The Lower Quote, As If You Didn't Know, Is By Richard Dawkins, Son.

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Muslims Are People Hudood Terrible Things

In the news recently was an article where Pakistan made amendments to the Hudood Ordinance of 1979, which is good because it's fucking barbaric. I mean, check out what it says the punishment is for adultery (zina, below) for a married person (muhsan, below) or a single person:
Section 5, subsection 2:
(2) Whoever is guilty of Zina liable to hadd (punishment as laid out in the Quran or Sunnah) shall, subject to the provisions of this Ordinance, -
(a) if he or she is a muhsan, be stoned to death at a public place; or
(b) if he or she is not muhsan, be punished, at a public place; with whipping numbering one hundred stripes.

Yeah, so if you're married and getting some nookie on the side, you get fucking stoned to death. Imagine Clinton's horror. The section on proving that rape or sex under false pretenses has occured (what they term zina-bil-jabr) is just as amazingly misogynistic and ridiculous:
Section 8:
Proof of zina-bil-jabr liable to hadd shall be in one of the following forms, namely:-
(a) the accused makes before a Court of competent jurisdiction a confession of the commission of the offence; or
(b) at least four Muslim adult male witnesses, about whom the Court is satisfied, having regard to the requirements of tazkiyah al-shuhood, that they are truthful persons and abstain from major sins (kabair), give evidence as eye-widnesses of the act of penetration necessary to the offence:

Provided that, if the accused is a non-Muslim, the eye-witnesses may be non-Muslims.

This is the oft-quoted ya-gotta-have-four-trustworthy-dudes-watch- you-get-raped-to-prove-it part of the legislation. How many times do honest, law-abiding men just hang out and witness some fucking dirtbag actually penetrate a woman? My guess is that it doesn't happen too often, but I've never been to Pakistan.

The best part of this - and by "best", I mean most horrifying for women - is that assuming she gets four guys to goddamn go to court for her, if any of them decide not to testify or changes his mind, she's fucked. Basically she's just confessed to having sex outside of marriage and as such, is subject to the punishment laid out above. Hopefully she's not married so she'll just get publically whipped a hundred times.

The amendments to the Hudood Ordinance thankfully made the death penalty go away as well as the floggings. Also, the changes allow judges to decide to try rape cases in criminal court as opposed to Islamic courts ('cause that's where the silly-ass "four guys who saw it" rule is applied). Sex outside of marriage stills carry a five year prison sentence, which would still be no joke for Mr. Ex-President Clinton.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said that the amendments were made in consultation with Islamic scholars, lawmakers, and human rights activists", so you know everyone's happy about them. Actually, Islamists stormed out of parliment in a fucking tizzy because of the apparent departure from Shar'ia law.

Ok assholes, hear this loud and clear: You are misogynists. You enjoy seeing women in lower social standing so you can exercise your pathetic excuse for a superiority complex. Your non-existant man in the sky seems to be WAY to fucking concerned about where your dicks are in relation to pussy and when YOU get out of hand and rape a woman, SHE gets punished with lashes or death. You are pansy little out-of-control woman-haters and you need to grow the fuck up.

That's all I have to say about that, for now.

2 Barbaric Yawps:

At 19/11/06 9:57 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mike, some background, since some of your arguments are valid, some are not -- judging from the comments I witnessed when I spent five months on a discussion board with mostly Pakistanis -- I love Pakistani music and drifted there to discuss that, and wound up discussing almost everything.

The comments about rape are accurate. It's one reason why one girl, in comparing Pakistan with the West listed 'not having to fear being raped' as an advantage for the West.

The 'stoning for adultery' was on the books, but never applied there -- unlike in Saudi Arabia. (The comparison is because Pakistan is religiously a 'satellite' of SA, most of the imams were trained there and the Pakistanis are religiously Selafists (Wahhabists), the most strict form of Islam.)

In fact, in the cities, Pakistan is relatively secular in practice, mostly because Islam just doesn't work as a polity. (See Naipaul's AMONG THE BELIEVERS. It's old, and Pakistan has become more modern and less Islamic, but it is still valuable.)

It may be that this time the Islamic parties walked out on the vote, but a year ago, they were behind the change, and it was Mussharaf that blocked it.

The Hudood ordinances were a carry over from the dictatorship of General Zia, who tried to make Pakistan more Islamic, and were generally disliked by most of the cities, but the more religious countriside were the ones who opposed changing them.

The main danger in Pakistan was the corruption of the police, who would refuse to investigate charges of rape, would suppoirt religious extremists (there was a case in the NWFP where extremists attacked a video store and the police, rather than prosecuting the extremists, forced all the video stores in the area to close). There were also a couple of high-profile cases where the police were the rapists, as a way of exacting punishment on a woman who complained about police corruption.

(Then there is the well-known case of Mukhtar Mai, which is too long to go into here. Ironically, it was the fact that her local imam supported her and gave her strength to attack the system that kept the case alive.)

Prup (aka Jim Benton)

 
At 19/11/06 12:05 pm, Blogger BigHeathenMike said...

Thank you for the comments, sir. I did read that the stoning law was, as you said, on the books, it never was actually enforced. I guess it just boggles my mind that something as mundane as adultry (or simple sex without being married) warrants such a ridiculously stern and final punishment.

I've travelled through Asia and realize that the common perception of these types of places are rarely accurate on street level. The only thing, as a non-eyewitness, I can comment about on my silly blog is their government policy - which, as you've pointed out - is often not reflective of what people's day to day is like.

Religion is still a stupid way to run a country, as far as I'm concerned though. ;)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home