[soc.religion.islam] Question about Pakistan's "official Islam"

lieuwen@mycella.cs.wisc.edu (Dan Lieuwen) (07/27/90)

On NPR, a while back, they had a program on the treatment of women in Pakistan
that seemed contrary to my reading of the Quaran.

For instance, young women from Bangladesh (illegal immigrants) were tricked 
into thinking they'd get a decent job.  Instead they were enslaved--and as 
part of the enslavement raped.  When the Pakistani authorities raided the
homes, the enslavers weren't punished.  The women were put in prison for
ADULTRY.  Now, from my reading, adultry requires that two people be punished,
not one.  Also, the gist of Quaranic law seems to be an attempt to protect 
women (for instance, the punishment for those who can't prove pretty 
decisively that the women they accused is in fact guilty of adultry), not
rapist males.  Pakistan seems to be turning the Quaran on its head.

Also, even when a man is punished for rape, he can only get full punishment
if seen by four males.   This too seems to be twisting the intent of the
passage, which once again seemed aimed at protecting women.

Do I understand these passages correctly?

Dan

--
	
	--Dan

ikhan%tessi.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET (Iqbal Khan) (08/03/90)

In article <14209@wpi.wpi.edu> lieuwen@mycella.cs.wisc.edu (Dan Lieuwen) writes:
>
>part of the enslavement raped.  When the Pakistani authorities raided the
>homes, the enslavers weren't punished.  The women were put in prison for
>ADULTRY.  Now, from my reading, adultry requires that two people be punished,
>not one.  Also, the gist of Quaranic law seems to be an attempt to protect 

Correction here.  Adultry does not require both the particpants to be punished.  In
fact, if one of the persons confesses, he/she is not even asked who the partner was.
Of course, all this is the princinple of Islam and not what might be practiced.

The second thing is that a person is not convicted of adultry unless at least four
male or two males and four females (??) bear witness to the actual penetration.  This
extreme condition is there to protect the accused.  In general, the understanding is 
that if a judge gives the maximum punishment of adultry merely on basis of witneses, 
it is not a correct judgement.  The extreme punishment of stoning is given mostly 
when the person confesses himself/herself.

Keeping this in mind, if Pakistan's courts convicted any women in the above mentioned
cases, they are certainly not following any Sharia laws.  The problem in Pakistan is
that Islamic laws are being enforced in a procedural judicial system.  In a procedural
system, if a person is accused of a crime, he/she is arrested immediately and then tried.
Well, in case of adultry accusation, the person loses the reputation even if he/she is
innocent.

Iqbal Mustafa Khan

aza@hpfinote.hp.com (Asad Aziz) (08/03/90)

Dan,

	I also heard the same program on NPR. Unfortunately, in this case the
letter and spirit of Islam have been warped to favour the parties that have
the most power, i.e men. The crux of the matter is that the way the practices
are set up, the woman is essentially guilty until proven innocent. These 
women from Bangladesh have no  one to intercede on their behalf and no one 
is willing to get involved.  People have other problems that are more 
immediate. 

	You might want to cross post this to soc.culture.pakistan to see
what responses you get.

asad