A Rapist-Friendly System

Re: # 1

`In addition, under Islamic law, the Capital punishment cannot be applied in the case of Rape. Rape does not fall into the category of Hadud law, therfore, in principle the Ta`azeer punishment for this crime should be less severe than the hadud`.

What is this `Ta`azeer punishment`? Do you mean courts have discretion to switch over to any law if the Allah`s law, i.e., Hadood, does not work. Does not Allah say that those who adjudicate under a law other than the one prescribed by Him are `Fasik`, `Fajir` and what not?

Mukhtar Mai`s plight is truly heart-rending. All Pakistanis must come out in her support. Only then can justice be served.

I have no faith in system of injustice in Pakistan, therefore, at one level I am glad that the Supreme Court overturned the original rulings of the kangroo courts such as the Anti-Terrorist Courts. I am against the Capital Punishment in Pakistan for the reasons of expediency since no one has faith in the charade called judicial system in Pakistan. Pakistan should have a moritorium on capital punishment until the judicial system is reformed to a reasonable level and public faith is restored in it.

In addition, under Islamic law, the Capital punishment cannot be applied in the case of Rape. Rape does not fall into the category of Hadud law, therfore, in principle the Ta`azeer punishment for this crime should be less severe than the hadud. There are only two cases when death penalty can be imposed on a rapist:

1. The rapist is a non-Muslim and he rapes a Muslim woman.

2. The rapist is Muslim and he voluntarily confesses that he had committed an act of rape. He must be given at least three chances to recant from his confession then if he is married he must be stonned to death in public place and if he is single he is flogged with 80 leashes on his back in a public place.

urstruly,

......... are you serious when you state that the death penalty can be imposed on a rapist when `` The rapist is a non-Muslim and he rapes a Muslim woman.`` ?????

........ is that fair ?........... what happened to equal rights under the law ???......... now you are really making me ashamed of being a muslim ! .......... how would you feel if they had a separate set of laws for muslims in flint ? ........... i am sure you would go crying to michael moore if that ever happened !

hamidm

Don`t be amazed. Islamic law is not based on equality but on equity. It is a social contract between different members of the society. The main clause of this social contract is that, in principle, Islamic law does not apply to non-Muslims. Now there are two types of non-Muslims:

1. People of the book and that includes Jews, Christians, Zorthostorians, and Hindus (the matter with Hindus is too controversial though). In this case these people are given autonomy to formulate their own laws based on their own values as they come from their books.

2. Non-Muslims, who are not of category#1, such as pagans, animists etc.. They are governed by the law that the Islamic government deems fit for them and it must be commensurate with the societal norms of the Muslim society.

Whether belonging to Category # 1 or #2 these people are exempt from any Islamic law such as law of Hudood or Islamic law of inheritence or non-interest based business etc. However, this exemption ends when they are dealing with a Muslim counterpart. In that case, the Islamic law supercedes any other. That is the reason when a non-Muslim man rapes a Muslim woman, the minimum punishment meted out to the rapist is the capital punishment.


teshah

pehle tolo phir bolo.

urstruly,

......... thanks for your explanation - now i am really ashamed of being a muslim !........... you see, i am not as shameless as echo thinks ..........

Re: # 11

brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr............. scary stuff !

Re: # 7 Ana

Rape does not fall into the category of Hadud crimes, period; regardless of who rapes who. Hadud (s. Hadd) crimes: is a set of eight crimes which along with their punishments are defined in the Qura`n and/or specified explicitly in the Hadith. The eight Hadud crimes and their punishments are: (i) Stoning to death (rajm) for adultery (zina); (ii) one hundred lashes for fornication; (iii) eighty lashes for slandering a chaste woman i.e., accusing her of adultery or fornication; (iv) death for apostatizing from Islam (irtida`d); (v) eighty lashes for drinking wine (shurb); (vi) cutting off the right hand for theft; (vii) cutting off of one foot and one hand for highway robbery; and (viii) death for robbery accompanied by murder.

There are only two situations when rape becomes a hadud crime and thus the punishment imparted is as prescribed by the hadud:

1. The rapist voluntarily confesses to have committed the rape; in this case he is punished with the hadd as prescribed in (i) & (ii) depending on the fact whether the perp is married or single.

2. The second situation is when four adult male witnesses of sound character and mind have seen the act of penetration with their own eyes, somehow. In this case (i) and (ii) punishements are applied depending on the fact whether the perp was married or single.

Rape is one of the most horrenduous and inhuman crimes but at the same time it is one that is most difficult to prove as well. The recent case of Kobe Bryant, makes an interesting study. There are hundereds of cases of rape in US where accused have been rotting in jail for 20+ years and only DNA testing exhenorated them. So the question is what went wrong with their conviction in the first place? This is the reason a Hadd is not imposed in cases of rape. Islamic jurisprudence accepts the forensic evidence but even in that case Hadd cannot be applied. Pregnancy may be used to prove a rape but even in this case hadd cannot be applied.

The misuse of Hadud laws (in sex realated crimes) in Paksitan is because of the following reasons. Let us just take the case of rape. The act of rape has essentially two components to it:

a. sexual intercourse
b. absence of consent of one of the parties.

In Pakistan, when a woman files a case of rape, the police is the first state apparatus that is approcahed by the plaintiff. Police views, investigates and registers the case keeping in mind the elements a and b as related above. The evidence for element `a` is usually forensic i.e. thru medical examination and also the circumstantial. Witnesses are prepared to support evidence. In the next step, in courts, the plaintiff and her attorney tries to prove the element `b`, (even if element a has been proven without a shadow of doubt) thru the testimony of rape victim and examination of evidence and witnesses; whereas the defence (accused) tries to disprove that. A judge gives its verdict on the basis of these argument.

Now suppose that the victim fails to prove her case. The accused goes free; however, now police files a case against victim on two charges:

1. Slander

2. Victim`s own statement when she was filing the charges is used as a confession that element a (i.e. sexual congress) did take place.

In either case women is then subjected to (i), (ii), & (iii) haduds as described above.

The reason for this inhuman and draconian practice is that, Zia sahib imposed the hadud laws through an ordinance. In Pakistan, whenever, a criminal law is enacted by a state authority ( by a dictator or by the parliament) it is referred to the Ministry of Law, who writes that or makes the necessary ammendments in the CrPC - Criminal Procedure Code. CrPC then becomes a part of Police Manual and aslo judge`s instructions as to how a certain crime should be investigated and prosecuted-what cases are exempt or not etc.. In Pakistan, with hadud laws, this process abruptly ended as Zia was killed in the Mango City. The subsequesnt Benazir and NS governments neither had the political will to restart the CrPC process nor the authority and mandate to repeal the hadud laws. The current dictator is no different. It is a political hot potato he wouldn`t even dare touch. He knows that his system will collapse with in half an hour of his departure from the power so why touch such politically sensitive issues.

In Islamic law, as the CrPC should be written, a woman who cannot prove her case successfully cannot be charged with slander or confession of a sexual congress. Her testimony cannot be used to implicate her. But human beings, especially, women are suffering because of the dictators and impotent leaders who wouldn`t even give a rats patoot to the suffering of the people. Together we have created a society that thrives on injustice and oppression of the weak. There is no one else but us to blame for we have chosen the compliance and submission over daring to stand up for truth and justice.

. . . and when a non-muslim woman gets raped by a muslim man? he is not subject to the hudood.

equity. . .

The tragedy of pakistan is not in what is existing, but the denial of the educated in the reality of pakistan, their firm belief that it ia all a matter of projecting the right image, a beleif that the reality can be white washed.

If any one cares to read earlier posts by mantolive, YLH, an educated you will see that he has repeated asserted that there are roads named after abdus salam, there are educational institutions named after him. If you look at tahmeds posts you will find that he has asserted that honour killings are done in tribal areas as part of tribal customs. murder of samia sarwar was explained away as police corruption. They never accept that it is the dissat and quiyat ordinance that has supported honour killings, never repealed by benazir, nawaz or mushy because the average pakistani supports it, it is in tune with their value system.

By denying this reality, and by refusing to accept that it is per the book, the educated have stalled any chance of improvements. It is spineless nature of pakistani educated that is leading pak society to the bayss. It is not the illiterate, it is the tahmed, mantolives and temporal that are the harbingers of pak decay.

I have been for a long time wanting to increase my word power of english words. I decided to make a short list of words I should learn about:

equality
equity
sophistry

I will wait until first post explains that it is democracy because average pakistani supports it. Let me see how soon one such post appears...

I read some reports about the uproar created in certain sections of the media and general public in Pakistan about actress Meera`s kissing scene in a Hindi movie. It really shocks me that something as heinous as Mukhtar Mai`s rape and the acquital of most people involved, has failed to evoke the same kind of outburst. An innocous kiss enacted on screen causes more indignation than the reality of the gangrape of a helpless woman. Some people are hopelessly out of touch with reality. Its high time the people of Pakistan became more vocal about the society they stay in.

[Now suppose that the victim fails to prove her case. The accused goes free; however, now police files a case against victim on two charges:

1. Slander

2. Victim`s own statement when she was filing the charges is used as a confession that element a (i.e. sexual congress) did take place. ]

In other words if rape victim fails to prove because of ``benefit of doubt`` it is not assumed that although she may be right but not able to prove. There are two aspects: (1) being right and (2) being able to prove it. Why assume that not being able to prove necessarily means being not right. You are making it sound that it is all Zia`s fault but use of above simplisistic (and incorrect) logic is not at fault at all. Even a high school graduate will tell you that following is bullshit:

not (2) implies not (1)

What does it say of supposedly intelligent Islamic (I am sure you would class the Pakistani police and judges in that category) do not know enough logic? The very skill they are supposed to be master of.

Einstien

``In other words if rape victim fails to prove because of ``benefit of doubt`` it is not assumed that although she may be right but not able to prove. There are two aspects: (1) being right and (2) being able to prove it. Why assume that not being able to prove necessarily means being not right. ``

Yes, unfortunately that case is true in existing Pakistani legal system. And that is the core of the problems that people are having with Hadud laws.

But let me explain a bit more. It is the very nature of the subject and fieled of law and jurisprudence that the notions of ``being right`` and ``being wrong`` are immaterial. What really counts in law is ``proven right`` or proven wrong`` according to the standards set up thru the jurisprudence. Hence, no matter how victimized one would be he has to ``prove`` his or her case.

The loophole that exists in the Pakistani law is exploited fully by police, political entities, and courts. There are thousands of women who filed a complaint for a rape and they are in jail because they failed to prove their case. This loophole is sometimes used to extort money, sexual favors, and revenge. And in every one of such cases that gets media attention judges reject the police case because precedent has been set by higher courts but since CrPC still allows that loophole the police and lower courts still persecute women and they are incarcerated until the appeal process takes them to higher courts where there is more visibility.

This injustice can be removed in just one session of the legislature but our rulers are scared of their foreign masters and their own weaknesses but they do not fear God. No one wants to risk being seen ``reforming`` Hadud laws, because in the eyes of their foreign masters and patrons they will be immediately labelled as ``fundamentalists`` and ``Islamists`` and hence ``terrorists``. They would rather let ordinary citizens of Pakistan suffer and rot. Neither these so called political leadreship have power to dare repeal Hadud laws because people of Pakistan will drown them in Arabian Sea. People do not want to stand up for sometheing that they do not have faith in. There is not a single state institution left in Paksitan that commands the respect and faith of people. We are an absolutely disenfranchized and dispossessed people from whom their whole country has been stolen.

urstruly,

serious question: it is my understanding that under islamic law non-muslim women taken prisoner in a war can be taken as concubines ............ now what if the woman resists - is this considered rape ?.............. or, if the sex is consensual then is it not adultery (zina) ?

Einstein

And let me add more insult to the injury.

More than half of the women that are rotting in Pakistani jails under hadud laws are those who has been accused by their husbands of adultery. The current loophole in the CrPC and lack of legislation allows police to interfere in such cases and arrest women unless they are willing to pay thru one way or the other.

Zia enacted the so called ``Islamic Laws`` for absolute reasons of expedience only. And that is because his foreign masters told him to do so. As everyone knows it should be viewed in the perspective of ``Afghan Jihad`` that good General was fighting for his masters. To his peoplehe had to prove that he was man of faith, and leader of Muslims, so that he could get more recruits for his masters. He took half-assed, half-hearted measures to Islamize the country based on the recommendations of his illiterate, badmash, and corrupt military legal advisors as they saw fit. None of these a/holes ever saw the face of a madrassa and none was educated in Islamic jurisprudence.

The actual Islamic Law, as it has been in practice for centuries, however, stipulates that when a spouse accuses other of adultery, the case is non-cognizable, which means that police cannot interfere in the matter. The matter directly goes to the civil court. The judge in the civil court first tries to reconcile the estranged couple by appointing arbiters from each family but when the matter cannot be resolved then he initiates the process of Lia`an. In Lia`an, the judge first asks accuser to decalre under oath that he is telling the truth about his or her spouse`s infidelity and if he is telling a lie then may Allah`s curse be upon him/her. The accuser has to take this oath verbally three times on Qura`n. Then judge repeats the same procedure with accused where he or she declares under oath that his accuser is telling a lie and if not then may Allah`s curse be upon him/her. After this oath, the judge declares the marriage annuled.

It is just as simple as that but innocent human beings are suffering because our rulers have disenfranchised us. The main blame goes to the so-called religious parties who remain silent at these attrocities because it is politically more pragmatic. It is these fat bellied a/holes, and impotence of these satans in beards who have caused so much pain to us. It is their complacency, and hunger for power that should be blamed.

hamidm

Under Islamic law, the only permissible avenue to have sex with another gender is after Nikah regardless of whether one party is a POW, or a slave or free. Those among women who are captured in war as POW or are enslaved(if you will) and are single can become wives of their captors after Nikah is performed in an open ceremony. There is difference of opinion about those women who are married while they are captured. According to Maliki school of thought, as they are captured their former marriage becomes annuled automatically if their captor wants to bring her in his Nikah, whereas Hanfi school argues that married women cannot be brought under Nikah. I plead ignorance in either case whether the consent of woman is sought or not. But since consent is an integral part of any Nikah contract I assume that it had to be consentual. These laws were in effect in midieval times and rendered ineffective/impractical since then. Becuase they served the pupose of those times and the societal norms of those times. With the onset of Ottoman Caliphate in post midieval times these practices were rendered ineffective and POWs were treated more on the basis of laws of reciprocity with contending nations. Even in Hindustan, where Muslim rule almost started at the same time as that of Ottomans, there is no evidence of such practice - though some caliphs had harems of hundereds of women at a time. Some Mughal kings and sultans married local Hindu women as their queens but not concubines. But not of course every ruler was a by the book islamist - we are only talking about law here.

Re: # 19

You are right dear hamid. This `untruly` is a varitable `Kaazib`, which means a person who not only lies but also denies the truth. He dismisses some laws of Islam only by saying that these are no longer in practice but tries to dismiss some current practices prevalent among the muslim as not allowed by the islamic law. He is an apologizer of the worst type who is trying vainly to defend his `islam` against the onslaught of the modern ideas and as such is not fit for any serious discussion. I would advise him to first read `Hidaya` to know the laws governing slavery in Islam.

urstruly,

......... thanks for your explanation, however i have a little difficulty in swallowing that married female prisoners would divorce their husbands to marry their tormentors willingly ........ you are making excuses for the inexcusable when you say : `` since consent is an integral part of any Nikah contract I assume that it had to be consentual``............ it is hard to believe that a POW woman`s (or man`s) consent means much .............. after all, nobody believes that the prisoners at abu gharaib gave their consent to pose in the nude !!!

.......... in any case, let`s not air all this dirty laundry in public - it is tough enough being a muslim as it is ............

hamidm

oh how you got me; i am devistated

Re: # 21 Jay

The people who start worshiping toilets have no right to criticize others. Enjoy:


http://www.naseeb.com/naseebvibes/prose-detail.php?aid=3608&pg=1&PHPSESSID=3c158bd794bf6ae4e7c482fce07e433d

I enjoyed all this koranic jimnastics. It would have been simpler if urstruly were to say that in islamic society woman is an asset that the winner takes, not different from the gold of somanath temples. Well let us ask gaznavi about it. In fact the poligamy and honour killings stem from this notion.

Urstruly #5

`` 1. People of the book and that includes Jews, Christians, Zorthostorians, and Hindus (the matter with Hindus is too controversial though). In this case these people are given autonomy to formulate their own laws based on their own values as they come from their books. ``

Most Arabs do not consider anyone other than Jews or Chrisitians to be people of the book.
If you treat Hindus as people of the book why not Buddhists, Shintoists and Confucianists.
Is it another of these silly Arab centric concepts ?

`` 2. Non-Muslims, who are not of category#1, such as pagans, animists etc.. They are governed by the law that the Islamic government deems fit for them and it must be commensurate with the societal norms of the Muslim society. ``

It looks like the only way Pagans or Animists can retain their culture is to wipe out Judeo-Christian religions from this planet.

`` Whether belonging to Category # 1 or #2 these people are exempt from any Islamic law such as law of Hudood or Islamic law of inheritence or non-interest based business etc. However, this exemption ends when they are dealing with a Muslim counterpart. In that case, the Islamic law supercedes any other. That is the reason when a non-Muslim man rapes a Muslim woman, the minimum punishment meted out to the rapist is the capital punishment. ``

Any legal system that classifies people into Muslim or non-Muslim (or for that matter in any arbitrary manner) will never serve justice in a equitable manner.

Re: # 23 Einstein


``True but in law being right beyond reasonable doubt is insisted upon when proving guilt not the other way. A western jurist will thwart any presumption of guilt during trial process.

Don`t you think that in case of a rape victim when she is not able to prove rape the Islamic law system is presuming her guilt? Should not law start with a clean slate in prosecuting her? ``

Yes. That was the argument in my several posts below. Let me state this point blank one more time: Under Islamic law (not Pakistani Law) a woman cannot be prosecuted if she fails to prove her case of rape. Period. Pakistani law has loopholes in it which permits women to be prosecuted in this case. We want to end this injustice thru a legislative process.

``Also you are referring to field of law. Which field of law? Islamic or non-Islamic? Problem with Islam is this bastardized approach. Either you adopt western law standards or you don`t.``

Exactly. That is exactly what we the terrorists, I mean Islamists, err I mean Muslims want to do - just end the dichotomy in the existing system of justice. Get rid of English Common Law and establish Islmiv law in its entirety. No ifs, ands, or buts. This is our goal and whenever people of Pakistan will attain their freedom and soveriegnity they will establish the law that is comensurate with their system of values- the law that codifies their values.

Babu

I think you are too angry for some reason to communicate in a coherent and intelligent manner. Please compose yourself. Yelling does not gurantee that you will be heard as well.

[But let me explain a bit more. It is the very nature of the subject and fieled of law and jurisprudence that the notions of ``being right`` and ``being wrong`` are immaterial. ]

True but in law being right beyond reasonable doubt is insisted upon when proving guilt not the other way. A western jurist will thwart any presumption of guilt during trial process.

Don`t you think that in case of a rape victim when she is not able to prove rape the Islamic law system is presuming her guilt? Should not law start with a clean slate in prosecuting her?

Also you are referring to field of law. Which field of law? Islamic or non-Islamic? Problem with Islam is this bastardized approach. Either you adopt western law standards or you don`t. But what Islamists do is take from west what they like. And then they join it with what they like in Islamic law system. And often they take worst things from both sources.

urstruly,

...... you accuse babu of yelling .... now, which part of this statement didn`t you understand ?

``Any legal system that classifies people into Muslim or non-Muslim (or for that matter in any arbitrary manner) will never serve justice in a equitable manner.``

............ seems quite simple to me ......

.......... and, by the way, your rejoinder to jay was kind of silly because, regarless of the the sohni sanwali mehbooba ditty and the habashi bilal, pakis are just as obsessed with a fair complexion .......... and to be fair about it, it might have some to do with innate aesthetic values ...........

hamidm

I think you too are too angry for some reason to communicate in a coherent and intelligent manner. Please explain to me why I have a feeling that you don`t ASK questions for the reason of asking question; you ask questions so that you can get an opportunity to TELL. Therefore, please spare me of your lectures as in #26. Please compose yourself. Yelling does not gurantee that you will be heard as well.

urstruly,

``I have a feeling that you don`t ASK questions for the reason of asking question``....... of course ...... i have probably been a muslim longer than you, so it is not surprising that i already know all the traditional, if lame, answers ! ............ the question is to find out if there are people out there who still believe in those answers - unfortunately there seem to be quite a few ........... that`s why the world is not safe

hamidm

Now that we have gotten past the exchange of niceties and clear on our respective intentions, let me answer babbu`s question. He asked ``Any legal system that classifies people into Muslim or non-Muslim (or for that matter in any arbitrary manner) will never serve justice in a equitable manner ``.

Answer:

That is true. there cannot be two opinions about that. But the actual answer to your question lies in your honest answer to this question:``would you, as a hindu ( I presume) would like to be governed by Islamic Law?``. If the answer to this question is an honest ``NO`` then why should Muslims let themselves be governed by someone else`s law. The secularism and secualr law is just that. It is the law of atheists, agnostics, Kafirs, and rejectors. It is the law of those who reject God in their social lives. It is the law of those who think and promote that God is so incompetent that he has totally failed to provide answers to our social problems. Would secularism allow us the Muslims an autonomy to govern ourselves according to the rule of God? Yes it is possible. Indian constitution gives this autonomy to Indian Muslims in the shape of Muslim Family Law. The constitutions of various European countries and Canada are giving Muslims a limited autonomy to do just that by allowing them to establish Shria courts. So why in the world, in a country where Muslims are 97% of the population, they shouldn`t be allowed to have a law that is comensurate with their system of values? Islamic law does not apply to non-Muslims, period. Islamic law provides autonomy to non-Muslims to run their affairs according to the system of values of their own, just like secularism in aforementioned countries allows autonomy to Muslims. Why is this concept of autonomy so allien to you when you see it with your own eyes.

#25 by Urstruly on March 11, 2005 7:05am PT

`` I think you are too angry for some reason to communicate in a coherent and intelligent manner. Please compose yourself. Yelling does not gurantee that you will be heard as well. ``

I was never angry. I raised simple points on three issues

1. What I regard as Arab centric view on who the people of the book are

2. Widespread historical abuse of pagan and animist peoples by followers of Judeo-Christian religions

3. Can you have a equitable justice system when you classify people based on their religion

Urstruly #29

`` That is true. there cannot be two opinions about that. But the actual answer to your question lies in your honest answer to this question:``would you, as a hindu ( I presume) would like to be governed by Islamic Law?``. If the answer to this question is an honest ``NO`` then why should Muslims let themselves be governed by someone else`s law. The secularism and secualr law is just that. It is the law of atheists, agnostics, Kafirs, and rejectors. It is the law of those who reject God in their social lives. It is the law of those who think and promote that God is so incompetent that he has totally failed to provide answers to our social problems. Would secularism allow us the Muslims an autonomy to govern ourselves according to the rule of God? Yes it is possible. Indian constitution gives this autonomy to Indian Muslims in the shape of Muslim Family Law. The constitutions of various European countries and Canada are giving Muslims a limited autonomy to do just that by allowing them to establish Shria courts. So why in the world, in a country where Muslims are 97% of the population, they shouldn`t be allowed to have a law that is comensurate with their system of values? Islamic law does not apply to non-Muslims, period. Islamic law provides autonomy to non-Muslims to run their affairs according to the system of values of their own, just like secularism in aforementioned countries allows autonomy to Muslims. Why is this concept of autonomy so allien to you when you see it with your own eyes. ``

I see no reason for personal law for Indian Muslims. I would like all citizens to abide by a uniform set of laws for marriage, divorce, inheritance of property. I cannot think a single scenario why anyone with common sense would object. Unless of course they are a chavunist, a closet Taliban type etc.

Prior to Sep-11 I have not seen any Muslim complain about secular law in USA. All the complaints about US society - pornography, divorce etc. are shared by non-Muslims.

Urstruly #29

`` That is true. there cannot be two opinions about that. But the actual answer to your question lies in your honest answer to this question:``would you, as a hindu ( I presume) would like to be governed by Islamic Law?``. If the answer to this question is an honest ``NO`` then why should Muslims let themselves be governed by someone else`s law. The secularism and secualr law is just that. It is the law of atheists, agnostics, Kafirs, and rejectors. It is the law of those who reject God in their social lives. It is the law of those who think and promote that God is so incompetent that he has totally failed to provide answers to our social problems. Would secularism allow us the Muslims an autonomy to govern ourselves according to the rule of God? Yes it is possible. Indian constitution gives this autonomy to Indian Muslims in the shape of Muslim Family Law. The constitutions of various European countries and Canada are giving Muslims a limited autonomy to do just that by allowing them to establish Shria courts. So why in the world, in a country where Muslims are 97% of the population, they shouldn`t be allowed to have a law that is comensurate with their system of values? Islamic law does not apply to non-Muslims, period. Islamic law provides autonomy to non-Muslims to run their affairs according to the system of values of their own, just like secularism in aforementioned countries allows autonomy to Muslims. Why is this concept of autonomy so allien to you when you see it with your own eyes. ``

I have no philosophical problem with religious law. Who interprets the rule of God ? Who interprets the Quran ? Who decides who is a Muslim ? I hope their judgement is better than the ones who created and supported the Taliban. If a Qadiani violate Islam by believing in another Prophet they are promptly declared non-Muslim. No prompt action is taken against Muslims who violate a lot of basic tenets of Islam. The devil is in the detail.

Modern secular legal systems have working examples in USA, Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore etc. These happen to be societies that are economically vibrant, different cultural norms etc. Countries like India, Latin American states have yet to find a variation of modern legal system that works well for them.





``Islamic law does not apply to non-Muslims, period``

If you are a non-Muslim in Pakistan you deal with Muslims in your daily life. Going by one of your previous posts Islamic law applies to all interactions between Muslims and non-Muslims. I wonder what are the odds of interacting with a Muslim daily in Pakistan.

urstruly,

........ how can you say that ``Islamic law does not apply to non-Muslims, period`` when in an earlier post you clearly said that a non-muslim faces capital punishment for raping a muslim woman ............ isn`t that the application of islamic law ?.........after the poor man has been beheaded it really doesn`t matter if his family gets to use their own laws to divy up his property ................... i am sure you will come up with some excuse as usual - so let`s hear it

Lets wait and see what happens.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/03/11/pakistan.rape.ap/index.html

Irfan.

These are only the tokens of goodwill for diffusing Islam with the non-Islamic culture; the rewards have yet to come upon complete transformation of our society from Quran and Sunnah of Prophet (pbuh) to the freedom of filth.

Instead of correcting the misinterpretations through Quran and Sahih ahadith (authentic traditions and instructions of the Prophet, peace be upon him), Muslims, for generation now, have been discarding the irrefutable way of life called Islam. Sure, quite a few have tried to refute it, but none has been successful in the last 1500 years. I doubt that could ever change, but that`s my belief. The ones who disagree with me, I respectfully say to them ``to you your way and to me mine`` as instructed by my Creator in the Quran.

Incidentally, last month President Musharraf inaugurated NAPA ``... that many here say could reshape the cultural landscape.`` Read the article here and notice who published this report: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0314/p01s04-wosc.html

Then this appeared today ``Woman leads Muslim prayer service`` in a NY cathedral. Read the article here, and notice what kind of news outlets boost their circulation with such news: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/18/muslim.prayer.ap/index.html

Bon voyage to all on a journey with an undefined destination. I take it back, Muslims know that destination, which makes them Muslims, but those travelers couldn`t care less what others think.

Hudood ordinance deserve a thorough examination if not complete repeal. To me the very idea of a woman has to prove and provide 4 men`s testimony as evidence of rape is so absurd that it makes me sick to stomach. The men who saw such a thing happening and did nothing to save the woman how could I ever expect them to give a proper testimony.

Those who think this is an attack on Islam, bring forth the verse in Quran that says or supports something like hudood ordinance. If you cannot then please don`t reply.

Islamic system is based upon justice for all and compassion for all. After all that is only how people would develop a good notion of Islam. Let not any maulvi distinguish himself and reply because there is no clergy in Islam.

If i declare myself to be a muslim and @ same time declare myself to be a prophet, would that make me a NON-muslim, since Islam states that Mohammad was the last prophet; but, if Mohammad was messenger of God, then surely the messenger of God would reincarnate himself each century, so that message of God would be heard; so, THEN, Mohammad was NOT the last prophet, but simply declared himself to be the last prophet, so that his words would NOT be altered by a NON-prophet, WHY Mohammad declared himself to be the last prophet; so, how do you know when you`ve come across a prophet, messenger of God: i could be prophet of God, IF reincarnation is possible, even if i am noone of importance: the only God is Karma: my 3 gods are Karma: past, present, & future, which are the true gods: all others are false. Karma is AND works like the human mind, like the id, ego & super-ego: the THREE aspects of Karma, works like the human psychological model of id, ego & super-ego: the 3 parts of Karma are the past, present, & future, are the 3 parts of Karma & the 3 gods of Karma: i worship Karma, which if it or they state that Mohammad was NOT the last prophet, then there could be someone out there that could be the next prophet: maybe i`m that person: IF you believe in faith as the only proof needed, THEN have faith in me that i`m the reincarnation of Mohammad, who was LESS mature in past, using 1-1 = 0, meaning women are given right to polygamy in Islam, but in different way than men, by having her husband divorce her 3 times, which allows her to take 2nd husband, whom she can have him divorce her, allowing her to return to her 1st husband, which is NOT the best solution to allow women polygamy, but women are wrong & liers IF they think they are not allowed to have more than 1 man, which i object to, since it`s very wrong for a woman to have more than 1 man [boyfriend or/and husband]; but, opposite is not bad, where man has more than 1 woman, since women are natural liers, WHY the great Mohammad reduced the value of what women have to say to less than that of man`s truth, since women are natural liers, and will even lie to themselves: WHY it is difficult to know WHEN a women is telling the truth, since most women do not care about the truth: most do not, WHY Mohammad reduce the value of what women have to say to less than of a man: but, WHEN a man or men abuse this, THEN an exception ought to be made: i do NOT hear of any exception to the rule, which there ought to be: i`m NOT fluent in Islam, but IF all u think Mohammad was the last prophet, then he surely would have given the exception, to when to use that exception: but, Islam is self contradictory many times, for the simple reason that Mohammad try to satisfy too many contradictory aspects of human life, why Islam is both popular and at same time have many critics, since Islam tries to satisy both evil men and evil women and good men and good women: all 4 parts are contradictory. And, it`s weird that age of consent, for a woman, keeps going up with time, that it is now the age of [17 +/- 1] years: there are some women much older women that are totally or somewhat irresponsible that she ought to not be having sex, while there are girls thare are responsible enough to be having sex: but, who or what ought to decide age of consent & what women ought to be allowed to have sex: combination of factors, with herself as the greatest factor, but certainly her sense of common sense as her guide or/and compass to allow her to decide for heself, which is NOT always accurate, her sense of common sense as to what she ough to do, when she is not able to decide for herself [in terms of using proper commons sense], then her boyfriend or/and her husband ought to decide for her, if she gives HER cosent to him to decide for her, as to what is right and wrong for her, in terms of age of consent, ought to be flexible AND NOT SO RIGID: AGE OF CONSENT OUGHT TO BE BASED ON COMMON SENSE, RATHER THAN LEGALISM, WHICH IS OFTEN ABUSED IN EVERY COUNTRY BY BOTH THE MEN AND THE WOMEN: COMMON SENSE OUGHT TO BE USED, RATHER THAN LEGALISM, WHICH IS OFTEN ABUSED, INCLUDING BY POLITICIANS, WHO CARE EITHER ONLY FOR THEMSELVES OR/& THEIR BIASED WAY OF THINKING, RATHER THAN COMMON SENSE.