Women and Divine Decrees

Irrespective of all the trivial rigmarole, the important points made by nazarhayatkhan and mantolives should be understood and promoted.
Till Pakistan adopts stances outlined in their statements, there is no saving of THE GREAT MISTAKE, that Pakistan is.

PM #6: ``Your ascription of equal blame t the `secualrists` in Pakistan is strange, to say the least. Kindly inform us on who are or have been the prime voices for these folks, and give us an idea as to the impact they have had on Pak polity, in the way the way the fundos have.``

Interesting question. It deserves an answer.

My blame is not on normal well-meaning secular or religious people. I place blame on the ones who use secularism and Islam for their own benefit. And on individuals who are unwilling to accept the existence of the other group. And on individuals who are unwilling to accept that there can be good religious and good secular people and leaders. This is the group I consider to be fanatics. Unfortunately, each group is unwilling to see the fanatics within their own ranks.

First of all, I agree with everything in this article. So I would not include anything in this article under the areas of secular extremism. In fact, more articles like this one are needed. Everything in this article should be implemented. And far more. Hudood laws, blasphemy laws, any other such laws are ridiculous. Along with that, those of an Islamic persuasion, should realize these laws have nothing to do with Islam (based on whatever Islam I have studied). I do not know why no govt. gets rid of them. I think these govts. are overly scared of maulvis.

Each Pakistani, regardless of religion, should live under humane laws. More so, in case of Pakistan, there should be massive affirmative action for women. And equal or even more massive affirmative action of religious minorities. If there is any country that needs it, it is Pakistan. The only place where I have seen religious minorities being treated relatively fairly (though not completely fairly), in Pakistan, is in the military. And the only time, I have practiced neoptism in my life (and plan to continue practicing it) is when I get job applications from Pakistani girls with IT degrees. Not exactly ethical, but someone might as well benefit, from all the hard knocks I have had to go through, to get where I am.

I think all this nonsense about declaring one sect non-Muslim, and another Muslim, is exactly that, i.e. nonsense. Are Ahmedis Muslim or non-Muslims? I really don’t know, nor do I care. Do I think that the gentleman Ahmedis consider to be the messiah, is one? No, I do not. But I also don’t think I have the right to declare anyone non-Muslim. Specially, since I don’t even know whether I am one, myself.

So, this is what I believe in.

Does that make me a secularist. I hope not. Does it make me a religionist. I hope not. I consider myself a humanist, i.e. someone who uses human rights to decide what is right and wrong.

To me, agendas of secularists and religionists are both misplaced. Both groups are barking up the wrong tree. Countries, societies, people don’t become better by declaring themselves to be Secular or Islamic. Just like calling a country, The Islamic Republic doesn’t make it great, similary declaring it The Secular Republic will not make it any better. Unfortunately, there are too many people in Pakistan (not to mention on this board), who think Islamic or Secularic to be some sort of utopia.

Secularism is, “The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.” That is it. It has nothing to do with being a better, more humane person. If anything, in many countries, this is used as a façade, under which massive crimes are committed. (much like Islam is used as a façade).

The biggest claim of secularatics (secular extremists i.e. secular equivalent of mullahs, as opposed to normal balanced secular folks) is to point to all the massive violence that has been committed under the name of religion. Quite true. But if you look at the last century, most of the violence, the slavery, the colonisations were all committed by and under secular govts. None of the secularatics tend to see that.

People wanting Ata-Turk in Pakistan need to look at Turkey and realize that Turkey itself has now started to reject him. Just like Iran has started to reject the maulvis. Using primarily secularism (or Islam) as the guiding light will lead people to support individuals like BB, the son of the Shah of Iran etc., just because they are or seem, “secular.” Not realizing that the true basis or progress, justice etc. is a humane view of dealing with different people, good economic policies, education etc. – none of which have anything to do with a secularism or a particular religion.

The problem in Pakistan is that the national debate has been hijacked by the two extremes - mullahs (the extreme side of Islam) and secularatics (the extreme side of secularism). They ridicule each other, and they want to destroy each other. And most of all they are too convinced of themselves, and are never willing to comprise with each other. A country like Pakistan, will never find its identity until people stop pushing their own agendas (or imported beliefs of Wahabism and Ata-Turkism, and 21st century USA, and 20th century Iran), and understand that Pakistan contains maulvis and secular folks, and all of them have to be accepted as a part of the society. It cannot be one or the other. This goes completely against the secularatics and religionatics belief system.

As for providing examples, that you asked for; I don’t think I need to provide you examples of individuals who practice Islamic extremism, ridicule religions other than Islam, carry out terrorism in the name of Islam, force men to wear Shalwar Qameez and women to wear veils. You are probably familiar with them. So you would be more interested in examples of secularatics (i.e. people who abuse secularism, much like mullahs abuse Islam):

- The previous Turkish govts.: (Kicking girls out of schools for wearing hijab. Banning religious parties, after they had won elections)
- The Algerian Govt. (Banning religious party that had won elections)
- The Son of Shah of Iran (After his dad has dictatorially (and secularly, mind you) ruled his country, through SAVAKs, going on US TV and repeating the word, “Secularism” ten times in every sentence, trying to make a claim for returning to power)
- The US govt.’s (the benchmark of the Secular West) foreign policy – (Specifically targeting Muslims in its laws, killing Muslims in other countries, for domestic political reasons). What good is American secularism, if its followers support the killing of individuals in other countries, and can be easily motivated to believe anything against Islam, as a religion

Within Pakistan, or related to Pakistan:

- BB and her PPP (portraying themselves as the, “secular” alternative in Pakistan. As if being secular, gives them the right to rob the poor of Pakistan silly)
- Various (not all) English newspaper journalists (whose only criteria for supporting someone is if they are secular. They will support a secular thug over a religious philanthrapist)
- Various Western educated feudal and their off-springs (they will write eloquent articles in Pakistan’s newspapers about the rights of minorities and women, and the benefits of secularism but will gladly be the heirs of their feudal empires, where women get abused, raped etc.)
- Individuals like Salman Rushdie (who have made a fortune on creating controversy around Islam, with no facts. Who tend to project themselves as, the progressive faces of Islam in a West which has no understanding of Islam)
- Individuals who will never speak out if the rights of a religious person are violated, and will happily accept any member of a religious party being put in jail, without due process (Actually, I am in this category, when it comes to parties like SSP)
- Within this boards, repliers, who will go out of their way to ridicule Islam with comments like,
“No matter what bakra says about the value of women testimony, in an Islamic society, womens; place is home and most major crimes take place outside home. So women will not be witnessing crimes from home or from behind shuttle-cock burqas and hijabs, particularly if they are keeping their eyes focused downward with sharm-o-haya.”

Such individuals, organizations etc., at least in my opinion, just have an agenda. They are least bothered about what others want, and other people’s feelings. Anyone, who makes a living out of ridiculing others who have different beliefs, who uses concepts like Islam and secularism for his/her own benefit/popularity and not to help others, is an extremist, in my book. It doesn’t matter whether he/she is religious or secular.

There are good secular people and bad ones. And there are good religious people and bad ones. I have met both. It is more important to separate the, “good” from the, “bad,” then to separate the, “secular” from the, “religious.” I think secular and religious extremists spend too much time on the later argument, and use it as their criteria of good and bad, and as a tool for their own popularity.

rafay_Alam:

I, and possibly most of the interactors, understood the gist of your article correctly and thanks for pointing it out again. That is given but it would not generate discussion at this forum. That is why, I fired the first satirical solvo to bring the defender of ayat 2:28:2 of surat bakra out.

Technically spaking and I believe strongly that every law since 1976 ( after the rigged elections of 1977) and amendment to the 1973 constitution is challengeable to be illegal because of illegal and illegitimate governments. Although not the current Supreme Court, but an honorable and independent one can easily throw out all laws since 1976 including shariat courts, hudood ordinance, council of Islamic Ideology, blasphemy law, all amendments to the constitution and so on. Zia`s overthrow was a treason as per constitution and a traitor setting in motion a series of changes have no constitutional backing. Even BB and NS enacted laws could be thrown out because they accepted the decrees of previous traitor-dictator and so are LFOs and PCOs of Musharraf. The slate needs to be cleared of all illegal additions to the laws of the land. Because of the compliance of BB and NS governments with the dictates of the backers of traitor-dictaor, they paved the way for being sandwitched between two traitor-dictators.

We can talk about the gist of your article as well as bakra interpretation but we are talking about illegal acts. In the den of thieves, the loot can be honestly divided but is it not worth the attention of public. The nations belong to the people and people did not make these laws or bakra, you are talking about. Leave it to divine to worry about the divine decrees. The instruments of the state have to satisfy the owners of the state and not some perceived divine entity in the skies. Who pays for all the expenses, cheatings and burglaries of the instruments like military establishment or current lotacracy?

All the actions of traitor-dictator Musharraf are farcical and therefore even MMA in Balochistan and NWFP have no rights to impose and enact anything on the owners of the state.

You pointed out just a tip of the iceberg, largely made up of illegality, thuggery and outright treason. The tip of the iceberg may be laughable and regretable but its embedded scaffoldings are criminalities of highest proporttions. Being a non-believer in divine entities, I care little to what the decrees say. However, if they are promulgated by legal government coming to power through transparent, fair and free elections, I will still oppose but not challenge the legality of such laws. My opposition would be directed to amend the laws to overturn it.

Mmanto /YLH: If memory serves me right, were you not in PAF academy Risalpur yourself?

Ali_1

``you are miserably out of touch with reality. Don`t you know that Vagina Monologues is emancipating Pakistani women and all problems including discriminatory laws will disappear once all Pakistani women have seen the play.......... so there. ``

HAHAHAHA!! Why are you being so selfish? Let Vagina Monologues come to India and gender selection, dowry, and other gender based discrimination too will disappear. :)

burma and sri lanka are buddhist and yet life there aint a bed of roses. so as in those countries, its the idiots and the charlatans who are responsible for the problems of pakistan rather than ideology. and since our current of crop of leaders are cut from the same cloth, it is unrealistic to expect these people to do anything different. and this is why the system that has emerged after the last election is the best system in the short-run. and even if our elected leaders were well-intentioned (yeah right), i would argue that it would still pay to have as prime minister, a man who cannot think beyond the qorma he will be served at the valima he will be attending later that night. there are three reasons for making this claim:

1) good intentions do not translate into good policies. meaning village idiots dont have any idea of how to calibrate monetary policy or how to devise effective tax policy or how to minimize country`s energy bill.

2) even if there were people around who were smart (dreaming again?), they still wont be able to do anything because gop is basically bankrupt. pak sarkar collects revenue worth $ 9 bn and spends cash totaling $ 11 bn. of that $ 11 bn, $ 4 bn goes on defence, $ 4 bn on debt service, $ 1.5 bn on govt spending and $ 1.5 on govt spending. there is not a whole lot of ways to divide $ 1.5 bn between 140 mn people.

3) even if development expenditure could be increased by $ 2 bn, there does not exist the infrastructure through which this money can be distributed. i mean would you really give $ 2 bn to entities like KDA and LMC?

technocrat dominated govt also operates under constraints mentioned in (2) and (3). however unlike civilian govts, technocrat dominated govts are less succesptible to political pressure, meaning they are not beholden to interest groups for survival. growth in pakistan will have to be driven by private sector and the less hurdles placed in its way the better. hence a castrated govt is the best govt for pak in the short-run.

Thank you for comments everyone.

I think I am being misunderstood. I am merely taking one aspect of the law in Pakistan - one which purports to effect an Islamic ideal - and comparing it to other laws - laws which clearly manifest the State`s intention to increase its revenues without a regard to Islamic injunctions. That`s what I understand hypocrisy to be.

I do not make any moral/value claims as to the requirement of two female witnesses forming the equivalent of one male witness. I merely attempt to explain some of the rationales for such a requriement. That said, I must comment on a recent article on chowk relating to substantially the same topic. Somewhere, the writer quoted a recent study which found certain biological functions rendered women more unstable than men. If I may, that is complete crap (but I think the discussion on that topic is well over). In any case, I only observe that the existing rationales seem to miss the point - as I read verse 2:282: that the inent of the Islamic injunction is to solidify the terms of a contract by rendering it in writing. Furthermore, I observe that the existing arguments do not purport to examine the ``Islamic track record`` of the State which, as I have said above, is clearly hypocritical.

Khatam Shud No. 9 has asked about the position of female judges. Well, a short answer is that the existing law recognizes no difference on the basis, albeit in practice, it is common to see female judges preside over family courts or adjudicate rape cases (note: the high number of male judges as compared to female judges hides this fact: there are, by virtue of numbers, more male judgments on rape than those written by women). That said, there were attempts, during Benazir Bhutto`s stint as PM, to challenge her position on the grounds that Islam does not recognize women rulers. I have no idea what came of that case but, as it was politically motivated, it has probably lost its sponsors and currently exists in the dark corners of the Supreme Court`s record room.

Jay No. 10 mentions the requirement of 4 witnesses to convict of rape or adultery. This is strictly not true. A rapist and/or adulterer can be convicted of rape, but will not suffer the penaltly of being stoned to death unless he/she confesses to the crime himself/herself or where 4 adult male witnesses of good repute can claim to have witnessed the act of penetration. Obviously, this law was meant to make the penalty impossible to impose. It was made to deter cases where false allegations of infidelity were thrown around. The anomolous cases which take up most of the press on the topic (Safia Bibi in 1984 and Zafaran Bibi a few years ago) were not applications of the law, but extreme deviations from it. Do not take this to mean that I accept the Offence of Zina (Punishment of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979. Far from that. This Ordinance requires one to believe that adultery is bad and capital punishment is good. I for one am totally against at least one of these principles. In any case, the point here is that, although the law requires the evidence of 4 men to punish for rape or adultery, it does not reduce the effect of their evidence. It`s not that 4 men will equal the evidence of 1 man. It means the law, in order to be given effect, needs to clear certain pre-requisites. In any case, my article is not about the law of evidence relating to rape. It is about the law of evidence relating to financial or future obligations, which brother Jay, can be found, spelt out most clearly, in Article 17(2) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.

Rafay Alam

We will keep going in circles if we involve religion with the business of state. (As said by Jinnah in the first session of the constituent assembly)

What crime has Christians, Hindues, Sikhs and Parsis have done in Pakistan that Muslim scripture be imposed on them.

The old religious scriptures are now outdated and can not form the basis of a modern law.

Only the spirit behind these scriptures may be taken as a guidance.

Our miseries will never end until we unabashedly declare ourselves as a secular, liberal and a democratic state. We should not compromise on this basic premise - otherwise the Mulla, like the proverbial camel, gradually begins to creep into the tent.

Hi ali_1: glad to know my article has enlightened you.

And Rafay: What does the law have to say about female judges? Do you need two women justices to hear a case? Do you need two female lawyers to present arguments in the courtroom where one man would suffice? Have all the male judges/lawyers/bailiffs/etc. been able to handle the backlog of cases that daily thwart the hopes of the people of Pakistan? Is this why there are no women on the so-successful NAB?

``No other law in Pakistan, other than the law relating to blasphemy, has led to such heated debate and controversy than the law relating to the evidence of women. The source of the controversy stems from the provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (which is an “Islamized” version of the old Evidence Act, 1872), the provisions of which ex facie discriminate against women.``

Rafay bhai, this yet another attempt to sidetrack the issue. The aspect of islamic law that people are talking about does not relate to finacial transactions as you try to portry, it is about evidence in the case of rape.
Rafay, you have conveniently avoided the reality of pakistan that in the case of rape there has to 4 male witnesses. Consequenly in most of the cases the men are not charged, but the women are prosecuted for adultry. What is needed is that the pathetic pakistanis like rafay should be bold enough to talk of the truth in pakistan without trying diversionary tactics.
Well that would be very hard, a product of pak madrassa in missionaries of charity, a vegetarian pirrana.

Hi ali_1: glad to know my article has enlightened you.

And Rafay: What does the law have to say about female judges? Do you need two women justices to hear a case? Do you need two female lawyers to present arguments in the courtroom where one man would suffice? Have all the male judges/lawyers/bailiffs/etc. been able to handle the backlog of cases that daily thwart the hopes of the people of Pakistan? Is this why there are no women on the so-successful NAB?

Unreasonable accusations of Secular Extremism:

I wonder what is so extremist about wanting a Pakistan where a liberal, a conservative, a muslim, a non muslim, all can follow their faith as per the dictates of their conscience? What is so extremist about a Pakistan where a bearded Muslim can go pray five times a day according to his faith, a liberal atheist can go to bar and get drunk if he so pleases? What is so extremist about a Pakistan where a woman is free to choose either to wear a burqah or wear a miniskirt? What is so extremist about a Pakistan where sects of Islam don`t become non-muslim over night through a parliamentary vote? What is so extremist about wanting a Pakistan where men and women are not hounded for having consentual sex in the privacy of their own home (though that doesn`t happen but that is because of unenforceability of law and not the absence of it)? What is wrong with a Pakistan where any citizen can aspire to achieve the highest office of the land without having to let his personal religious beliefs known (ironically if the present tazkia tul shahood laws were to be implemented even Jinnah would be unfit to be the head of the state of Pakistan given his personal dietary habits). How can all of this be achieved? By a practical separation of church and state... it doesn`t even have to official (After all even UK has theoretical unity of church and state in the office of the Queen) but practical, like a convention. That unfortunately hasn`t happened in Pakistan. We`ve seen the efforts of the early framers like liaqat ali khan bring us to this precipice.

Anyway if the vision of personal freedom and the principle of `Live and let live` is so extremist then maybe I am an extremist... but for god`s sake is there no sanity left? Apparently airforce training coupled with years of silicon valley experience isn`t enough to open peoples` minds to the time honored principles of fairness and equality.

-Saadat Hassan Manto

PS Let us even accept the official myth that Pakistan was made to enable Muslims to live according to their own ideals... the question then is that was it also made to stop others from following the dictates of their ideals? That is not the impression one gets from Jinnah.

PPS As the old saying goes: a wise enemy is better than a foolish ally... take it to mean whatever.

At the expense of repeating myself, here it is:

Pakistan was created as a ``Muslim state`` - for social & economic emancipation of the Muslim minority.

It was not created as an ``Islamic state`` to be run by the Islamic code. Jinnah was clearly against theocracy. Islam was only used as an exploitative tool. Just as it was used to get the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

In the present day world, even the concept of a state based on religion has become outdated. A liberal democracy and an Islamic code (or any other religious code) can not co-exist togather. This only causes a confusion in the society.

The above confusion is the cause of our identity crisis.

The term ``Ideology of Pakistan`` was coined years after 1947 - and Jinnah never uttered these words.

Finally, the Muslims are shown dreams of some fairyland called ``Ummah``. There never was an Ummah, there is no Ummah and there will never be an Ummah.

The two great Muslim empires - Ottoman and the Mughal - were both secular and liberal. (not withstanding some freaks) We also have our fair share of looters and nuts like Mahmud Ghanavi and Aurangzeb.

Time to re-write our history books.

Religion is too important, to be left to the will of maulvis......Religion is too sacred, to be left to the will of secularists.

#4 by Romair
``I think Pakistan will be torn apart by the secular and religious fanatics...One can negotiate with a terrorist, but one cannot negotiate with a person who is convinced that secularism is the only answer. And one cannot deal with a person who thinks religion is the only answer. It`s their way or the highway.``
Your ascription of equal blame t the `secualrists` in Pakistan is strange, to say the least. Kindly inform us on who are or have been the prime voices for these folks, and give us an idea as to the impact they have had on Pak polity, in the way the way the fundos have. Need I name any of the outspoken personalites of the latter group and list a few of their actions and influences that have served to handcuff, divide and sometimes terrorize the nation in the name of religion?
rgds,
PM

I think much of the confusion spread in Pakistan`s judicial system was during the Zia rule and through Jamaat-i-Islami. People who supported all this during Zia`s time, need to be held responsible for it. It shouldn`t matter where they are now, or how much they denounce Zia-ul-Haq now.

I don`t know why the, ``democratically`` elected govts. of BB and NS did not undo all this. There are so many women in assemblies now. Many of them are the mouthpieces of women`s rights. I wonder why they don`t speak up against all this now. Are they afraid of falling out with their political masters?

I think Pakistan will be torn apart by the secular and religious fanatics. They have so much in common with each other, that it is amazing. Both these groups have a personal agenda, and are not too concerned about what happens to the rest of Pakistan, or what anyone else wants. They are bent upon making fun of each other. They are bent upon shoving their own agenda down everyone`s throat. And they are dead convinced they are correct. And they are bent upon destroying each other. They don`t have a single bone in their body, which can lead to a compromise.

One can negotiate with a terrorist, but one cannot negotiate with a person who is convinced that secularism is the only answer. And one cannot deal with a person who thinks religion is the only answer. It`s their way or the highway.

Unless the religious brigade or the secular brigade is completely removed from Pakistan, neither will succeed. I can never figure out, how people can be so addicted to their own beliefs, and then make fun of others of doing the same. Both these groups need to meet in the middle, and understand that Pakistan has people who support both. And that such people will never disapper from Pakistan, regardless of how much the other wants them to disappear.

Making fun of religion or forcing it on others, is a childish act of misguided extremists. They need each other to survive, because they feed of each other. That is why they always always always discuss relgion and religion related issues. One trying to shove it down everyone`s throat and making fun of people who follow it. The other trying to make fun of it and making fun of those who follow it. Such people and groups will always be extremely popular within their own clans. But they lack the character and qualities of convincing those who don`t already hold their views, towards their views. This is the sign of a true enlightened leader.

I think Islam is a religion, that is out there. Those who like it should follow it, but not consider themselves the owner of it, and not be so ignorantly arrogant. Those who don`t like it should switch to other religions, like Bhuddhism etc., and then leave Islam and Muslims alone, instead of making a living out of bigoted racist anti-relgionism. It will be a great day for Pakistan, when both these groups leave Pakistan alone.

Ata-Turk was good for Turkey and Wahab was good for Saudi Arabia. Pakistan doesn`t need either of them.......It needs to find its own leaders. Those who worship Ata-Turk and Wahab may be happier in Turkey and Saudi Arabia.