According to Jamaat-e-Islami’s Munawar Hasan, it ain’t rape without four witnesses
I found this argument by Munawar Hassan of the religio-political party Jamaat-i-Islami to be unbelievably disgusting and fundamentally blasphemous in the way he invokes the Qur’an to justify blatant misogyny:
http://youtu.be/-nQTTDCromw
Anchor: Why did you vehemently oppose the women protection act?
Munawar Hasan: Women protection act was not aimed at protecting women instead it is meant to promote vulgarity and obscenity in the society.
Anchor: What is the basis of your allegations?
Munawar Hasan: On the basis of which we opposed the act.
Anchor: The fundamental purpose of the women protection act was (is) to provide women with the right to file cases on the basis of circumstantial and forensic evidence, making convictions of rape easier. Where is the obscenity in that?
Munawar Hasan: This bill has been part of law for years, how has that affected the rights of women in Pakistan? What is the one issue that can be pointed out as a success of this law?
Anchor: One blaringly obvious problem with the Hudood law was the need to present four witnesses in order to convict a rapist, failure to do so resulted in the arrest of the woman on charges of confession to adultery, that was the main issue.
Munawar Hasan: What is the problem in that?
Anchor: The problem is this sir, that according to the 2003 national commission status of women report 80 per cent women were forced to languish in jails because of inability to produce witnesses of their rape.
Munawar Hasan: The objective of Islam is to discourage such acts, no one can be shameless enough to commit such an act in the presence of four people. Making it impossible to prove such acts, therefore the whole idea is to discourage bringing such acts into public light. Discouraging it to the extent that the act is never quoted. If such a crime occurs and since there are no witnesses than both men and women are suppose to keep it under wraps and not discuss it in public.
Anchor: Sir, are you suggesting that a woman should stay silent after she is raped? That she should not report the crime?
Munawar Hasan: I am saying she should keep quite if she has no witnesses. If she has witnesses than she should present them.
Anchor: What kind of an argument is that? A woman is raped and she has to look for witnesses to prove the crime?
Munawar Hasan: Argue with the Quran and not me.
Anchor: I am not questioning the Quran, I am questioning your argument.
This is unbelievable. Why do extremist (pro-Taliban, pro-Sipah-e-Sahaba) Islamists always make the poorest, most ignorant religious arguments?
In the Qur’an, four witnesses are required to prove zina (adultery), not rape. That is a key distinction, and the Qur’an is merciful, in that by requiring 4 witnesses, the standard for proving adultery is set so high as to be impossible. That is as it should be, since the penalty for adultery is so severe (100 lashes – the Qur’an does not prescribe stoning). But adultery is not rape. If you are raped, you did not commit adultery. Adultery is a category of illicit, but mutually consensual, sexual intercourse. Obviously in rape, the sexual intercourse is forced by one party upon the other without their consent – that is the very definition of rape.
In fact, centuries of Islamic jurists have established consensus that rape is not a category of adultery, but rather of hirabah (terrorism). Here is an excellent resource from MuslimAccess on rape in Islam by Uzma Mazhar – from which I am copying liberally:
During the time of the Prophet (saw) punishment was inflicted on the rapist on the solitary evidence of the woman who was raped by him. Wa’il ibn Hujr reports of an incident when a woman was raped. Later, when some people came by, she identified and accused the man of raping her. They seized him and brought him to Allah’s messenger, who said to the woman, “Go away, for Allâh has forgiven you,” but of the man who had raped her, he said, “Stone him to death.” (Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud)
[…]
Islamic legal scholars interpret rape as a crime in the category of Hiraba. In ‘Fiqh-us-Sunnah’, hiraba is described as: ‘a single person or group of people causing public disruption, killing, forcibly taking property or money, attacking or raping women (hatk al ‘arad), killing cattle, or disrupting agriculture.’The famous jurist, Ibn Hazm, had the widest definition of hiraba, defining a hiraba offender as: ‘One who puts people in fear on the road, whether or not with a weapon, at night or day, in urban areas or in open spaces, in the palace of a caliph or a mosque, with or without accomplices, in the desert or in the village, in a large or small city, with one or more people… making people fear that they’ll be killed, or have money taken, or be raped (hatk al ‘arad)… whether the attackers are one or many.”
Al-Dasuqi held that if a person forced a woman to have sex, his actions would be deemed as committing hiraba. In addition, the Maliki judge Ibn ‘Arabi, relates a story in which a group was attacked and a woman in their party was raped. Responding to the argument that the crime did not constitute hiraba because no money was taken and no weapons used, Ibn ‘Arabi replied indignantly that “hiraba with the private parts” is much worse than hiraba involving the taking of money, and that anyone would rather be subjected to the latter than the former.
The crime of rape is classified not as a subcategory of ‘zina’ (consensual adultery), but rather as a separate crime of violence under hiraba. This classification is logical, as the “taking” is of the victim’s property (the rape victim’s sexual autonomy) by force. In Islam, sexual autonomy and pleasure is a fundamental right for both women and men (Ghazâlî); taking by force someone’s right to control the sexual activity of one’s body is thus a form of hiraba.
Rape as hiraba is a violent crime that uses sexual intercourse as a weapon. The focus in a hiraba prosecution is the accused rapist and his intent and physical actions, and not second-guessing the consent of the rape victim. Hiraba does not require four witnesses to prove the offense, circumstantial evidence, medical data and expert testimony form the evidence used to prosecute such crimes.
To summarize, rape is hirabah (terrorism), not zina (adultery) – punishment should be meted to the rapist, and the victim of rape should not be punished in any way. A statement of being raped is not a confession to adultery. All of this is not some modern reinterpretation on my part, but a robust, centuries-old consensus of all major schools of jurisprudence in Islam.
In the Pakistani context, it was the debate in 2006 that led to the Protection of Women Act later that year, which extremists like Jamaat-i-Islami opposed. Clearly, they haven’t evolved or become any more enlightened in the past five years. This all points to the difficulty of legislating morality – what’s needed is not top-down reform but a sustained campaign for civil rights at the grassroots level to change the public perception. This is how civil rights were won in the United States, by the most downtrodden and persecuted group in American society. I wonder if Pakistani women can do the same. Certainly not overnight, and not with a single law.
For Pakistan, as seen through this debate between the anchor and Mr. Hassan, there is one problem – the rape victims end up punished for it. They are considered as too loud and should not cause controversy about such “indecent” matters. Mr. Hassan pretty much says to women “Sorry, you were raped and you do not have the resources to physically prove it. This male-dominated society does not want to hear it. If you did not have four witnesses standing over your rape, you must be falsely accusing the so-called perpetrator and now you must go to jail. There is no way that those 80% of women languishing in jail for being raped are telling the truth. So, shut up, get over it, and do not expect the law to do anything for you. OK. Thanks, bye.”
These are the same type of people who create ridiculous controversies around women’s dress and behavior, but only that warrants controversy? Not rape or justice? Where is the self-righteous, moral policing now?
I am certainly sickened by not just the man’s words, but the man himself to have no compassion or sense of justice. It is, and sorry to use a public health model term, complete moral disengagement to minimize rape in any way and to make it intentionally difficult for women to seek any recourse.
If people like Mr. Hassan can sit there and justify rape, how does one expect any corrections for the any form of harassment? How can women succeed and participate equally alongside men in society?
In the couple of times I have been to Pakistan, I always felt dirty, embarrassed just by the “I am undressing you with my eyes” stares. I could put a long dupatta (a long or short scarf worn with shalwar kameez) over my chest or even over my head but that feeling never went away. In Egypt, I hated that I always had to keep my head down just because keeping my chin up was uncomfortable for me. Just to try to place myself into a mentality of complete subordination, while trying to be as invisible as possible was imprisoning. To think too many women only know this model of living is the reason women with privilege (and notice, that does not necessarily entail money) have such an important responsibility to speak up.
Perhaps, I have taken for granted how lucky I am to be able to yell in a street, sue for harassment, and take all kinds of legal actions if I am even a little bit harassed. Granted the system I live in is not in any way perfect and needs A LOT of work, but there is at the very least legal backing compared to a social system that says I should just keep my mouth shut and not have any community support in shaming the man who harasses. Many men will think before ever lifting a finger on another woman in the U.S. (unfortunately there are enough perverts to continue to believe harassment is okay).
Still, what is sad is that men are not the only ones who uphold these ideas. There are plenty of women who help them, for example, by, for starters, shaming other women into not dressing “a certain way”. They indirectly gain a sense of power from upholding these extremely unfair ideas by acting as bystanders and only defending their idea of “righteous” women, rather than standing up for all women. By not wanting to look bad in front of others, they will ignore the real causes of harassment and rape, while upholding the current “moral” order without ever questioning it.
I have heard some women tell me that I should not be so concerned with “such controversial topics”, that it is never going to change, and that it is just indecent to ever have any discussion about it. Other women have claimed that harassment and rape would be remedied if “women started dressing more modestly” in Pakistan (i.e. full hijaab and niqab in Pakistan). Wow, someone is not only on their annoying high horse, but also speaks from some extreme convenience.
The point of my comments about women being just as guilty as men for harassment and rape is this: we do not help each other by sitting on high horses and telling other women that there is no hope. Quite frankly, I am ashamed of such women, but the sad fact is that there are too many of them (forgive my momentary pessimism).
In a Muslim Women class that I took in undergrad, I had never thought about all of this. My professor gave her own account from Iran. When her ponytail was hanging out of her headscarf, one of the male “moral police” kept telling her to tuck it in. My professor walked a different path in hopes not to deal with him, but this time the male “moral police” sent one of his female friends to do the job. My professor said that she felt even more intimidated by the woman than she did by the man. She also knew that this woman most likely loved the power she gained by upholding this moral policing. I guess it was easier to join the oppressor rather than challenge him.
Anyway, I would like to keep this post short. In light of Slut Walk (the one I have linked to is in Delhi) and the recent incidents in Brooklyn with NYPD police, I wanted to revisit this case in Pakistan rather than leave it in the past of three months ago. I also for the umpteenth time need to repeat along with so many others: NOTHING justifies harassment, let alone rape. In order to change the mentality “from within” so that legal systems can be effective, community actions shaming the perpetrators are desperately necessary.
http://wheatish.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/misogyny-at-its-finest/
A viral video of Ameer Jamat-e-Islami (JI) Munawwar Hassan defending the silence over the rape of women and condoning imprisonment of female rape victims if they fail to produce four male witnesses in accordance with the Hudood Ordinance, has deeply outraged many sane people in Pakistan.
According to Hassan, if a woman cannot produce four male witnesses present at the time of her rape, she be imprisoned based on Hudood Ordinance and Shariah Law. This, he claims is in the best interest of women who are raped so if she fails to produce the witnesses she ought to refrain from filing an FIR altogether.
According to Hassan, somehow, it is in the best interest of the society for a woman to stay silent after being raped, while the perpetrator roams free.
I can’t help wonder if the leader would preach silence if a member of his family was attacked.
In the video, the Ameer inexplicably labels the Women’s Protection Bill as an effort to spread “vulgarity, nudity and shamelessness” in Pakistan, while demanding the seemingly intimidated anchor quote verses from the Holy Quran, who eventually has to descend into a monologue to prove his own Islamic credentials before being able to propose an argument to defend raped women. Interestingly, the Ameer himself fails to present any Quranic verse or Hadith to back his views.
The repugnant manner in which the host of the talk show is dismissed, and labeled an infidel for challenging the Holy Quran and Hadith, is a classic example of moral policing by self righteous Muslims in the country, who are masters at evading rationality.
I sincerely hope these morally, self righteous people read Maheen Usmani’s piece titled ‘Why the deafening silence after rape’ which cites horrific facts about rape in Pakistan including “Situation of Violence against Women in Pakistan 2010” by Aurat Foundation, according to which a total of 4,069 cases occurred in Pakistan last year.
Every two hours, a woman is raped in Pakistan and every eight hours, gang raped. And after all this, we are confronted with the reality that in this land, where the taste of justice for many is nothing but bland and vapid, 70 per cent of the crimes against women go unreported.
But how silly of those supporting the Women’s Protection Bill to seek greater freedom and protection of women in a society suffering from an obsessive compulsive disorder regarding female sexuality, and the shame/honour dichotomy. The last thing then this country needs is rights for some 51 per cent of population.
We couldn’t give justice to Mukhtaran Mai and we haven’t spoken up eagerly on the media about justice for the courageous Kainat Soomro. And now, we slap inhumanity across their faces as well as thousands of others who couldn’t dare speak up about their plight. Perhaps it is inane in itself to expect justice for raped victims of Pakistan, a place where mothers are paraded naked for the crimes of their sons, or where many would tell you that the fault lies with women who provoke men into raping them.
Who are we expecting to speak up on the violation of a woman’s freedoms and rights?
I guess that only counts when the daughter of Pakistan, Afia Siddiqui is convicted.
This makes me ask:
What about the daughters back home?
Do these daughters not deserve justice and protection of their human dignity?
More than ever, there is need for action. We need more than just Facebook statuses condemning the barbaric judgments or there would be nothing to stop these long bearded caliphate dreaming morally self righteous ones from getting their way. Without confronting Munawwar Hassan and company, there is little hope for winning the war against fundamentalists.
The war, as we should have understood long ago, is not about bombs as much as mindsets, and that is certainly where billions of wasted dollars should have gone! It should have been fought in schools and madrassas, mosques and parliament.
There is nothing but pity for a society which can’t respect the very womb that gave birth to it. A two rupee roti might help us survive day after day, and the Lawyers Movement may restore the judges, but what can save a community from turning sub human and bestial that has not been taught the value of basic and incontrovertible freedoms and values.
http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/6709/the-jamat-e-islami-and-rape/
As it becomes evident, Munawar Hasan makes up for the lack of substance in his argument by accusing the anchor of speaking against the word of God, he then goes thus far as asking the anchor to read the ‘kalima’ and declare his faith. The anchor concludes the argument by suggesting that Islamic laws pertaining to rape should be respected but in the presence of facilities such as forensic study we should not refrain from conviction.
This for me, defeats the purpose of the entire debate. Firstly because the interpretation of the Shariah law as per Munawar Hasan is neither derived directly from the Quran nor is it widely accepted. The Hudood ordinance is based on interpretations of certain scholars; it is neither a unanimously accepted interpretation nor is it logical.
Rape is a crime and criminals tend to prefer committing the crime without leaving evidence or witnesses. The idea of having four witnesses present at the time of rape is irrational and absurd. Can anyone in their right mind imagine witnessing rape and not doing anything to stop or even report it? If not by law than by conscious, would they not feel complacent? Rape is much more than forceful sex. It is a power game; it is a way to overpower the victim both physically and psychologically and derive pleasure out of it. To discourage rape victims from reporting rape is serving the predatory nature of the rapist.
Similarly, the callously flaunted idea that women use rape as a tool for popularity, fame, and money or simply to attack Islamic principles is devoid of logic. For all we know, taking a rapist to court in Pakistan can put you behind bars, after dealing with the severe moral policing of course.
The arguments and logic provided by Munawar Hasan for a vivid example of rape culture. To elaborate rape culture, it is prevalent practices by which despite the rampant increase in sexual violence, rape (and other forms of violence) is condoned, considered a norm or worse considered tolerable. The most powerful tool to propagate such a culture is through moral policing the victim and by reinforcing the ‘she was asking for it’ mindset. To validate and rationalize rape and (or) sexual violence needs a wide variety of beliefs that stem from an inherent misogynistic approach towards the social fabric.
Inconsistent application of law and moral policing the rape victim makes for a steady case for rape culture. Munawar Hasan isn’t the only practitioner and preacher of this culture, if we look at the way the accuser in
Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Managing Director of IMF, is being treated, one can be sure that rape culture is a globally adopted phenomena for which religion, moral, ethics or culture are mere ploys.
This is made much easier when done at the behest of religion and morals. The four witness rule as clear by all available translations and interpretations of the Quran is to be sought in case a woman is accused of fornication. The impossibility of four people witnessing the act was meant to make it tougher for the society to slander a woman. It is indeed heart wrenching to witness it being used to encourage violence against women and cultivate a culture of silence and shame.
I am not going to refrain from commenting on the interpretations simply because the Quran is meant and believed to be a book for guidance for all-alike — not just the scholars. Islam doesn’t preach a method of dependency, in fact the tone carried throughout the Quran addresses individuals directly, the entire concept is a spiritual and personal connection with God. Scholars are pursued to elaborate on various methods of law, but leaving them to impose their interpretations on us is faulty and damaging and works against the very principle of Islam. A faith that is threatened by introspection and one that is scared of evolution is fickle and convoluted.
Munawar Hasan is no ordinary politician; he is the Ameer of one of the oldest religious political party. For him to advocate the culture of silence and shame in the name of religion is a mockery of our beliefs. When we choose to allow scholars to use rhetoric to avoid questions we inadvertently become complacent If we choose to hold back our questions and remain silent in the face of such rhetoric we must brace ourselves to accept full liability of injustice to the victims of rape, all 2,903 of them.
http://dawn.com/2011/07/08/your-rape-culture-is-not-my-religion/
In blood stepped in so far —Gul Bukhari
Even if any religion propagated that rape should go unreported, un-resisted and unpunished for the larger good of ‘society’ (read lust-filled violent maniacs of the variety Mr Munawar Hasan appears to support), any civilised society would reject it
“I am in blood stepped in so far that should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o’er” — Macbeth, Act III.
The abdication from reason and awarding of unquestionable supremacy to religion has put the ‘unreasonables’ in an enviable position in this country. Incomprehensible, untenable and indefensible positions may not be countered if made in the name of religion. It seems the earth has stopped rotating under the midday sun of unreason.
Mr Munawar Hasan, ameer Jamaat-e-Islami, who amongst many others has resisted the repeal or amendment of the Hudood laws, had another field day under the sun last week on national television. Upon being questioned on how he justified his position of supporting the Hudood Ordinance requiring evidence of four male Muslim witnesses for conviction of rape, since such a requirement would render rape practically impossible to prove, he immediately took refuge in religion.
His initial argument was that Islam did not condone the ‘outing’ of evil; that if the deed were not done in public, then it should be covered up and not brought to light as that would sully society (and therefore the Hudood Ordinance, which makes rape perpetrated in private not punishable, is in keeping with Islamic values). When questioned closely whether he was saying rape should not be reported by women, he concurred stressing that it was in the best interests of the larger good of society (and, incredibly, of that of the victim as well as the rapist). Splendid! By that measure, society should not out any ill, including theft, murder, bribery, corruption, cheating or lying, lest such outing corrupt society. However, Mr Hasan confined himself only to declaring that women not report this heinous crime. Generous man, he. For surely, he supports the reporting and punishment of all other crimes?
The gentleman is the leader of a major religio-political party that has previously held seats in parliament. And some Pakistanis do vote for this party and what it stands for. Do people understand that they vote for a party whose leader, in effect, has given his go-ahead for every woman in the land to be raped as long as there are no four eyewitnesses around? I shudder to guess at his motivations.
The host of the programme, not having bought into the overall societal good argument, persisted in asking Hasan to justify such a preposterous stance. Failing miserably to provide any argument, Hasan proceeded to declare that the host was challenging the Quran and Sunnah (something that presumably by implication only a non-Muslim would do). The host asked if Hasan was issuing a fatwa (religious decree) against him but Hasan continued uninterrupted and invited the host to re-enter the fold of Islam by reciting the first Kalima and refused to justify his stance.
So this was Mr Hasan’s play. In the absence of a logical argument he tried to intimidate the host with the suggestion that he was no longer a Muslim (i.e. an apostate deserving of the death penalty). Everyone knows that after such a fatwa, a random fanatic may be relied upon to make an attempt on the decreed against blasphemer/apostate’s life. With such fatwas, intended as a convenient death threat, any semblance of a debate usually ends in favour of the violent ‘unreasonables’.
However, on a point of order with regard to what Mr Munawar Hasan was alluding to (whilst trying to justify sexual violence against women), the translation of the relevant verses in the Quran are as under:
“And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witness against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness, confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them” (4:15).
The most common interpretation of the ayat above refers to adultery or fornication between a man and a woman (though some scholars believe this verse refers to sexual relationships between women only — since it refers to women only). There is no mention of rape. How the likes of Mr Munawar Hasan make the jump from this verse of the Quran to requiring four witnesses for proving rape should be beyond comprehension of even the least intelligent. Yet, the law remains on the statute books, and parliament dare not change it for fear of the sex-crazed lobby.
Our esteemed scholars-turned-politicians-turned-legal-brains have made the leap of calumny and argued that the above ayat provides for requiring four eyewitnesses to the rape of a woman for conviction purposes.
One is at a loss for words to even state the obvious. Firstly, even if any religion propagated that rape should go unreported, un-resisted and unpunished for the larger good of ‘society’ (read lust-filled violent maniacs of the variety Mr Munawar Hasan appears to support), any civilised society would reject it. But as evidenced by the Quranic verses this law is based on, there is no sanction for such an atrocity.
But such is the pall of terror over this society, that the Hasans of this world are holding the country hostage with impunity, cowing all opposition with ‘God’s word’. Are we going to screw our courage to the sticking place and stand up to the bullying? Are we willing to say theirs is not our God? Or are we going to keep stepping further in blood?
The writer is a journalist and can be reached at gulnbukhari@gmail.com
http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011%5C07%5C02%5Cstory_2-7-2011_pg3_2
Jab is ki larki rape ho gi, to phir is ko pata chalay ga ke trauma kia hota hai. Phir yeh Asmani kitabi ki batain bhool jai ga.
Yeh mian tufail ki khabees rooh hai. Qazi is kay muqbalay main bohoat aqalmand tha.
Abrahamic religions are religion of man. Deity is male and so male are supreme.
So rape is legitimate in Islam if the number of witness is less than 4! Wonderful religion of peace!!
What is the point in restating the issue that arose two years back?