|
Hadood Ordinance...??
[FONT=Arial]Now a days there is much controversy regarding "Hadood Ordinance"...would any scholar/intelectual tell us:[/FONT]
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][B]1. Wat is Hadood Ordinance?[/B][/FONT] [FONT=Comic Sans MS][B]2. Is it islamic? if not then how it was promulgated in islamic republic of pakistan...?[/B][/FONT] [FONT=Comic Sans MS][B]3. Wat are the shortcomings in this ordinace?[/B][/FONT] [FONT=Comic Sans MS][B]4. Was it politicised?[/B][/FONT] i hope the replies wd help us understand this important topic. Thanx in advance... [B]Regards...[/B] [LEFT]:waiting[/LEFT] |
[B]What is hadood Ordinance:- [/B]Hudood Ordinance is a law, which is perceived to be discriminating against women.
[B]details:-[/B]The Hudood Ordinance criminalizes all extra-marital sex. Even when the woman claims that she was raped and not involved in adultery, she must have four pious male witnesses to prove rape, but only Muslim men can testify in cases involving Muslim women (non-Muslim rape victims require four non-Muslim male witnesses). But if four witnesses are not provided by the woman but rape is proved by other means (e.g medical evidence) then the jury can punish the accused according to the Pakistani penal court. For married couples, the punishment for adultery is death by stoning but this has never been carried out. Unmarried people receive 100 lashes. This ordinance is often misused against rape victims if they are not able to provide four male witnesses. In such an event, the alleged rapist accuses the raped woman of confessing to consensual intercourse. Women and men convicted of Zina may ask Allah's forgiveness and vow never to commit this sin again, and they will be pardoned. For does not Allah (SWT) say in the Quran: "But, if they ask for Our forgiveness, leave them alone, for Allah is the most merciful." The Hudood Ordinance also criminalises drinking alcohol and punishes it along with theft. Drinking is punished with 80 lashes; the punishment for theft is physical mutilation: the right hand is cut off. [B]Is It islamic or not:[/B] Well according to some experts. there is hadood in our Holy book and Sunnah, but this ordinance is make after some changes. [B]According to Religoius Scholor Dr.M.Tufail Hashmi: [/B]Hudood Ordinance is based on four laws and has 101 clauses. Out of its 101 clauses, 83 have nothing to do with the Hudood. 18 clauses are connected with Hudood but then again, these donot conform to the Holy book and neither do they relate to sunnah. The entire Hudood ordinance is , therefore, made by humans but we attribute it to Allah. [B]According to Moulana M.Hasan Jan:[/B]On one hand there is the Shariat Hudood in which there can be no changes. Then there is the Hudood Ordinance which is made by man. Hudood ordinance cannot be called Hudood Allah in its entirety. [B]According To Khaild Msood "Chairman, Islamic Ideologu Council": [/B]Hudood Ordinance is a law like any other law, it cannot be called a Divine Law. It is made bu humans and it can, therefore have weaknesses, even flaws. [B]Conclusion: [/B]According to Experts and facts, we can conclude that Hudood Ordinance is not fully Islamic. Was it politicised? yes it is politcised. we should consider it as a law. |
Humayun "the King" has already described few points of this really vast topic which needs to be debated.Anyhow, I've tried not to repeat the points already mentioned and give a brief intro of it as firstly it is required to understand what the Hudood Ordinance really is.
Hudood Ordinance was one in a series of five separate laws i.e. 1)The Offence of Zina Ordinance 2)Prohibition Ordinance 3)The Offence Against Property Ordinance 4)Offence of Qazf Ordinance 5)Execution of Punishment of Whipping Ordinance promulgated by the martial law government of erstwhile dictator General Zia-ul-Haq in 1979, to impose his distorted Islam-view on a hapless nation.The ordinance was a result of some leading legal experts and religious scholars of the time. The main area of contention with the law is how the Quran and Sunnah have been interpreted.Since their inception, the Hudood Ordinance has come under fire not only from human rights activists but also from religious scholars who deem it to be skewed representation of the Islamic texts. The civilian governments of the former Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto set up two commisions to investigate the excesses of Zina's Hudood Ordinance. Both commissions recommended disbanding it.Both the governments did not carry through the recommendations. The original version of Hudood Ordinance ,as obtained from the Manual of Hudood Laws in Pakistan, is as under: Ordinance No. VII of 1979 February 9th, 1979 An Ordinance to bring in conformity with the injunctions of Islam the law relating to the Offence of Zina. WHEREAS it is necessary to modify the existing law relating to zina so as to bring it in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah; AND WHEREAS the President is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary to take immediate action; Now, THEREFORE, in pursuance of the Proclamation of the fifth day of July 1977, read with the Laws (Continuance in Force), Order, 1977 (C.M.L.A. Order No. l of 1977), and in exercise of all powers enabling him in that behalf, the President is pleased to make and promulgate the following Ordinance:- Chapter I PRELIMINARY 1. Short title, extent and commencement (1) This Ordinance may be called the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. (2) It extends to the whole of Pakistan. (3) It shall come into force on the twelfth day of Rabi-ul-Awwal, 1399 Hijri, that is, the tenth day of February, 1979. 2. Definitions In this Ordinance, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject of context: (a) "adult" means a person who has attained, being a male, the age of eighteen years or, being a female, the age of sixteen years, or has attained puberty; (b) "hadd" means punishment ordained by the Holy Quran or Sunnah; (c) "marriage" means marriage which is not void according to the personal law or the parties, and "married" shall be construed accordingly; (d) "Muhsan" means (i) a Muslim adult man who is not insane and has had sexual intercourse with a Muslim adult woman who, at the time he had sexual intercourse with her, was married to him and was not insane; or (ii) a Muslim adult woman who is not insane and has had sexual intercourse with a Muslim adult man who, at the time she had sexual intercourse with him, was married to her and was not insane; and (e) "tazir" means any punishment other than "hadd", and all other terms and expressions not defined in this Ordinance shall have the same meaning as the Pakistan Penal Code, or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. 3. Oridnance to override other Laws The provisions of this Ordinance shall have effect nothwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. 4. Zina A man and a woman are said to commit 'Zina' if they wilfully have sexual intercourse without being validly married to each other. Explanation: Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of Zina. 5. Zina liable to hadd (1) Zina is zina liable to hadd if- (a) it is committed by a man who is an adult and is not insane with a woman to whom he is not, and does not suspect himself to be married; or (b) it is committed by a woman who is an adult and is not insane with a man to whom she is not, and does not suspect herself to be, married. (2) Whoever is guilty of Zina liable to hadd shall, subject to the provisions of this Ordinance, - (a) if he or she is a muhsan, be stoned to death at a public place; or (b) if he or she is not muhsan, be punished, at a public place; with whipping numbering one hundred stripes. (3) No punishment under sub-section (2) shall be executed until it has been confirmed by the Court to which an appeal from the order of conviction lies; and if the punishment be of whipping; until it is confirmed and executed, the convict shall be dealt with in the same manner as if sentenced to simple imprisonment. 6. Zina bil Jabr (1) A person is said to commit zina-bil-jabrif he or she has sexual inter-course with a woman or man, as the case may be, to whom he or she is not validly married, in any of the following circumstances, namely:- (a) against the will of the victim; (b) without the consent of the victim; (c) with the consent of the victim, when the consent has been obtained by putting the victim in fear of death or of hurt; or (d) with the consent of the victim , when the offender knows that the offender is not validly married to the victim and that the consent is given because the victim believes that the offender is another person to who the victim is or believes herself or himself to be validly married. Explanation: Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual inter-course necessary to the offence of zina-bil-jabr. (2) Zina-bil-jabr is zina-bil-jabr liable to hadd if it is committed in the committed in the circumstances specified in sub-section (1) of section 5. (3) Whoever is guilty of zina-bil-jabr liable to hadd shall subject to the provisions of this Ordinance, - (a) if he or she is a muhsan, be stoned to death at a public place; or (b) if he or she is not muhsan, be punished with whipping numbering one hundred stripes, at a public place, and with such other punishment, including the sentence of death, as the Court may deem fit having regard to the circumstances of the case. (4) No punishment under sub-section (3) shall be executed until it has been confirmed by the Court to which an appeal from the order of conviction lies; and if the punishment be of whipping until it is comfirmed and executed, the convict shal be dealt with in the same manner as if sentenced to simple imprisonment. 7. Punishment for Zina or zina-bil-jabr where convit is not an adult A person guilty of zina or zina-bil-jabr shall, if he is not an adult, be punished wiht imprisonment of either description for a term whic may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both, and may also be awarded the punishment of whipping not exceeding thirty stripes: Provided that, in the case of zina-bil-jabr, if the offender is not under the age of fifteen years, the punishment of whipping shall be awarded with or without any other punishment. 8. Proof of zina or zina-bil-jabr liable to hadd Proof of zina-bil-jabr liable to hadd shall be in one of the following forms, namely:- (a) the accused makes before a Court of competent jurisdiction a confession of the commission of the offence; or (b) at least four Muslim adult male witnesses, about whom the Court is satisfied, having regard to the requirements of tazkiyah al-shuhood, that they are truthful persons and abstain from major sins (kabair), give evidence as eye-widnesses of the act of penetration necessary to the offence: Provided that, if the accused is a non-Muslim, the eye-witnesses may be non-Muslims. 9. Case in which hadd shall not be enforced (1) In a case in which the offence of zina or zina-bil-jabr is proved only by the confession of the convict, hadd, or such part of it as is yet to be enforced, shall not be enforced if the convict retracts his confession before the hadd or such part is enforced. (2) In a case in which the offence of zina or zina-bil-jabr is proved only by testimony, hadd or such part of it as is yet to be enforced, shall not be enforced if any witness resiles from his testimony before hadd or such part is enforced, so as to reduce the number of eye-witnesses to less than four. (3) In the case mentioned in sub-section (1), the Court may order retrial. (4) In the case mentioned in sub-section (2), the Court may award tazir on the basis of the evidence on record. 10. Zina or zina-bil-jabr liable to tazir (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. (2) Whoever commits zina liable to tazir shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with whipping numbering thirty stripes, and shall also be liable to fine. (3) Whoever commits zina-bil-jabr liable to tazir shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than four years nor more than twenty-five years and shall also be awarded the punishment of whipping numbering thirty stripes. (4) When zina-bil-jabr liable to tazir is committed by two or more persons in furtherance of common intention of all each of such persons shall be punished with death. 11. Kidnapping, abducitng or inducing women to compel for marriage etc Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit inter-course, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit inter-course, shall be punished with imprisonment for life and with whipping not exceeding thirty stripes, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever by means of criminal intimidation as defined in the Pakistan Penal Code, or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit inter-course with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid. 12. Kidnapping or abducting in order to subject person to unnatural lust Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be subjected, or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being subjected, to the unnatural list of any person, or knowing it to be likely that such person will be so subjected or disposed of, shall be punished with death or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty-five years, and shall also be liable to fine, and, if the punishment be one of imprisonment, shal also be awarded the punishment of whipping not exceeding thirty stripes. 13. Selling person for purposes of prostitution, etc Whoever sells, lets to hire, or otherwise disposes of any person with intent that such person shall at any time by employed or used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse with any person or for any unlawful and immoral purpose, or knowing it to be likely that such person will at any time be employed or used for any such purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment for life and with whipping not exceeding thirty stripes, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanations: (a) When a female is sold, let for hire, or otherwise disposed of to a prostitute or to any person who keeps or manages a brothel, the person so disposing of such female shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have disposed of her with the intent that she shall be used for the purpose of prostitution. (b) For the purposes of this section and section 14 "illicit intercourse" means sexual inter-course between persons not united by marriage. 14. Buying a person for purposes of prostitution, etc Whoever buys, hires or otherwise obtains possession of any person with intent that such person shall at any time be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse with any person or for any unlawful and immoral purpose, or knowing it to be likely that such person will at any time be employed or used for any such purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment for life and with whipping not exceeding thirty stripes, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation: Any prostitute or any person keeping or managing a brothel, who buys, hires or otherwise obtains posession of a female shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have obtained possession of such female with the intent that she shall be used for the purpose of prostitution. 15. Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage Every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit with him in that belief, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty-five years and with whipping not exceeding thirty stripes, and shall also be liable to fine. 16. Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a woman Whoever takes or entices away any woman with intent that she may have illicit inter-course with any person, or conceals or detains with intent any woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and with whipping not exceeding thirty stripes, and shall also be liable to fine. 17. Mode of execution of punishment of stoning to death The punishment of stoning to death awarded under section 5 or section 6 shall be executed in the following manner, namely :- Such of the witnesses who deposed against the convict as may be available shall start stoning him and, while stoning is being carried on, he may be shot dead, whereupon stoning and shooting shall be stopped. 18. Punishment for attempting to commit an offence Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable under this Ordinance with imprisonment or whipping, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such atttempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one-half of the longest term provided for that offence, or with whipping not exceeding thirty stripes, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with any two of, or all, the punishments. 19. Application of certain provisions of Pakistan Penal Code, and amendment (1) Unless otherwise expressly provided in this Ordinance, the provisions of sections 34 to 38 of Chapter II, sections 63 to 72 of Chapter III and Chapters V and VA or the Pakistan Penal Code shall apply, mutatis mutandis, in respect of offences under this Ordinance. (2) Whoever is guilty of the abetment of an offence liable to hadd under this Ordinance shall be liable to the punishment provided for such offence as tazir. (3) In the Pakistan Penal Code, - (a) section 366, section 372, section 373, section 375 and section 376 of Chapter XVI and section 493, section 497 of Chapter XX shall stand repealed; and (b) in section 367, the words and comma "or to the unnatural lust of any person," shall be omitted. 20. Application of Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and amendment (1) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, hereafter in this section referred to as the Code, shall apply, mutatis mutandis in respect of cases under this Ordinance: Provided that, if it appears in evidence that the offender has committed a different offence under any other law, he may, if the Court is competent to try that offence and award punishment therefor, be convicted and punished for that offence. Provided further that an offence punishable under this Ordinance shall be triable by a Court of Session and not by a Magistrate authorised under section 30 of the said Code and an appeal from an order the Court of Session shall lie to the Federal Shariat Court: Provided further that a trial by a Court of Session under this Ordinance shall ordinarily be held at the headquarters of the Tehsil in which the offence is alleged to have been committed. (2) The provision of the Code relating to the confirmation of the sentence of death shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to confirmation of sentences under this Ordinance. (3) The provisions of section 198, section 199, section 199A or section 199B of the Code shall not apply to the cognizance of an offence punishable under section 15 or section 16 of this Ordinance. (4) The provision of sub-section (3) of section 391 or section 393 of the Code shall not apploy in respece of the punishment of whipping awarded under this Ordinance. (5) The provisions of Chapter XXIX of the Code shall not apply in respect of punishments awarded under section 5 or section 6 of this Ordinance. (6) In the Code, section 561 shall stand repealed. 21. Presiding Officer of Court to be Muslim The Presiding Officer of the Court by which a case is tried, or an appeal is heard, under this Ordinance shall be a Muslim: Provided that, if the accused is a non-Muslim, the Presiding Officer may be a non-Muslim. 22. Saving Nothing in this Ordinance shall be deemed to apply to the cases pending before any Court immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance, or to offences committed before such commencement. ( No doubt its really time-consuming to read it out but to fully understand the debate over "Hudood Ordinance" it is necessary to know all this.) Regards, angelfalls!! |
Thanks
Dear angelfalls,
Dear, you have put the facts pertaining to the "Hadood Ordinance" assiduously. Really it is an informative work. I once again, would like to thank you for contributing such an informative piece of information timely. with best regards. |
Information about Hudood Ordinance
Here is those pieces of information which you won't find so easily. Due to lack of time, I am compelled to just copy-paste those posts which I made elsewhere, but, it will be informative and helpful. Sorry, the formatting has been lost due to copy-paste.
[B]FIRST POST -----------[/B] Kay Sadozai wrote: "besides all such trauma [rape] she [victim of rape] is forced to produce 4 Male witnesses who shud be full definition of Tazkia-tul-shahood??? Just think how on earth is she gonna do that?" For others, remember the following points:- (1) Under the Hudood Ordinance, there are two types of punishments: (a) Hadd and (b) Tazir. (2) Hadd is awarded when the person is an adult and there are four Muslim male adult sane truthful witnesses who watched the act of penetration. (3) Tazir is awarded if the proof for Hadd is not available, but, the court is satisfied; say, a girl was raped but there was no witnesses, but, the DNA test revealed the act. So, the court can award the punishment of 30 stripes, fine and 25 years imprisonment to the rapist as stated clearly in Section 10 of the Offense of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Examples of this form include Malyer Case, Abdul Rehman Case, Kalimullah Case of Karachi, etc. (3) The Hudood Ordinance is only concerned with three things: (a) Definition of the crimes; (b) Proof required for the crimes; (c) Punishment of the crimes. (4) The Hudood Ordinance does not deal with dislodging of FIRs, slow judiciary process, keeping women in jail or 5 star hotels. These are problems of: (a) PPC; (b) CPRC (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898) and (c) Police Major Act. (5) The Hudood Ordinance contains punishment for a variety of crimes. Major crimes include Zina i.e. consensual illicit intercourse, Zina bil Jabr i.e. rape and Gang rape. Other crimes include cohabiting caused by inducing deceitful belief of marriage, kidnapping, abducting women, enticing away with criminal intent a woman, etc. (6) Punishment under Hadd for Zina is stoning to death if the person is married, Muslim, sane, free (not slave) and physically mature. If the person is sane, physically mature but not married, the punishment is 100 stripes. The tazir punishment for Zina is 30 stripes, 7 years imprisonment and fine. (7) Punishment under Hadd for Zina bil Jabr is stoning to death if the person is married, Muslim, sane, free (not slave) and physically mature. If the person is sane, physically mature but not married, the punishment is 100 stripes and any punishment, including death penalty, as the court deems fit. The tazir punishment for Zina bil Jabr is 30 stripes, 25 years imprisonment and fine. (8) The tazir punishment for Gang rape is DEATH PENALTY. It is interesting to note that those yelling for justice to women i.e. LJCP had proposed to amend this section themselves!!!!!!! LOLZ... TWO-SIDED CHEATERS! (9) A case of Qazf (False accusation of Zina) cannot be dislodged by a man against a woman under the current Ordinances. (10) If in a rape case, a crime cannot be proved due to "loss of evidence" or lack of evidence, the case simply ends. The woman is NOT charged with adultery; this is a lie being spread but is not found anywhere in the Ordinance. BBC was also involved in spreading this lie recently; I filed a complaint on their website, but, they have not responded uptil now. (11) As far as Zara Sochieye is concerned, I have intellectually broken apart their whole effort. If you want to know about this, just join my Yahoo Group and read articles in the Files section of that group. SECOND POST ----------- I forgot some things in my previous comment about the PPC. I am simply reproducing an extract from my article "Critique of the NCSW Report on Hudood Ordinance", pages 45-46:- (Sorry, formatting lost...) "Furthermore, the proposal to separate everything other than Hadd from the concerned Ordinance will cause injustice; the Islamic system of punishments is inter-connected. Hadd is the maximum punishment for a crime and the conditions for proving it are also strict; it is dropped in case of doubts. Tazir is also very strict and serves in itself as a source of driving away evils. Tazir can be awarded when the crime is not proved by the testimony of four male Muslim truthful people or confession, but, proved by other means like medical evidence or circumstantial evidence, etc. The 5 Ordinances of the Hudood laws are a single legislation and if any Ordinance or section is detached from others, the legislation will be incomplete with holes. Furthermore, if these penalties are made separate sections of the PPC, the whole judicial process will become a conjecture. In the PPC, each section is a separate thing and if a case filed under one section is not proved, the court itself cannot take action in accordance with a separate section. So, if we assume for a second that the Ta'zirat have been included in the PPC, then this will cause great misery for anyone seeking injustice; consider this example. A case was dislodged in accordance with one section of the PPC for kidnapping a lady with the intent of illicit intercourse. Later, evidence was available to prove that the person had illicit intercourse, so, to punish him for that a separate case would have to be dislodged. Later, more evidence was available for proving a crime of gang rape, so, a new case would have to be dislodged afresh. Take another example where a person filed a case under the Ordinance, but, could not prove it. To punish him under Tazir, a separate case would have to be dislodged; in fact, if evidence is found during hearing that the accused was involved in some other crime, a new case would have to be dislodged afresh. Certainly, this would cause ambiguity and confusions which do not exist when Tazir are included as part of the Ordinance; this is because one cannot severe Hudood from Ta'zirat just like one cannot severe the Qur'an from the Sunnah. Our proposal is that the Tazir should not be included in the Pakistan Penal Code; Ta'zirat are very important in the Ordinance as they allows us to punish the rapists without the need of witnesses, only on the basis of medical evidence and removing it will cause great injustice to women. This is because the crime will not be proved by any means other than the testimony of four male Muslim truthful people and/or confession, which is akin to saying that it will not be proved in 85-90% of the cases. It must be noted right here that the Pakistan Penal Code contains no punishment for drinking liquor, unmarried person committing Zina and a married person committing Zina with the consent of her husband/his wife. This is because it was promulgated by the British who don't consider these acts as crimes. Also, the PPC is responsible for a great amount of injustice to women, for example, Qar-o-Qari, home violence, etc. and yet no one is talking about the repeal of this PPC. If a woman is hit severely by his husband, then according to the PPC, an FIR cannot be dislodged unless a bone has been fractured or a cut is one inch deep. In 99% of the cases of domestic violence, the women don't dislodge any complaint therefore. This is the status of the highly praised PPC!!! (Mercy!)" --- Many a times, it happens that a conference is held on "Qar-o-Qari" and the proposal or conclusion is to amend the Hudood Ordinance! (Astaghfirullah) Also note that the Hudood Ordinance is usually taken to mean "The Offense of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979." But, there are five (5) Ordinances related to Hudood. (1) For theft, robbery, etc. (2) For drinking intoxicating liquor, taking/keeping/selling intoxicants, etc. (3) For falsely accusing someone of Zina (4) For Zina & Zina bil Jabr including other sexual crimes... (5) Details regarding execution of the punishment of whipping... Most NGOs are talking about repealing all 5, NOT JUST ONE, ORDINANCES without any valid reason whatsoever. Even the Offense of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 is great without any faults as I shown above & can prove. THIRD POST ---------- OBJECTION:- In huddod ordinance it is not clear what to do when a woman complains about zina-bil-jabr and NGOs are stating that when they can't bring four witness, they are punished under Qazf (false accusation of Zina.) ANSWER:- First of all, you should know that the Hudood Ordinance is concerned with only three things: (a) Definition of the crimes; (b) Evidence required for crimes; and (c) Punishment for the crimes. The issue of how the case is to be investigated, or whether women are to be put in jail, or how the FIR is to be dislodged falls outside the scope of the Hudood Ordinance. So, at the first place, it is the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898) and Police Major Act which deals with the issue of how to deal a complaint of Zina-bil-Jabr. Secondly, under the Hudood Ordinance, a woman who complains of Zina-bil-Jabr, even if she can't produce any evidence, she is not a criminal. Section 6, sub-section (1) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 reads: "A person [B][U]IS[/U][/B] said to commit zina-bil-jabr..." Contrast this with Section 4 of the same Ordinance: "A man and woman [B][U]ARE[/U][/B] said to commit Zina..." So, at the first place, the woman is not a criminal, but, let me describe the whole process. A woman who complains of rape, her explanation is taken as the First Information Report (FIR) and the police investigates the issue. Usually, the person who was accused is arrested and investigation is done; medical is also done. The case is heard in a court of Magistrate and during the hearing, the woman can describe the whole story; if she feels shy, she can take two female persons for moral support. She is also asked if the one arrested is the same person who raped her; if she says "Yes" then the lawyers start questioning the accused. Under the Hudood Ordinance, there are two types of punishments: (a) Hadd; and (b) Tazir. If there are four male Muslim adult sane pious persons who witnessed the act of penetration and they testify in the court, then the accused if he is a Muhsan shall be stoned to death and if he is not a Muhsan, he will be awarded punishment of 100 stripes alongwith death penalty, if the court deems fit. [It's impossible that the court wouldn't deem it fit; after all, four people saw him!] If there are four witnesses not available, but, the accused confesses the crime himself and does not resile from his confession, he will be liable to the aforesaid punishment. If the above conditions of evidence are not met, but, the court is satisfied that the crime stands proved on other forms of evidence (like DNA test, medical evidence, etc.), then Tazir can be awarded to the accused. This is mentioned clearly in Section 10 of the Hudood Ordinance and example of cases where this happened are Kalimullah Case, Abdul Rehman Case of Karachi, etc. The tazir punishments are as follows: (a) Gang rape: punishment of death to everyone (b) Rape by one person: 25 years imprisonment, whipping numbering 30 stripes, fine (c) Kidnapping: Life imprisonment alongwith 30 stripes ... and there are punishments for other sexual crimes too. So, by now, you can see that a woman is not expected to produce four witnesses and the criminal can be punished even if there is no witness, but, the crime stands proved by medical examination, etc. The last issue is that if a case of rape is filed and heard, but, there is not enough evidence available to prove the crime, then what will happen? The case will simply end without punishing anyone. But, it must be noted that if such a case ends without the charge being proved, there are two possibilities:- (a) The allegation of rape was actually a lie; or (b) The allegation may or may not be true, but, there is not enough evidence available to prove it or disprove it either; in such a case, there has been "loss of evidence." [B]NOTE HERE THAT THE OFFENCE OF QAZF (ENFORCEMENT OF HUDOOD) ORDINANCE, 1979 ONLY GIVES WOMEN, NOT MEN, THE RIGHT TO FILE A COMPLAINT OF QAZF. THEREFORE, IF A WOMAN COMPLAINS RAPE BUT CANNOT PROVE IT, SHE CANNOT BE PUNISHED, EVEN IF THE ACCUSED WANTS TO PUNISH HER![/B] Thus the Hudood Ordinance agress with the view that the verse of Surah Noor is not for everyone. But, there are other jurists who say the opposite like the famous Hanafite book Hedayah and mufassir like Imam Abu Baqr Jassas, in his work Ahkam-ul-Quran. This is a Ijtihadi issue, but, I think that the position of the Hudood Ordinance is better and I fully agree to it. This is because it paves path for justice and prevents possible injustice. There is one more thing which I want to discuss here: the issue of execution of Hadd-e-Qazf. The punishment of Qazf, according to the Hudood Ordinance, is not awarded unless the accused wants it to be executed. If the accused wants to award punishment to the complainant, he files an application to the court. The court then hears the application and if the court is satisfied that the accusation was indeed false and a lie, the court will rule out the punishment of Qazf. There are other proposals forwarded by NGOs regarding execution of Hadd-e-Qazf; if you keep aside the Shar'ai issues for a while and take a general view of the approach adopted by the Hudood Ordinance, you will find it to be the best of both worlds! Let us discuss how this is so; the different proposals given by NGOs are: (a) that if there are less than four witnesses at the time of dislodging of FIR, the complainant should be whipped 80 times at the stop. (b) that if a case was heard, but, the complainant could not bring four witnesses, he/she should be whipped 80 times (even if he/she was truthful) (c) that if a case was heard, but, the crime could not be proved (not even on medical basis), then the complainant should be whipped 80 times--automatically, without the request of the accused. For proposals (a) and (b), they are really utopian, because, if such proposals are implemented, then the door of tazir will be closed; furthermore, the criminals will get a free-hand, because, in 90% of the cases, four witnesses are not available and no one will dare to make a complaint, due to fear of getting whipped himself. The crime rate graph will reach Mount Everest in height! It must be noted right here that under any law, it is more important to save a single innocent from getting punished than punishing 10 guilty persons. (We will not discuss whether its 10 or 10+1 or 10-1, but, it is far more important to save innocent people!) For proposal (c), apparently it seems to be very good, but, on a close examination, it is revealed that it is also unjust. As I mentioned before, sometimes it happens that a case ends because of "loss of evidence" and the crime is neither proved, nor disproved. In such a case, it is necessary that before awarding anyone the punishment of Qazf (false accusation of adultery) it is first seen by the court that whether he really lied, or did he made a true accusation, but, failed to prove it. Under proposal (c), this cannot be done, but, under the current condition of the Hudood Ordinance, this can be done and so, the present condition is the best it can be. If an accusation was a lie, it will be revealed during hearing and if the accusation was true, but, could not be proved, it will also be revealed. Thus the present condition guarantees that no innocent will be punished, whereas, in other proposals, innocents are more likely to be punished. This is because, the evil doers will already refrain from complaining, because, they already know that they will be punished if they try to do anything wrong! One last doubt raised regarding the execution of Hadd-e-Qazf in the Hudood Ordinance is that the procedure of hearing is too slow, which causes the issue of Qazf to be stretched too much; this makes hurdles in the process of justice and therefore, it is unjust. But, this reasoning cannot be accepted because of two major reasons. Firstly, the slow judiciary process is not a problem of the Hudood Ordinance; it is a problem of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898) and secondly, the judicial process can be speeded up in two ways: (a) By making tribunals dedicated to hearing of cases of sexual crimes (just like a tribunal has been made for investigation regarding the Nishtar Park tragedy) (b) By making appropriate amendments in the CrPC (Criminal Procedural Code), so that the slow process of issuing too much notices and putting off the hearing for weeks & weeks can be stopped. Now, let me explain to you one more issue which is very important. Most NGOs say and you may have heard them that: "under the Hudood Ordinance, if a woman complains of rape and cannot produce four witnesses, she is charged with Zina." This is totally incorrect, because, as I mentioned before, the Hudood Ordinance does not deal with this issue (the CrPC does) and secondly, the Hudood Ordinance allows Tazir to be awarded in the absence of four witnesses. Furthermore, if a woman can't prove a case of rape, she is not punished; not even under Qazf. So, what is the whole controversy about? One of the famous cases forwarded by NGOs in support of their argument is that in the Safia Bibi Case of 1983, a 11-year old blind girl who reported rape, was put in jail on charge of fornication. Later, due to a number of protests, the case was investigated by the Federal Shari'ah Court and the girl was allowed to go. All this happened, not because of the Hudood Ordinance, but, because of the police! Amanullah Baloch, an activist of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, during his dialog with Ummat newspaper explained the real reason for such incidents. He said that once he was dealing a case of a 5-year girl who was raped. He took the girl to the police station so that the FIR can be dislodged. While this process was going on, he suddenly saw that the constable writing the FIR had mentioned that Section number of the Hudood Ordinance, which deals with cases of Zina, not Zina-bil-Jabr!!!! He asked the police officer whether a 5-year girl could commit Zina? The reply was "No." He further asked whether this is a case of rape or Zina? The reply was "A rape case." Then, he asked why he wrote that Section number which deals with Zina? On this that idiot police officer came to know that he had made the mountainous mistake of booking a complaint of Zina, instead of Zina bil Jabr!!!! Had Amanullah Baloch sahib not present there, the ignorant police officer would surely had done a great injustice to the girl. If a complaint of Zina is booked, both man and woman usually are taken away for investigation, medical examination, etc. according to Police Major Act and they remain in jail till the court clears them. Due to the CrPC, such persons remain there for years; when the case is finally heard, they are released from prison! Thus innocent people suffer in this manner, not because of the Hudood Ordinance, but, because of the ignorant police, CrPC and Police Major Act. Amanullah Baloch further stated that in a few years, in the city of Karachi alone, he had pointed out 40 such cases. Thus you can estimate for yourself how many such incidents would have occured in 27 years throughout Pakistan! [B]TO SUM UP THEN, THE REASON WHY A VICTIM OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IS PUT IN JAIL, IS BECAUSE OF THE IGNORANT POLICE WHO DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHICH SECTION DEALS WITH ZINA & WHICH SECTION DEALS WITH ZINA-BIL-JABR. The ignorant police officer books and writes a complaint of Zina, instead of rape, due to which the victim is also arrested [under Police Major Act.] CrPC cause further misery due to which they remain there for years, till the court finally clears them. At this time, most NGOs say that the court has freed "a victim of Hudood Ordinance" whereas it is actually the victim of the ignorant police, CrPC, etc. AND THE HUDOOD ORDINANCE IS THE HIDDEN HERO (CHUPPA RUSTAM) UNDER WHICH THE COURT FREES THE INNOCENT![/B] Unfortunately, the various corrupt Governments have just focused on establishing committees to review the Ordinances, rather than taking initiatives to correctly implement the Ordinances and correct the faults in other parts of the system. ------------------------------------------ May Allah protect us from the deception & tricks of Satan and allow us to see the truth. (Aameen) Regards, Abdul Rehman. |
nice work awais
Salam:
Nice discussion is going on the hudood topic, work of awais is appreciated and i do agree with him.If i happened to hv time 'll be writing more on it and the reasons to ammend the ordinance 79....keep it up and also think the scenrio before 1979. |
Come for discussion!
Alternatively, you can join my Yahoo! Group for discussion on Hudood Ordinance:
[url]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hudood/[/url] There are only 3 members right now; you can come and discuss there, too. Regards, Abdul Rehman, Peshawar, Pakistan. |
Objections answered!
Wa alaikum as salam Mr. Farhan!
Let me answer the objections raised by Mr. Humayun and angelfalls. [B][SIZE="6"]TO ANGELFALLS[/SIZE][/B] You took the text of the Hudood Ordinance from here:- [URL="http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/zia_po_1979/ord7_1979.html"]http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/zia_po_1979/ord7_1979.html[/URL] Geo TV also took it from there, but, they were so idiot that they did not even remove the words "Click here for amendment" from the copy-pasted version! You took the beginning extracts from Geo TV's Zara Sochieye website and BlogCritics.org from the following links respectively:- [URL="http://www.geo.tv/zs/history.asp"]http://www.geo.tv/zs/history.asp[/URL] [URL="http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/05/31/004639.php"]http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/05/31/004639.php[/URL] You can read my comments at the above second link in which I answered off some of their objections if you want to. You also wrote:- [QUOTE]The civilian governments of the former Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto set up two commisions to investigate the excesses of Zina's Hudood Ordinance. Both commissions recommended disbanding it.Both the governments did not carry through the recommendations.[/QUOTE] Although, I have not read the report of the first commission, headed by Justice (R) Nasir Aslam Zahid, but, I did read the report of the second commission. I can provide a few facts regarding the second commission. A sub-committee was formed consisting mostly of members from the NCSW (National Commission on the Status of Women.) I am currently writing an article entitled "Critique of the NCSW Report on Hudood Ordinance" in which I have fully criticized this committee's report. This article contains will answer off about 95% of the objections raised on Hudood Ordinance and I have answered (roughly) more than 30 objections on the Hudood Ordinance. The article is 90% done and is currently 107 pages. (Alhamdulillah) Anyways, without going deep into their report, let me give you an "easy way" to their report, which will also be a sufficient critique of the previous committee's report, since both of them gave the same recommendation. The report of the committee headed by Justice (R) Majida Rizvi is available here:- [url]http://ncsw.gov.pk/pdf/draft_report_on_hudood_ordinance.pdf[/url] I quote here a few extracts from my article "Critique of the NCSW Report on Hudood Ordinance" which shall (Insha ALLAH) come online soon. [B]FIRST EXAMPLE[/B] [QUOTE][B]Ulterior Motives of the Committee[/B] The chair-person of the Special Committee was Justice (R) Majida Rizvi and fully understands the laws of this country. The ulterior motives of this Special Committee were revealed when the Committee gave its final recommendations regarding the Hudood Ordinances:- 'Consequently, by a majority, this Special Committee recommends that all four Hudood Ordinances, 1979 should be repealed and [U]the original laws with regard to the offences mentioned in these Ordinances be restored[/U].' [[U]NCSW Report[/U], p.40 & p.130] The term “original laws” refers to the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860) which was originally an “invention” of the British and contains no punishment for Zina (i.e. two adults consensually having illicit intercourse), a wife committing Zina with a third person with the consent of his husband and for drinking liquor. Furthermore, the Hudood are also not contained in the PPC [like cutting hand of thief, Rajm, etc.] This clearly means that as Justice (R) Majida Rizvi and others understand what this means, the committee wants no punishment for consensual illicit intercourse, drinking liquor and is also not interested in implementing Hudood in Pakistan. So, their whole effort was directed at getting rid of these Ordinances and they were not worried about Hudood or Islamic laws. In fact, this is one reason why Justice (R) Mufti Taqi Usmani did not participate in the meetings; coz you already know the intentions of the meetings!" [Pages 1 to 2 of my article][/QUOTE] The first committee also recommended the same, so both were replicas of each other! [B]SECOND EXAMPLE[/B] [QUOTE]"[B]Recommendations without discussion[/B] This is yet another “brain-storm,” but not of the whole committee; only of the chairperson i.e. Justice (R) Majida Rizvi. In the recommendations of the committee, it is written: 'An examination of the Minutes of all five meetings which have been summarized in this report, as well as the considered opinion of the members of the Committee, including the Chairperson, would reveal that out of fifteen (15) members, who have actively participated in the deliberations regarding the Hudood Ordinances and have given their views in person and in writing, twelve (12) members have recommended that the Hudood Ordinances should be repealed, while only two (2) members have recommended that these should not be repealed but amended with a view to removing lacunae and defective parts of it, and one (1) member has stated that the recommendations of the Committee should be given effect to. This Special Committee, therefore, wishes to record that the participating Members of the Committee are unanimous in arriving at the conclusion that the Hudood Ordinances as enforced are full of lacunae and anomalies and the enforcement of these has brought about injustice rather than justice, which should be the main purpose of the enforcement of Islamic law. Consequently, [U]by a majority[/U], this Special Committee recommends that all four Hudood Ordinances, 1979 should be repealed and [U]the original laws with regard to the offences mentioned in these Ordinances be restored[/U].' [[U]NCSW Report[/U], p.40 & p.130] The underlined recommendation has already been struck twice by us, but, it is even more stubborn! [B][COLOR="RED"]It is indeed interesting to note that Justice (R) Majida Rizvi has openly lied out of her teeth![/COLOR] As we shall see, out of the 14 members who gave recommendations, only 3 members recommended the restoration of the original laws, which constitutes less than one-fourth of the members who gave recommendations; not the majority! Furthermore, may we ask Justice (R) Majida Rizvi: “During which meetings of the special committee, the issue of restoration of the original laws was discussed?”[/B] [U]So, it is pretty clear that she has openly lied and this has allowed everyone to see her real intentions[/U]." [Page 102 of my article][/QUOTE] [B]THIRD EXAMPLE[/B] [QUOTE]"In the report, it is written: 'Islam essentially is a religion that promotes justice, but when in the name of Islam, injustice is perpetrated then it becomes necessary to examine the laws introduced in the name of Islam to determine what went wrong.' [[U]NCSW Report[/U], p.2] These ordinances are concerned with only three things: (a) Definition of the crimes; (b) Prescribing punishments for crimes; and (c) Evidence required for proving these crimes. In the whole introductory account [of the NCSW Report], there is nothing which challenges or even suggests the examination of these three things. Thus no injustice has been perpetrated by these ordinances in the name of Islam. If there are defects in the law-enforcing agencies and procedural codes, those things need to be amended and not the definitions, punishments or evidence required for the crimes. [B]It must also be noted done here that the purpose of establishing this committee, as apparent from the above quoted text, was to find out whether the laws are in conjunction with the injunctions of Islam or not. But, the final recommendations of this committee, as mentioned on page 40 and page 130 of the concerned report, are to restore the original British laws. Thus the committee has self-contradicted its very purpose of establishment![/B] And of course, the attitude of the committee, in the whole report, clearly shows that most of the members—especially the chairperson—had a preset mind of repealing these ordinances and their whole analysis was based on a preconceived notion i.e. the ordinances need to be repealed. In fact, the introductory paragraph is too explicit on this issue and not debatable." [Page 100 of my article][/QUOTE] [B]FOURTH EXAMPLE[/B] [QUOTE]"The next issue:- 'While the majority of the Committee members agreed with the arguments of Syed Afzal Haider, Dr. Fareeda Ahmad and Mr. Shahtaj disagreed and were of the view that Surah Noor, verse 2 covers both offences of Zina and Zina-bil-Jabr along with the pre-requisite criterion of four witnesses to prove these offences…Dr. Fareeda Ahmad, Mr. Noor Muhammad Shahtaj and Dr. S.M. Zaman held that the provisions of the Ordinance on the offence of Zina-bil-Jabr, as reflected in Section 8, were in accordance with the Shariah.' [[U]NCSW Report[/U], p.9] We appreciate these members on this issue and they were undoubtedly right in pointing out that four witnesses are required for proving rape; [liable to Hadd] [B]but, their argument has been distorted by the one who prepared these conclusions.[/B] Their actual argument was:- 'However, FA (Dr. Farida Ahmed) and NMS (Noor Muhammad Shahtaj) disagreed with that and were of the opinion that it does fall under Hadd and [U]FA relied on a Hadith of Tirmidhi Sharif[/U], [B][COLOR="RED"]according to which bil Jabr if the offence of Zina[/COLOR][/B] is proved as per rules of evidence laid down for Zina then the punishment should be Hadd. If not then the punishment could be as per Tazir. [[U]NCSW Report[/U], p.57] ([B]Text in red has been distorted by the one who prepared the report.[/B]) Looks like the one who prepared this report was a die-hard and so missionary that he completely distorted the arrangement of the sentence to give a strange picture of the hadith! The actual sentence if corrected is:- 'FA relied on a Hadith of Tirmidhi Sharif, according to which if the offence of [B][U]Zina bil Jabr[/B][/U] is proved as per rules of evidence laid down for Zina then the punishment should be Hadd. If not then the punishment could be as per Tazir.' [[U]NCSW Report[/U], p.57, with correction] [B]Did you see what that pervert did with the sentence?![/B] (Iyazbillah!) He will surely have to face a tough account on the Day of Qiyamah. So, you will surely have noticed the unjust and missionary nature of those who were involved in making this draft report! On the issue of Rajm, even a small issue was made a big one and on other issues like the above one & the issue of puberty, etc. whole ahadith have been omitted and ignored!!!" [Pages 45 to 46 of my article][/QUOTE] [B]FIFTH EXAMPLE[/B] [QUOTE]"[B]Analysis of the opinions of various members[/B] We shall also analyze the opinions given by various members and compare them with the conclusions deduced during various meetings of the Special Committee. The opinions of various members are mentioned on pages 37 to 40 of the NCSW Report. Let us discuss them serially. [B]Justice (R) Majida Rizvi[/B] Being the chair-person, she attended all 8 meetings; in her comments, she said:- 'In her opinion these do not reflect the correct principles of Islamic criminal law and are not in accordance with Islamic injunctions.' [[U]NCSW Report[/U], p.37] The above extract shows that the learned jurist is objecting the Ordinances, because, in her view, they “are not in accordance with Islamic injunctions.” But, it is quite ironic to see what she said right after the above statement:- 'These have caused great misery to women and ought to be repealed and [U]the original laws be restored[/U].' [Ibid] Since she is a jurist, she is well-aware of what the “original laws” are and what will be the impact if “the original laws” are “restored.” Let me remind the reader that the original laws mean the original laws of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860) which were made by the British. These contain no punishment for committing fornication or adultery consensually i.e. Zina bil Raza. Furthermore, these laws also don’t contain any punishment for drinking intoxicating liquor and are devoid of Hudood. It is quite amazing that Justice (R) Majida Rizvi recommends such “original laws” in contrast to the Hudood Ordinances and finds such “original laws” to reflect “the correct principles of Islamic criminal law” and to be “in accordance with Islamic injunctions.” (Astaghfirullah) [Pages 102 to 103 of my article][/QUOTE] [B]I hope that the above 5 points are enough for a sane guy to see that the Committee was reviewing the Ordinances with a preset & missionary mind and they were trying to get rid of the Hudood Ordinances by hook or crook; same applies for the first commission which made the same recommendation.[/B] Angelfalls also wrote that the Hudood Ordinances were "promulgated by the martial law government of erstwhile dictator General Zia-ul-Haq in 1979, to impose [U]his[/U] distorted Islam-view on a hapless nation." Later, you yourself contradict this statement by saying:- "The ordinance was a result of some [U]leading legal experts and religious scholars[/U] of the time." Brother! Let me tell you that these Ordinances were made after [B]TWO (2) YEARS OF DEBATE[/B], not 2 hours of Zara Sochieye Debate, or 2 weeks of Justice (R) Majida Rizvi's debate. Experts were called for from all parts of the world like Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc. Objections were raised and were answered, too. Unfortunately, I can't find these discussions anywhere; may be, because they have not been published by any one? But, it is still clear that Zia-ul-Haq did not make these Ordinances on his own and neither were they a 'distorted view of Islam.' [B][SIZE="6"]TO HUMAYUN "THE KING"[/SIZE][/B] Let's answer his highness' objections! You wrote: [QUOTE]This ordinance is often misused against rape victims if they are not able to provide four male witnesses. In such an event, the alleged rapist accuses the raped woman of confessing to consensual intercourse.[/QUOTE] Amanullah Baloch sahib, an activist of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, challenged the NGOs in his dialog with Ummat newspaper that: "These NGOs claim that in cases of rape, the alleged rapist converts a case of rape into Zina. You just ask them to quote one such case; they have been working for so many years. You just ask them to give only one example, the name of any book, or register, or database, or the justice who dealt with such a case."[1] [1]: Translated from [URL="http://www.ummat.com.pk/Colourpage_report/Zana/Abdullah-1003.gif"]here[/URL] As I discussed before, a rape victim is usually put in jail due to mistake of the police, rather than the Ordinance and this [putting in jail] is requirement of Police Major Act and CrPC. So, you should accuse these documents and ask for their amendment rather than that of the Hudood Ordinances. I would also like to quote an extract from my article "Critique of the NCSW Report on Hudood Ordinance," page 53:- [QUOTE]"They are ignoring the fact that under this Ordinance if a case of Zina bil Jabr has been dislodged and enough evidence is not available to prove this (e.g. due to loss of evidence), [U]then the case ends[/U]. [B]A woman can only be booked under the offence of Zina, under the Hudood Ordinance, [U]if there is evidence available to prove this and the court is satisfied[/U].[/B] If there is not enough evidence available to show whether it was Zina or Zina bil Jabr, the judge simply ends the case without punishing anyone. Furthermore, men can’t register a complaint of Qazf against women, for the current Hudood Ordinance does not grant them this right! ...They claim that in many cases, the woman was raped & not had intercourse consensually, even though when there is evidence available to prove the contrary. I would like to quote here an authority in Forensic Pathology—Bernard Knight—Professor of Forensic Pathology at the University of Wales:- '[B]The genuineness of allegations of sexual assault[/B] This is an extremely difficult topic, with strong emotive, social and feminist overtones. [COLOR="RED"]The fact is that a significant proportion of allegations of rape and indecent assault reported to the police are found to be untrue. [U]This is often hotly denied by women’s groups, but is an indisputable fact[/U]…[/COLOR]' (Underlining ours) [[U]Simpson’s Forensic Medicine[/U] 10th Ed., Bernard Knight, Butler and Tanner Ltd. (London : 1992), Ch.17, pp.211-212] So, the statistics are undoubtedly zero or near it, when seen through the eyes of the law which depends on solid evidence for ruling out anything and not mere emotions. These NGOs may make tall claims on the basis of their emotions and sympathy for women, but, evidence is available to prove the contrary." [Page 53 of my article][/QUOTE] [B]It must also be pointed out here that can [U]anyone on this whole forum[/U] point out a defect from the 22 sections or give any recommendation to amend any section of the Ordinance, to fix this (so-called) 'defect'?[/B] Nay! There is nothing which can be changed! You also wrote: [QUOTE]Hudood Ordinance is a law, which is perceived to be discriminating against women.[/QUOTE] Let us discuss this issue and finish it off, once and for all, in a few steps:- [B](1) OBJECTIVE STUDY OF THE ORDINANCE[/B] Section 8 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 reads as follows:- "[B]8. Proof of zina or zina-bil-jabr liable to hadd.[/B] Proof of zina-bil-jabr liable to hadd shall be in one of the following forms, namely:- (a) the accused makes before a Court of competent jurisdiction a confession of the commission of the offence; or (b) at least four Muslim adult [U]male[/U] witnesses, about whom the Court is satisfied, having regard to the requirements of tazkiyah al-shuhood, that they are truthful persons and abstain from major sins (kabair), give evidence as eye-witnesses of the act of penetration necessary to the offence..." This part of the Ordinance is considered to be discriminatory against women; there is one more part which is considered to be discriminatory, too. Section 2, sub-section (a) of the concerned Ordinance reads:- "'adult' means a person who has attained, being a male, the age of eighteen years or, being a female, the age of sixteen years, or has attained puberty;" The NCSW's committee raised the objection that the age for male and female is different, when there is no basis for it and is discriminatory against women. Let us first deal with this issue, since, it reflects the ignorance and stupidity of the NCSW's sub-committee. To answer off the objection, I again have to quote from my article "Critique of the NCSW Report on Hudood Ordinance," page 32:- [QUOTE]"The second issue is:- 'There should not be inconsistency or discrimination between the basic determining factors of a girl and a boy in age, i.e. if age was determined for boys at 18 years it should be the same for girls.' [[U]NCSW Report[/U], p.8] It is a good time to go up and look at the definition of adult in Section 2(a) of the ordinance. Now, coming to the issue of difference in ages, this can easily be described by physiologists. I cite here an excerpt from a famous physiology book:- 'Puberty is the period of arousal and maturation of the previously nonfunctional reproductive system, culminating in attainment of sexual maturity and the ability to reproduce. Its onset usually occurs (in USA) sometime between the ages of 10 and 14; [U]on the average it begins about two years earlier in females than in males[/U].' (Underlining is ours) [[U]Human Physiology: From Cells to Systems[/U] 5th Ed., Lauralee Sherwood, Brookes/Cole – Thomson Learning, Inc. (2004), International Students Edition, Ch.20, p.757] This explains why there is difference between the ages in the ordinance. If the ages are made the same then this would be unnatural and unjust." [Page 32 of my article][/QUOTE] Now, we come to the second issue of the Hudood Ordinance i.e. women testimony. We already quoted Section 8 of the concerned Ordinance; we quote here Section 10 of that Ordinance which deals with Tazir:- [B]10. Zina or zina-bil-jabr liable to tazir.[/B] (1) Subject to the provisions of section 7, whoever commits zina or zina-bil-jabr which is not liable to hadd, or [U]for which proof in either of the forms mentioned in section 8 is not available[/U] 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. An objective study of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the concerned Ordinance, shows that the accused can be punished with tazir, if the accused has committed [I]zina[/I] or [I]zina-bil-jabr[/I], but, it is not liable to Hadd (e.g. in case of insane person) or "for which proof in either of the forms mentioned in section 8 is not available." It is quite clear that the court will see whether the accused has committed the offence or not and if the court is satisfied that the crime stands proved, but "proof in either of the forms mentioned in section 8 is not available" then the accused "shall be liable to tazir." From the study of Section 8, 10 and the rest of the Ordinance, the following points can be deduced:- (i) In the whole Ordinance, it is not mentioned anywhere that the testimony of women is unacceptable. (ii) For Hadd punishment, either the criminal should confess the crime or four Muslim [B]male[/B] sane adult pious witnesses should testify the act of penetration. (iii) If male witnesses are not available, but, women witnesses are available and the court is satisfied that the crime stands proved, then the tazir punishment will be awarded. So, at the first place, it is wrong to say that "women testimony is not acceptable" or that "punishment cannot be awarded on the basis of women testimony" under the Hudood Ordinance. Secondly, whether not awarding Hadd punishment on the basis of women witnesses is against the Shari'ah or in conformance with it? To answer this, we analyze the issue in the light of the Qur'an and Sunnah. [B]ANALYSIS IN THE LIGHT OF QUR'AN AND SUNNAH[/B] I am again compelled to quote from a mail which I sent to a friend:- [QUOTE]"It is found in Surah an-Nisa (4), verse 15 that:- "And those of your women who commit illegal sexual intercourse, take the evidence of four witnesses [I]from amongst your men[/I] (Arabic: min kum) against them; and if they testify, confine them (i.e. women) to houses until death comes to them or Allah ordains for them some (other) way." [4:15] The words in italics is the translation of the Arabic words "min kum." In Arabic grammar, kum is a 2nd person plural pronoun, [U]used only for males[/U]. You can check the Arabic Grammar rules table given [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_grammar#Enclitic_pronouns"]here[/URL] if you don't believe me. [B]Furthermore, in Musnad ibn abi Shaibah, it is reported by Zehri (R.A.A.) that there has been consensus (Ijma) of Ummah during the Prophet's time as well as the era of the four pious caliphs on the issue that in cases of Hudood, testimony of women is not taken. [Tazir can be awarded on basis of women testimony][/B] The authority of Ijma is well-known; in a famous hadith, the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) said: "My ummah will never get united (Ijma) on deviance (Gumrahi)." [Arabic: Man-layn-ajmal ummati alad dalaala] So, this answers the objection of NGOs that the Ordinance discriminates against women; it is a requirement of the Shari'ah. Then, you [that friend] wrote: >>> I was confused for sometime that is this the way to deal with or the punishments prescribed in the other verses of Quran. But through tafseer I came to know that this was prescribed before the clear punisments. Yes, you are right; it is reported in many ahadith. In Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Hudood, the following hadith is found: 'Ubada ibn as-Samit reported that whenever Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) received revelation, he felt its rigour and the complexion of his face changed. One day revelation descended upon him, he felt the same rigour. When it was over and he felt relief, he said: "Take from me. Verily Allah has ordained a way [which was promised in Surah an-Nisa] for them [those women who had committed Zina] (When) a married man (commits adultery) with a married woman, and an unmarried male with an unmarried woman, then in case of married (persons) there is (a punishment) of one hundred lashes and stoning (to death). And in case of unmarried persons, (the punishment) is one hundred lashes and exile for one year." The above hadith is actually regarding the revealation of the verses of Surah Noor. The correct words are Muhsan instead of married and non-Muhsan instead of unmarried. Muhsan means a person who is Muslim, sane, adult, married and free. Most jurists agree that the punishment of 100 lashes is not awarded to Muhsan criminals; they are simply stoned to death. In case of non-Muhsan criminals, there is a difference of opinion whether they are to be exiled from the land or not. Imam Shafi'i (R.A.) holds that they are to be exiled and Imam Abu Hanifa (R.A.) says that they are not to be exiled; it is a Ijtihadi issue."[/QUOTE] The above mail gives proof from Quran & Sunnah and further from Ijma that Hadd cannot be awarded on the basis of women testimony; although, tazir can be awarded on the basis of women testimony, as clearly accomodated by the Hudood Ordinance. This answered the argument that the Hudood Ordinance discriminates against women; it firstly does not discriminate & if there is a little difference, it is the requirement of Shari'ah. [B]Quite surprisingly, those NGOs who raise this objection, call for a repeal of all 5 Ordinances, whereas this issue needs the removal of a single word "male" from Section 8 [if one were to agree with them & leave the Shari'ah.][/B] Then, you [Mr. Humayun] wrote:- [QUOTE]Women and men convicted of Zina may ask Allah's forgiveness and vow never to commit this sin again, and they will be pardoned. For does not Allah (SWT) say in the Quran: "But, if they ask for Our forgiveness, leave them alone, for Allah is the most merciful."[/QUOTE] I don't know what you mean, but, if you mean that the punishment will be dropped (as seems apparently) then, my answer is:- NO! COMPLETELY WRONG! This is [I]tafseer bil ra'y[/I] (tehreef / scripture-twisting) and is completely prohibited. Tafseer bil Ra'y means that one interprets any verse of the Qur'an or saying of the Prophet (S.A.W.) in a manner which is different from the way in which it was interpreted by the Prophet (S.A.W.) or the Companions (R.A.A.) or the Successors (R.A.) To this effect, the following sayings of the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) should be noted down:- [B]Narrated Ibn Abbas (R.A.A.) that the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) said: 'Whosoever interprets the Qur'an according to his own opinion (ra'yah), let him seek his abode in the hell fire.' (Tirmidhi) Narrated Jundub (R.A.A.) that the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) said: 'Anyone who speaks on the Qur'an by his own opinion (ra'yah) and is right, is still wrong.' In verse 68 of Surah al-An'aam (6), those people who indulge in false conversation over the Qur'anic verses are condemned. In Tafseer Mazhari, Vol.2, p.263, a saying of Ibn Abbas (R.A.A.) has been quoted whose mafhoom is that this verse condemns all those who make 'new' interpretations of any Qur'anic verse till the Day of Qiyamah. [By 'new' interpretation, Sayyidna Ibn Abbas (R.A.A.) means an interpretation which is different from that done by the Prophet (p.b.u.h) or the Companions (R.A.A.) or the Successors (R.A.)][/B] So, one should refrain from this henious sin. There is no hadith or scholar from among the Companions (R.A.A.), Successors (R.A.) or other classical scholars who hold such a view. There has been Ijma on the issue that a Hadd cannot be dropped under any circumstances, once it stands proved & the requirements are fulfilled. [There are two exceptions which are dealt with in a while.] Anyways, let us find out the rationale of the fallacy of the interpretation of Mr. Humayun on this issue. Firstly, I will put your argument in two different ways and answer them both:- (1) The verse which you quoted is verse 5 of Surah an-Noor, but, you have totally detached it from its context. When combined with the preceding verse, its meaning becomes clear:- "And those who accuse chaste women, and produce not four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes, and reject their testimony forever, they indeed are the Fasiqeen; except those who repent thereafter and do righteous deeds, Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." [24:4-5] So, it becomes clear that in the verse which you quoted, the adulterer and the adulteress are not being mentioned; rather the one who 'accuse chaste women, and produce not four witnesses' is being mentioned. Furthermore, on the issue of pardoning adulterer & adulteress, the Holy Qur'an is too explicit:- "The male & female fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred strokes of lashes and [B][U]let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah[/B][/U], if you believe in Allah and the Last Day..." [24:2] This verse reveals two things:- (a) We cannot drop the punishment for Zani & Zaniya, no matter how pity we feel for them (b) The Hadd punishment is actually "a punishment prescribed by Allah" [We review this issue in a minute] Getting back to verse 5 of Surah Noor, there is a difference of opinion between the scholars as to what is really pardoned. The wordings of the verse are:- "Except those who repent thereafter and do righteous deeds. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." [24:5] To explain this verse, I quote here an extract from tafseer [I]Ma'ariful Qur'an[/I] by late Grand Mufti of Pakistan--Mufti Muhammad Shafi Usmani, English Edition, Vol.6, pp.361-362: [QUOTE]'Those who have been punished for false accusation of adultery, if they beg pardon and improve their habits, so that there is no risk of repetition of falsehood from them and also obtain forgiveness from one they had accused, then Allah Ta'ala grants forgiveness and is Merciful. This exemption, that is "Except those who repented" refers to only the last sentence of the previous verse according to Imam Abu Hanifah and some other Imams, which is "and they are the Fasiqeen." So, with this exemption it means that the one who is punished for false accusation is a sinner, but if he repents with sincerity and improves himself after obtaining forgiveness from the one he had falsely accused, then he will no longer remain a sinner, and his punishment will be pardoned in the Hereafter. In other words the two punishments meant for this world, which are referred in the beginning of the verse, that is eighty stripes and inadmissibility of his evidence, will remain despite the repentance. It is because the big punishment of stripes has already been executed and the second punishment is part of Hadd. [COLOR="RED"][B]All scholars are unanimous on the point that repentance does not remit punishment of hadd, only the torment of the Hereafter is pardoned.[/B][/COLOR] Since inadmissibility of the evidence is part of hadd, it will not be remitted by repentance. Imam Shafi'i and some other Imams have taken this exemption toward all the sentences of the previous verse, which means that as one does not remain sinner after repentance, hence he would also not be debarred from giving evidence. Jassas and Mazhari have provided arguments on both sides...'[/QUOTE] So, it is quite clear that your interpretation is totally wrong. (2) A second argument may be forwarded that since Allah is Ar-Raheem and Most Merciful, on repentance, the Zani and Zaniya will remain free from being subject to any penalty. It is firstly clear from the above extract that there has been Ijma on this issue that Hudood cannot be dropped due to repentance and secondly, the Prophet (S.A.W.) has declared even hearing such recommendations as unlawful. [See [I]Ma'ariful Qur'an[/I], Vol.3, pp.130-133] But, there is a doubt as to why will a person whose sin has been forgiven by Allah on repentance, be still punished for the crime? The answer to this doubt is a little technical; I explain this with an example. It is well-known that one has to make up his missed Salats, which is popularly known as "Qaza Namaz." Have you ever pondered as to why do we have to make up the missed Salats i.e. pray Qaza Namaz, when the sin of missing them has been forgiven? The answer is that the sin has been forgiven, but, the Right of Allah (Haqqullah) remains there. But, someone may say: 'What has this got to do with issue of Hadd?' This question can only be posed by the one who has no knowledge of Hadd! Hadd as defined in [I]Hedayah[/I], Vol.2, p.506 and [I]Ma'ariful Qur'an[/I], Vol.3, p.136 is "a fixed punishment for a specific crime, ordained by the Qur'an, Sunnah or Ijma, in which the Haqqullah (Right of Allah) is dominant." That's why in Surah Noor, verse 2, the Hadd for committing Zina is referred to as "a punishment prescribed by Allah." Thus when a criminal liable to hadd repents, his sin is forgiven meaning that he will not be tormented in the hereafter, but, the Right of Allah (Haqqullah) is still there, so, he must be punished with Hadd. But, there are two exceptions to this rule:- (a) If a criminal of theft, robbery, dacoity or looting repents, [U]before he/she is arrested[/U], only then will he/she be not punished with the Hadd for that crime. [See [I]Ma'ariful Qur'an[/I], Vol.3, pp.136-140] (b) Qazf is a punishment which is awarded to the complainant only when the accused requests it to be awarded; if the accused does not request the punishment, it will stand annulled. [See [I]Ma'ariful Qur'an[/I], Vol.6, p.361] Then, Mr. Humayun wrote:- [QUOTE]Drinking is punished with 80 lashes; the punishment for theft is physical mutilation: the right hand is cut off.[/QUOTE] It is pertinent to note that the cutting of right hand is a Hadd and subject to various conditions:- (i) The thief should be sane and adult; (ii) The amount or commodity stolen should be more than Nisab; (iii) The crime stands proved on confession or testimony of two Muslim male adult sane pious witnesses; (iv) There is not a condition of famine; (v) The stolen thing is not a fruit; ... and some more conditions, too. Therefore, one should note these facts lest he sprouts up misconceptions in his mind. --> Note that [I]Nisab[/I] for theft liable to Hadd is 4.457 grams of gold or rate equivalent of it. Then, 'The King' wrote:- [QUOTE]Well according to some experts. there is hadood in our Holy book and Sunnah, but this ordinance is make after some changes...[/QUOTE] I know from where you found those experts; you found them from Geo TV's Zara Sochieye website. First of all, let me tell you a few things about this effort. I have written many articles and sent about 35 to 40 mails to them, but, they did not pay any heed. The articles which I wrote along with a few selected emails can be found at my [URL="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hudood/"]Yahoo! Group for discussion on Hudood Ordinance[/URL]. Join the group; it only takes 2 minutes with NO approvals, etc. Once you have joined the group, go to the "Files" section of the group and you will find the articles in the following folder:- Files->My Articles->Geo TV - Zara Sochieye In the above folder, you will find the following articles:- (a) Geo Politically Neutral on Hudood Ordinance--Really.Zip (An article which proves the fallacy of their claim that they have not taken a position on this issue and they don't want to repeal the Ordinance, etc. (b) Lies & Distortions by Geo TV.Zip -- [B][COLOR="RED"]MUST-READ! HIGHLY RECOMMENDED![/B][/COLOR] (An article recommended for all those who relied on Geo TV's effort 'Zara Sochieye.' This article points out the numerous lies and distortions done by Geo TV for straying & making public against the Ordinance.) (c) Mails.zip (A handful of mails which I sent to the Zara Sochieye team; read these after reading article [B].) (d) Commentary on the Experts Commentary.zip (An article which answers off their 'Experts Commentary' and analyzes it critically.) I will soon be (Insha ALLAH) writing an article which will be a complete Critique of their [I]Declaration Statement[/I]. Anyways, now we come to the issue of Experts. For a moment, keep Dr. Tufail Hashmi aside and consider the remaining two experts. In order to answer and understand what they meant, I reproduce here an extract from a fresh article of mine: "Commmentary on the Experts' Commentary," pages 1 to 5:- [QUOTE]'This article is for explaining to people what Geo TV has achieved by asking a few questions from many scholars. Some people think that Geo TV has persuaded the scholars for a repeal of the Hudood Ordinances by their section [I]Experts Commentary[/I]. This article will be an analysis of their section [I]Experts Commentary[/I]. [B]Note:[/B] All the statements of scholars or other material from the [I]Experts Commentary[/I] is reproduced from [URL="http://www.geo.tv/zs/quickstop.asp"]here[/URL]. [B]QUESTION 1[/B] The magical words of this question were:- [I]“Hudood Ordinance is presented as a divine law which cannot be touched. Do you agree?”[/I] For the analysis of the wordings of this question, I reproduce here an extract from my article “Geo Politically Neutral on Hudood Ordinance—Really?” which I wrote sometime ago. ‘Before going into the wonders of these questions, let me point out a few things. On the [URL="http://www.geo.tv/zs/quickstop.asp"]website of Zara Sochieye[/URL], it is written:- [I]“GEO has developed this entire initiative in house without any pressure or influence from any other agency. No support has been taken from the Government of Pakistan, non- governmental organizations, any political party or any other local or foreign agency or government. The initiative has been researched, designed, developed and implemented thoroughly by GEO’s own research and production team. The members of this team are full time employees of the channel without any association to any social or political organization, but rather, with a conscience of Geo Aur Geenay Do (‘Live and Let Live’).”[/I] I am not blaming Geo TV for being associated with anyone or doing this work with some pressure, but, they seem to be working with a preconceived notion. What I want to say right now is that quite surprisingly, the same question is being asked simultaneously at many websites raising “awareness” about Hudood Ordinance like the NCSW (National Commission on the Status of Women) and many others women rights’ NGOs. Even more surprising is the fact that not even a single word differs between these websites. Is this really a [I]pure coincidence?[/I] On the NCSW website, there are even more interesting things happening with this question which is present as a poll. On June 10, 2006 there were 8 “Yes” votes on their website and on 11 June, 2006, there were only 5 “Yes” votes on their website! Decide for yourself! Anyways, coming back to this wonderful question, its words are so ambiguous that both the questioner and the answerer don’t know what they really mean. This is a dirty trick learnt from the West; as an example recall the Sherif-McMahon correspondence, in which the same dirty trick of the British led to 1.5 million Palestinian people becoming refugees. The words of the question for your reference are mentioned again:- [I]“Hudood Ordinance is presented as a divine law which cannot be touched. Do you agree?”[/I] There are four pieces which are interesting and should be noted viz. [I]presented as[/I], [I]a divine law[/I], [I]cannot be touched[I] and [I]Do you agree?[/I] If you put emphasis on each piece, a new door of interpretation opens up! If you take the question to mean that now-a-days, Hudood Ordinance is being [U]portrayed[/U] as untouchable then some will say “Yes” and others “No.” In this case, emphasis is on the use of the word [B]presented.[/B] If you put emphasis on the words [I]a divine law[/I] then not even a single person on earth will say “Yes.” Even an idiot knows that the Hudood Ordinance was drafted and promulgated by a human and not God. If you put emphasis on the words [I]presented as[/I] and [I]cannot be touched[/I] then this opens a new dimension of thought. This would mean that the Hudood Ordinance is not divine, but, is somewhat like pseudo-untouchable i.e. it is in conformity with the Islamic spirit and injunctions. Thus repealing or re-drafting the whole Ordinance(s) is not justified at all, but, making minor amendments in the procedures or purely judicial issues is allowed, provided they not go against the Shari’ah. At a particular instant, which interpretation the questioner means or the answerer means is neither mentioned nor emphasized. This poses a serious threat and can later on cause severe problems. In fact, as coming events cast their shadows before, this really looks like a [I]“Referendum for repealing the Hudood Ordinance.”[/I] Yes, the Zia-style referendum!!!’ This huge extract just focused on the wonders of the wordings of this question. Probably, Satan must have given them a great applause for developing such a tricky trap! [B]RESPONSE OF THE EXPERTS[/B] Let us now get to the real business and take a look at the answer given by various scholars. [I][B]Khalid Masood Chairman, Islamic Ideology Council[/B] Hudood Ordinance is a law like any other law. It cannot be called a Divine law. It is made by humans and it can, therefore, have weaknesses, even flaws. There can be procedural flaws as well. To look at all of these in detail, it is important that we treat it as a law. Unfortunately, this issue has been politicized because of which we do not see it as a law alone.[/I] Hmm… what did he mean? I have underlined the word ‘can’ and I also did one more thing to find out. I have made a [URL="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hudood/"]Yahoo! Group for discussion on Hudood Ordinance[/URL]. I made one poll for this group; the text of the question was:- [I]“Is the 1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, divine and untouchable?”[/I] The choices given were “Yes” and “No.” Now, everyone will choose the option “No” and cast his vote; so, should I say that the people have agreed to a “repeal” of the Constitution of Pakistan?! No! No way! I only said… but, but… I just said it could be repealed; I did not say that it should be repealed. That’s the point! There is a big difference between [B][U]COULD[/U] BE[/B] and [B][U]SHOULD[/U] BE.[/B] Alas! Some idiots have dissolved the difference between these two words which has caused all misery. [Please don't mind the use of word 'idiot', my tongue (or finger) usually slips in the heat of discussion!] Quoting here only two idiots will suffice…be redrafted! Now, you really understand what’s going on! Everyone is referring to this law as a “man-made law” which could be criticized constructively, or changed, or it could even possess flaws. But, they convert the ‘could’ into ‘should’ without any reason whatsoever which causes Geo TV’s [I]Experts Commentary[/I] as well as numerous other things to have “made a consensus for repealing” the Ordinance! Thus in the light of the above discussion, you now understand what the chairman of the Islamic Ideological Council meant, at least in his above statement. To the same effect are the statements given by Dr. Anis Ahmed, Maulana Muhammad Hasan Jan, Hafiz Abdul Rehman Madni, Qari Ruh Allah, Justice (R) K.M.A. Samdani, Khurshid Ahmed Gangoi, Dr. Mohammed Yousuf Farooq, Hafiz Ibtesam Elahi Zaheer, Maulana Muhammad Yousuf Qureshi, Hafiz Yousuf Salahuddin, Mufti Muneeb-ur-Rehman, Justice (R) Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani sahib and [B]even (apparently) Javed Ahmed Ghamidi![/B] The ones who recommended that the Ordinance [U]should[/U] be or needs to be amended or reviewed include Dr. Mehmood Ghazi, Dr. Tufail Hashmi, Mufti Usman Yar Khan, Prof. Khalid Zaheer, Ahmed Javed, Dr. Fazal Ahmed, Maulana Ehthram-ul-Haq Thanvi, Dr. M. Farooq Khan, Abdul Qayyum Haqqani, Allama Syed Razi Jaffer Naqvi and Allama Shah Turab-ul-Haq Qadri. Thus in a nut-shell, out of the 25 scholars from whom Question #1 was asked, the majority i.e. 14 out of 25 experts ([B]56%[/B]), said that the Ordinance can be amended, whereas, the minority i.e. 11 out of 25 experts ([B]44%[/B]), said that the Ordinance [U]should[/U] be amended or reviewed. [B]Majority is authority![/B]" [Commentary on the Experts' Commentary, pp.1-5][/QUOTE] It must also noted that Mr. Humayun has again quoted Maulana Hasan Jan incompletely to give a false impression from his statement; the complete statement as found [URL="http://www.geo.tv/zs/quickstop.asp"]here[/URL] is as follows:- [I]On one hand there is the Shariat Hudood in which there can be no changes. Then there is the Hudood Ordinance which is made by man. These can be changed as there can be some mistakes. Mistakes need to be corrected. Hudood Ordinance cannot be called Hudood Allah in its entirety. [u]There is room for changes and improvements[/u].[/I] So, he only meant that the Ordinance [U]could[/U] be improved, not [U]should[/U] be improved! Now, coming to Dr. Tufail Hashmi, he is not a scholar at all; in fact, he lied too. In answer to Question 2, his statement was as follows as found [URL="http://www.geo.tv/zs/quickstop.asp"]here[/URL]:- [I]"There is a very odd thing in the Hudood Ordinance that the requirements of evidence to prove zina and zina bil jabr are similar. For both, the Ordinance requires four special kind of male witnesses although zina bil jabr is totally different kind of a crime. Consequently, if a woman has been raped, and she cannot produce four pious, male eye witnesses, then not only is she punished for accepting that she has been involved in the act of zina, she also become guilty of Qazf (false accusation) because she has wrongly accused someone. She, therefore, becomes charged with two crimes. On the one hand, she is a victim and has turned to a court to seek justice, while on the other she is charged with two crimes and is subjected to double punishment. "[/I] [B]I ALREADY DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE IN DETAIL, BUT, IF ANYONE AGREES WITH DR. TUFAIL HASHMI, I WOULD ASK HIM TO QUOTE RELEVANT SECTIONS FROM THE ORDINANCE IF YE ARE TRUTHFUL! SO IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT HE IS LYING OPENLY![/B] Dr. Tufail Hashmi is one of those kind of modernists who consider Tafseer bil Ra'y to be permissible and present it with the sugar-coating of 'interpreting the Book and Sunnah according to spacetime forces.' (Mahz ALLAH!) Furthermore, he is also those kind of intellectuals in the view of whom, 'there are dozens of Hudood-e-Shar'i.' (Astaghfirullah) Furthermore, let us take the statement of Dr. Tufail Hashmi which you quoted and critically analyze it:- [I]Hudood Ordinance is based on four laws and has 101 clauses. Out of its 101 clauses, 83 have nothing to do with the Hudood. 18 clauses are connected with Hudood but then again, these do not conform to the Holy Book and neither do they relate to Sunnah. The entire Hudood Ordinance is, therefore, made by humans but we attribute it to Allah. The Quran says that the one who writes something and calls it Allah’s words, is the biggest oppressor.[/I] There are three arguments presented by him:- (a) Out of 101 sections, 83 have nothing to do with Hudood. (b) The remaining 18 clauses do not conform to the Holy Book and Sunnah. (c) One who writes something with hand and associates it towards Allah (S.W.T.) is the biggest oppresor. I heard exactly the same statement from the so-called "Dr." Aamer Liaquat; I think that these guys are inter-connected and working for the preparations of the funeral prayer, of one of the last Islamic laws, present in Pakistan! We shall answer arguments (a) and (c), but, argument (b) is too broad to be covered here. Insha ALLAH, the answer of argument (b) shall be in the form of my article "Critique of the NCSW Report on Hudood Ordinance." For argument (a), let us consider the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. From Dr. Tufail Hashmi's style of argumentation, we find that only three or four sections i.e. Sections 4, 5, 6 and Section 8 deal with Hudood; so, the remaining have nothing to do with Hudood. But, is it so? NO WAY! Firstly, the Sections like "Short title, extent and commencement" are required in every law; simply writing one verse does not fulfill the legal requirements of the present judiciary system. Therefore, all sections of the Hudood Ordinances are related either directly or indirectly with the Hudood. As far as the proposal to include Ta'zirat in PPC, I have already dealt with this issue in one of my previous posts. The reader should refer to them if he hasn't read it before. For argument (c), we would like to quote the actual verses and explain their real meaning:- "Know they (Jews) not that Allah knows what they conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them (Jews) unlettered people, who know not the Book, but they trust upon false desires and they but guess. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allah," to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby." [Surah al-Baqarah 2:77-79] Does Dr. Tufail Hashmi want to accuse the supporters of this Ordinance of (Nauzubillah) selling the verses of Allah? This Hudood Ordinance is based on the Quran and Sunnah; it is an interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah. Whereas, the above verse is regarding those Ulema-e-Soo who give an edict (fatwa) keeping in view the desires of the person who is asking for it. Furthermore, it includes those intellectuals who don't have the expertise of deriving rulings from the Qur'an and Sunnah, but, throw out their 'expert opinions' without sufficient knowledge, merely on the basis of guesses and their own desires! It also includes those who write something with their hand and say that (Nauzubillah) this is divine and was revealed directly by Allah. So, in this post, I have disposed of all objections as raised in this thread, uptil my last visit. At the end, I would like to tell my friends that if you are interested in getting more information about the Ordinance, read the article "[URL="http://www.ummat.com.pk/Colorpage_report/Zana/First-page.html"]The Hudood Ordinance[/URL]" by Dr. Abdullah. Jazakumullah khair! Regards, Abdul Rehman. |
More arguments in support of Hudood Ordinance
[IMG]http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/7851/text6rx2.gif[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/1675/text12ip8.gif[/IMG] Jazakumullah khair! Regards, Abdul Rehman. |
More objections needed!
I quote here one more extract from my article "Critique of the NCSW Report on Hudood Ordinance" as follows:-
[QUOTE]'The above statistics are a good exposition of the fact that the status of Pakistan is several times better than that of India and that the increase of sexual crimes has got nothing to do with the Hudood Ordinance. For the “west servers” and the Western “sympathizers,” we would like to take a look at the West, too. USA is considered to be one of the most just, liberal and advanced countries of the world, and even the NGOs will agree that it practices significant gender equality. So, let us analyze the condition of justice in our country, with regard to sexual offences vis-à-vis the situation in the United States of America. When one seeks the Federal Investigation of Bureau’s (FBI) Crime Report of the United States and other researches & reports, aimed at the same issue and analyzes the situation of justice, he/she becomes quite surprised. We enumerate here a few interesting facts which we found in one such report:[91] --> Women age 12 or older annually sustained almost 5 million violent victimizations in 1992 and 1993. --> Women and girls ages 12 and up annually reported about 500,000 rapes and sexual assaults, almost 500,000 robberies, and about 3.8 million assaults. --> In 29% of all violence against women by a lone offender, the perpetrator was an intimate (husband, ex-husband, boyfriend or ex-boyfriend.) --> Out of the annually reported 500,000 rapes and sexual assaults, friends or acquaintances of the victims committed over half of these rapes or sexual assaults. --> Of the 5328 women murdered in 1990, FBI data indicate that about half or more of them by a husband or boyfriend. --> A minimum of 16% of American couples experienced an assault during the year they were asked about it, and about 40% of these involved severely violent acts, such as kicking, biting, punching, choking, and attacks with weapons. --> A 1993 national poll found that 34% of adults in the United States report having witnessed a man beating his wife or girlfriend and that 14% of women report that a husband or boyfriend has been violent with them. --> From 20% to 30% of the women who are seen by emergency room physicians exhibit at least one or more symptoms of physical abuse. --> 10% of the victims were pregnant at the time of abuse and that their children had also been abused by the batterer. --> Women aged 19 to 29 and women in families with incomes below $10,000 were more likely than other women to be victims of violence by an intimate. This was only a brief look at one of the reports. Coming to more recent crime reports, one finds that out of the 76,714 rapes reported, only 44% of the cases were cleared.[92] This percentage which apparently appears to be good is actually of the cases which are ever reported to the agencies. There are a large number of cases which are never reported and women choose to remain silent. The exact figure is very hard to obtain; however, Bernard Knight, a famous Professor of Forensic Pathology at the University of Wales, has quoted such a research in one of his books, according to which less than 20% of the cases are ever reported to the police or are investigated.[3] Thus assuming that 80% of the cases remained unreported, the percentage of cases ever cleared comes out to be only 8.8%, which means that in 91.2% of the cases, the offender escaped without ever being punished!!! Furthermore, assuming that the actual cases are five times more than the reported cases i.e. 76,714, the number of actual cases comes out to be 383,570. Even this number is less, because, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP), [B]876,000[/B] women were raped in that year! Thus this would further decrease the percentage of cases cleared to only 3.8%, meaning that in [B]96.2%[/B] of the cases, the woman remained helpless! This further shows that in that year (2003), on the average, every hour [B]100[/B] women were raped, averaging about [B]2,400[/B] rapes per day. This further means that on the average, every hour [B]96[/B] helpless women were generated, averaging about [B]2,309[/B] per day and summing to a total of [B]842,712[/B] in the whole year! Despite this fact, due to the heavy publicizing by the feminist NGOs working in Pakistan, a person sleeping in the caves of Australia knows that two women were raped in Pakistan, but, does not know anything about the United States and their own countries! With this the status of justice in one of the most advanced countries of the world, in which there are security cameras and all other technologies available, with much less corruption than in our country, one could easily approximate the quality of justice that is to prevail in Pakistan. [B]It also shows that the real reason behind the increase of sexual crimes is immodesty, shamelessness and veil-lessness—the greatest factor behind which is these NGOs themselves![/B] [B]FOOT NOTES[/b] [91]: Special Report (NCJ-154348) “[U]Violence Against Women: Estimates from the Redesigned Survey August 1995[/U]”, 1995 National Crime Victimization Survey of the U.S. Department of Justice and 1995 National Crime Victimization Survey of the U.S. Department of Justice. [92]: [U]Crime in the United States[/U], FBI’s Crime Report of 2003, Section-III [I]Offences Cleared[/I], p.256, Figure 3.1; available online at [URL="http://www.fbi.gov/"]their website[/URL]. [[U]Critique of the NCSW Report on Hudood Ordinance[/U], Abdul Rehman, pp.80-81] [/QUOTE] [IMG]http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5688/text14lz6.gif[/IMG] [IMG]http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/9936/text15dn2.gif[/IMG] [IMG]http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/4576/text16ip6.gif[/IMG] [B]Waiting for more objections...[/B] Regards, Abdul Rehman. |
| 04:08 AM (GMT +5) |
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.