Fight Hudood, Protect Women

re: masadi

First of all, sorry for this delayed reply. Secondly, I understand that you are in Pakistan and if, by chance, you are located in Lahore, you are more than welcome to our Lahori Chowk meetings. If you are interested, please get my email address from the Chowk editors.

My only question to your post is:

Do you have any emperical evidence to prove that religion has actually improved the lot of women in Pakistan as far as medical health care practices are concerned?

In a simple sense; has religion in Pakistan ushered in social justice or social injustice as far as the women of Pakistan are concerned? Has religion liberated the women or enslaved them? Does the religion in Pakistan treat the women as co-equals or as inferior to men?

Ciao

Re: # 410

okhla99

Excuse me dear okhla; you, instead of replying to my observation in #406, have started hanky panky. I am least interested in the petitions and affidavits submitted by the petitioner. I am interested only in knowing how the case stands now in the SC.

I am of the view that CJSC had unnecessarily meddled in this case as he had been doing kite-flying in many other cases. It was his this excessively overactive `media circus` which landed him into the predicament he is facing presently.

As regards Mai, `Uski to guddi udde hi udde` whatever is decided by any court as she has attained a sustainable all-win position, thanks to the media and NGO circus.

#411 by khurram

Of-course they did. How dare you mention ``Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) supporting Khula.? They don`t need that stuff.

Give something to them to support their bra-burning Islam bashing suffragette propaganda and they`ll be happy to publish it.

Re #399, ``Can you please send a note to anaa and update them ..``
I did.
And they have removed that para from their website.

Re: # 406

Oye Teshah,

I think you need to read up on the judgments on mukhtaran and get your facts straight.

On 18. March 2005, the Supreme Court had intervened suo moto and had set aside the ruling of the Sharia Court. In the same order the Supreme Court had ruled that the Lahore High Court Judgment would stand and the five acquitted earlier were ordered to be released.

However, on 26 March, 2005 Mukhtaran (petitioner) filed an elaborate Appeal before the Supreme Court which was decided on 28 June 2005.

And no, neither Mukhtaran alone nor the Supreme Court could have resolved the tangle without the abundant legal support available to the petitioner.

Quote ..``Mukhtaran has been represented by panels of lawyers. One such team is headed by Pakistan`s Attorney General, Makhdoom Ali Khan. Another panel is led by Aitzaz Ahsan, a top lawyer and politician belonging to the Pakistan Peoples Party who has been representing Mukhtaran pro bono. Mukhtaran`s cousin and close friend, law student Naseem Ghazlani, is said to be her constant companion in her dealings with lawyers.``..unquote

And if you are really interested, read the petition and the affidavits. You will be amazed.

Re: # 407

Oye Teshah,

You find use of words like ``perverse``, ``abhorrent`` and ``unacceptable`` to be ``nasty language`` ???

Man, you are out of this world.

unless of course, you object to the beering & the fishing.

Re: # 403

Krishna

It was a good retort to themad32, but may I ask why you repeated the abusive epithet about me?

Re: # 405

Mind your language dear okhla. It is very easy to be nasty but I don`t think chowk is a fit place for that.

Re: # 401

okhla99

``That is why the Supreme Court could set aside the judgment as bad in law and not sustainable.``

I don`t think so. Sc had to take up the case suo moto in view of the controversy of jurisdiction between the HC, Multan, and the Shariah Court. No observation of the kind stated above by Okhla has perhaps been made by the SC on the merit of the judgment made by the HC in the case.

Doesn`t all this handling of the Mai`s case from start to end exposes the stupidity and corruption of our judicial system? One head is already rolling and God knows how many more would role.

Re: # 402

Dear Tahmed,

Read the full text of the High Court judgment. After that read #358 carefully. You will find common ``perverse observations and inferences`` in both. The ``logic`` followed by both (not ``identical`` but not ``completely dissimilar`` either and ``common in a few respects``) is abhorrent and appears unacceptable to any rational mind.That is why the Supreme Court could set aside the judgment as bad in law and not susainable.

And of course, the term ``mediocre`` is definitely reserved for people like me , the ``hoi polloi`` of chowk. There is a certain amount of bliss in mediocrity. There are no claims to superior intellect , no imaginary ``institutes`` with imaginary ``students`` and no racing for the imaginary ``nobel prize``. Masadi, BJK, Zeemax etc can kick us around with their sarcasm (often misplaced) but we keep bouncing back to Chowk with interacts these guys find ``irritating``.

BTW, this weekend is going to be fishing & beer.

#399 by ZahraJ

[#398 by khurram

The full bench, consisting of Chief Justice Haziqul Khairi and justices Allama Dr Fida Muhammad Khan and Salahuddin Mirza, observed that there were two precedents — Jameela and Bareera cases — in the life of the Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) supporting Khula.

Dear Khurram - That`s such a pleasant news! ]

Yes. Such pleasant news! Should a 53 year old pervert with grey pubic hair be allowed to marry a 6 year-old child then? Following the precedent of your ``holy man``?

The more I find out about the inner workings of the Islamic/Paki society, and the inner workings of the Muslim mind, the more I am filled with disgust.

Ugh!

#362 by tahmed32

[#360 teshah dhagha: where in the quran did you read that ``low caste`` woman are ok to rape?]


About Slave girls and what the right hand possesses:



“It is not lawful for you (to marry other) women after this, nor to change them for other wives even though their beauty attracts you, except those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses. And Allah is Ever a Watcher over all things.” Surah 33:52



Tafsir of this ayat take from Mawdudi’s The Meaning of the Qur’an:

Book 10, page 137, footnote no. 94
“This verse explains why one is permitted to have conjugal relations with one’s slave-girls besides the wedded wives, and there is no restriction on their number. The same thing has also been stated in Surah An-Nisa:3; Al-Mu’minun:6; and Al-Ma’arij:30. In all these verses the slave-girls have been mentioned as a separate class from the wedded wives, and conjugal relations with them have been permitted. Moreover, verse 3 of Surah An-Nisa lays down the number of the wives as four, but neither has Allah fixed the number of the slave-girls in that verse nor made any allusion to their number in the other relevant verses. Here, of course, the Holy Prophet is being addressed and told: ‘It is no more lawful for you to take other women in marriage, or divorce any of the present wives and take another wife in her stead; slave-girls, however, are lawful.’ This shows no restriction has been imposed in respect of slave-girls.``


And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts). Except with their wives and the (women slaves and captives) whom their right hand possess,--for (then) they are not to be blamed.” Surah 70:29-30

Tafsir on this ayat refers you to Tafsir of Surah 23:6


“Except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess,--for then, they are free from blame;” Surah 23:6

“(1) Two categories of women have been excluded from the general command of guarding the private parts: (a) wives, (b) women who are legally in one’s possession, i.e. slave-girls. Thus the verse clearly lays down the law that one is allowed to have sexual relations with one’s slave-girl as with one’s wife, the basis being possession and not marriage. If marriage had been the condition, the slave-girl also would have been included among the wives, and there was no need to mention them separately…..” Meaning of the Qur’an Book 8, page 10, footnote 7.


“Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you…..” Surah 4:24


Tafsir of Mawdudi, Book2, page 112, footnote 44:

“That is, ‘Those women, who became prisoners of war, while their husbands are left behind in the War Zone, are not unlawful because their marriage ties have been broken by the fact that they have come into the Islamic Zone. It is lawful to marry such women and make them wives, and it is also lawful for those, in whose possession they are, to have sexual relations with them.

Unless the captive women are falling over themselves to have sex with the smelly barbarian beardos, one would think that this amounts to sanctioning rape of captive slave (lower status) women.

#okla: read what i wrote carefully first.

you missed the point i was making, so let me repeat it - the judiciary may be constrained by the facts of the case as presented to it by the prosecutor. but the police is not constrained in collecting the necessary evidence.

now do you get it?

and i didnt call you mediocre, so spare me that.

teshah: read the above, and tell me what part you have difficulty understanding.

Re: # 394

Oye Chacha Zee,

Read the full text of the High Court Judgment. Then read #358. You will find common ``perverse observations and inferences`` in both. That is why the Supreme Court could set asid e the judgment as bad in law and not susainable.

Regards.
Your mediocre nephew.

Re: # 387

themad32

You say:

``The woman was ``sentenced`` to this crime by the panchayat in the open - and you claim that there is not enough proof of the rape??``

It was the High Court which said that their was no evidence of rape in this case. It had even passed a stricture against the trial court as to why it sentenced the accused in the case to death in the absence of any evidence whatsoever of the charge of rape against them. If the case had gone to the Shariah Court you, along with the Mai, would also have been sentenced to 80 straps for `Qazf` in case you had failed to provide duly qualified four eye witnesses.

Again you quote me:

``Any how thanks to her alleged rape by the Mastoies all rural women are to day envying her fraud rape. Many of them followed her trick but failed to get Mai like justice``

and allege that this obsevation of mine goes to prove that I condoned rape.

How you concluded that I wonder!

Have you not read the statement of Naseemah of Obrho, allegedly gang raped in Sindh? She pleaded that she should be awarded justice like Mai. And so had been clamouring Dr. Shazia but with no avail. `Yih martabaahe buland jisse mil gaya mil gaya``.

Re: # 398

Dear Khurram - That`s such a pleasant news!

I have been so sad to read that one para that I was getting a bad headache. I even shed a few real tears(and not the crocodile ones that have been attributed to me previously) on the plight of our women in Pakistan.

Can you please send a note to anaa and update them on the latest developments provided they are still applicable after all the hustle bustle in the upper echelons of the legal system in Pakistan?

Buhat Buhat Shukriya. Nawazish.

Regards.