Law criminalizing violence against women declared “un-Islamic”
Mehreen Zahra-Malik reports at Reuters:
A powerful Pakistani religious body that advises the government on the compatibility of laws with Islam on Thursday declared a new law that criminalizes violence against women to be “un-Islamic.”
Thus throwing a massive spanner into the project of liberal secular Muslims who argue that it’s violence against women that’s un-Islamic.
The Women’s Protection Act, passed by Pakistan’s largest province of Punjab last week, gives unprecedented legal protection to women from domestic, psychological and sexual violence. It also calls for the creation of a toll-free abuse reporting hot line and the establishment of women’s shelters.
But since its passage in the Punjab assembly, many conservative clerics and religious leaders have denounced the new law as being in conflict with the Muslim holy book, the Koran, as well as Pakistan’s constitution.
That’s such an astonishingly ugly and indefensible position to take. Those conservative clerics and religious leaders are saying that the Koran is cool with violence against women, or perhaps even that it mandates it. Do they really want to say that?
Why would anyone ever want to worship a god who approves violence against any set of people? Why would anyone ever want to worship a god of hatred and domination?
The 54-year-old council is known for its controversial decisions. In the past it has ruled that DNA cannot be used as primary evidence in rape cases, and it supported a law that requires women alleging rape to get four male witnesses to testify in court before a case is heard.
The council’s decision this January to block a bill to impose harsher penalties for marrying off girls as young as eight or nine has angered human rights activists.
“Controversial” isn’t the right word for those decisions. Immoral, misogynist, sadistic, abusive are better fits.
Fazlur Rehman, the chief of one of Pakistan’s largest religious parties, the Jamiat-i-Ulema Islam, said the law was in conflict with both Islam and the constitution of Pakistan.
“This law makes a man insecure,” he told journalists.
And that’s all wrong, because it’s women who should be insecure, and beaten, raped, married off in childhood, denied education, killed at whim. Men must be secure in their power to inflict all that with impunity.
If the conservative clerics and religious leaders are right that that’s Islam, then Islam is a horror.
“This law makes a man insecure”. Islam postdates patriarchy, and is a tool, not a creator of patriarchy. Of course so is just about every other religion. c.f. the Dalai Lama on women, in case you were thinking Buddhism was some sort of exception.
Somewhat related: Mohammad Shafia, Hamed Shafia and Tooba Yahya are appealing their conviction for the murder of Mohammad Shafia’s wife and three daughters. Among other things, the appeal claims that having an expert witness who suggested that the murders were “honour killings” unfairly influenced the jury http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/shafia-murder-appeal-1.3473359
I read that story just yesterday. Thought about posting on it but decided that appeals will say whatever it takes, so didn’t. It infuriates me though. The Shafia case is so horrific.
“This law makes a man insecure.”
Male security requires female insecurity? This is what passes for reasoning among Islamists? As far as I am concerned, he all but admitted that he is an incredibly insecure man in a different sense.
I thought you might have already heard about the Shafia appeal. I found it an interesting juxtaposition of those grounds for the appeal against the Pakistani Islamic leaders decrying the “un-Islamic” criminalization of violence against women.
Why would anyone ever want to worship a god who approves violence against any set of people? Why would anyone ever want to worship a god of hatred and domination?
Because Allah is an infallible sock puppet whose misogynistic ‘word’ bestows countless privileges on these depraved men.
@2 These three Shafia stooges just have endless supplies of self-pity. They never killed anyone. That they were given life behind bars is but the result of racism.
@Holms #4
This law makes men “insecure” by limiting the actions they can take to protect their reputation and their “property” (i.e. women).
And no need for concern about the security of the women – as long as they are modest and comport themselves according to Sharia law, they have nothing to worry about (well, unless they get raped and then accused of adultery, but how likely is that to happen?)