic that when AQ people kill u.s. soldiers they claim to do so for freedom and justice. When U.S. soldiers kill AQ members, they also claim to do so in freedom and justice.

My question is this, "What specifically do you want to see change in Pakistan that it becomes more secular?" is it the banning of headscarves? Or govt. giving more licences for discos?

Banning headscarves would not be secularism.

Freewill on headscarves would be which is already there in Pakistan.

Pakistan needs to abolish the Zina ordinance completely, leave that to freewill as well.

Pakistan should be metting out licences to any business (provided the example u mentioned as discos should follow rules like only permitting adults).

Whether adults choose to go there or not should be left to freewill again.

Muslims are free to lecture and guide Pakistanis away from these practices as much as they want.

Like we've removed the separated voting of muslims and non-Muslims separated laws should be removed too. Like in the case of blood money when someone's killed.

 

[sigatoka]

1. Pakistan should be metting out licences to any business (provided the example u mentioned as discos should follow rules like only permitting adults).

2. Like in the case of blood money when someone's killed.

1. Are you muslim? If not, why do you have a muslim sounding name?


2. Blood money is illogical, yet if one thinks logically, locking up a person for killing another doesnt make much sense (even less sense actually). Firstly the family against whom the murder took place takes a heavy utility hit (reduction in happiness). At the very least, bloodmoney can reduce this impact somewhat by monetary payment. (You wouldnt disagree to payment for slander, yet you oppose it for murder?). Putting a murderer in a room doenst do anything for the reduction in utility for the family of the victim.

In reality you are no different from religious fanatics. You have a preconceived notion that anything to do with religion must be stripped away from the fabric of society regardless whether it is good or bad.

 

[Awesome]

1. Are you muslim? If not, why do you have a muslim sounding name?

I'm a practicing practical Muslim.

Oh and lets not forget, I'm a Pakistani and consider all 165 Million Pakistanis as my equal in citizenship.

2. Blood money is illogical, yet if one thinks logically, locking up a person for killing another doesnt make much sense (even less sense actually). Firstly the family against whom the murder took place takes a heavy utility hit (reduction in happiness). At the very least, bloodmoney can reduce this impact somewhat by monetary payment. (You wouldnt disagree to payment for slander, yet you oppose it for murder?). Putting a murderer in a room doenst do anything for the reduction in utility for the family of the victim.

That's not what I was opposing it for. Thing is they say that when a Muslim kills someone he can be let go if he pays blood money (and the victim's family accepts). But if a Christian (any non-Muslim) kills someone then he has to face a sentence without a chance to pay blood money.

In reality you are no different from religious fanatics. You have a preconceived notion that anything to do with religion must be stripped away from the fabric of society regardless whether it is good or bad.

From society? No. From making society do it forcefully, yes. Thats why it should be optional not mandatory.

 

[Thunder]

Look the only time shria law would actully work s when it's 100% there. Islam says that either you follow it compleatly or don't follow it at all.
Right now, all the muslim states are following it somewhat, the leaders enforce the law that would ensure them siting in the leader's chair for as long as possibile.

 

[Spring Onion]

I failed to understand why you guys are dragging secularisim into this.
What you guys think secularism will help in solving all the problems???.
i think it itself will have a share in multiplying the problems in society like ours where only a fraction of people believe in abondning the religion.

Now the current problems are not because of implementation of Sharia its just beacuse of misinterpretation of the same and froced imposation of certain people's view point.

Islam is very much moderate, it covers all the aspects of life it dosnt stopps one from learning or practicing something that is not harmfull for him and others.

It only stopps u when something is going byond limits.

Tell me is it not that whenever anything exceed from a limit it becomes harmfull??.
Even doctors prescribe u certain dose of medicins but if u take less or more than that it harms u more.

 

[A.Rahman]

I failed to understand why you guys are dragging secularisim into this.
What you guys think secularism will help in solving all the problems???.
i think it itself will have a share in multiplying the problems in society like ours where only a fraction of people believe in abondning the religion.

Now the current problems are not because of implementation of Sharia its just beacuse of misinterpretation of the same and froced imposation of certain people's view point.

Islam is very much moderate, it covers all the aspects of life it dosnt stopps one from learning or practicing something that is not harmfull for him and others.

It only stopps u when something is going byond limits.

Tell me is it not that whenever anything exceed from a limit it becomes harmfull??.
Even doctors prescribe u certain dose of medicins but if u take less or more than that it harms u more.

Please read post 18 & 19.:smile:

 

[Shahin-e-Iqbal]

Pakistan needs to abolish the Zina ordinance completely, leave that to freewill as well.

Pakistan should be metting out licences to any business (provided the example u mentioned as discos should follow rules like only permitting adults).

Whether adults choose to go there or not should be left to freewill again.

Then why not also make prostititon, homosexuality and many more even dirtier crimes a matter of free will? As muslim i can never agree with such an opinion.Allah(swt) has vey clearly stated in the Holy Quran in that "سُورَةٌ أَنزَلْنَاهَا وَفَرَضْنَاهَا وَأَنزَلْنَا فِيهَا آيَاتٍ بَيِّنَاتٍ لَّعَلَّكُمْ تَذَكَّرُونَ {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.

الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي فَاجْلِدُوا كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا مِئَةَ جَلْدَةٍ وَلَا تَأْخُذْكُم بِهِمَا رَأْفَةٌ فِي دِينِ اللَّهِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلْيَشْهَدْ عَذَابَهُمَا طَائِفَةٌ مِّنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ {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.

الزَّانِي لَا يَنكِحُ إلَّا زَانِيَةً أَوْ مُشْرِكَةً وَالزَّانِيَةُ لَا يَنكِحُهَا إِلَّا زَانٍ أَوْ مُشْرِكٌ وَحُرِّمَ ذَلِكَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ {3}
[Yusufali 24:3] Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden.

وَالَّذِينَ يَرْمُونَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَأْتُوا بِأَرْبَعَةِ شُهَدَاء فَاجْلِدُوهُمْ ثَمَانِينَ جَلْدَةً وَلَا تَقْبَلُوا لَهُمْ شَهَادَةً أَبَدًا وَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ {4}
[Yusufali 24:4] 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;-

إِلَّا الَّذِينَ تَابُوا مِن بَعْدِ ذَلِكَ وَأَصْلَحُوا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ {5}
[Yusufali 24:5] Unless they repent thereafter and mend (their conduct); for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

وَالَّذِينَ يَرْمُونَ أَزْوَاجَهُمْ وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُمْ شُهَدَاء إِلَّا أَنفُسُهُمْ فَشَهَادَةُ أَحَدِهِمْ أَرْبَعُ شَهَادَاتٍ بِاللَّهِ إِنَّهُ لَمِنَ الصَّادِقِينَ {6}
[Yusufali 24:6] And for those who launch a charge against their spouses, and have (in support) no evidence but their own,- their solitary evidence (can be received) if they bear witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that they are solemnly telling the truth;

وَالْخَامِسَةُ أَنَّ لَعْنَتَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ إِن كَانَ مِنَ الْكَاذِبِينَ وَيَدْرَأُ {7}
[Yusufali 24:7] And the fifth (oath) (should be) that they solemnly invoke the curse of Allah on themselves if they tell a lie.

عَنْهَا الْعَذَابَ أَنْ تَشْهَدَ أَرْبَعَ شَهَادَاتٍ بِاللَّهِ إِنَّهُ لَمِنَ الْكَاذِبِينَ {8}
[Yusufali 24:8] But 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;

وَالْخَامِسَةَ أَنَّ غَضَبَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهَا إِن كَانَ مِنَ الصَّادِقِينَ {9}
[Yusufali 24:9] And the fifth (oath) should be that she solemnly invokes the wrath of Allah on herself if (her accuser) is telling the truth.

وَلَوْلَا فَضْلُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَتُهُ وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ تَوَّابٌ حَكِيمٌ {10}
[Yusufali 24:10] If it were not for Allah's grace and mercy on you, and that Allah is Oft-Returning, full of Wisdom,- (Ye would be ruined indeed)."

in these verses Allah(swt) Has given us the law of zina in the clearest form. Now its upto u decide whether u believe and accept this law then according to the Quran YOU BELIEVE IN ALLAH AND THE LAST DAY , and if the case is othewise, then u can decide ur status yourself.

 

[Shahin-e-Iqbal]

As far as the problems with pakistan's hudood laws are concerned, they are because of a very strange assumption by people who made the hudood ordinances.They assumed that the word zina in the above mentioned verses means adultry, fornication as well as rape!. Muslim scholars disagree on this matter and if i m not wrong in fiqa-e- shaafi rape is cnsidered tottally different offence from zina and it is not included in hudood ullah because nowhere in the quran punishment for rape is explicitly mentioned, therefore rape falls in the category of ta'azir and to prove the offence of rape the condition of four witnesses is not required rather circumstantial evidence is considered enough and the punishment for rape can be selected by the state. The amendments that are being put forward by the GOP are aimed to removing this error in the hodood ordinances by removing the offence of rape from the category of Hudood Ullah. The amendments are also aimed at making the law of qazf(punishment for false accusation of zina against a chaste women "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") closer to the Quran and the Sunnah by making it automatically applicable as prescribed in the Holy Quran. I am very hopeful that this will make pakistans islamic laws closer to islam and help the people of pakistan.

 

[Neo]

Friday August 25

KARACHI, Pakistan (AFP) - Thousands of supporters of a Pakistani secular party rallied in support of a bill to amend the country's Islamic rape laws, condemning religious hardliners for rejecting the draft.

Rights groups have been demanding the government repeal the controversial laws, which place an almost impossible burden of proof on women and expose victims to charges of adultery.

The liberal Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), a close ally of President Pervez Musharraf which staged Thursday's rally, also demanded that opposition MPs be punished for tearing up copies of the bill before walking out of parliament.
"By tearing the copies of the bill, which provides protection to women, these so called religious leaders have committed blasphemy and should be banned," MQM's self-exiled
leader Altaf Hussain said by telephone from London.

"They exploit religion, create hatred among the people."

Demonstrators, including women, chanted "death" to leaders of the powerful hardline Islamic Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) alliance, which has announced a nationwide campaign against the bill to begin from Friday.

Musharraf supports changes to the 1979 laws introduced by late military dictator General Zia-ul Haq, which enforce a strict Islamic code in Pakistan.
Under the so-called "Hudood Ordinances", women must produce four adult Muslim male witnesses to prove an act of rape. Women who fail to prove rape can be jailed or even sentenced to death for adultery.

The Islamic legal system in Pakistan runs parallel to its British-influenced secular penal code.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/060824/19/109rf.html

 

[Neo]

ISLAMABAD (AFP) - As Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf tries to push through changes to Islamic rape laws, a groundbreaking television series has been credited for helping to open up the issue.

Muslim scholars, clerics and academics recently appeared on prime time debates broadcast by privately-run Geo Television to discuss whether or not such laws should be rooted in the Koran.

"This debate was a part of our commitment to make effective use of our channel to talk about issues which our society has long been banned from discussing" Geo's managing director Azhar Abbas told AFP.

On Monday Pakistani opposition lawmakers stormed out of parliament, shouted "Death to Musharraf" and tore up copies of a bill proposing amendments to the quarter-century-old "Hudood Ordinances."
"Hudood" means "limits" in Urdu.

Since Islamist military dictator Zia-ul-Haq introduced the strict laws in 1979, talk of repealing them has been virtually taboo in this conservative country and has highlighted the split between hardliners and liberals here.

The main law up for amendment is that women must produce four adult Muslim male witnesses to prove an act of rape. Women who fail to prove rape can be jailed or even sentenced to death for adultery.

Rights groups say the laws, which run parallel to Pakistan's British-inspired penal code, place an almost impossible burden of proof on female victims. Women are more unwilling to report rapes as a result.

Sparked by cases including that of Mukhtar Mai -- who was gang-raped on the orders of a tribal council in 2002 and later brought her attackers to justice -- Geo launched its show "Zara Sochieye" ("Just Think") in June.

Geo is one of dozens of TV stations to have mushroomed under recent media reforms introduced by military ruler Musharraf, many of which feature previously unheard of criticisms of the government and the establishment.

"Our aim was to educate the masses as to how the Hudood Ordinances were affecting the lives of women and common people," managing director Abbas said.
But not everyone was happy to see religious matters debated on TV.

Pakistan's hardline religious parties defend the laws as divine and accused Dubai-based Geo of furthering the agenda of western aid groups.

"We have learnt that Americans have paid hundred of thousands of dollars to Geo through NGOs to launch this media war on the Hudood Ordinances," said Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, vice president of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, an opposition alliance of six top religious parties.

The religious parties are highly influential in Pakistan -- particularly the northwest along the Afghan border -- despite receiving only a small proportion of votes in elections.

Geo's Abbas dismissed the charges of US funding as "ridiculous".
Meanwhile other Muslim leaders said Pakistan's so-called Islamic laws have little or nothing to do with Islam's teachings.


"Eighty-one out of the ordinance's 1101 clauses are not related in any way to the Koran and Sunnah (the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed)," said Muhammad Tufail Hashmi, a prominent religious scholar.

Musharraf, a key western ally, tried to overhaul the Hudood Ordinances soon after he took power in a bloodless coup in 1999 but he was stymied by the religious right.
In July he changed the law to effect the immediate release of all women prisoners held on bail in crimes other than murder, robbery and terrorism. Under the Hudood Laws, adultery was a non-bailable offence.

Figures are inconsistent and there is no central government tally, but officials say at least 1,300 women are in Pakistani jails, many of them held under the Islamic laws. More than 500 have been freed so far.

But Musharraf faces a tougher task to get parliament to back the latest amendments, which will reportedly remove the requirement for four witnesses for rape, and make it necessary to have four people testify to any alleged act of adultery.

Pakistan's conservatives have not admitted defeat yet in their campaign to keep the Hudood laws. "We will see what changes the government has proposed in the parliament and only then will we decide our course," hardliner Ahmed said.
Musharraf himself has in the past sparked his own controversy on the issue. Last year he was heavily criticized for saying that many Pakistani women thought that getting raped was an easy way to get a foreign visa.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060830/lf_afp/pakistanwomenjustice_060830141053

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

The Hudood has been debated many times before.

It will take real guts to change it.

Even currently, all action is on by vested interest to sabotage it,