Pakistan rejects pro-women bill

[Michael]

This is absolutly absurd: Pakistan rejects pro-women bill

The Pakistan government has allied with Islamists to reject a bill which sought to strengthen the law against the practice of "honour killing".

The parliament rejected the bill by a majority vote on Tuesday, declaring it to be un-Islamic.

Honour killing is the name given to murders where the offender claims the victim, usually a woman, had brought his family into disrepute.

The bill was rejected after being declared un-Islamic by a majority vote.

Honour killing may not be Islamic and I am sure that honour killings have been going on for millennia before Islam was invented. That said, I think it says something about the Qur’an that honour killings are not only still taking place, but attempting to pass stronger laws to prevent the brutal murders from occurring is naysayed as, and I quote, “un-Islamic”.

Doesn’t it say something about Islam if in over a thousand and a half years (going on two millennia) the Islamic way of life has done nothing to change this adherent practice?

One would think that if the Qur’an were the actual words from God, they’d have had some sort of an enlightening effect on those whom are coerced into memorizing each and every word, that maybe these Godly words would catalyze a positive change in the society? BUT, it appears (from what I am reading) to be the exact opposite case?!?

[Don’t misunderstand me, the same argument can be made against Hinduism. And to be fair, I’ll make it. Hinduism IS the oldest religion in the work, many millennia it's been practiced, and obviously many Hindu’s still practice honor killings - and THAT says something about this religion as well. However, where Hinduism and Islam take a turn is in proselytizing – and, to me at least, that means something. If you’re going to say hey this is THE way, I say – show me what it’s done that’s been positive for your society before you think I’ll want a bar of it in mine.]

 

[Lord_Phoenix]

Actually, in hinduism honour killings is a very rare thing, unless in a population where there is no western influence. Islam however, (sorry if I offend muslims) is barbaric. I should know because I lived in Saudi Arabia for 8 years. They discriminate everyone who is not muslim. So I am not surprised with Pakistan's decision. Islam being one of the newly created religions, I would have hoped that they are more moral/ethical. Looks like my assumptions is wrong. But about hinduism, well you have already made you arguement. But as you already said hinduism IS the oldest religion in work, therefore you can not really expect a religion which is very old to possess the "equality" that we define these days. However, as I said same excuse can not be made with Islam.

 

[James R]

Is Pakistan officially an Islamic state?

 

[Michael]

Is Pakistan officially an Islamic state?

Actually yes, the official name is: Islamic republic of Pakistan Also, I believe Islamabad means "The city of Islam".

What's more, I wanted to reiterate that Honour Killings are not Islamic. Honour Killings occurred in the Indus region (as well as many many many Wetsern, Eastern, New World, African, ect . . . societies) well before Islam was invented. So don’t be mistaken and think that I am implying that Islam somehow causes Honour Killings. That is not at all what I am suggesting.

I am saying that in 1500 years that Islam has done nothing to subvert the tradition of Honour Killing women. History will show, that as an ideology, Islam offered nothing the Islamists could point to and use to stomp it out. And maybe even the opposite, it appears that Islamic countries of modern day are some of the last left to still practice it.

Society didn’t and doesn't appear to progress under Islam. Even to the point of whereby members of Pakistan’s Islamic government seem to think that too much lawfully encroachment upon this tradition of Honour Killing a woman is itself an “un-Islamic” thing to do?!?

That's absurd

And I think that this Historical fact say something about Islam as an Ideology. Islam does not appear to amount to much overall good within any given society. And Islam is meant to be societal, not only individual (which could be another topic).

[To be relative here, I’d point to the failed ideology of Communism, and say that even it, in less than a single generation, effectively and lawfully guaranteed women equality and in China at least effectively put an end to Slavery in short order as well. Yet, Islam has been unable to do either of these things in over a 100 generations. That says something, to me at least.]

 

[786]

Well the thing is that calling oneself a Islamic state doesn't make it is an Islamic State.

Truly an Islamic State is a State which inforces the Shariah. To my knowledge Pakistan is no where close. I am a Pakistani so I should know.

Even Saudi Arabia is not a Islamic State. You might be amazed! But that is really the truth. The Shariah doesn't allow monarchy, and Saudi Arabia is a monarchy. Although Saudi Arabia would probably be the closest of being an Islamic state.

Having a vast population of "Muslims" doesn't make it an Islamic state. It is the Shariah (Islamic law) which makes it an Islamic state.

To me there is no Islamic state in the whole world.

I just thought that it is important to point this out, when talking about an "Islamic State"

Peace be unto you

 

[Michael]

Well the thing is that calling oneself a Islamic state doesn't make it is an Islamic State.

That may be the case, but that really doesn’t say what would occur in a truly Islamic State. Perhaps there would be absolutely no law to prohibit honour killings?

But, we can gain an insight into what an Islamic State may do. Pakistan is majority Muslim after all, and it appears your fellow citizens do not support strengthening the law prohibiting the practice of slaying a woman in payment for a slight.

Truly an Islamic State is a State which inforces the Shariah. To my knowledge Pakistan is no where close. I am a Pakistani so I should know.

Out of curiosity, do you agree with the government’s rejection the Bill?

Do you agree with the parliament’s assertion that the strengthening of laws against those whom perform honour killings is un-Islamic?

Even Saudi Arabia is not a Islamic State. You might be amazed! But that is really the truth. The Shariah doesn't allow monarchy, and Saudi Arabia is a monarchy. Although Saudi Arabia would probably be the closest of being an Islamic state.

This is interesting to me. Are you saying that an Islamic State would be similar to Saudi Arabia only ruled by a Caliph instead of a Monarchy?

As intolerant and as strict as KSA?

And this is a good thing?!?

That seems odd to me. Who would want to live under such a harsh system?

[I even wonder if such a system could be sustainable without a constant input of cash –Fortunately for KSA they have a reliable supply of an much needed commodity. However, I wonder if KSA could thrive if that weren’t the case. How ironic would that be - if the only way to sustain an Islamic State is by having a bunch of Infidelic States around to pay for it!]

To me there is no Islamic state in the whole world.

During the last millennia, to your knowledge, has there ever been an Islamic State?

 

[Xerxes]

Islam will change as the demographics, economic and political climates change. Just look at how much Judaism has evolved over the milleniums (for better or worse).

 

[Michael]

Islam will change as the demographics, economic and political climates change. Just look at how much Judaism has evolved over the milleniums (for better or worse).

I agree, and I am sure there has never been a uniform systematic thing called “Islam: - even when it initially came about, else why have a canonization process commissioned by Uthman?

Funny enough, the notion of change is considered bad by some Muslims. As if, for some reason, change is bad and no-change is good? Who’s to say that change isn’t godly and to stagnate sinful? I was under the assumption that Buddhists value change? Is that correct? I suppose for your average Muslim, it’s really just an assumption made from the ill conceived notion that the Qur’an came down from heaven and landed in one piece. However, as any Islamic scholar can tell you, that is far from the case. The Qur’ans historical compilation is really no different that that of the Bible or Torah.

But, back to your comment – I wonder if it will be for the good or for the bad?

 

[786]

That may be the case, but that really doesn’t say what would occur in a truly Islamic State. Perhaps there would be absolutely no law to prohibit honour killings?

But, we can gain an insight into what an Islamic State may do. Pakistan is majority Muslim after all, and it appears your fellow citizens do not support strengthening the law prohibiting the practice of slaying a woman in payment for a slight.

Out of curiosity, do you agree with the government’s rejection the Bill?

Do you agree with the parliament’s assertion that the strengthening of laws against those whom perform honour killings is un-Islamic?

This is interesting to me. Are you saying that an Islamic State would be similar to Saudi Arabia only ruled by a Caliph instead of a Monarchy?

As intolerant and as strict as KSA?

And this is a good thing?!?

That seems odd to me. Who would want to live under such a harsh system?

[I even wonder if such a system could be sustainable without a constant input of cash –Fortunately for KSA they have a reliable supply of an much needed commodity. However, I wonder if KSA could thrive if that weren’t the case. How ironic would that be - if the only way to sustain an Islamic State is by having a bunch of Infidelic States around to pay for it!]

During the last millennia, to your knowledge, has there ever been an Islamic State?

Well I don't know much about the concept of honour killing so really don't know what it "truly" is in "Islamic" tradition.

So I really can't say anything about that question of yours.

To my knowledge there never has been a "true" Islamic state maybe at the time of Muhammad (pbuh). But otherwise no.

Islamic law does seem harsh to those who don't understand the concept of Islam, but one must know that gaining heaven is not a peace of cake.

Peace be upon

 

[surenderer]

One could simply cut to the chase and say that nowhere in the Koran does Islam justify or encourage honor killings.....as 786 said Pakistian is living far outside the Sharia despite what they call themselves...Simply put honor killings are tribal not religious in nature and not a Pakistani could use ther Koran as a legal justification for such actions :m:

 

[Tiassa]

I treat such notions of what is "un-religious" similarly between the religions. When Islamic society is wealthy and educated enough to worry about other things, like going on strike for dental benefits, I'll call it a plus for the world.

In the meantime, discrimination is discrimination, and the severity is only morally valuable for the maggot daring to call the grub white.

In my lifetime, our politicians had a chance to do a simple thing: institutionalize the equality of women. They did not do so. It was unnecessary to do so, they said. Yet only a few years ago, the woman who was technically above me in the heirarchy was making 16% less than I did, which gap was exacerbated by the fact that she was, technically, performing a higher function in the company. When I took over her job, I got yet another raise.

Certainly, we're not killing our women. At least, not in honor killings. But between public (e.g. wages, superstitions, traditions, &c.) and private (e.g. domestic violence, rape, &c.) regards for women, we in the U.S. at least don't have much to crow about.

Woman is still the nigger of the world. Shave all the fish you want. It won't change a thing.

 

[path]

I agree with much of what you say Tiassa, my sister found out that two of her male underlings were getting paid more than her but she raised hell and now is getting a fair bit more than they are. (and about 2.5 times more than me). However the US does have something to crow about in that the US has a higher number of female entrepreneurs than any other country in the world. That means that women are taking the initiative and taking matters into thier own hands and the more that do that the closer we get to true equality (how ya gonna keep em down on the farm after they've seen gay paris). I believe it is just a matter of time.

I would agree with surrenderer that honor killings are more tribal than islamic but I think it says something about the moral shortcomings of islam in it's current incarnation that it has not been able change that tribal mentality (christianity failed to do this as well for centuries)

 

[Lord_Phoenix]

That is why the simple answer to who created god? Who created religion? The simple answer is MEN. That is why all the religions in the world are patriarchal. Men always wanted an upper hand, so undermined women for all these years. But as we can see, there is surely a lot of change. Why do you think Islam (culturewise) hates Westernization? The simple answer is westernization is liberal, encourages the equality in everyone, and promotes freedoms that humans are born with. However in Islam it is not so. Women are "said" to be treated equal in muslim nations. I lived in Saudi Arabia for nearly 10 years, so I should know, women are certainly not treated anywhere close to what you could call "equal". Feminism is, more or less, challenging the values and rules set down by religions which are unfair to women.

 

[surenderer]

Well i would be wrong if I didnt point out two things......1st of all even though honor killings have the Islamic tag put on it in America(where I live) According to the US Department of Justice, 1/3rd of the women murdered in America between 1976 and 1999 were killed by their husband, ex-husband, or boyfriend.......honor killings just the same.......2nd of all as far as the Pakistani's saying that it was "unislamic" their saying that hasnt anything to do with women at all........As far as I know they were basing their ruling on the fact that in Islam when someone is murdered(male or female) it becomes the slain family members decision as to the punishment of the murderer....some people in Pakistan were trying to take the family members "out of the equation" and leave it up to the courts and thats why it was ruled "unislamic"

 

[surenderer]

I would agree with surrenderer that honor killings are more tribal than islamic but I think it says something about the moral shortcomings of islam in it's current incarnation that it has not been able change that tribal mentality (christianity failed to do this as well for centuries)

First thnx for agreeing with me ......2nd though I dont think that honor killings can be considered Islam's fault when the Koran speaks out against murders of the innocent......anyone who supports honor killings wont find their justification in the Koran......Remember in America 1/3 of women are killed by ex-boyfriends or husbands so if anything this is our fault as a society....Muslim ,Christian, Atheist, agnostic etc......

 

[path]

First thnx for agreeing with me ......2nd though I dont think that honor killings can be considered Islam's fault when the Koran speaks out against murders of the innocent......anyone who supports honor killings wont find their justification in the Koran......Remember in America 1/3 of women are killed by ex-boyfriends or husbands so if anything this is our fault as a society....Muslim ,Christian, Atheist, agnostic etc......

No problemo I didn't mean that honor killings are in any way justified by the quran but I meant that there seems to be something missing if people who have embraced islam for centuries still haven't changed thier ways. There is a good deal of misogyny in islam as in christianity I suspect this is what allows people the scope to practice thier faith and still engage in such practices.

A current example from denmark

Muslim girls should cover themselves from head to toe, and neither wear perfume nor go to the hairdressers if they want to have any chance of going to heaven.

Now whether this is right or not is beside the point as it is being disseminated nationwide in the name of islam so it can hardly be considered an abberration.

the Islamic Religious Community taped the sermon and took it upon itself to distribute it to schoolgirls in Muslim private schools, so that they and their parents could follow Hleihel’s instructions, daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten reported on Monday.

 

[surenderer]

Again the Koran states to only be modest in your dress:




Koran sura 33(interpetation of meaning)
59 O prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters, and the women of the believers, to wrap their veils close round them. It is better that way, they can be recognized but not annoyed.(by sexual advances) God is forgiving and merciful.



Koran sura 24: Light (interpetation of meaning)

31 And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts, and display not their ornaments, except those which are outside; and let them pull their kerchiefs over their bosoms and not display their ornaments save to their husbands and fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or what their right hands possess, or their male attendants who are incapable, or to children who do not note women’s nakedness; and that they beat not with their feet that their hidden ornaments may be known. But all turn repentant to God, O believers! May you prosper.



those are the only surah's pertaining to woman dress code so I dont know where he gets his info from.

 

[path]

From hadith for example

Volume 1, Book 8, Number 395:
Narrated 'Umar (bin Al-Khattab):

My Lord agreed with me in three things:

1. I said,"O Allah's Apostle, I wish we took the station of Abraham as our praying place (for some of our prayers). So came the Divine Inspiration: And take you (people) the station of Abraham as a place of prayer (for some of your prayers e.g. two Rakat of Tawaf of Ka'ba)". (2.125)

2. And as regards the (verse of) the veiling of the women, I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! I wish you ordered your wives to cover themselves from the men because good and bad ones talk to them.' So the verse of the veiling of the women was revealed.

3. Once the wives of the Prophet made a united front against the Prophet and I said to them, 'It may be if he (the Prophet) divorced you, (all) that his Lord (Allah) will give him instead of you wives better than you.' So this verse (the same as I had said) was revealed." (66.5).

I have seen this "so the verse regarding such and such was revealed" in several places in hadith it seems rather suspicious to me like the lord needed prodding because he had left something out

Also can you see how this could be interpreted to provide some justification for honor killing

She refrains from slandering the honour

of others and seeking out their faults

The God-fearing Muslim woman restrains her tongue and does not seek out people's faults or slander their honour, and she hates to see such talk spread in the Muslim community. She acts in accordance with the guidance of the Qur'an and Sunnah, which issue a severe warning to those corrupt men and women who indulge in slandering the honour of others, that they will suffer a terrible punishment in this world and the next:

( Those who love [to see] scandal published broadcast among the Believers, will have a grievous Penalty in this life and in the Hereafter: Allah knows, and you know not.) (Qur'an 24:19)
The one who indulges in the slander of people's honour, and spreads news of scandal throughout the community is just like the one who commits the scandalous deed, as `Ali ibn Abi Talib (RAA) stated:
"The one who tells the news of scandal and the one who spread the news are equally sinful."41

From here

 

[surenderer]

Its interesting because as many times as I have read that Surah(24:19) I never thought of it to mean anything about "honor killings"........it was suppose to mean that Muslims arent suppose to slander anyone or speak ill of anyone

 

[Michael]

Well i would be wrong if I didnt point out two things......1st of all even though honor killings have the Islamic tag put on it in America(where I live) According to the US Department of Justice, 1/3rd of the women murdered in America between 1976 and 1999 were killed by their husband, ex-husband, or boyfriend.......honor killings just the same.......

I was under the impression that "honour" killings involved the woman’s own family (her brothers, her father, her cousins or her mother) that kill HER. Not some husband or boyfriend but HER actual FAMILY! And they do so for a perceived slight they have received because of her behavior! This could rang from the insignificant (such as dating a non-Muslim) to, OMG, marring for love instead of doing so to advance your father business interest!?!

So no, death as a result of a psychotic ex-lover does not fit the same category as “honour killings”. Syria has even constructed special cushy prison-get-away’s reserved for brothers and fathers whom have murdered their sisters and daughters for a perceived slight – how nice.

2nd of all as far as the Pakistani's saying that it was "unislamic" their saying that hasnt anything to do with women at all........As far as I know they were basing their ruling on the fact that in Islam when someone is murdered(male or female) it becomes the slain family members decision as to the punishment of the murderer....some people in Pakistan were trying to take the family members "out of the equation" and leave it up to the courts and thats why it was ruled "unislamic"

So you are saying that courts unIslamic?