Women and Divine Decrees

Rafay_Alam Saheb:

I think you have written a very good article, once I read it couple of times more to understand the case you are making. To me whole issue is meaningless in true Islamic state. 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. Second point is that Islamic state is crime-free once all the criminals are rehabilitated or indoctrinated or else sent packing their hands and eyes or stoned to death. Once, it is a crime-free society, no crime, no witness, no police and no judges are needed. All the crimes committed then are outside the Islamic society like Kashmir, Chechenya and Palestine. To solve those crimes, there is no need of women witnesses but male jehadis. Since male jehadis are the tools to bring justice to the unjust world, their value is doubled in this world and manyfold higher in the skies. It is not that women are half the witness in Islam; they are fully one witness in Islam but males due to taking the burden of bringing justice to Kashmir, Chechnya etc are equal to two wittnesses. So it is not 1 and 0.5 which is terrible to think about and doubtful to be a revealed truth but it is 2 and 1 which makes perfect sense. Remember it is 2 only for those male who are real men with proven track record of achieving the status of double witness such as Maulana Azhar, Mulla Omar, Osama Bin Laden and A-Z Bin Z-A.

Moreover, surat bakra can not be used in this matter. Surat bakra meaning cow is about Jews and anything taken out of it is out of context. You have to look into surat nisa meaning women for matters relating to nisa while I go and watch zebunnisas in the local mall.....

Oh before I forget, the real purpose of Islam is to create a crime-free society and not relegating women to 0.5 witness level. Once society has achieved the goals of Islam, witnessing a crime becomes a rarity. There is no full or half witness in the jungle or in the zoo....the crimes happen because people do not follow true spirit of Islam....if you pray five times a day and make sure to start over if vuzu is broken in between, then attend jalsa seerat un nabis, naat-o-darood in the morning from 5-8 AM, maarfat and tareeqat daily, reciting koran daily, watching Israr Ahmed on TV daily and add few more farz and sunnats daily, you have no time left to commit crime. What a smart and well calculated moves by god to bring society at par with the life without wife at alpha centuri......

Pakistan needs a uniform legal code granting every citizen complete equality regardless of religion, caste, creed or gender... to confuse people with outdated religious laws is hardly fair...We don`t need to be ideological about anything... especially not law... the whole idea is manifestly stupid and idiotic... it seems like all of sudden one day Zia ul Haq decided to turn back the clock to 7th century arabia...

Yallah, aey Allah tallah protect Pakistan from the `Islamic ideology` that has become the source of this nation`s downfall.

-Manto

Rafay Alam, 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.

# 2

Latifa bhaijan, is it you?

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.

#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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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. :)

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