Pakistan votes to change rape law

[Khayr]

NEWS CENTRAL/S. ASIA

 

 

 

Pakistan votes to change rape law

 

 

 

 

 

Musharraf praised the vote to change

the country's "unjust" rape laws

 

 

Pakistan's parliament has voted to amend controversial laws on rape, removing it from the sole jurisdiction of religious Sharia courts and placing it under the civil penal code.

 

 

The change makes it easier for victims of rape to prosecute their attackers and has been praised by the Pakistani president.

 

 

 

 

 

Pervez Musharraf said the vote was necessary to amend the "unjust rape laws" and helped improve women’s rights.

 

 

The change however met with strong opposition by politicians from conservative Islamic parties, who stormed out of the parliament chamber in protest.

 

 

 

They are angry at what they say is the curtailment of Islamic law.

 

 

The changes must still be approved by the Pakistani senate in order to take effect.

 

Unfair treatment

 

 

Under the Protection of Women Bill, judges will now have the discretion to try rape cases in a criminal rather than an Islamic court.

 

 

Until now, rape victims had to produce four – usually male - witnesses to the rape in order to result in a conviction. If not, they could themselves be prosecuted for adultery.

 

 

"We are fully aware of the fact that we still have a lot more to do"

 

Shaukat Aziz,

Pakistani prime minister

 

The laws formed part of the Hudood Ordinances introduced in 1979 by Pakistan’s then military ruler, Zia-ul-Haq.

 

The changes, if approved, will allow convictions to be made on the basis of forensic and circumstantial evidence.

 

Shaukat Aziz, the Pakistani prime minister, said after the vote would "help lessen to a great extent the unfair and illegal treatment meted out to women".

 

 

But, he added, "we are fully aware of the fact that we still have a lot more to do."

 

 

Women’s rights groups meanwhile have given the vote a cautious welcome.

 

 

"We wanted a total repeal of the 1979 rape law, but the government has not done it," Hina Jillani, a leading Pakistani activist, told the Associated Press news agency.

 

 

Conservative opposition politicians have said they will fight to make sure the bill does not pass the senate stage.

 

 

"We reject it," said Malaun Fazlur Rahman, head of the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (Islamic Party of Religious Leaders).

 

He said the vote was a "dark day" for Pakistan.

 

 

Source

 

 

The Ulema had it wrong all along I guess,

4 Witnesses is a bit Unpragmatic in a world of'Judge Judys' :confused:

[Zafir]

^Are you disappointed?

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Zafir:

^Are you disappointed?

Khayr disappointed in the Ulema? he's not only disappointed, he's furious.

 

How could they let him down? , he belived in their JUST judgements all his life, but somehow today, the un-pragmaticalness of the idea of demanding a raped girl/woman victim to produce four male witnesses to her plight , sneaked in the back of his mind.

 

Now , whether to blame the Ulema's or the scripts they been applying is a totally diffrent ball game .

 

I personally wonder if a Pakistani guy ever got convicted for Rape, who could produce 4 sprectators to one's plihgt?

 

EDIT :: Where in the world is one supposed to find four totally indifferent human beeings preferably four males, who neither participate in an act of Rape that takes place infront of their eyes nor hinder it.?

 

A Mental institution? just a thought!!

[NGONGE]

^^^ If the rapist films his crime and sends the Bluetooth images to all his friends (or worse, he puts it on YouTube). Come on, JB, this is most unlike you, saaxib.

 

 

Pakistan is a very weird place with a hazy picture of Islamic rules. They’ve had this rape law since 1979 and the mullahs there are adamant that any change, improvement or clarification of this law is the equivalent of rejecting god’s laws! These mullahs are strict, firm and unyielding. They don’t compromise when it comes to their Islamic principles, erm, well, err only if their Prime Minster happens to be a woman of course.

 

Weird bunch, real weird bunch.

[Khayr]

Just a quick question or two:

 

Can you be a MUSLIM and NOT believe that what the Shariah says re: having '4 witnesses' in fornication/adultery cases?

 

Do you believe in Euthanasia as a practical way of ridding someone of their incurable illness?

What if you know that Islam is against Suicide and assisted Suicice? Would you still support Euthanasia? (It is in line with the topic because it is an issue of PRAGMATIGISM (what is practical))

[AYOUB]

^^ Your topic says RAPE.

[Blessed]

post edited

This is weird. I don't want to sart fitnah here, going to ask a scholar...

[StarGazer]

Women like Mukhtar Mai can finally have a chance at justice. Read more about her!

 

Wa salaam

[Khayr]

Salamz,

 

Maybe this topic should be moved to the General Section.

 

In anycase,

 

I think that this issue brings into light

'Ancient Beliefs v. Modern Superstitions' .

 

It brings into the question of what is the role of individual/citizen of the state?

 

On one hand, you have liberal democratic ideals of the rights of the Individual trump state rights. The values of individual rights and freedoms being of the utmost sacredness. Hence, why phrases such as 'It is My RIGHT', MY CHOICE' are often heard in the media and general public.

 

From such a propsective of holding the 'Individual Rights' at the Apex of the Societal Value Pyramid, it can be seen why such an amendement is of value. In particular in a muslim dominated culture and state.

 

 

On the opposite pole, is the Islamic societal ideals which are based on:

 

• UNITY

• sTABILITY

• RULE OF SHARIAH

This means that exposing corruption, people's sins etc. is not an Islamic Ideal. Why? Because it promotes FASAAD/Corruption of souls. It creats Disunity and instability in society. Eventually, leading to the undermining of the ][/b]Rule of the Shariah.[/b]

 

Hence why the punishment for Slander in the deen, is severe. Also, why the rules for making someone guilty of fornication/adultery/rape are so stringet i.e. 4 WITNESS present during the actual act of penetration (a virtual impossibility)

 

So how do you reconcile the two vastly different value systems i.e. Liberal democractic v. Islamic?

 

The answer would have to be in the negative. The Islamic ethos is sharply different and opposed to the idea that 'Individual Rights' trump all other societal values especially anything remotely religious.

 

This is why Pragmatism i.e. Making changes to society due to social taboos because Ancient Beliefs are well-impractical, is anti-Islam. Pragmatism is self serving of a world view that RELATIVISES everything. A world view that nothing is SACRED.

 

This evenT in Pakistan is important, in that it demonstrates the drifts between the DEEN v. Dunya in the Muslim WORLD. This is a very sentiment inspired-ruling. The deen was side stepped and the Ulama ignored.

 

The question can and will be asked ofcourse-How do we prevent Rape?

 

To which a conservative answer would be: Stick to the Islamic Community and Family Nucleus. Don't let your families be ALONE in the home or in public. Live in close knit communities and close to relatives.

 

Fi Amanillah

[Valenteenah.]

^ What are you talking about?

[AYOUB]

^^ I think he is saying; a girl/woman has to present 4 witnesses to prove she was raped. If disagree with that, he is questioning whether you're a Muslim or not. All in a very round about way.

 

Khayr

I'll wait for Ameenah to come back on this. If YOU can come up with proof to back your claims then share it with us. RAPE is no adultery as far as i'm concerned. PS don't beat round the bush next time.

 

Ameenah

No preasure.

[Cara.]

Khayr,

 

Also, why the rules for making someone guilty of fornication/adultery/rape are so stringet i.e. 4 WITNESS present during the actual act of penetration (a virtual impossibility)

What about pregnancy? Is that admissible evidence for adultery/fornication?

[Socod_badne]

Don't expect Kheyr to ever honestly address the issue. He's honorary member of Intellectually Bankrupt Society.

 

 

Rape case roils Saudi legal system

 

By DONNA ABU-NASR, Associated Press Writer Tue Nov 21, 4:49 PM ET

 

AL-AWWAMIYA, Saudi Arabia - When the teenager went to the police a few months ago to report she was gang-raped by seven men, she never imagined the judge would punish her — and that she would be sentenced to more lashes than one of her alleged rapists received.

 

 

The story of the Girl of Qatif, as the alleged rape victim has been called by the media here, has triggered a rare debate about Saudi Arabia's legal system, in which judges have wide discretion in punishing a criminal, rules of evidence are shaky and sometimes no defense lawyers are present.

 

The result, critics say, are sentences left to the whim of judges. These include one in which a group of men got heavier sentences for harassing women than the men in the Girl of Qatif rape case or three men who were convicted of raping a boy. In another, a woman was ordered to divorce her husband against her will based on a demand by her relatives.

 

In the case of the Girl of Qatif, she was sentenced to 90 lashes for being alone in a car with a man to whom she was not married — a crime in this strictly segregated country — at the time that she was allegedly attacked and raped by a group of other men.

 

In the sleepy, Shiite village of al-Awwamiya on the outskirts of the eastern city of Qatif, the 19-year-old is struggling to forget the spring night that changed her life. An Associated Press reporter met her in a face-to-face interview. She spoke on condition of anonymity to protect her privacy; the AP does not identify rape victims unless they ask to be named.

 

Her hands tremble, her dark brown eyes are lifeless. Her sleep is interrupted by a replay of the events, which she describes in a barely audible whisper.

 

That night, she said, she had left home to retrieve her picture from a male high school student she used to know. She had just been married — but had not moved in with her husband — and did not want her picture to remain with the student.

 

While the woman was in the car with the student, she said, two men intercepted them, got into the vehicle and drove the couple to a secluded area where the two were separated. She said she was raped by seven men, three of whom also allegedly raped her friend.

 

In a trial that ended in November — in which the prosecutor asked for the death penalty for the seven men — four of the men received between one and five years in prison plus 80 to 1,000 lashes, said the woman. Three others are awaiting sentencing. Neither the defendants nor the plaintiffs retained lawyers, as is common here.

 

"The big shock came when the judge sentenced me and the man to 90 lashes each," said the woman. The sentence was handed down as part of the rape trial. Lashes are usually spread over several days, dealt around 50 at a time.

 

The sentences have yet to be carried out, but the punishments ordered have caused an uproar.

 

"Because I could make no sense (of the sentence) and became in dire need of patience, I muttered after I read the verdict against the Girl of Qatif: 'My heart is with you,'" wrote Fatima al-Faqeeh in a column in Al-Watan newspaper.

 

Justice in Saudi Arabia is administered by a system of religious courts according to the kingdom's strict interpretation of Islamic Sharia law. Judges — appointed by the king on the recommendation of the Supreme Judicial Council — have complete discretion to set sentences, except in cases where Sharia outlines a punishment, such as capital crimes.

 

That means no two judges would likely hand down the same verdict for similar crimes. A rapist, for instance, could receive anywhere from a light or no sentence to death, depending on the judge.

 

Saudis are urging the Justice Ministry to clarify the logic behind some rulings. In one recent case, three men convicted of raping a 12-year-old boy received sentences of between one and two years in prison and 300 lashes each. In contrast, another judge sentenced at least four men to between six and 12 years imprisonment for fondling women in a tunnel in Riyadh.

 

Saleh al-Shehy, a columnist for Al-Watan, asked Justice Minister Abdullah Al-Sheik to explain why the boy's rapists got a lighter sentence than the men in last year's sexual harassment case.

 

"I won't ask you my brother, the minister, if you find the ruling satisfactory or not," wrote al-Shehy. "I will ask you, 'Do you think it satisfies God?"

 

"Please explain to us how one judge ruled and how the other ruled? What evidence did the one rely on and what proof did the other use?" he added.

 

The broad discretion judges enjoy have been a disaster for Fatima, another Saudi woman. She suddenly found herself divorced from her husband, Mansour al-Timani, after her half-brothers went to a judge and told him their sister had married beneath her.

 

Fatima, whose full name has not been given in media reports, had been married for over three years and was pregnant with her second child when the judge declared the marriage void in July 2005.

 

Today, Fatima sits in jail with her 11-month-old son — her 4-year-old daughter was recently freed — rather than return to the custody of her family as the judge decreed.

 

The problems over sentencing are exacerbated by loose trial rules, in which physical evidence sometimes is not presented.

 

The Girl of Qatif said her trial had two sessions. The three trial judges asked for her statement, then heard the statement from the seven defendants in the first court session, according to the woman. In the second, about a month later, the judges pronounced their verdict. It was not known if there were other sessions she did not attend.

 

Judges in the case referred The Associated Press to the Justice Ministry when asked about the sentencing. The ministry, in a statement Tuesday, said rape could not be proved. There were no witnesses and the men had recanted confessions they made during interrogation, the statement said. It said the verdict cannot be appealed.

 

Sharia allows defendants to deny signed confessions, according to Abdul-Aziz al-Gassem, a lawyer who was not involved in the case. They still get punished if convicted, but the verdict is lighter.

 

"The lack of transparency in the investigation, the trial and the sentencing, plus the difficulties that journalists have to get access lead to deep a darkness where everything is possible," said al-Gassem.

 

 

source

[Khayr]

Originally posted by Cara:

Khayr,

 

quote:

---

Also, why the rules for making someone guilty of fornication/adultery/rape are so stringet i.e. 4 WITNESS present during the actual act of penetration (a virtual impossibility)

What about pregnancy? Is that admissible evidence for adultery/fornication?

I don't know if this is a rhetorical question or not or if you believe that 'Immaculate conceptions' can become normative in society.

 

In anycase, I think that it is in relation to the subject of 'Rape'. i.e. If someone became pregnant, then that does not consitute 'substantive' evidence for rape. Fornication/Adultary-Yes, but rape-more info. would be needed.

 

This is what I have heard from the Ulama.

 

The question is-Does DNA sampling take precedence over the '4 witnesses' rule?

 

Do new scientific findings negate religous rulings and standardizations?

 

It is a matter of Pragmatism.

 

If we follow the way of Pragmatism, then who is to say we can't say that murder is a Crime. We can just have medical practitioners diagnos it as a Mental Illness. Thus, exnorating the murderer from the crim. Is this not what lawyers argue for in criminal trials? i.e. Temp. Insanity, Mental Disability

[Caano Geel]

khayr, i see the point your getting at, but rather than "scientific findings negating religious standardizations", what is your perspective on time and situation.

By that i mean, we take for grated that *practical* rules are put forward in good intent so they may be well practical and useful/used.

 

So if you live in the 6th century. i think you would be hard pressed to tell people wait for 1400 yrs and you can use DNA testing, but until then use, this.

Therefore, hypothetically if these rules were put forward today, do you think they will make use of benefits offered by the technology and society of today?

 

btw, i think murder, is a crime, but *sometimes* the perpetrator cannot be held responsible for their actions - children and the mentally ill are exaples taht quickly come to mind.

I think its important that we acknowledge this, because, intentional punishment without mercy is just cruelty and that is also a crime.