Fight Hudood, Protect Women

GT #52,
I don`t know.

Zeena #53,
You are referring to the case of Safia Bibi. Her rapists were acquited for lack of evidence NOT lack of 4 witnesses or any reason related to the Hudood ordinance. She was convicted of Zina because her pregnancy was considered proof of illegal sex. This judgement was appealed before the Federal Shariat Court. The FSC threw out the conviction. In its judgement the FSC ruled that failure to prove rape was not equivalent to proof of consensual sex. Safia Bibi`s claim of rape was sufficient to presume her innocence, inspite of her pregnancy. She did not have the burden of proving her innocence.
``In the present case, it is clear that except the self-exculpatory statement of the girl and the statement of her father, who also maintained that she had been subjected to zina-bil-jabr, there is no other evidence. In Shariah, if a girl makes a statement as made in the present case, she cannot be convicted of Zina.”[Mst. Safia Bibi vs. The State (PLD 1985 FSC 120)]

For the record, I do not support the Hudood Ordinance becuase I do not support criminalization of consensual sex. But the other allegations against the Hudood Ordinance are not valid.

Urstruly mian,

Why are you lying as usual out of your teeth. Being on the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court is not the same as being the Supreme Court Justice. This fellow Taqi Usmani... a real freak of nature (which is why I am not surprised that Chowk`s resident freak of nature has quoted him) was never a Supreme Court Justice but was a mullah appointed to the Shariat Appellate Bench... yes he was your favorite Zia-ul-Haq`s appointee to the Shariat Appellate Bench ... yes the same Zia ul Haq who was as much an unconstitutional dictator as the current fellow ... if not more.

So why are you trying to come up niceties. Freak Taqi Usmani is the product of a corrupted system and is a slap on the face of Muslims. Why are you trying to present him as something he was not...

(ofcourse I know why... because you need to buttress your argument - an argument which cannot be buttressed)

Waisay why is that True Muslims like Urstruly lie more than other not so true Muslims?

Re: # 67

Oye Mirzai, you call yourself a lawyer?? Check the Pakistan Supreme courts website.

Ah back to ``Mirzai this`` and that...

This freak Taqi Usmani was an Alim appointee by General Zia-ul-Freak to the five member Shariat Appellate bench which also had three Supreme Court justices.... Taqi Usmani was never appointed to the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

Get your facts straight... though having dealt with you, I know for a fact that a liar like you will never get his facts straight....

Re: # 69

Yes Mirzai, you started this level of discousrse so now as it is said in Punjabi ``ghutto na``.

I do not think Taqi Usmani is claiming to be anything other than what you are saying, whereas you are making his appointment as a member of Appelette bench of Pakistan Supreme court as some kind of moral deficiency. Oye Mirzai, this is called ad homminum, and it is used when you do not really have an argument.

....in the end, if a community/group wants rights, it has to fight for it on its own......others aren`t going to do much about it.......amongst such a community, the more well-off have to lead that fight.......blacks fought for their rights on their own and eventually got them....women in the west fought for them on their own and eventually got them.....in both cases led by the more affluent amongst their own communities......

.......this is a major problem that pakistan faces.....the more affluent in pakistan usually aren`t interested in social causes......amongst women, very few are interested in leading any social changes.......in fact, very few are even interested in personal growth and changes.........

.....the above is true for pakistanis in most areas......in that sense, i think women are objectified quite a bit.........those for a pro-religious system, tend to use the topic of women to push an agenda......the more secular do the same.........one wants to hold a marathon, which on the whole really doesn`t do much for women (how many women run in pakistan?)....but it pushes a political agenda.......others try to stop it, for their own political agendas........

...........i tend to agree with masadi on social changes that need to be made.......hudood ordinance is one aspect.......it should be removed.....but it will make a tiny little change in teh overall picture........as an overwhelming portion of the the problems that women face, at least in my opinion, are not related to religion......they have faced these problems in these geographical areas for thousands of years, more than likely......way before islam arrived.......

.......the problems are a lack of empowerment.........removing the hudood ordinances will change the lives of a few thousand women........(though it iwll be a major political victory in the secular /religious war for certain groups).....but it will not do much for women.....though i agree, it still should be removed...........

......removing feudalism and the barbaric tribal rules under which women are forced to live is really what is going to make a difference........ironically, the groups pushing for the removal of hudood are themselves the biggest feudals and tribals...........it is a bit ironic that the person who led the passing of the women`s rights protection bill in the parliament recently is amin fahim - a man who has four sisters married to the quran.........it was also supported by a man named khar - who has eight wives and whose son (allegedly) threw acid on a girl........these are the stalwarts of the most pro-women political party in pakistan!!!

....i hope most pakistani women realize that with, ``friends`` like these, who needs enemies......

this, then, is the tragedy of women in pakistan.......they are shuttlecocks in the perverse game of political bandminton between secular feudal/tribals and religious mullahs......both of whom really have little interest in improving the status of women........and they have very little leadership from their own affluent classes..........

....hence any pakistani woman relying on the amin fahims and/or qazi husseins (or benazirs or musharrafs etc.) to assist them is going to be disappointed..........these guys are simply trying to score political points, using women (and hudood ordinances etc.) as an object.....

....what women need are more mukhtaran mais......maybe a thousand of them......and, unfortunately, i don`t see the affluent women in pakistan having enough courage to take such leadership positions for social change..........

Article: 203F Appeal to Supreme Court

---

1[203F. Appeal to Supreme Court.-- (1) Any party to any proceedings before the Court under Article 203D aggrieved by the final decision of the Court in such proceedings may, within sixty days of such decision, prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court 2[:]
2[Provided that an appeal on behalf of the Federation or of a Province may be preferred within six months of such decision.]

(2) The provisions of clauses (2) and (3) of Article 203D and clauses (4) to (8) of Article 203E shall apply to and in relation to the Supreme Court as if reference in those provisions to Court were a reference to the Supreme Court.

3[(2A) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence of the Federal Shariat Court.-

(a) if the Federal Shariat Court has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding fourteen years; or, on revision, has enhanced a sentence as aforesaid;

(b) if the Federal Shariat Court has imposed any punishment on any person for contempt of the Court.

(2B) An appeal to the Supreme Court from a Judgment, decision, order or sentence of the Federal Shariat Court in a case to which the preceding clauses do not apply shall lie only if the Supreme Court grants leave to appeal.]

4[(3) For the purpose of the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by this Article, there shall be constituted in the Supreme Court a Bench to be called the Shariat Appellate Bench and consisting of.-

(a) three Muslim Judges of the Supreme Court; and

(b) not more than two Ulema to be appointed by the President to attend sittings of the Bench as ad hoc members thereof from amongst the Judges of the Federal Shariat Court or from out of a panel of Ulema to be drawn up by the
President in consultation with the Chief Justice.]

(4) A person appointed under paragraph (b) of clause (3) shall hold office for such period as the President may determine.

(5) Reference in clauses (1) and (2) to ``Supreme Court`` shall be construed as a reference to the Shariat Appellate Bench.

(6) While attending sittings of the Shariat Appellate Bench, a person appointed under paragraph (b) of clause (3) shall have the same power and jurisdiction, and be entitled to the same privileges, as a Judge of the Supreme Court and be paid such allowances as the President may determine.]

---

1. Section 3 of the Constitution (Amendment) Order, 1980 (P.O. No. 1 of 1980), in substituting a new chapter 3A, added Art. 203F, (w.e.f. June 5, 1980).
2. Section 2 of the Constitution (Third Amendment) Order 1983, P.O. No. 9 of 1983, Substituted a ``colon`` for the ``full stop`` at the end of clause 1 of Art. 203F, and added the proviso thereto, (w.e.f. July 28,1983).

3. Section 6 of the Constitution (Second Amendment) Order, 1982, P.O. No. 5 of 1982, inserted clauses 2A and 2B to Art. 203F, (w.e.f. March 22, 1982).

4. Section 2 of the Constitution (Third Amendment) Order, 1982, P.O. No. 12 of 1982, substituted clause 3 of Art. 203F, in its present form, (w.e.f. August 15, 1982), in place of the clause as inserted by section 3 of the Constitution (Amendment) Order, 1980, P.O. No. 1 of 1980, (w.e.f. May 27, 1980), that read :
``(3) For the purpose of the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by this Article, there shall be constituted in the Supreme Court a Bench consisting of three Muslim Judges of the Supreme Court, to be called the Shariat Appellate Bench, and reference in the preceding clauses to ``Supreme Court`` shall be construed as a reference to the Shariat Appellate Bench.``



......


From Grand Freak Taqi Usmani`s website extolling his divinity:

http://www.taqiusmani.com/default.cfm?tbid=tbp_content&rule=view&id=5&xPg=25/Biography


Taqi Usmani was merely a Judge of the Shariat Appellate Bench appointed by General Zia ul Freak in 1982.



So who is this freak Untruly trying to fool?

untruly,

You have referred to the Grand freak Taqi Usmani as a Supreme Court Justice... instead of what he really is... a third rate mullah appointee of a freak General of your persuasion.

Calling me Mirzai is not going to hurt me... if you are the standard of a Muslim... I`d rather not be one.

#57 by abu_safwaan

Before any laws come into existence there are committees full of knowledgeable people on the subject, which gather all relevant information for the issues, these are fact checked for their accuracy, then this body of knowledge is presented to the legislature which debates the pros and cons of each and every factor. Looks at the effects of the legislation, develops nuances to prevent anybody from getting hurt from it. This then is finally passed by the legislature and becomes law. But if the Supreme Court finds that there are elements in the law which violate the constitution i.e do not protect minority rights they can send it back to the assemblies and prevent it to become law (otherwise we are always fearful to descend into the tyranny of the majority or mob rule).

Similar process took place when the Hudood Laws were implemented, with one caveat. It was the Ulema, all the learned scholars who were selected for their expertise in the Quran, Sunnah and Islamic jurisprudence put into a committee. They debated among themselves and came to an agreement as to what the Sharia says. This was passed by the assemblies and became law.

I was not asking for an individual opinion, or what an aalim may say on the subject whether its DNA evidence, or quotation of relevant ayahs from the Quran or sunnah of the prophet. I can make similar arguments myself.

What I want to know is that: according to the Sharia Law as it has been formulated, ratified and implemented in Pakistan – what are the laws which have been broken, what are the statutes that have been violated, the burdens of proof required and remedies offered.

I am certain that among this august gathering of chowk scholars, we should be able to get the answers. Otherwise it is just another set of talking heads waddling in fog on a trip to nowhere

Pray tell Tehsin Abbasi.... what assemblies existed in 1979 when the Hudood Ordinances were passed and made law?

Why are all ``true Muslims`` liars of the highest order?

#65
actually Khurram the allegations are valid. Urstruly and people like him always look at the wrong side of the coin and then try to prove their faulty points with illogical statements - they remind me of another idiot ``zeemax``. The problem with Hudood ordinance is not just how women were treated AFTER they were arrested but that they were put in jail in the first place without any proof. With Hudood ordinance in place any dari-wala could go to the police and ask for any woman (be it his sister or wife etc) to be arrested for adultery. Police would get the woman first, put her in jail and then put the onus on her to prove her innocence. The point is that any law which presumes a person to be guilty until proven inoocent is draconian in nature and should be abolished.
Why does a dari-wala only has to scream that a non-muslim talked about Islam and/or our prophet in bad terms and the non-muslim will not only be put in jail but tortured to no extent without giving him due process. Can you ask Urstruly how he will justify that idiotic law?
To answer urstruly, one cannot allow these dari-walas to enforce Islamic laws. They themselves have no knowledge of true Islam and unless there are better institutions to teach the right Islam nobody should be preaching, especially the mullahs. They twist Islamic teachings and prove their point by qouting weak ahadiths when they find nothing in Quran to support their theories. I still remember the Aalim Online where one of these animals actually tried to prove that in case of rape a woman should still be punishable. That shows the true mentality of these idiots. It is much better to prepare the educated class first because with education, people will realize that in order to learn Islam they dont have to listen to these dari-walas. They can actually open Quran and learn everything themselves.

Re: # 73

Your information is incorrect. The Shariat Appelett bench of Supreme Court has two categories of appointment; one category is that of advisors and the others are the ad hoc judges. These judges review the constitutional cases and appeals, just as the the Supreme Court Judges. Taqi usmani was appointed (all judges are appointed by the way) as judge and not as an advisor. Sometime in early Musharaf period he was relegated to the advisory role when he retired.

Untruly,

So the constitution (the same one you claim to love) is lying? As usual you are a liar and without shame... probably because you are a ``true Muslim`` which you never let us forget... Supreme Court Justices specifically are those who are on Supreme Court Bench ..... the list that Supreme Court website also gives.. which includes only those who are on the bench of the Supreme Court. Three of them are also on the bench of SC and SAB... but Taqi Usmani was never on the SC bench.

The Shariat Appellate Bench is constituted by sending three justices from SC bench to SA Bench.... and appointing two Mullah freaks to complete the bench of five judges... For your erroneous claim to be true... you will have to prove that this Grand Freak Taqi Usmani was ever appointed to the SC bench... which you can`t and which is why you are a true Muslim indeed.

There was nothing in SC Website... contrary to your claims that proved your ridiculous claim to be true... as soon as I return to Islamabad, I will respond in detail and prove that you are indeed a frikkin` liar without match.

More evidence that Untruly is a two bit liar... and Cancer clot`s brother from another mother:


Article: 177 Appointment of Supreme Court Judges

---

177. Appointment of Supreme Court Judges.-(1) The Chief Justice of Pakistan shall be appointed by the President, and each of the other Judges shall be appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice.

(2) A person shall not be appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court unless he is a citizen of Pakistan and-

(a) has for a period of, or for periods aggregating, not less than five years been a Judge of a High Court (Including a High Court which existed in Pakistan at any time before the commencing day); or

(b) has for a period of, or for periods aggregating not less than fifteen years been an advocate of a High Court (including a High Court which existed in Pakistan at any time before the commencing day.)



....


Grand freak Taqi Usmani was never a judge of the High Court... and did not practise law ... So how would he become eligible to become a Supreme Court Justice?

Re #76,
``....they were put in jail in the first place without any proof....``
The Hudood Ordinance does not deal with the procedure of arrests, FIR or any such thing.
What it did was criminalize consensual sex. That exposed a lot of women to the inefficient and corrupt criminal system of Pakistan. Any criminal in Pakistan can be arrested and jailed when accused. And they can stay there for a long time if they cannot post bail, even if they are innocent. Consensual sex became like any other crime. A lot of women ended up in jail, many no doubt innocent.

``Police would get the woman first, put her in jail and then put the onus on her to prove her innocence. The point is that any law which presumes a person to be guilty until proven inoocent is draconian in nature and should be abolished. ``

This is incorrect. Burden of proof was still on prosecution. Women were in jail because they were charged with a crime and could not make bail. Just like any other criminal. The long delays and miscarriage of justice are a part of the Pakistani criminal justice system and all accused (many innocent) suffer from it. The Hudood ordinance added a large number of women to the list by criminalizing consensual sex.