No announcement yet.

Controversial Islamic Law or ........

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Controversial Islamic Law or ........

    ..the Police is to blame

    An Islamic court in Pakistan has acquitted a woman who was sentenced to death by stoning for adultery.

    Bibi was charged after registering a rape case

    Zafran Bibi was present in the federal shariah (Islamic) court in the capital, Islamabad, when the three-judge bench announced its verdict.

    She was brought specially from prison in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) on the orders of the court, which wanted to hear her side of the story.

    And after hearing her patiently, it set aside the conviction and ordered her immediate acquittal.

    Rights controversy

    The harsh sentence on Zafran Bibi, a village woman from Kohat district in NWFP, had sparked a bitter controversy in the country, with human rights groups demanding the repeal of controversial Islamic laws.

    These groups say they clearly discriminate against women.

    Zafran Bibi originally went to the police two years ago to register a case of rape.

    But instead, she herself was charged with having an adulterous affair.

    read more here BBC 6 June 2002

    The lack of competence among the police is no secret. But the law is also controversial.

    Those who believe that Hadiths abrogates Quran consider stoning to death an Islamic law. Those who consider Quran above all, consider 100 lashes as prescribed in Quran.

    Then it is the question of who is a 'competent witness' ... as with the condition of the society in Pakistan, you can get 4 witnesses against anyone under Rs. 100 each. So, what about four witnesses against the adulterers?


      Finally some sense and courage shown by the judges! I hope they also let Dr. yunus sheik off the blasphemy case. He has languished long enough on death row!


        This is the outcome of dual judicial system in a country. The Islamic jurisprudence is very clear, but the flaws like this appear when they are mixed & used with the colonial laws.

        Until late 19th century these four schools of thoughts ruled the judiciary in all the areas with Muslim majority....

        Please read 5:44 & 5:45

        [This message has been edited by MiniMe (edited June 06, 2002).]
        بِن دانا پانی میں جی لواں
        بِن انَک میں جی نہ سکاں



          Zias Legacy, VERY interesting Article..
          Must read.


            Please read 5:44 & 5:45
            To keep things in context Translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali

            5: 44. It was We who revealed the Torah (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islám) to Allah's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear Me, and sell not My signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are unbelievers.

            5: 45. We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are wrong-doers.
            Was it suppose to say anything about stoning or not having dual judicial system?

            Maybe you meant verse 24: 2

            The woman and the man guilty of fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.
            [This message has been edited by ajee (edited June 06, 2002).]


              Yes, we should throw out retarded Islamic laws from Pakistan.


                Adnan, A very interesting article indeed! You should have posted some experts of it here.

                As much as the 'medievalist' scholars hate the Jews, maybe they would have changed their ruling on this 'LAW' after realizing that they are following the Old Testament. Expecting them to change it for the love of Quran would be a up hill struggle.


                  Sorry yaar, the cut and paste function seems to impaired somehow on this computer.. My college sucks..


                    Originally posted by JimmyC:
                    Yes, we should throw out retarded Islamic laws from Pakistan.
                    Why should we do what you mindless Indians are saying... Believe me, if you want these laws out, we will bring more in... Then you can cry all you want...


                      Originally posted by Adnan Ahmed:
                      Sorry yaar, the cut and paste function seems to impaired somehow on this computer.. My college sucks..
                      Very interesting article I strongly suggest you read all of it.

                      Does religion prescribe the punishment of stoning for adultery? The Jewish answer to this question would be 'yes'. The Old Testament, explicitly depicts various adulterous sexual acts, and prescribes that those indulging in them be "put to death" (Leviticus 20:10-21).

                      If a husband accuses his wife that she was not a virgin when he married her "and no proof of the girl's virginity is found, then they shall bring her out to the door of her father's house and the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has committed an outrage in Israel by playing the prostitute in her father's house: you shall rid yourself of this wickedness."

                      If, however, the accusation turns out to be false "they shall fine him a hundred pieces of silver because he has given a bad name to a virgin of Israel, and hand them to the girl's father" (Deuteronomy 22:20-21). "When a man is discovered lying with a married woman, they shall both die, the woman as well as the man who lay with her: you shall rid Israel of this wickedness".

                      The Christian answer to this question is found in the amazing and touching story narrated by the Apostle John. One day when Jesus Christ was teaching in the Temple, "the doctors of Law (Rabbis) and Pharisees brought in a woman caught committing adultery. Making her stand out in the middle they said to him, 'Master, this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. In the Law Moses has laid down that such women are to be stoned. What do you say about it?'...

                      "Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they continued to press their question he sat up straight and said, 'That one of you who is faultless shall throw the first stone.' Then once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard what he said, one by one they went away, the eldest first; and Jesus was left alone, with the woman still standing there. Jesus again sat up and said to the woman, 'Where are they? Has no one condemned you? She answered, 'No, one sir.' Jesus said, 'Nor do I condemn you. You may go; do not sin again' " (John 8:1-11).

                      The aforesaid is the only reference in the Bible (New Testament) to adultery and stoning. The Bible does, however, have other references to stoning, all of which mention Jews stoning the prophets or the apostles of Jesus (Luke 13:34, 20:6; John 8:59, 10-31, 11-8; Acts of Apostles 7:58, 14:5, 14:19 and the 2nd Letter of Paul to the Corinthians 11:25). The Bible records the propensity of the Jews to stoning.

                      The anguish of Jesus Christ is heart rending. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that murders the prophets and stones the messengers sent to her! How often have I longed to gather your children, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings; but you would not let me. Look, look! There is your temple forsaken by God. And I tell you, you shall never see me until the time comes, when you say, 'Blessings on him who comes in the name of the Lord!' " (Luke 13:34).

                      The holy Quran does not prescribe stoning as the punishment for adultery. There is not a single verse to this effect. The Holy Quran stipulates the punishment of "a hundred stripes" for the act of adultery, zina (24:2). If a particular sentence is prescribed in the Holy Quran a harsher one cannot be imposed. The holy Quran also requires the fulfilment of an almost impossible condition before conviction can result. Four eye- witnesses have to testify to sustain the charge (24:4).

                      And if those who accuse a woman and fail to "produce four witnesses", they are then to be flogged eighty times. If there are no witnesses and a husband accuses his wife of adultery he has to repeat his testimony and on the fifth invoke the "Curse of Allah" on himself if he is lying (24:6-7). The punishment is averted if the wife similarly swears (24:8-9). Therefore, the Holy Quran here places greater reliance on the testimony of a woman.

                      In none of the verses pertaining to adultery in the holy Quran the term stoning (rajama / rajim) is used. 'Rajim' means 'stoned', 'accursed' or 'damned' and is used as an epithet of Satan (3:36, 15:17, 16:98 Shaitan nir rajim, Satan the stoned or accursed). The verb which derives from rajim is rajama, and it means 'to stone', 'the act of stoning', 'a missile', 'something to stone with', 'guesswork', 'guessing' or 'stoned' (11:91, 18:20, 19:46, 36:18, 44:20, 18:22, 67:5 and 26:116). However, none of the verses refer to adultery. The Arabic word rajim / rajama is similar to the Hebrew word ragam, which means 'to collect or cast stones'.

                      How is it then that some Muslims followed the Jewish practice and prescribed stoning as the punishment for the sin of adultery?

                      General Muhammad Ziaul Haq discovered 'Islamic law' to secure his tenuous position. He enacted a 'law' which for the first time in the history of Pakistan ordained that "whoever is guilty of zina shall ... be stoned to death at a public place." Zia gathered around him semi-literate and self-styled ulema, legal and other sycophant advisers and introduced laws which purported to be Islamic.

                      Every legal enactment is or ought to be preceded by an open debate. There was no debate when any of the Hudood laws were enacted. The one in which stoning was prescribed, The Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979, was enacted overnight. The arrogance of the lawmakers knew no bounds. Since the Hudood laws claimed to be implementing God's intent, it was expected that every care would be taken to ensure against the possibility of any mistake, but none was taken.

                      The sycophants surrounding Zia had the audacity to refer to him as a modern day Ameer-ul-Momineen (Leader of the Faithful). Any opposition to such a ruler was it not opposition to Islam itself? The craftily drafted question in Zia's referendum suggested as much.

                      Twenty-three years have passed since the law prescribed the punishment of stoning and we have seen governments of democrats, technocrats and autocrats, but not one has been able to undo Zia's legacy. No one is apparently prepared to seek the truth, if it entails being perceived as assailing 'mazhab'.

                      The facts of the Zafran Bibi case have shocked the nation. A judge has sentenced her to death by stoning relying upon Zia's law. Zia enacted the stoning legislation contending it to be a Hadd law. Hadd is a legal term for the offences and punishments which are defined in the Quran. The fact that the punishment of stoning for adultery does not find mention in the Holy Quran did not deter Zia's Zina enactment.

                      The propagators of stoning support their contention by relying on reports attributed to Hazrat Umar; that certain verses prescribing stoning had been revealed but had been left out from the Holy Quran when it was compiled. This effectively calls into question the very infallibility and sanctity of the holy Quran as contained in the texts handed down over fourteen hundred years and is anathema to believers and is to be rejected. We are then left with certain traditions attributed to the Prophet reported in the recognized works of hadith literature.

                      The most famous collectors of the Sunni Hadith were al-Bukhari (Sahih), Muslim (Muslim), Abu Dawud, at Tirmidhi, an-Nasai and ibn Maja. All these compilers died between 256 to 303 years after the Hijrah (or between 870 to 915 AD). The Shiah collections of hadith are called khabar and were compiled even later, between 320 to 454 after the Hijrah (or between 932 to 1062 AD). The five recognized Shiah compilers were Abu Jafar (Kafi), Saykh Ali (Man la yastihzau-hu al Faqih), Shaykh Abu Jafar (Tahdhib and Istibsar) and Sayyid al-Razi (Nahj al-Balaghah).

                      It is an acknowledged rule in reading hadith literature that if a reported hadith purports to record that which is contrary to the Quran, it should be disregarded since the Prophet (pbuh) did not act contrary to Allah's revelation.

                      But even if one examines the hadith recorded by the compilers of hadith which purport to prescribe stoning there is no instance when the Holy Prophet ordered stoning of a Muslim who was caught committing adultery or against whom a charge had been levelled.

                      The instances that have been recorded by the hadith compilers are of Maaz bin Malik and of the woman from the tribe of Azd Gaib. The two are separate instances but the stories are similar. It is reported that they voluntarily appeared before the Holy Prophet and without being confronted with a charge, accusation or being coerced confessed their own guilt. Then too the holy Prophet is reported to have been extremely reluctant to hear them.

                      In both these instances it is reported that the Holy Prophet upon hearing the confessions turned his face away, this he did no less than four times, but the persons persevered and repeatedly confessed before him. Thereafter he questioned whether they were mad or drunk. Only then stoning was ordered. The Holy Prophet then read their funeral prayer (namaz-i-janaza) which was a singular honour and prayed for them. The hadith reports that the Holy Prophet then said that the person stoned had sought such profound forgiveness that if it was spread over the entire community (ummat) its blessing (sawab) would be enough for all.

                      Some hadith compilers record that once the stoning had commenced the person being stoned ran away and was brought back. When this was reported to the holy Prophet he said "if you had let him go then it is entirely possible that he would have sought forgiveness and Allah would have accepted his forgiveness" (Muslim, transmitted through Abu Huraira).

                      The hadith which are relied by the propagators of stoning are really examples of extreme atonement and expiation and can hardly be used to expound a tradition (hadith) prescribing stoning. These incidents have also not been fixed in time. It is possible that these incidents took place before the verses ordaining the punishment of whipping for adultery were revealed (the revelation of the Holy Quran having taken 23 years).

                      On such slender facts Zia prescribed that a person who commits adultery, "be stoned to death", forgetting the tradition reported by Hazrat Ayesha, that, "if the Imam (ruler) wrongly forgives it is better than if there is a mistake in sentencing" (Tirmidhi).

                      By relying upon the Holy Quran it cannot be contended that adultery is a hadd for which the punishment is stoning, but this could be contended if reliance were placed upon Jewish scriptures. Ibn Khladun had noted just such a tendency in the ignorant, "They turned for information to the followers of the Book, the Jews ... so when these people embraced Islam, they retained their stories which had no connection with the commandments of the Islamic law ... commentaries on the Holy Quran were soon filled with these stories of theirs" (Ulum al-Quran, Muqaddamah).


                        Thank you for high lighting the relevant paragraphs, Abdali. Helped in absorbing the meaning of the article. A refreshing light on the rational laws.
                        I am starting to dread reading the religion forum just because there is so much stupid sectarian idiocy.


                          Originally posted by ajee:
                          Was it suppose to say anything about stoning or not having dual judicial system?
                          Its suppose to tell us "Muslims" that what our judicail systems should be based upon, Now read the last part of the two aya's

                          If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are unbelievers

                          And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are wrong-doers

                          and people think that Zia discovered Islamic laws...

                          بِن دانا پانی میں جی لواں
                          بِن انَک میں جی نہ سکاں



                            If you take a pool across the boards, you will find that the majority does not approve of the current laws in Pakistan inherited from the colonial era and would like have an Islamic law.

                            Though, you will find no consensus in what truly the 'Islamic law' is. In other words, should it be the law according to Ahlay-sunat, or Ahlay-Hadiths or maybe Ahlay-Quran or any of the different school of thoughts? And even if we settle this by saying 'of the majority' and the rest can go to hell, even then there is no way the laws can be installed. For instance, the issue of 'credible witness' alone has the scholars boggled in their heads. According to the fiqah Hanafi (if I remember correctly) if you are found urinating at a public place (a practice very common in Pakistan) you are not eligible to be a witness in the court of law. If they actually do implement this then half the male population of Pakistan will not be able to come to court.

                            Here people are questioning that law to stone someone for adultary is un-Islamic in the first place. The article dealt with this question very fairly. If you believe otherwise then show your argument

                            Lastly, Zia not only invented the so-called Islamic law but implemented them in the most un-Islamic way he could. The verses you quoted yourself state that the law is for the believers not unbelievers. First make believers (not just spoken word believers but from heart) out of Pakistani public then institute the laws! Otherwise the so called Islamic laws, with or without the intervention of colonial ones, will be mocked at and misused to the max as in this perticular case.


                              Wow, Abdali, excellent article and a sensible one too. It covered all the bases. Where is that punishment of a toppled wall from, because that too seems out of the bounds of the Dawn piece and Mohammad's personality?