The Senior Member has done it again! You simply quoted Maheen Rasheed's article
Amendments to the Hudood Ordinance published in Jang group's secular
The Daily Dawn, issue of 18 Rajab, 1427 AH (14 Aug, 2006) page 6. This is, not at all, pleased me.
Use your intellect, but, atleast know what you are saying! Many people think that whenever someone is discussing the Hudood Ordinance, he is one of those guys looking to torn the draft of this Ordinance into a thousand pieces. No way! I am discussing to remove misconceptions and to aware people of the lies spread by the media--
Geo TV tops the list with mountainous lies, both in quantity and quality! Jang Group has lied profusely on so much issues about the Hudood Ordinance!!!!
Anyways, let me point out some extracts from the above article & explain what I really am trying to tell you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Maheen A. Rasheed
The punishment for rape will be death or life imprisonment and the requirement of four witnesses has been overlooked, and indirect and circumstantial evidence will be applicable.
|
(I discussed all three issues in detail before...)
The word in italics is a white lie, because, this is already provided by the Ordinance!!!! The Hudood Ordinance has been quoted on the previous page which clears states the following in Section 10, sub-section (1):-
Quote:
|
(1) Subject to the provisions of section 7, whoever commits zina or zina-bil-jabr which is not liable to hadd, or for which proof in either of the forms mentioned in section 8 is not available and the punishment of qazf liable to hadd has not been awarded to the complainant, or for which hadd may not be enforced under this Ordinance, shall be liable to tazir.
|
This means that someone who has committed zina-bil-jabr, then:-
(a) If the crime is not liable to hadd, it shall be liable to tazir.
(b) If hadd cannot be enforced [in accordance with Section 9] then, the crime shall be liable to tazir.
(c) If proof in either of the forms mentioned in Section 8 [i.e. four Shar'ai witnesses and/or confession by accused] is not available & hadd for Qazf has not been awarded to the complainant [which cannot be awarded in case of zina-bil-jabr, unless the accusation is a lie], then the crime shall be liable to tazir.
This means that if four witnesses are not available and/or the accused has not confessed his crime, but, the court is satisfied that the crime stands proved on other grounds e.g. medicolegal, DNA test, circumstantial evidence, torture marks, pubic hair, etc etc etc. then tazir can still be awarded.
Tazir for gang rape is death, while that for ordinary rape is 25 years imprisonment, 30 stripes & fine.
I have repeated this a million times, but, is there anyone to listen???
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Maheen A. Rasheed
One of the critical points that has not been included in any proposed amendment is the existing clause of ‘qisaas’, which gives relatives the right to waive punishment for the offenders. In cases of karo kari this lacuna has even more serious implications as powerful elements still have the means to easily suppress the victims’ families and thus escape justice. Contained in Section 309 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), this clause still holds as much weight as it did when the ordinance was first made legal. Added to this clause is the provision of ‘sulh badl’ (Section 310 of the PPC) under which the offender can get away by paying a small sum in compensation. This clause too remains unchanged in the present amendments made to the Hudood Ordinances.
|
These come under
Qisas Wa Diyat Law and not the
Hudood Ordinance; is the author so ignorant & stupid?!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Maheen A. Rasheed
Hudood, which in simple Urdu is the plural of hadd, literary translates into ‘boundary’ of a place or ‘extent’ of an action. And to have a command over the actions of the citizens, the Hudood Ordinances were a crucial political weapon of General Ziaul Haq, who devised “the most abused law in the legal history of the country” in 1979 in order to legitimise his dictatorship by proclaiming himself the guardian of Islam and hence the true ruler of an Islamic state.
|
One more lie! The Hudood Ordinances were only enforced by Gen. Zia-ul-Haq; their draft was prepared by the CII well before their enforcement!!! Its authentic here to quote an extract from pages 16 to 17 of the
Interim Report on Hudood Ordinances (by Khalid Masood) of the [present & unauthentic] CII (Council of Islamic Ideology).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CII Interim Report on Hudood Ordinances
1978: THE COUNCIL DRAFTS THE HUDUD LAWS]
After holding 15 meetings in different cities of the country during 29 September 1977 and 20 December 1978, The Council prepared the following draft laws on Economic, Educational and Social systems as well as on Media and Communication.
1. Draft for the Law for the enforcement of Hudud institutional amendment enabling to challenge the legitimacy of non-Islamic laws in the Supreme Court
2. Draft law for the establishment of Boards of reconciliation
3. Law for the maintenance of poor relatives
4. Draft law for the prevention and elimination of lewdness and pornography
5. Law for the enforcement of Hudud d (offences against property)
6. Law for the enforcement of Hudud (offences of Zina and rape)
7. Law for the enforcement of Hudud (prohibition)
8. Law for the enforcement of Hudud (Qazf)
9. Law for the sanctity of Ramadan al-Mubarak
The four drafts, nos. 5 -8, prepared by the Council in the above list, later came to be known as “Hudood Ordinances”. In addition to these specific drafts, the Council also prepared general recommendations for the reform of Judicial system and other matters.
[Personal Note: Gen. Zia-ul-Haq is far far away from even the shores of preparing these drafts.]
Consultation
In the preparation of these drafts, the Council sought assistance and consultation with Dr. Ma’ruf al-Dawalibi, a jurist of international fame, formerly Prime Minister of Syria, President of the World Muslim League and an Advisor to the His Majesty Khalid b. Abd al-Walid, the King of Saudi Arabia. The drafts laws about Hudud were first prepared in Arabic language. Later they were translated into English and Urdu.
[Personal Note: Gen. Zia-ul-Haq did not understand Arabic; atleast as far as I know!]
A special Committee consisting of Mir Muhammad Ali (Draughtsman), and Sheikh Asadullah (Joint Secretary), later replaced by Justice (R) Amjad Ali was appointed to edit it in the modern legal language and to make necessary amendments.
The drafts had been completed in 1978, and General Zia ul Haq decided to enforce them on 10 February 1979 as an Ordinance.
|
Moving further...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Maheen A. Rasheed
With passions running high, there has never been any time when the Hudood Ordinances were discussed rationally and so it remained the ignoble thorn in our justice system.
|
Discussed already...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Maheen A. Rasheed
Since the laws equated rape with ‘zina’ these elements wreaked havoc with the adultery or zina law within its ambit. Cases against women began to pile. Persecution was unleashed in every way; by parents against daughters who had married of their own will; by husbands whose abused wives sought divorce or whose divorced wives remarried; and by others who wanted revenge and sought it through raping their enemy’s women.
|
Discussed in earlier posts, but, briefly to point out here, there are 4 main differences:-
(i) 'Zina' and 'Zina-bil-jabr' have separate definitions as well as separate sections
(ii) In the definition of zina, the phrase 'A man and a woman
ARE...' is used, whereas, in zina-bil-jabr, the words are: "A person
IS said to commit..."
(iii) Hadd punishment for 'zina' is 100 stripes only; for zina-bil-jabr, 100 stripes as 'hadd' plus any 'tazir' punishment including death, as the court deems fit
(iv) Tazir punishment for 'zina' is imprisonment of 4 to 10 years plus 30 stripes; for 'zina-bil-jabr', death in case of gang rape, 25 years imprisonment + 30 stripes + fine in case of ordinary rape, life imprisonment + 30 stripes in case of kidnapping/abducting & selling/buying women, 7 years imprisonment + 30 stripes + fine for enticing away, etc etc.
There is only one common thing between the two crimes in the Ordinance (besides the letters z-i-n-a) and that is the proof required for proving the crime liable to Hadd. This is infact not done by the Ordinance itself; it is proved from Ijma & several ahadith (like that found in Tirmidhi Sharif), etc. But, still this does not mean that the Ordinance has equated the two crimes!
The proof for theft & drinking liquor liable to hadd, is 2 Shar'ai witnesses; can one reasonably argue that the Shari'ah has equated the two crimes?! (Mercy!)
Quote:
|
At the very least, suggestions of the National Commission for the Status of Women should have been included as these were jointly presented by eminent scholars, jurists and specialists comprising the commission.
|
Handled already on previous page... Insha ALLAH, my article (or book) 'Critique of the NCSW Report on the Hudood Ordinances' shall be uploaded within one week.
Quote:
|
In its barest form, the law as it still stands states that a woman who has been raped is required to provide four ‘tazkiat-uz-shahood’ (pious muslim men as witnesses) — or else risk being accused of adultery. The hadd punishment which follows adultery is stoning to death, and the ‘taazir’ punishment for ‘zina’ is up to 10 years of imprisonment and whipping – up to 30 lashes and/or a fine. The ‘taazir’ punishment for ‘zina’-bil-jabr is up to 25 years of imprisonment and whipping up to 30 lashes – provided of course the witnesses are at hand.
|
BOTH STATEMENTS ARE OPEN LIES!!! I simply ask one question about the authenticity of the above issues/objections:-
WHERE?!
Where? Where? WHERE? WHERE? WHERE? WHERE? O WHERE?! WHERE IS THIS STATED IN THE 22 SECTION ORDINANCE??? QUOTE JUST ONE SECTION TO PROVE & I WILL CHANGE MY NAME TO WHATEVER YOU LIKE!
I have clarified all issues mentioned in the article in my previous posts...
The Decision is Yours!
I also want to tell you guys here that I think that I have caught one scandal about this Ordinance i.e. the version of the Ordinance found in police stations differs (at an extremely subtle point) from the version found in the Official Manual. I think that this difference is the real reason why a rape victim is put into jail by the police! I will try to shed light in the up-coming post!
Regards,
Abdul Rehman.