And democratic reforms are an "attack on Islam." More on this story from the Telegraph, with thanks to JE:
President Pervez Musharraf has opened a new and especially bitter confrontation with radical Islam by trying to rewrite Pakistan's controversial rape laws.These place an almost impossible burden of proof on women by compelling them to produce four "pious" male witnesses to prove rape or risk being convicted of adultery and face 100 lashes or death by stoning.
This law, known as the Hudood Ordinance, has been regarded as untouchable since its passage 27 years ago.
It is regarded as untouchable because it is rooted in the Qur'an. After Muhammad's favorite wife, Aisha, is accused of adultery (it's a long story; get it in my forthcoming book The Truth About Muhammad), he exonerates her with a revelation from Allah requiring four witnesses to establish a sexual offense: "Why did they not produce four witnesses? Since they produce not witnesses, they verily are liars in the sight of Allah" (Qur’an 24:11). The adoption of this law was part of the long, slow abandonment of secular law by Pakistan.
It also sets no minimum age for sex with girls, saying only that they should have reached puberty.
This too is based on Muhammad's example. According to a hadith attributed to Aisha herself as the source, "the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years" (Bukhari, 7.62.64).
A powerful militant Muslim lobby regards this code as sacred and based on Koranic texts and sharia law. No previous Pakistani leader, not even the country's first female leader, Benazir Bhutto, dared reform it.But Gen Musharraf's allies in parliament sparked the fury of the militant opposition by introducing a Women Protection Bill. This would remove the requirement for four male witnesses to prove rape and set 16 as the age of consent for sex with girls.
When this measure came before parliament, Islamic radicals responded by tearing up copies of the bill and storming out. "This bill is against the Holy Koran," said Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the leader of the militant opposition. "We reject it and will try to block it in any possible manner." Other MPs chanted "death to Musharraf" and "Allah is great."
There's a preview of what the British parliament will be like in a few years.
Liaqat Baluch, the deputy leader of an alliance of six Islamic parties, pledged to mount a public campaign to show that "under the garb of this bill and women's rights, the government is deviating from the Koran". The prime minister, Shaukat Aziz, countered that the militants had committed "an act of desecration" by tearing up the bill.Gen Musharraf, who claims to favour "enlightened moderation", has waited until his seventh year in power before venturing into this uniquely sensitive political territory. But western diplomats, who have repeatedly demanded the repeal or reform of the Hudood Ordinance, believe he will succeed. The general's allies have a comfortable majority in parliament. The bill will go before a parliamentary committee, where Islamic radicals could introduce wrecking amendments. Last month Gen Musharraf, a key US ally in the war on terrorism, changed Pakistani law to allow women detained on charges of adultery and other minor crimes to be released on bail. Hundreds of women were later freed.
Until now the general, who has survived three assassination attempts by radical Islamic groups, has preferred to avoid confrontation over an issue that has not, despite an unprecedented publicity drive by the government, caught the popular imagination.
"How can a dictator propped up by the West introduce democratic reforms?" asked Hazat Aman, an official of a social welfare group run by the hardline Islamic Jamaat-i-Islami party. "It is an attack on Islam," he said.
And that's why he may prevail in the short run, in a parliamentary vote or some such, but he is unlikely to do so in the long run unless there is a larger-scale challenge to Islamic orthodoxy than has hitherto existed.
Changing the rape laws would seriously impact the muslim male libido. They wouldn't have any fun. Rape to them is, enjoyment, punishment, marriage rights, parental rights and basically muslim rights.
AND, heaven forbid, they may just have to take responsibility for their actions!
I can't wait for the muslim MP's in Britain to start storming out of Parliament proclaiming "Death to Blair, Death to England". Coming soon to a Parliament near you.
.. Other MPs chanted "death to Musharraf" ...
Why don't they just get the charade over with so that we can invade and confiscate the nuclear weapons? Do us a favor and take out Musharraf. Replace him with shari'a and a ruling council. India and the U.S. need your help, members of parliment. Give us the excuse we need.
The interesting part is here
"But western diplomats, who have repeatedly demanded the repeal or reform of the Hudood Ordinance, believe he will succeed. The general's allies have a comfortable majority in parliament".
Notice that everytime they discuss this topic, they produce this sentence (it has appeared, to my knowledge, at least half a dozen times in various newspapers), but nevertheless this `comfortable majority' never seems to pan out in practice. Further, the more important point is - is the lovely dictator willing to risk everything on pushing the law through. There are plenty of his own `allies' who may break ranks to oppose his bill. A cursory glance at the composition of the Pakistani parliament shows that it is not likely to be remotely an easy job. Muttahida Majils i Amal (MMA) - often cynically called the Mullah Military Alliance - controls nearly a quarter of the parliament, and can easily disrupt the passage of the bill, even without the support of the others. But the PML(N) has already thrown its weight behind the MMA in this matter. The entire support now seems to stem from the two other large parties - the PPP (led by Benazir Bhutto) and PML(Q). All it will take for the bill to flounder is for some of members of these parties to break ranks and oppose the bill (something very very likely, given the degree of male domination and orthodoxy of Pakistan). It will be interesting to see how they manage to muster support for the bill.
Maidros
Dear Robert,
That's a very interesting way of looking at something quite positive. You continue to insist that every change or activist within the Muslim world is either going to be short lived or is merely unusual. Yet what you haven't focused on is that intensity and drive of the activists against the rape laws.
You see, editors of Pakistani newspapers are being shot in the mouth for supporting the anti-rape measures. You however are more interested in giving voice to the opinion OF the radicals. I'm curious, are you simply bitterly opposed to any other vision of Islam? I would have liked to see you quote the works and thoughts of the activist Muslim lawyers. This would have been a great opportunity to demonstrate your "balance." Instead you felt it important to talk about England.
I provide a different view on my site.
http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/08/25/shooting-a-shaykh-in-the-mouth/
A taq'qiya master visits us.
In the quoted story, Muhammad puts up this requirement of four witnesses to establish Aisha's innocence. If Muslim scholars had over the centuries used this to lay down the law that such a burden of proof be placed on those trying to establish guilt, it would have been one thing. Instead, this event, which on first glances, looks like one of those rare acts of mercy by Muhammad, is used throughout to establish the burden of proof on those trying to establish their innocence e.g. rape victims. With results that are there for all to see.
Forget Musharraf, Paki journos and Mohammedan lawyers. All those bearded troglodites in al Azhar, Mecca, Medina, et al should have been able to take this event, and use it to show that whenever anybody is accused of wrongdoing, that's the quantity of evidence required to establish that. However, such an expectation is totally futile, given the history.
Well, eratz, do you think that part of the problem of the editors getting shot in the mouths is because of the activists screaming allah akbar and saying it goes against the koran? All over the world, muslim males are killing because they say islam gives them the right. There are apparently no laws in Pakistan. Except against women of course.
When a community or nation turns it's head and allows violence based on "religion", killing someone who tries to change old habits are going to happen. Violence begets violence. islam is a violent cult, so it stands to reason the followers are violent. If Pakistan had laws based on human rights instead of islam, I'm sure killing editors wouldn't happen.
I think the shouts of "It goes against the Koran! It goes against Islam! Death to {fill in the blank}!" should be recorded and played back to everyone who claims that there's nothing in Islam that demeans women, nothing in Islam that preaches violence, nothing in Islam ... well, we all know the drill about the RoP.
And if all these cries of "It goes against Islam" and "The Koran demands it" are to be brushed aside as "hijacking the RoP," then our next conclusion must be that Islam does indeed tend to produce a disturbing number of liars ... and hijackers.
Has anyone done a list of exactly how many revelations from allah mo had that, by coincidence, were beneficial to him at that point in time.
There was this one with ayesha and the 4 male witnesses for adultery.
The one where allah told him he could marry his adopted son's wife.
The dream about marrying a 6 year old girl.
Some are hadiths, some are in the koran.
Any others...?
There's a preview of what the British parliament will be like in a few years.
I have wondered occasionally whether I did the right thing in giving this site a wide berth. Now I'm sure of it.
What a fatuous, ill-informed and gratuitously spiteful comment.
"What a fatuous, ill-informed and gratuitously spiteful comment."
Doubtlessly written by a member of a fatuous and ill-informed population that sits idly by as Muslim immigrants march in the streets with signs threatening mass murder, throw "expositions" on the day their coreligionists murdered commuters in the Tube in the name of Allah, report their need for Sharia to rule England, and threaten violence unless governmental policy is changed.
"Spot of tea?"
"Certainly. What's that racket?"
"Oh, it's the neighbors. They're just so busy with honor killing their daughters these days. It's their culture, you know. No worries, they'll run out of them soon."
Like a dog walking on its hind legs.
"If I valued the honorable gentleman's opinion I might get angry." Certainly a speaker Interested would know nothing about.
On the contrary. And I am neither a gentleman nor entirely honorable.
Good night and good bye.
How pleasant; a *female* appeaser who can quote Samuel Johnson after a fashion, but must look up Winston Churchill on the Internet. God save the Queen. Seriously.
Marwan'sDaughter,
How dare you insult "Interested" who is, in fact, Mary Jackson, the author of the piece you also just bashed. This woman knows more about Islam and has contributed more to this site than anyone else besides Hugh. I can't believe you spoke to her that way. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Her friend and colleague,
Rebecca Bynum
Sr. Editor
New English Review
Rebecca,
if what you say is true (I doubt that somehow) then "interested" should be well and truly be aware of the fact that in Islam, as it is practised by Islamofacists, there is only one law to be obeyed - Sharia. She should also know that within Sharia the men are allowed to beat their wives and kill their daughters on the slightest of pretexts. She should also be aware of the increase in so called honour killings everywhere in the world where Islamofacists have migrated.
Islam is in need of reform and the appeasement that is happening right now in the UK will not bring about that much needed reform. These men cannot be allowed to continue with their infantile behaviour towards women, or against those of us who choose to remain Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist and other religions.
What we see daily at the present time are the leaders of the Islamofacists telling us that we must bow to Islam or "else". That is a very unpleasant threat.
It is disgusting that the mullahs are allowed to incite people to murder those who speak out against their repressive ways. If the editors are being murdered because they speak out against an unjust law against women, then those responsible need to be brought to justice.
How can anyone claim to know Islam, especially when they are being fed a diet of revisionism to the point that people no longer know what is truth and what is not truth. They are being fed this diet because it suits the purpose of the facists to cause riots in the streets, and to cause violence towards anyone who protests against their repressive habits.
Marwad's daughter is correct in what she has stated, but "Interested" has proved that he or she knows absolutely zip, and complains about this site because she or he does not want to believe that the inroads that the immigrant Pakistanis have made into the British way of life is a threat to the existence of all other British subjects.
So please no more of the bleeding heart comments.
I live in a rather populous area in the southeastern US. In this area of about 350,000 people - there is just one Mosque. That is, one that's listed in the phone book. Creeping Islamism has not made any inroads here - yet.
I can only surmise that the problems in Britian are causing ill feelings among non-Muslims. Who to blame, whose fault is it? The big question seems to be is how can the British people reclaim their country. So far in the US we don't seem to have any Representatives with a majority Mulsim constituency. So far - how long will it last?
It's time that someone in Hollywood produced a re-make of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Updated to reflect the Muslim Invasion.
I have not seen "Snakes on a Plane." If that movie is not an allegory for Muslim terrorism somebody missed an opportunity.
To my dismay, Ms. Bynum's fervent scolding puts me in mind of an old joke:
***
A middle-aged woman has a heart attack and is taken to Mount Sinai Hospital. While on the operating table she has a near-death experience.
Seeing God, she asks, "Is my time up?"
God says, "No, you have another 37 years to go."
Upon recovery, the woman decides to stay in the hospital and have a facelift, liposuction and a tummy tuck. She even has someone come in and change her hair color. Since she has so much more time to live, she figures she might as well make the most of it.
As she's crossing Madison Avenue after leaving the hospital, she's flattened by an ambulance.
Arriving in front of God once again, she is enraged. "I thought you said I had another 37 years! Why didn't you pull me from out of the path of the ambulance?"
God shrugs and says, "Give me a break, lady, I didn't recognize you."
***
But that's Yanks for you, cracking wise at the most inappropriate moments.
"There's a preview of what the British parliament will be like in a few years."
That seemed to me to be a rather insightful comment.
It's time to wake up and smell the flatulence. British Parliament has some MPs with majority Muslim constituencies. How many are there now, how many within the next ten years?
This catfight was fascinating to watch, but even more interesting (in a manner of speaking) was Rebecca (perhaps unwittingly) joining forces against the one & only Robert. Taking on one woman was always going to be a daunting task for our hallowed al Shaytani, but two? Robert, ole man, you're probably better off with Jihadists on your trail ;-| (On second thoughts, maybe not)
On the substance of the original comment that Interested took umbrage towards, I actually don't see the House of Commons/Lords becoming anything like the Pakistani 'parliament' as described above:
But then again, what would I know - I don't live in the UK.How often is it, that four virtuous men, kick back and witness a rape, sit on their hands and do nothing ,than speak on her behalf. Obviously (pardon the pun) the victim is screwed. that's islo reasoning for you.
On the subject of politics, 37 Labour councillors have defected en-masse to the Lib Dems in the UK.
The vast majority are muslims of pakistani origin and they have defected in protest at labour's position in the recent Israel/Lebanon(Hizzbollah) conflict.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1858613,00.html
Local councillors are supposed to be concerned with local issues. These people have no interest in traditional UK politics. They simply represent Islam.
Rebecca and Interested - well said, I agree completely.
Gw
Rebecca and Interested,
Nice work on the New English Review.
The business above does not seem to be an effective use of time, for any of us.
Had Robert written "There's a preview of what the British parliament might be like in a few years", all of this could have been avoided. Robert usually qualifies his wry observations. Perhaps this was just a slip of the pen.