> T'adeel for Javed Ghamidi from an Apostate Radical Intellectual Terrorist

[al-boriqee]

Bismillahi ar-Rahman ar-Raheem



i posted the following on another forum and I see it most befitting to place the following material here.
All of the following material is from the words of an apostate clear cut enemy of Islam who wishes to eradicate the face of Islam and every trace of it from existence. Pay close and special attention to everything that is being stated by this apostate and enemy of Islam because the speech in and of itself will serve as an educational tool for Muslims to understand and truely put into perspective the nature of modernism just merely through this following speech

__________________________________________________ ______________________________
Javed Ahmad Ghamdi’s attempts of reformation

There is a quote that “religion of one stage of people is the source of amusement of the next stage of people”. Every false belief that exists today will die with the passage of time. Similarly, Islam is to die its natural death but what we want actually is to accelerate its rate so that more bloodshed in the name of Islam can be stopped. In European countries, it may be possible to remove Islam within a few decades but in Islamic countries, it seems a dream to remove it within a few centuries. In the mission statement of *****************, it is written,

“Islam can’t be reformed, but it can be eradicated. It can’t be molded, but it can be smashed. It is rigid, but brittle. That is why Muslims can’t tolerate criticism of it. To eradicate Islam, all we have to do is tell the truth. It’s that simple. This was not possible before, but with the help of the Internet, it is now. The absurdity of Islam is glaringly obvious. All it takes to see it is to read the Qur’an.”

Though internet is the best way to tell people the truth, but we can not get success unless we reach the mainstream media. Which seems not possible because in most of Islamic countries, every anti Islamic media and websites are banned. The fundamentalists are using the media to reach the gullible Muslim youths. We can never get success to the extent that Islam may vanish within decades.

We are actually cutting the main stem of Islam. This is very difficult thing while living in Islamic societies. But meanwhile, there are some reformists who are cutting the branches of islam. In fact, they are facing criticism too, but now Muslims want to get rid of their system. They are impressed with the western values and want freedom. Therefore, the reformist like Mr. Javed Ahmad Ghamdi is very popular among the youth and the educated class of Pakistan.

Javed Ahmad Ghamdi learned a lot after his debate with Dr. Ali sina. Ghamdi and Dr Ali Sina are doing the same job in different ways. Ali is cutting the stem but Ghamdi is trying to cut the branches first. Islam is to die, but it’s our choice how we kill it. Either a low peaceful death or a sudden death. In western countries, sudden death should is possible but in Islamic countries, it is not possible. Therefore , first of all we are to make such an atmosphere in which people can accept realities easily. So, to share his reformist attempts, I have given a brief account of reformist attempts of Javed Ahmad Ghamdi with the links to access his work online in Urdu.

1. There is no form of Had (Prescribed Punishment) in Islam like flogging, cutting hands, stoning etc.
Javed Ahmad Ghamdi strongly condemn that there is no prescribed punishment for adulterers, and wine drinking etc. He thinks that those mentioned punishments were for only those people of Medina. And those verses are not applicable now. He has written a lot on this topic. Hadod ordinance in Pakistan is blessing of his research. Now, in Pakistan, any raped woman will be able to get justice without need of four male witnesses via DNA tests etc.

2. Hadith can not be trusted alone. Hadith is to be seen in the light of Qoran and common sense of Muslim Ummah.
He strongly rejects the concept of hadith. And according to him, only a hadith which is according to Qoran and “common sense of Muslims” is acceptable. Therefore all hadiths of pedophilia, genocides and terrorism are nullified in this way.

3. Jesus died a natural death.
Jesus died a natural death. He was not uplifted by Allah. This reformation can help Muslims to come near the ahmadees. Who are being persecuted in Pakistan.

4. There is no penalty for an Apostate (Murtad) in Islam.
Islam allows a democratic state. Every one is free to change his religion. Those ahadith were for specific time.
Ghamdi have given some arguments against the death plenty of apostasy.

5. Claims the 7 recitations of quran to be wrong.
There is no space for seven recitations in qoran.

6. Music and Dancing is permissible in islam.
Music is allowed in islam. Ghamdi gave number of ahadith to prove the allowance of music and dance in islam.

7. Jihad against oppression is the only jihad allowed
Jihad is not allowed unless the head of the state orders. Jihad is only war against persecution. The best jihad is “jihad bi nafs” which says to fight against human ego.

8. The Shahadat (testimony) of a man and woman are equal
Women and Men have equal rights according to Ghamdi. And both can give testimony in court. Only in case of adultery the testimony of woman is half. Which is due to certain facts.

9. There is no concept of Purdah (Hijab / Veil) in Islam.
The concept of veil etc is not a part of islam. Only woman and men are guided to guard their sexual organs. Mr. Ghamdi have a lot of discussion on this issue. Due to which , he is very popular among the modern women of pakistan.

10. Democracy is real system of Islamic state.
According to Ghamdi, the real system of Islam is democracy, Caliphate is not acceptable.

11. There would be no jazziya to non muslims in pakistan.
Pakistanee non muslims are not the dhimmis. Pakistan is bound in pact with U.N to give them equal rights.
And mohammed gave equal rights to Jews of media after his migration. “Medina pact” is the constitution of Pakistan.

12. A woman can be prime minister of pakistan.
Those ahadith regarding the nations having woman as the head of state will never flourish were specific for some nations. Now , any woman can be head of state.

13. A non muslim can be prime minister of pakistan.
Pakistan is a democratic country, if people want any non muslim to be their prime minister, then it is allowed in islam.

14. Having beard is not necessary.
Having beard was the culture of that time. Even Abu Jahal had beard. So it is not necessary to have beard in Islam.

15. Only moral teaching should be given in Islamic studies in pakistan.
There should be moral and ethical teachings in Islamic studies. Jihad and other subjects should not be taught to the children.

16. Jihadi verses were only for those days and now those verses will be used in war time by soldiers.
The sorat Taubah and other jihadi sorahs were revealed against the non believers who challenged the writ to prophethood so as wrath of Allah those verses were revealed. Now those verses are not applicable to every Muslim. Those verses will be used for only soldiers.

17. Pakistan was not founded on Islamic bases but it was founded due to economic reasons.
Pakistan is not a theocratic state. It is not founded on Islamic grounds. But it was founded to protect the rights of muslims from hindu majority. Therefore it is not necessary to eastablish Islamic rule in pakistan.

18. Pakistan should be neither Islamic nor secular state but it should be a democratic state.
The government should let the people decide what kind of state they want. Either they want Islamic or secular state. Government should not enforce its prescribed agenda to people of paksitan.

20. Qoran accept evolution but rejects macro evolution of human beings.
Qoran accepts the evolution of universe but it is against the evolution of human being from ape.

21. Only way to spread Islam is “dawah”, the sword can not be used any way.
The use of sword is now abrogated. Islam can only be spread by dawah.

22. Woman can also divorce as man.
Now a days , Javed Ahmad Ghamdi is working on the law for right of woman to divorce his husband. Soon we will be having good news here in Pakistan that women will be able to get divorce in 90 days.

23. Islamic government can not enforce Muslims to have beard and do jihad.
Talibans are certainly wrong to enforce to say prayer and have beard. Islamic government have no right to enforce any Muslim even to do jihad.

24. Clash of civilization never happen in history.
Every super power wants to dominate the world as America is doing and Germany , Russia and Muslims did in history. America attacked Afghanistan due to some strategic reason. It is not a war against Islam.

25. Non Muslims are brothers of Muslims because they were, too, were born by Adam.
Every human being is brother of other because of having common religious beliefs.

27. To help any needy is better then performing hajj.

28. All kinds of fine arts and funs are hallal in islam.
Arts are hallal in Islam like sculptures, pictures and music.

29. There is no punishment of cutting hands in Islam.
There is no prescribed punishment in Islam. It is an obligation of Islamic democratic government to make laws according to the conditions of the state.

30. Picture is totally halal in Islam.
Pictures and movies of living beings are totally hallal in Islam.

31. Sex education is inevitable.
Sex education should be given to the youngster of Pakistan. It is completely allowed in Islamic sharia.

32. “ Killing of people not in the state of war is called terrorism.”
Killing of any civilian not in the state of war is terrorism. Whether it is done by Muslims or non Muslims.

33. Kashmiri militants are not doing jihad.
Jihad is the war which is done after the order of head of state.

34. American attack on Afghanistan is not terrorism.
It will be terrorism if they kill any civilian in Afghanistan.

35. Muslims should accept Israel. And Jerusalem was Jewish land before Muslim invasion.
If Muslims do not accept Israel then why should Israel accept Muslims?

36. Zakat can be given to non Muslims.
It is a misconception that zakat cannot be given to non believers.

37. making slave in Islam is haram.
Making slave is strongly prohibited in Islam. Slavery in Mohammad’s days was due to the early slave system. So Mohammad slowly end up that system. Now making slave is gravest sin in Islam.

After studing the whole article, you will know how, Ghamdi has tried to change the whole face of islam. And good thing is that he is getting popularity in Pakistani society. Every TV channel is trying to offer him more air time because every one here in land of pure is tired of religious dogma. Every one needs change. Meanwhile, the hard core fundamentalists are also not quite. But the reformists are winning to some extent. The hadod ordinance is the proof of that.

__________________________________________________ _______

Ghamidee is the successor to Ahma Parwezi thought of todays time and just as blashphemous.

[salman]

two words: "Subhaan Allah"

I wonder how does this heretic justify the attacks by America on Afghanistan as legitimate but jihad as forbidden. Seems a clear contradiction!

despite their heresies they claim to be Muslims - may Allah Ta'ala give these heretics what they deserve, ameen

PS: akh, you wanna write up something on murtadah Asra Nomani or should I have a shot at it?

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

But the reformists are winning to some extent. The hadod ordinance is the proof of that.

Salam,

The Hudood laws of pakistan had serious flaws. It had to be amended. You havn't learned about it.

wassalam

[salman]

^wa'alayka as-salam akhee

so changing it with something which is nothing from Islam and then claiming that what we got is Islam is not flawed? How did the amendment make it better? I do not think that brother ever claimed that the Pakistani hadoud ordinance was flawless before Ghamidi made it even worse.

[optimist]

Originally Posted by salman

^wa'alayka as-salam akhee

so changing it with something which is nothing from Islam and then claiming that what we got is Islam is not flawed? How did the amendment make it better? I do not think that brother ever claimed that the Pakistani hadoud ordinance was flawless before Ghamidi made it even worse.

Salam,

Brother Salman, I had studied the problem with Hudood laws of pakistan in detail. Actually I have never looked into what Ghamidi is saying. In fact I do not know him. And it is not Ghamidi who raised the problems with the Hudood laws initially. Ghamidi came to be noticed when he was picked up by Mushraf during 2006 for the Islamic ideology council, an independant constitutional body that consults for the pakistani legislature.

Well, just to tell you an example, the earlier hudood ordinance had a clause for the requirement for four male witnesses for conviction for Rape, but the new legislation does away it and allows convictions to be made on the basis of forensic and circumstantial evidence. Earlier hundreds of women suffered due to this clause. I can even give you many case histories that are recorded in various pakistani courts. The women wont be put to hardship now on this respect after this amendment. Is this what you saying "Ghamidi made it even worse"? According to me there are still some amendments required.

Wassalam

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by optimist

Salam,

The Hudood laws of pakistan had serious flaws. It had to be amended. You havn't learned about it.

wassalam

The only thing I learned is that claims were made to be a part of Islamic law that were themselves absurd i.e. like former hudud laws in pakistan. And then, modernists who seek to completely destroy the religion entirely used the unislamic legislation of Pakistan as a precursor to accusing the shariah of some kind of immoral and inhuman aspects of indecency.

So Ghamidi and his devils were just as satanically corrupt as the people who spoke in the name of hudood who went into extremes with bringing forth certain laws that have no basis in the shariah of Muhammad to begin with.

inshallah I'll provide a much more pristine overview of the issue

[al-boriqee]

some of the good brothers from bismikallahuma produced a very nice tahqeeq (source study and referendum) on the topic. from brother
Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi


Does Islam really require four witness for rape victims? This is a common argument used by those who usually attempt to make a false analogy with adultery by inferring from the following Qur’anic injunction:

“And those who accuse chaste women [of adultery] and then do not produce four witnesses — lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after. And those are the defiantly disobedient. Except for those who repent thereafter and reform, for indeed Allaah is Forgiving and Merciful.”1

That this myth was repeated by none other than the former Malaysian Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir at an UMNO General Assembly meeting had greatly contributed to the misconception that Islam requires four witnesses for rape:

If four witnesses were to merely watch a woman being raped and not attempt to help her, would they not be regarded as having sinned (for allowing a woman to be raped) and are not be fit to be witnesses?” he said. Under Pas’ hudud also, rape victims would in turn become the accused in the event that she could not make the four witnesses available.

Unfortunately for such people, this fallacy of equivocation has no basis in Islamic jurisdictions and the punishment for rape (which is defined as forced sexual intercourse) is certainly not equivalent to the punishment of adultery. Insha’allah, in what follows we aim to deal with this issue once and for all by breaking it down into several points so as to enable easy understanding.



The claim that rape victims require four witnesses to seek justice for their case is untrue and a false lie propagated by those who either do not have any knowledge in Islamic law or want to “prove” a so-called weakness in the hadd laws. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient and the judge can invoke his judgment based upon takzir (his own discretion).
If a person makes an allegation of adultery against another person (male or female), only then he or she must produce four witnesses to support such an allegation: “And those who accuse chaste women [of adultery] and then do not produce four witnesses….”2; otherwise, he or she is guilty of slandering, which is a grave offense in Islam.

To insist that the raped victim must provide witnesses is akin to inflicting further pain on her. If anyone refutes her claim of innocence, the onus is on him to provide evidence, and she may simply deny the claim by making a solemn oath, thus clearing herself in public.
This is based on what the Prophet Muhammad (P) had once said:

“The onus to provide evidence falls on the one who makes a claim, and the one who denies (the same) can absolve himself or herself by making a solemn oath to the contrary.”

Further, the Prophet (P) was reported to have said that:

“Allah (T) has pardoned my people for the acts they do by mistake, due to forgetfulness and what they are coerced into doing.”3

An event concerning rape had in fact led towards the Prophet Muhammad (P) punishing a rapist without demanding or even hinting for four witnesses:

“Narrated Wa’il ibn Hujr: “When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet (P) for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered [raped] her. She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: That [man] did such and such to me. And when a company of the Emigrants came by, she said: That man did such and such to me. They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse with her and brought him to her.
She said: Yes, this is he. Then they brought him to the Apostle of Allah (P).
When he [the Prophet] was about to pass sentence, the man who [actually] had assaulted her stood up and said: Apostle of Allah, I am the man who did it to her.
He [the Prophet] said to her: Go away, for Allah has forgiven you. But he told the man some good words [Abu Dawud said: "meaning the man who was seized"], and of the man who had had intercourse with her, he said: “Stone him to death.“4

It should also be noted that it was related by Ibn Abi Shaybah through Târiq b. Shahab that a woman accused with adultery was taken to Caliph `Umar. The woman pleaded that she was asleep and woke up to find the man over her. `Umar released the woman.5
Based on the above sayings of the Prophet (P) and the events associated with it, the jurist Ibn Qudamah had stated as follows in his book al-Mughnî:

“If a woman becomes pregnant without having a husband or a master, she may not be punished and, in stead, she should be asked about it, if she claimed that she was coerced into it or that she committed adultery under dubious circumstances, or if she simply does not confess adultery then she will not be punished. This is the saying of Abu Hanîfah and al-Shâfi`î, because she may be pregnant as a result of a forceful intercourse or dubious circumstances. Punishment will be abandoned in case suspicion exists. It is well known that a woman could become pregnant without committing the real intercourse. The woman may become pregnant if sperm is manually inserted into her vagina. This would explain how a virgin becomes pregnant.”




We can now see that a testimony of the raped woman suffices in exonerating her from adultery and that Islam recognises the crime of rape and that a raped woman will not be punished for such a crime that was inflicted upon her.
So what really is the punishment for rape?



According to the majority opinion of Muslim scholars, rape is considered as hirabah (highway robbery or terrorism) and hence rapists are to be punished according to the hirabah laws, as highlighted in the Qur’an. This of course is as opposed to what the Bible teaches about the punishment for rape. For example, we read that:

“If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.”6

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Is there any justice in forcing the raped woman to marry her rapist and bound her to him for the rest of his life? Further we also read another example that the Bible teaches that the rape victim should be punished with death:

“If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife.”7

This injunction of course leaves little to the imagination. We will leave the reader to form their own conclusions. We hope that the above explanation that was given had made it clear that in Islam, rape victims are not required to “bring four witnesses” as alleged and that Judeo-Christianity has a much harsher law for rape when compared to Islam. Further reading on the issue can be found in the article, Are Raped Women Asked to Bring Four Witnesses?
And only God knows best!

1. Quran 24: 2-5 [back]
2. ibid. [back]
3. Related by Ibn Mâjah, approved by al-Nawawî, Ibn Hajr and al-Albânî. [back]
4. Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, #4366 [back]
5. The narration was approved by al-Albâni. [back]
6. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 [back]
7. Deuteronomy 22:23-24 [back]

[salman]

more on four witnesses for rape:

Islamtoday.Com - Punishment for rape
Islam Question and Answer - Ruling on the crime of rape

akh boriqee, cannot some argue that the rapist maybe accusing an innocent person and therefore requires four witnesses?

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by salman

akh boriqee, cannot some argue that the rapist maybe accusing an innocent person and therefore requires four witnesses?

yeah, unfortunately this is a modern day phenomenon of utmost tyranny that was absent in days gone by because in our times, two situations have developed, one being the result of the other, that was never heard of back in the day, which is

1. that the Power of States in most institutions of most countries have made unequal laws regarding gender muwamalaat (dealings, etc). What they did was under the pretext of "leveling the field" the states sided with women in almost any given issue, and the single foremost state that ensures this is the United States. So here we have laws of inequality on gender related matters through most of these states. For example, if a man were to be charged for raping a women, then pretty much his life has gone down the drain and he is pretty much guilty till proven innocent whereas if the situation were reversed, the women would receive a more fairer trial whereby she would be deemed innocent till proven guilty, and all of this is justified under the pretext that it is leveling the field like taking into consideration that its a known fact that men rape women more than women rape men.


With that being said, that came with a recompense which leads me to the second

2. which is that due to the fact that women know this here in the states, and possibly elsewhere, they know they can as they say "get away with murder" practically speaking. I know cases where men were charged for being the father of babies they were never really the father of to begin with and all of this was unable to be stopped in the court system by these men on the ground that pretty much I states above. There are a whole host of other aspects of the gender related laws that really got titled to women of course.

So as for your question, it is hard. I mean what I know Islamically, if both the charger and the charged swear by Allah four consecutive times that they did it and the other saying NO, then Islam takes a "nothing" policy by leaving their affair with Allah, from what I know wallahul-alim. Thats because if the charged is fiercely fighting and unwaivering fighting for their innocence, then it really leaves a mark on the state to take into consideration that there is some kind of discrepancy in the matter rather than someone is lying and someone is truthful.

This is a problem because in days gone by, states never entertained a "one-sided" favoritism to either gender and since Islam brought some crucial realities to this subject for each person, then it ensured that truth was the ultimate conclusion to the mater which resulted in the absence of what we see today of this apocalyptic situation at hand.

wallahul-alim

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

The only thing I learned is that claims were made to be a part of Islamic law that were themselves absurd i.e. like former hudud laws in pakistan. And then, modernists who seek to completely destroy the religion entirely used the unislamic legislation of Pakistan as a precursor to accusing the shariah of some kind of immoral and inhuman aspects of indecency.

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

So Ghamidi and his devils were just as satanically corrupt as the people who spoke in the name of hudood who went into extremes with bringing forth certain laws that have no basis in the shariah of Muhammad to begin with.

inshallah I'll provide a much more pristine overview of the issue

Salam,

Interesting explanation! Firstly, please don't give any credit to any 'modernist' for the amendment of Hudood laws. It is not the finding of any modernist that it does not require 4 witnesses to punish the rapist.

As you yourself agree the earlier Hudood laws were not in conformity with the actual Islamic law. It had to be amended. Let me quote the clause from the earlier Hudood ordinance. please note, below, the term Zina-bil-jabr means Rape.

Proof of zina or 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 [credibility of witnesses], that they are truthful persons and abstain from major sins (kaba’ir), give evidence as eye-witnesses of the act of penetration necessary to the offence


The clause (b) is barbaric and it is not the requirement original teaching of Islam to have four witnesses for punishing a rapist. Still there was so much of opposition from some quarters for the amendment of the ordinance? You have to know that it is not 'modernists' who pointed out the flaws of this caluse initially. Ghamidi is coming to the picture only at a later stage. It is the duty of each and every Muslim who fear Allah to oppose this clause. You can not classify the people who opposed this clause as modernists. I wish you amend the last sentense in your initial post. It is not because of 'modernists' winning, it is because of Islam winning at the moment this barbaric clause was taken away. However, if you believe that the amendments were done only due to the opposition from the 'modernists' you have to give them credit for that. Actually it is just a matter of common sense to know this clause was barbaric. Read this recorded very disturbing incidents;

In 1982, fifteen-year-old Jehan Mina became pregnant as a result of a reported rape. Lacking the testimony of four eye-witnesses that the intercourse was in fact rape, Jehan was convicted of zina on the evidence of her illegitimate pregnancy (Mina v. State, 1983 P.L.D. Fed. Shariat Ct 183). Her child was born in prison.

In 1985, Safia Bibi, a sixteen-year-old nearly blind domestic servant reported that she was repeatedly raped by her landlord/employer and his son, and became pregnant as a result. When she charged the men with rape, the case was dismissed for lack of evidence, as she was the only witness against them. Safia, however, being unmarried and pregnant, was charged with zina and convicted on this evidence (Bibi v. State, 1985 P.L.D. Fed. Shariat Ct. 120).5

In July, 1994, two police officers broke into the house of Shahida Parveen and locked her children in a room while they raped her at gunpoint. A medical examination confirmed that she was raped by more than one person, but the police refused to register her complaint (Amnesty International 1995, 14) on the pretext that there are no sufficient witnesses.

There are many cases reported similiar like the above. I can give you further references if you want.

In fact, the Zina verses in the Quran are meant to protect the dignity of women. “Those who launch a charge against chaste women and do not bring four witnesses should be punished with eighty lashes, and their testimony should not be accepted afterwards”. - (24:4)

Why the focus on women? Notice, Men do not seem to be of particular concern here. We know, in nearly every culture in the world, women’s sexual morality appears to be a particularly favourite subject for slander, gossip and insult. The Quran however has harsh words for the exploitation of women’s dignity in this way. The Quran first established that there was to be no speculation about a women’s sexual conduct. No one may cast any doubt upon the character of a woman except by formal charge with the support of four eyewitnesses. If such direct proof does not materialise then anyone engaging in such a charge is subject to physical punishment for slander.

The following verses were revealed in connection with a rumour spread against Aysha’s honour. Notice how strongly the Quran prohibits public discussion of Zina.

“Why did the faithful men and women not think well of their people when they heard this, and (say) “this is a clear lie”? When you talked about it and said what you did not know, and took it lightly, though in the sight of God it was serious. Why did you not say when you heard it: “this is not for us to speak of it? Glory to thee (our Lord), this is a most serious slander!” - (24:12-16)

Therefore, why the Qur'an has put strict evidentiary requirements to allege sexual misconduct is that, it wanted to safeguard the dignity of women. If four witnesses are not available, the Quranic response is: walk away, leave her alone. Leave her dignity intact. The honour of a woman is not a tool; it is her fundamental right.

But by incorporating the 4 witnesses requirement for punishing a rapist, the earlier pakistani hudood ordinance insulted the very purpose of the four witnesses requirements mentioned in the Quran which is meant to protect the dignity of women. This barbaric clause should not have been on the face of the earth even for a day. You have to thank the people who fought against this law. Please know, even a public discussion concerning sexual misconduct of a women without four witnesses was serious in the eye of Allah (24:14), but the earlier pakistani barbaric law punished a victim of rape for adultery due to pregnency due to lack of four witnesses for the rape. It is actually an insult to Quranic laws. Do I need to tell you how serious this will be in Allah's sight????

Wassalam