Marital Rape

How can you say this even after countless tragedies like those of Saima Waheed ? The concr daughter to get married (and the concept of ``Wali``) is part of an Islamic concept (imported and alien to us). It is not part of Pakistani culture. Yet even today thousands of underage girls are sold to Arabs (while the Arabs wage their sectarian proxy wars on our subcontinent) and Pakistani parents kidnap their own daughters on a daily basis from Europe and America so that they may be forcefully married and imprisoned in Pakistan.

Muslims regard Ibn Taymiyaa as the ``Sheikh of Islam``. He truly is. He is the author of great many huge volumes on various subjects. From his works if we open Vol. 32, pp. 29 and 30, we read,

``Even if the virgin is an adult, her father may force her to get married. This is in accordance with Malik Ibn Ons, al-Shafi and Ibn Hanbal’s.``

On page 39, he also states:

``The young virgin can be forced by her father to get married without being consulted.``

This is the verdict of Ibn Taymiyaa who was joined by some great Legalists (Remember the clerics and Imams derive their ``fatawa`` from the Quran and Ahadith) such as Imam Shafii, Imam Malik, Ibn Hanbal, and the professors of Islamic law at the inception of Islam in M and Madina. Most Arabs and most Islamic countries embrace their teaching. Actually, if we study Malik Ibn Ons book (Vol. 2, p. 155), we read:

``A father can force his virgin daughter, his maid-slave and his male-slave to get married.``

What is Ibn Hazm’s opinion concerning the daughter’s marriage? How can we ignore the opinion of the chief Legalists of Islam in this respect? It is well known that Ibn Hazm also composed huge volumes of books on various topics on which all contemporary Muslim scholars rely because he is one of the greatest scholars of the Islamic law through the ages. In his sixth volume, part 9 of his book al-Muhalla (``The Sweetened``, pp. 458-460), he says,

``A father may give his consent to have his young virgin daughter married without obtaining her permission, for she does not have a choice, exactly as Abu Bakar Al Siddiqui did to his daughter, Aisha, when she was six years old. He married her to the prophet Muhammad without her permission.``

Then Ibn Hazm adds:

``Even if she was deflowered (previously married and divorced, or a widow) as long as she is young and has not reached the legal age, her father may force her to marry without obtaining her permission.``

As long as she is a virgin or just still young, she can be forced to get married without her consent. These are unequivocal, plain words. ``Without her consent``, and ``does not have any choice.`` These are the cruel words which a free human conscience utterly rejects and detests because it is related to the most important subject in a girl’s life, that is, her body and her future.

If enrolling in a certain school or seeking employment for a particular job, even buying a house or a car, should be in accordance with a person’s choice, how much more should choice control the issue of a girl’s marriage? We acknowledge that a girl should consult with her parents in this matter, and their duty is to offer their sound opinions to protect her interest and future, but we cannot understand or even imagine that a father may force her to get married to a man she does not know and has never met. This is Islam!

These are not just mere words. This is actually what happened to the prophet of Islam because Abu Bakr, al Siddique who was Muhammad’s friend, wed him to his daughter, Aisha, when she was six years old, and the consummation marriage took place when she was nine years old, according to all the Muslim scholars and Chroniclers, without exception. Even Aisha related the story of her marriage. Muhammad narrates having wetdreams about Aisha when she was three years old (and he was in his 50s!) and there are sound ahadith about a wife so young she used to play with her dolls.

The difference in their ages was 45 years! Muhammad at that time was 54 years old, the age of her grandfather, but what is significant for us now is not the great difference in age, but rather Aisha’s marriage without her permission. Even she was taken by surprise when she found out about it.

What about a son? In part nine, page 462, Ibn Hazm stresses that it is not permissible for the father to force his son to get married.

The reader may be interested to read the text recorded in Sahih Muslim (Vol. 3, p. 577) with the commentary of al-Nawawi, because this book is a basic, indispensable book. Aisha said,

``The messenger of God betrothed me when I was six years old and then married me when I was nine years old.``

This is a clear text which makes it permissible for a father to make his daughter marry without obtaining her permission. All Muslims consent to that (with the exception of those who intend to obfuscate the truth by denying their own sources), and she did not have the option of nullifying this marriage which her father planned. This is according to Malik, al-Shafi’i and the rest of Hejaz Legalists.

This was from Sahih Muslim, and a similar text is reiterated several times in Sahih al-Bukhari, part 7.

HLAHIL #398 Study the Quran, you idiot, and you will realize how far off track you are. I will ignore your personal insults.

HLAHIL#398

Aap Kasar Nafsi Se Kam Le Rahe Hain.

Maulana has not changed the life of thousands, but millions.

We are still in darkness, illiteracy, poverty, and Military Rule (thanks to the great visionary called Maulana Mowdudi)

Do you believe Maulana Mowdudi when he said that It is better to bury alive the wommen rather than sending them for nursing.

And his disciple Mian Tufail said ``These modern women needs to dragged with their hairs in streets.

Bhai HLAHIL Yahan Kahan Aa Gaye. Mansoora Jayiye. Aap Ki Har Baat Pai Pe Log Sur Hilain Gai. Agar Aap Islam Ka Naam Le Kar Sharab Bhi Pi Lain To Koi Nahin Pooche Ga.

1.
----
http://www.dawn.com/2001/01/08/letted.htm#6
Facts about Hudood laws

ORDINARILY I would refrain from joining issue with a colleague lawyer but since Ms Shahida Jamil holds a responsible ministry of law, justice and human rights, as such her letter to the editor dated 23.12.2000 must be responded to.

The honourable minister admits that the reporting of her interview published on 9.12.2000 was correct but the caption was misleading. She presumes that every person reacts by reading headlines alone. Let me assure her that I am a serious news reader and do not simply glance through the papers as a past-time.

Ms Jameel`s contention that the Hudood laws are not discriminatory and their implementation makes them so, is not correct. This controversy gives her an excellent opportunity to clarify her position. For example, does the law minister consider that the evidence of four male Muslim witnesses for awarding Hadd punishment for rape and zina are fair and not discriminatory?

I know that the Hadd punishment has so far not been executed but as long as the law remains operative, it can beimplemented. Does she support this provision which makes the evidence of women inadmissible?

The law minister is rightly shocked at the number of accused who are released because of lack of evidence in karo kari cases. The root cause is systematic discrimination of women in law and society. She must also be informed that many accused have been convicted but given very light sentences. Our courts have ruled that killing of ``immoral`` women, is an act of ``honour``, because of provocation offered by such women. The law allows the victim`s heirs to forgive the accused. In almost 90% of karo kari cases, it is the family themselves who kill women. Is this law gender sensitive?

I am advised by the law minister to read Shariat closely. No one practising in Pakistan can avoid doing so. ``Nikah`` according to Shariat is fundamental and is common knowledge. However, the reality on the ground remains that in a number of cases ``Nikah`` takes place but ``Rukhsati`` is postponed. Under the law, a husband may rape his wife before ``Rukhsati`` but will not be liable for any punishment. Is this correct or not? If this is the position in law, then does the law minister consider this act of rape as a crime or a right of the husband? The law minister, I presume, is also aware of cases where after the rape had been committed a Nikahnama was manufactured as a defence and the accused acquitted. This would not have been possible if the law recognised marital rape as an offence.

The letter has amazed me, as the law minister defends the provision in the Quanoon-e-Shahadat, where the testimony of women is not at par with men. She has done so on the assumption that this is a form of protective legislation. She, however, failed to elucidate how are women afforded protection by this provision and from whom? I fail to see how equating the testimony of two women to that of one man in matters relating to future and financial obligation helps women. Giving evidence, is not a matter of privilege but a necessity. Women cannot be deprived of their right to do so under the garb of protection. Incidentally the Nawabpur incident is misquoted as it had no nexus with the evidence of women. The law minister may check her facts.

I do hope, the law minister will respond, so that her position on these issues is further clarified.

ASMA JAHANGIR
Lahore


2.
----
http://www.dawn.com/2001/01/16/letted.htm#11
Facts about Hudood laws

I refer to the letter from Ms Asma Jahangir on the above subject (Dawn Jan 8).

I do not wish to enter in legal debate. But her two remarks have hurt me deeply. She has posed two questions, rather sarcastically, relating to Hudood laws, presumably not realising that she has questioned the Quranic injunctions themselves.
She says:

Does the law minister consider that the evidence of four male Muslim witnesses for awarding Hadd punishment for rape and zina are fair and not discriminatory?``

``I fail to see how equating the testimony of two women to that of one man in matters relating to future and financial obligation helps women. Giving evidence, is not a matter of privilege but a necessity. Women cannot be deprived of their right to do so under the garb of protection.``

I would requested her to go through the Quranic verses 4:15 and 2:282 to remove her derision. She will find the Quranic injunctions very clear and unambiguous on the two subjects. If she has any other interpretation of these verses, it is her choice. There is no compulsion in Deen.

ISHRAT HUSAIN

Karachi


3.
----
http://www.dawn.com/2001/01/27/letted.htm#5
Evidence of women

ON January 16, Mr Irshad Hussain has once again asked me to go through the Quranic verses 4.15 and 2:282 regarding evidence of women. He alleges that I was sarcastic in my letter. No Sir, I was dead earnest in knowing the official view of the law.

Also, let me inform Mr Hussain, that I have gone through these Quranic verses several times. It is not my interpretation of Shariat but that of the government which eventually becomes the foundation of law. So far, the government has also come up with more than one interpretation.

In 1983, the government of Ziaul Haq proposed a law of evidence. The ulema and government spokesmen insisted that the law was based on the correct interpretation of Islam. After a public outcry, the draft law was changed and subsequently promulgated.

If the first interpretation was correct, then the government should have stuck to their position. If not, then surely even Islamized government can make an error on interpretation.

Please also read the decision of Hazoor Baksh by the Federal Shariat Court, First they ruled that stoning to death was un-Islamic. On review, after the removal of the chief justice and elevation of two other people on the bench, who appeared as jurist consults, in the original petition, the decision was overturned.

It is easy to silence people by climbing on the pedestal of religion, but people can see through such tactics.

ASMA JAHANGIR

Lahore

RE tahmed #379

Thank you very much for your insight about Syed Moudoodi, his work and his forefathers.I am sure you feel much better about yourself after your bukwas.You must suffer from low self esteem.If you had met Moudoodi or read anything about him you would have notice he not did look like a bhungi like you.Moudood is a place in Afghanistan where his forefathers migrated from like so many other Muslims during the Mulim era in Hindutan.This is a man who changed the lives of hundreds of thousand people and changed the into men of character.A man who is master of DALEEL and author of the most read Tafseer of Quran.You are spitting on the moon.let me end this with an old saying ``SAVAN KE AUNDHE TO HURA HE HURA NAZAR AATA HEY``

Mospel:

Your post was very pertinent, but there were a few questions that were raised pertaining to the cultural practices and social issues, I do not think they were well addressed or were addressed at all! Sigalph has raised a very poignant thought that I have been meaning to reply, but could not do so due to time limitations. My apologies to Sigalph! Ras Siddiqui has been doing the job of a journalist - collecting stuff from all the possible news services. Both have been contributing a great deal to this otherwise dull thread. They should be commended!

Take Care

hello friends:)

well...this conversation has gone haywire...to find the correct path again, please see reply # 101. You`ll find all the answers there.

Aurangzeb Haneef

correction: my last post should have referenced Ras`s #393, not 383.

re. Ras #383,

Why should news this surprise anyone? Islam, after all, clearly states that a woman cannot be forced into a marriage without consent. This was hardly a difficult decision for the courts to have reached, as it is easily consistent with Shariah.

From The BBC;
A very important court ruling in Pakistan at:

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1133000/1133843.stm

Ras

Re: #391

``---Like I said, it won`t go through the heads of people who don`t want it to go through....``

I already mentioned that i donot have any problems with your beliefs watever it is. Now just doNot impose your own supposed beliefs on others. Read again the first few lines of my previous post.

Its better to give arguments than to present a lame commentary of the oppostie side`s supposed intentions in place of arguments because then there is no point in discussing anything as one side already had msigivings about the other.

``---by the way Jeffrey Lang is a muslim, why do u thing his book is called Struggling to surrender!--``

I didnt know that he is a muslim. Thanks for correcting me. But thats besides the point. I didnt call his watever book anything. He has every right and choice to have watever beliefs like you, like me like everyone else in the world. As, i said earlier.

But islam has problems with that.

Infact the personalities i mentioned before,unlike Zia ul Haq and Qazi Sahib, Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King were not fortunate enough to embrace islam.

To go on further, Even within islam there are deep rooted disagreements on the context of different injunctions that are given in Quran and Hadith. The two foremost sources of islamic doctrine. One example you presented yourself in your last post when you wrote about a rather different (than the classic ones like ghazali)view thats been taken by the modern writers on a quranic verse.

This whole scenario (though i hate to write the whole damn thing again) defies totalistic Islam`s own assertion to be the only and absolute Truth that every human has to accept after Mohammed so as to avoid the divine wrath.

``---and i`d recommend you Muhammad Asad`s book, The Message``

Thanx for recommending me... I would like to see how modern writers are faring in elaborating on a 1400 years old doctrine without defying its Essence in its totality. Though some as you already wrote about had already did.

Peace to all.

Bugger off.

Like I said, it won`t go through the heads of people who don`t want it to go through....

by the way Jeffrey Lang is a muslim, why do u thing his book is called Struggling to surrender!

and i`d recommend you Muhammad Asad`s book, The Message

Wassalam

Raw_Dust #388 Kindly refrain from naming these Godless thugs - Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Zia ul Haq - in the same sentence as common people like us, far less in the same sentence as a selfless individual as Mother Teresa or a non-violent revolutionary as Martin Luther King.

PM #386

But most people on Chowk try to see these phenomenon through religious eyes rather than culture and socio-economic status.

Re #326

---From these observations, many modern writers contend tht verse 2:282 was never meant to be a general stipulation.--

Well... to be very brief i would say its the matter of choice. You buy the interpretation of those so called modern writers, coz they somehow make the whole thing accomodating into the Whole of your creed. Fine, suit yourself.

The only little problem is many muslims (should i say orthodox??) would first like to Contend this interpretation itself. Many classical interpretations would disagree with these mellow interpretations of non-muslim theologians. There are whole lot of references of Imam ghazali you could find in an article published here earlier or just see Molana Mowdoodi`s Purdah.

These conflicts in interpretations show how much Islam is vulnerable in its concept of presenting itself as a truly Universal religion whose professed ideologues (the injunctions given in quran and hadith upon which there is no room for ijmaa) are meant to be undulterated and to be applied in its entirety to every human wherever and whenever he/she existed in space and time after Mohammed whether is he/she be a celebrity like Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Zia ul Haq etc or of a common type like us.

over and out.

krashid #384 Thanks for explaining. Too bad we dont have any real mullahs on chowk. I guess being on chowk requires some minimum interest in silly things like reading and writing when it is much more fun to yell out one`s opinions before a captive audience (in the mosque or at the wrong end of the loudspeaker) without the indignity of having one`s views challenged.