The tragedy of the Muslim woman
Khaled Ahmed’s Urdu Press Review
In India when Jinnah was practising as a lawyer he saw Islamic family law as progressive because it allowed share in property to women and permitted widows to marry. On the other hand, Hindu girls were completely without rights. But in the 1950s Nehru gave full property rights to Hindu girls in violation of the “shastras”
Muslims think family honour is attached to women but don’t respect their rights. Honour is often vindicated through killing them. The state revenges itself against them through such laws as the Zina Ordinance under which women are punished if they report rape. The clerical interpretation of the Quran confines them to home. When challenged, the clergy takes shelter behind custom, as for instance in the case of imitation of the Taliban model of treatment of women. The result is that women have become “absent” from public life. Those who dare to come out are condemned. Muslim states do without the proper participation of 50 percent of the population in public affairs. In Pakistan for many years now, the academic landscape is completely dominated by women but their public presence is increasingly discouraged.
Poetess Kishwar Naheed wrote in “Jang” (26 September 2003) that a Women’s Commission was set up in Islamabad four years ago and made permanent. Its chairperson was a lady whose statements were not liked by Pakistan’s feudal leadership. She was threatened over the phone and warned against making any recommendations against the draconian laws against women in Pakistan. She was finally threatened with the abduction of his young daughter after which she took her daughter and ran away to Canada. After that for some time no one was appointed chairperson. Then Karachi’s respectable judge Justice Majida Rizvi was appointed and the Commission began its work. It has now recommended the repeal of Hudood Laws, only two out of 16 members dissenting, including chairman of the Council of Islamic Ideology. There were 430 women in Karachi jail from all over Sindh because women don’t have the right to be witnesses. A similar number are jailed in Multan along with their children after being raped because they couldn’t bring four witnesses to prove the act.
Under the law of evidence in Islam, as interpreted by the clergy, a woman is half the value of man. The Quran is not clear on this but the “fiqh” is clear. Justice Rizvi is indeed a brave lady. She points out that a woman is not allowed to become a witness in a Hudood case but can be punished under it. The same goes for non-Muslims. However, a woman can be treated as equal if the Hudood Ordinances are set aside and the judges are allowed to use their own discretion and humane comprehension or “istihsan” under the Islamic law of “tazir”. It is tragic that Pakistan is too hide-bound religiously to rationalise the laws that punish women for the crime of men.
Writing in “Insaf” (26 September 2003) Maulana Abdur Rasheed Arshad said that a judge of the Sindh High Court had recently passed a judgement giving equal share in inheritance to a woman while there is a clear edict (nas) in the Quran that she should receive half a share. He said the judge while quoting the UN human rights charter violated the charter of the Quran. He said the UN was a “londi” (slave girl) of the Jews and could not be in favour of the Muslims. He added that the Lahore High Court too had applied a new reasoning to a case of love marriage between two Christians which was wrong.
The view is typical of the medievalism of Islamic thinking today. In India when Jinnah was practising as a lawyer he saw Islamic family law as progressive because it allowed share in property to women and permitted widows to marry. On the other hand, Hindu girls were completely without rights. But in the 1950s Nehru gave full property rights to Hindu girls in violation of the “shastras”. Today the Muslim girl has fewer rights in India. It is a pity that Pakistan’s laws should be out of step with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UN is not a “londi” of the Jews. The Jews prefer to work outside the purview of the UN because it contains the most negative resolutions against Israel, including the resolutions of the Security Council where the Jews can count on the American veto.
According to “Nawa-e-Waqt” (26 September 2003) one Nasima Bibi of Shadbagh who was accused of insulting the Quran died in jail in Lahore after being bailed out by the High Court in June with Rs 50,000 bond for her and her two sons who were also arrested. No one came forward to stand bail for them and the mother died. The sons then prayed to the court that they be allowed to leave and bury their mother as no one was willing to stand bail for them. They said their mother was wrongfully accused by a man to get hold of her house. She was a God-fearing person and could not think of insulting the Quran. The court let the sons below 18 years of age go on a bail of Rs 5,000.
The evil of the law lies at the level of the police and the lower judiciary because both institutions remain under pressure from the extremist clergy and the criminals who exploit the situation. The police registers blasphemy-related cases under pressure or out of prejudice which they share with society. The lower courts where punishments up to death can be passed sometimes function under threat of physical harm from armed religious groups; sometimes the judges share the fanaticism of those who bring the cases. However at the level of the High Court the wrongfully accused persons mostly get bailed out which clearly points to the weakness of the case. If the case is high-profile then even the High Court may feel under pressure. Bail is the safest course, but this comes after five or six years, during which time the victim rots in jail or at times dies, as in the above case. Pakistanis should be ashamed of this. The country cannot progress if its citizens have become inured against feeling any guilt for the way blasphemy laws are being used in the country. *
dailytimes.com.pk |
