Fight Hudood, Protect Women

re: masadi

First of all, sorry for this delayed reply. Secondly, I understand that you are in Pakistan and if, by chance, you are located in Lahore, you are more than welcome to our Lahori Chowk meetings. If you are interested, please get my email address from the Chowk editors.

My only question to your post is:

Do you have any emperical evidence to prove that religion has actually improved the lot of women in Pakistan as far as medical health care practices are concerned?

In a simple sense; has religion in Pakistan ushered in social justice or social injustice as far as the women of Pakistan are concerned? Has religion liberated the women or enslaved them? Does the religion in Pakistan treat the women as co-equals or as inferior to men?

Ciao

#411 by khurram

Of-course they did. How dare you mention ``Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) supporting Khula.? They don`t need that stuff.

Give something to them to support their bra-burning Islam bashing suffragette propaganda and they`ll be happy to publish it.

Re #399, ``Can you please send a note to anaa and update them ..``
I did.
And they have removed that para from their website.

#399 by ZahraJ

[#398 by khurram

The full bench, consisting of Chief Justice Haziqul Khairi and justices Allama Dr Fida Muhammad Khan and Salahuddin Mirza, observed that there were two precedents — Jameela and Bareera cases — in the life of the Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) supporting Khula.

Dear Khurram - That`s such a pleasant news! ]

Yes. Such pleasant news! Should a 53 year old pervert with grey pubic hair be allowed to marry a 6 year-old child then? Following the precedent of your ``holy man``?

The more I find out about the inner workings of the Islamic/Paki society, and the inner workings of the Muslim mind, the more I am filled with disgust.

Ugh!

#362 by tahmed32

[#360 teshah dhagha: where in the quran did you read that ``low caste`` woman are ok to rape?]


About Slave girls and what the right hand possesses:



“It is not lawful for you (to marry other) women after this, nor to change them for other wives even though their beauty attracts you, except those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses. And Allah is Ever a Watcher over all things.” Surah 33:52



Tafsir of this ayat take from Mawdudi’s The Meaning of the Qur’an:

Book 10, page 137, footnote no. 94
“This verse explains why one is permitted to have conjugal relations with one’s slave-girls besides the wedded wives, and there is no restriction on their number. The same thing has also been stated in Surah An-Nisa:3; Al-Mu’minun:6; and Al-Ma’arij:30. In all these verses the slave-girls have been mentioned as a separate class from the wedded wives, and conjugal relations with them have been permitted. Moreover, verse 3 of Surah An-Nisa lays down the number of the wives as four, but neither has Allah fixed the number of the slave-girls in that verse nor made any allusion to their number in the other relevant verses. Here, of course, the Holy Prophet is being addressed and told: ‘It is no more lawful for you to take other women in marriage, or divorce any of the present wives and take another wife in her stead; slave-girls, however, are lawful.’ This shows no restriction has been imposed in respect of slave-girls.``


And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts). Except with their wives and the (women slaves and captives) whom their right hand possess,--for (then) they are not to be blamed.” Surah 70:29-30

Tafsir on this ayat refers you to Tafsir of Surah 23:6


“Except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess,--for then, they are free from blame;” Surah 23:6

“(1) Two categories of women have been excluded from the general command of guarding the private parts: (a) wives, (b) women who are legally in one’s possession, i.e. slave-girls. Thus the verse clearly lays down the law that one is allowed to have sexual relations with one’s slave-girl as with one’s wife, the basis being possession and not marriage. If marriage had been the condition, the slave-girl also would have been included among the wives, and there was no need to mention them separately…..” Meaning of the Qur’an Book 8, page 10, footnote 7.


“Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you…..” Surah 4:24


Tafsir of Mawdudi, Book2, page 112, footnote 44:

“That is, ‘Those women, who became prisoners of war, while their husbands are left behind in the War Zone, are not unlawful because their marriage ties have been broken by the fact that they have come into the Islamic Zone. It is lawful to marry such women and make them wives, and it is also lawful for those, in whose possession they are, to have sexual relations with them.

Unless the captive women are falling over themselves to have sex with the smelly barbarian beardos, one would think that this amounts to sanctioning rape of captive slave (lower status) women.

Re: # 403

Krishna

It was a good retort to themad32, but may I ask why you repeated the abusive epithet about me?

#okla: read what i wrote carefully first.

you missed the point i was making, so let me repeat it - the judiciary may be constrained by the facts of the case as presented to it by the prosecutor. but the police is not constrained in collecting the necessary evidence.

now do you get it?

and i didnt call you mediocre, so spare me that.

teshah: read the above, and tell me what part you have difficulty understanding.

Re: # 402

Dear Tahmed,

Read the full text of the High Court judgment. After that read #358 carefully. You will find common ``perverse observations and inferences`` in both. The ``logic`` followed by both (not ``identical`` but not ``completely dissimilar`` either and ``common in a few respects``) is abhorrent and appears unacceptable to any rational mind.That is why the Supreme Court could set aside the judgment as bad in law and not susainable.

And of course, the term ``mediocre`` is definitely reserved for people like me , the ``hoi polloi`` of chowk. There is a certain amount of bliss in mediocrity. There are no claims to superior intellect , no imaginary ``institutes`` with imaginary ``students`` and no racing for the imaginary ``nobel prize``. Masadi, BJK, Zeemax etc can kick us around with their sarcasm (often misplaced) but we keep bouncing back to Chowk with interacts these guys find ``irritating``.

BTW, this weekend is going to be fishing & beer.

Re: # 405

Mind your language dear okhla. It is very easy to be nasty but I don`t think chowk is a fit place for that.

Re: # 407

Oye Teshah,

You find use of words like ``perverse``, ``abhorrent`` and ``unacceptable`` to be ``nasty language`` ???

Man, you are out of this world.

unless of course, you object to the beering & the fishing.

Re #393,
``...bad news when the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that they could not issue “khula” divorces to women who did not have the consent of their husbands. This decision leaves countless women facing abuse helpless and entirely dependent on their husbands..``

This statement is not correct.
A petition has been filed before the Federal Shariat Court to challenge the right of khula without husband`s consent. This right has been there since 1967. From the initial comments, the FSC does not seem sympathetic to the petition.
Perhaps the following news item was misinterpreted.

``LAHORE, Feb 28: A full bench of the Federal Shariat Court (FSC) admitted on Wednesday 12 identical petitions on Khula or a plea by a woman for divorce, for hearing. The bench said the petitions would be heard at the principal seat and provincial branch registries.

A statement issued by the court read the petitions had raised the issue whether court was empowered to dissolve a marriage through Khula without the consent of a husband. The petitions stated that court had no power to dissolve a marriage without consent of a husband.

The bench observed that two Supreme Court judgments in 1945 and 1952 had held that court was not empowered to dissolve the marriage through Khula while another Supreme Court judgment in 1967 ruled that court was empowered to dissolve the marriage without the consent of a husband.

The full bench, consisting of Chief Justice Haziqul Khairi and justices Allama Dr Fida Muhammad Khan and Salahuddin Mirza, observed that there were two precedents — Jameela and Bareera cases — in the life of the Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) supporting Khula.

Deciding these cases, the Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) observed tense relations between the husbands and their wives and ordered the men to divorce their wives against dower or property gifted to them.

The court will also consult religious scholars, lawyers and jurists apart from counsel of federal and provincial governments in the cases.``

Re: # 398

Dear Khurram - That`s such a pleasant news!

I have been so sad to read that one para that I was getting a bad headache. I even shed a few real tears(and not the crocodile ones that have been attributed to me previously) on the plight of our women in Pakistan.

Can you please send a note to anaa and update them on the latest developments provided they are still applicable after all the hustle bustle in the upper echelons of the legal system in Pakistan?

Buhat Buhat Shukriya. Nawazish.

Regards.

... so this hindoo bigot plagiarist is now finding solace in the sympathy of some simplistic naive `nek perveen` type ``Pakistani Sisters``.

#392 by ZahraJ

I salute those great ladies – my Pakistani sisters – who struggle under tremendous odds of the combined powers of a khaki dictatorship, mullah rule, wishy-washy politicians and a very apathetic male AND female population. My darlings, if there is any hope for your country, it is based in you and for all practical purposes, in you alone. Focus on the young, my dears, where there is still the potential of innovative ideas and original thoughts – where the mind has not atrophied – and where there is still the innocence to ask the most basic questions – “what are we all about” – and the ability to ask of your atrocity-makers – “who gave you the right?” – and hopefully someday an ability to say – “I refuse you….I will accept it no more, no more, no more…!”

Keep that hope alive, my sisters – and pass it on to those little dots that blink uncertainly now. Shelter them with your palms, and your bosoms, and your courage, and your compassion – so the light that matters can keep going on and get stronger over time.

The oppressors can wrap all the burqas of the world around you – but the thoughts are your own! They can never make you think their thoughts unless you let them! Hang on to your own thoughts with all your might – and you will remain the independent individual that you were made to be by the greatest Maker of them all!

Even the darkest of the nights must end in the light of the morning. Keep looking and never stop looking – looking for that first ray of light, the harbinger of the unstoppable!

It can not be long now!

Re: # 395

BJK - I suggest you share your heartfelt emotions directly with anaa. I am sure they will appreciate those.

Regards.

Note: And let the uncouth testosterones jump up and down and disintegrate.

#385 by okhla99

That`s why I called you a mediocre, and you`ve just proven it beyond any doubt:

``The Multan bench of the High Court followed the same ``logic `` as Teshah in acquitting the rapists in the Mukhtaran Mai case. ``

So, you`re saying the Multan Bench ruled that Mai was falsely alleging rape for personal gains and acquitted the rapists, because that`s what your friend is saying.