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

[optimist]

Originally Posted by salman

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

Salam,

"The four witnesses" requirement mentioned in the Quran is specifically for adultery with consent of each other. But rape is a violent assault against a victim where the perpetrator uses sex as a weapon. Islamic law addresses rape as an independent crime, which is ‘Hiraba’, a hadd crime defined in the Quran. It is based on the following Quranic verse:

The punishment for those who wage war [yuharibuna] against God and His Prophet, and perpetrate disorders in the land is: kill or hang them, or have a hand on one side and a foot on the other cut off or banish them from the land (Qur’an 5:33).

Rape will come under Hiraba and perpetrate disorders in the land (Fasadun Fil Ardu). Even a brief review of the traditional descriptions of hiraba reveals that rape is specifically included among its various forms. For example, 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 (Sabiq 1993, 450). Al-Dasuqi, for example, a Maliki jurist, held that if a person forced a woman to have sex, their actions would be deemed as committing hiraba (Doi 1984, 253). In addition, the Maliki judge Ibn ‘Arabi, relates a story in which a group was attacked and a woman in their party 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 a hiraba involving the taking of money, and that anyone would rather be subjected to the latter than the former (Sabiq 1993, 2:450). The famous Spanish Muslim jurist, Ibn Hazm, a follower of the Zahiri school, reportedly had the widest definition of hiraba, defining a hiraba offender as:

[O]ne 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 (Sabiq 1993, 2:450)."

Moreover, classification of rape under hiraba promotes the principle of honoring women’s sexual dignity established in the Quranic verses on zina. The focus in a hiraba prosecution would be the accused rapist and his intent and physical actions. Hiraba does not require four witnesses to prove the offense, unlike adultery. Expert testimony, circumstantial evidences form the evidence used to prosecute such crimes. In addition to eyewitness testimony, medical data and expert testimony, a modern hiraba prosecution of rape would likely take advantage of modern technological advances such as forensic, DNA testing, etc.

Wassalam

[optimist]

Salam,

Brother Al Boriqee, I forgot to thank you for posting Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi, who explained clearly that it is just a Myth and misconception that it requires four witnesses for punishing a rapist. Intelligent posting. I really appreciate him for this post. BUT at the same time, think for a moment, who is responsible for creating this myth and misconception? There would not have been any myth or misconception if law makers in Pakistan and Nigeria had got proper advice from "those who have good knowledge" in Islam. We Muslims ourselves have to be blamed for creating this Myth and misconception. Do you know the name of the initial hudood Ordinance of Pakistan? It is "The Offence of Zina (Enforcement Of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979". And the very first words of the ordinance starts with; "WHEREAS it is necessary to modify the existing law relating to zina so as to bring it in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah;................"!! Tell me now who is responsible for this Myth?

Wassalam

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by optimist

Originally Posted by optimist

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.

noted, but that is not my contention with modernist.

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.

so we are in agreement

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

I already knew this unIslamic tashree was there without even viewing it

The clause (b) is barbaric and it is not the requirement original teaching of Islam to have four witnesses for punishing a rapist.

of course. Im not arguing over that, im arguing over the fact that contention against this law should have been raised on islamic grounds, which is that it is ultimately ruling by other than what Allah has revealed and charging the initiators of this law with kufr for even bringing this law into existence. Thats what should have happened, however that did not, rather the opposition were opposing it based on MAINLY, BUT NOT TOTALLY, western sentiments and ideals, which is why it took so long to amend the law to begin with. had it been brought within an Islamic framework, I don;t think that law would have even survived a year, but thats what happens when muslims try to model themselves under the western framework of mind, things take longer whereas the sunnah cuts through the chase and nails the critter on the head.

Still there was so much of opposition from some quarters for the amendment of the ordinance?

of course. Look at what the opposition used as evidence of its barbarity, western ideals, of course there was going to be major opposition against those who contended with the law, because since the law was a deception being played on the masses to be Islamic, and since the masses only want Islam, then the opposition's only chance to amend the law with a living chance is through Islam, but when the opposition is only bringing forth western analytical to the law, of course it will receive widespread opposition.

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.

Im not arguing under the umbrella that ONLY modernist came up with an opposition to the law, Im merely arguing on the basis that a particular section of the opposition (modernist) utilized this as a means to advance an ideological agenda of completely removing the concept of Islam from the political arena, which is what Ghamidi is advocating. This is what Im speaking of, and not the basic opposition of the people on this unislamic law.

You can not classify the people who opposed this clause as modernists.

I know, thats why I never did to begin with.

I wish you amend the last sentense in your initial post.

why would I amend something that that I never stated. The entire quote was taken from an apostate muslim who spoke about how Ghamidi is doing what this apostate wants. In other words, Ghamidi's entire thought only and exclusively aids the disbelievers against the Muslims, and it has basolutely no benefit to the muslims whatsoever, which is why I believe this Ghamidi is a kafir who is to be executed for treason.

It is not because of 'modernists' winning, it is because of Islam winning at the moment this barbaric clause was taken away.

if you look at the context of the apostate, every single other law that he praised Ghamidi for nullifying in the name of Islam is different than this law of rape in pakistan which cannot be called hudood. In other words, the ONLY thing which this apostate was correct about was in advocating the abolishment of this law. Everything else that Ghamidi was praised by this murtad is advocating the abolishment of every thing else that this murtadd wishes to be abolished.

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.

I don't believe that originally, However even if that was the case, Imaam Ahmad used to say

"A person who traverses the sunnah and lands on error will fundamentally be correct (even if he erred), and the person who traverse on misguidance and lans on something correct will fundamentally be in error (even if he landed on something right for once)"

to commend the alterers of the religion is itself aiding the destruction of the religion just as Muhammad alaihi salatu salam already articulated

Actually it is just a matter of common sense to know this clause was barbaric. Read this recorded very disturbing incidents;

the laws of mu'amalaat fall outside of common sense. that is why inhereitance, and other laws, even jihad do not fall within the realm of human comnmon sense, because what one person calls common sense, another one calls idiocy, simply because man is afected by ideological backgrounds, which thereby nullify a concept of "common" in the word sense. Do not be beguiled by the idea that laws can be adduced through human reasoning. That is how we have what we have in current times in the west, specifically America.

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

quoting all of that, and everything you have will do nothign in the eyese of someone who already knew the kufr of the law to begin with in the name of Islam. ANd yes, I know what it is in the sight of Allah as explained by Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qudamah, and other jurists who spoke about the mubadiloon.

The mubadiloon are the worst of those in Islam, like the munafiqeen, because the mubadil, makes tabdeel of the religion, from the word badala, which means to alter and replace. There are three forms of tabdeel, and the gravest of them is the tabdeel of the one who brings another ruling or idea and replaces the Islamic idea AND THEN SAYS THIS IS FROM ALLAH. This is the worst tabdeel of all.

SO Im well aware of the gravity of their plight.

as for modernist, they deserve no praise. All they di was to hijack this matter as a means to advocate their form of tabdeel of the shariah. I only praise the people who are upon the sunnah, even if they err, I do not praise the people of heresy even if they arrive at something right for once.

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by optimist

Salam,

Brother Al Boriqee, I forgot to thank you for posting Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi, who explained clearly that it is just a Myth and misconception that it requires four witnesses for punishing a rapist. Intelligent posting. I really appreciate him for this post. BUT at the same time, think for a moment, who is responsible for creating this myth and misconception? There would not have been any myth or misconception if law makers in Pakistan and Nigeria had got proper advice from "those who have good knowledge" in Islam. We Muslims ourselves have to be blamed for creating this Myth and misconception. Do you know the name of the initial hudood Ordinance of Pakistan? It is "The Offence of Zina (Enforcement Of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979". And the very first words of the ordinance starts with; "WHEREAS it is necessary to modify the existing law relating to zina so as to bring it in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah;................"!! Tell me now who is responsible for this Myth?

Wassalam

I don't care for who is responsible now, their affair is with Allah. If they either truely thought that this was the quranic position OR that they wanted to make it easy for men to rape women, is not my realm, it is Allah's realm.

[optimist]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

In other words, the ONLY thing which this apostate was correct about was in advocating the abolishment of this law.

Salam,

Actually some of the issues that you have highlighted should not come even in a discussion, according to Quran, for instance, whether beard is necessary or not. I will give you the reason. And many issues that you referred like killing apostates, music, art, pictures etc., there are differences of opinion among scholars in Islam. Quite interestingly you have quoted scholar Kutty Ahmed Kutty in post number 7 towards the end to prove that it is not required 4 witnesses for rape. Let me ask you, are you willing to accept Kutty Ahmed Kutty’s opinion on Music, apostates, art, pictures, etc?

I do not have to inform you how serious it is in Allah’s sight to get involved in discussion regarding petty issues. You have good knowledge about many aspects of Islam. The Quran says;

“O you who believe, do not put questions about things which if declared to you may trouble you, and if you question about them when the Qur'an is being revealed, they shall be declared to you; Allah pardons this, and Allah is Forgiving, Forbearing. Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith” - (5:101-102).

Think about the highlighted points deeply, and then you will know whether issues like growing beard has any thing to do with Islam. The last part of the above verse: ‘some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith’, is a reminder for us. Unfortunately, we have been all along involved in researching and finding answers for unnecessary and petty issues paying little attention to important matters. Some of the issues of concern (research) for some of the scholars in the past were, for instance, whether Wudu will be lost if someone touches breast of a lady laying in a battle filed and whether someone will get the reward of praying together under an imam if he prays on the top of branch of a tree outside the mosque, etc.

Here is a clear warning from Quran. The Quran discusses the story of the ‘people of the cave’. The importance of the story, according to the Quran, is, ‘“Thus did We make their case known to the people that they might know that the promise of Allah is true and that there can be no doubt about the Hour of Judgment.” (18:21).

But the people who came after them started quarrelling on petty issues. Some people wanted to construct a monument over their grave.

“Behold they dispute among themselves as to their affair. (Some) said "Construct a building over them": their Lord knows best about them: those who prevailed over their affair said "Let us surely build a place of worship over them."(18:21)

Some people started disputing about the total number of the youths. “Some say they were three the dog being the fourth among them; (others) say they were five the dog being the sixth doubtfully guessing at the unknown; (yet others) say they were seven the dog being the eighth. Say (oh Muhammad): "My Lord knoweth best their number; it is but few that know their real case."(18:22)

Some people started disputing about the number of years the youth slept: “So they stayed in their Cave three hundred years and (some) add nine (more).” Say: "Allah knows best how long they stayed: with Him is (the knowledge of) the secrets of the heavens and the earth (18:25)

It is important to note that even when discussing these interesting controversies, the Quran does not reveal to us the exact number of youth or the number of years they slept in the cave. The reason is that such details are unimportant for our guidance. The Quran finally gives a clear warning to the Prophet and the Muslims:

“Enter not therefore into controversies concerning them except on a matter that is clear nor consult any of them about (the affair of) the Sleepers”. (18:22)

I am not explaining in detail. You, as an intelligent person, can follow the points I am making. See how Allah is saying people who asked and disputed on such questions "lost their faith" (5:102). We have to learn a lot from these narrations, not only just for the issue of growing beard whether it is necessary or not. Just to tell you another instance, there is so much of dispute among Muslims/ Scholars reagarding some of the aspects of Salat, for instance, how many Rakah for Taraweeh, where to place our hands while standing for prayer, up or below the naval, whether to say Qunooth in the morning prayer or not, and such other issues. Just for salat I can point out a hundred points of difference. And we all dispute each other on these points similar like the Jews mentioned above, which is infact a grave sin and equal to losing our faith according to Allah. We are not supposed to dispute regarding issues concenring physical performance salat, except to follow the the system prevailing in Mekkah. The Quran says;

"Surely the first House appointed for Mankind is that at MAKKAH, it is full of BLESSING and GUIDANCE for all the WORLDS [Hudan lil alameen]." [3: 96]

When Allah identifies His house as 'Hudan lil alameen', i.e. guidance for all worlds, then what ever is the system and practice of that house has to be followed by All the Muslims, everywhere in the world in all the mosques and homes at all times. No futher questions and dispute should be allowed.

Wassalam

[salman]

Originally Posted by optimist

Salam,

I wanted share this with some brothers on another board and I thought why not reply to these points even though we have dealt with them so many times in the past.

Originally Posted by optimist

Actually some of the issues that you have highlighted should not come even in a discussion, according to Quran, for instance, whether beard is necessary or not.

the Qur'an is not only Islamic source: Ahadith, Ijama' and qiyaas are the three other sources. Whoever claims that the Qur'an is only source is a liar and if he is not an ignorant (jahil) then he is an outright apostate.

Originally Posted by optimist

And many issues that you referred like killing apostates, music, art, pictures etc., there are differences of opinion among scholars in Islam.

which scholars? heretic modernists like Assad, Ghamidi, sufi neo-asharis like Faraz Rabbani, Hamaza Yusuf, ikhwani modernists like Shaykh Kutty and Yusuf Qardawi? Or traditionalist scholars? If you are referring to former then these scholars' opinions hold little value due to their deviancy and serious errors. If you are referring to latter, then this never happened. Not a single scholar in history said that music is halal or we should not kill an apostate, or it is halal to draw the pictures of animated beings. And even if someone said it then that is against an ijmaa' on these issues and we cannot base our deen upon shadd opinions.

Originally Posted by optimist

Quite interestingly you have quoted scholar Kutty Ahmed Kutty in post number 7 towards the end to prove that it is not required 4 witnesses for rape. Let me ask you, are you willing to accept Kutty Ahmed Kutty’s opinion on Music, apostates, art, pictures, etc?

akhee boriqee quoted the article by some other brothers who quoted Shaykh Kutty. We take shaykh Kutty's opinion in this matter because it agrees with the understanding of the early scholars. Shaykh Kutty is not hujjah to us in every single matter that we have to accept his other opinions as well. Not a single person claim that we have to accept every single opinion of a scholar because he is not free of mistakes and we are not to follow the mistakes of the scholars.

Do you take every single opinion of Shaykh Kutty?

It is amazing that people like brother optimist have problem taking the understanding of the early scholars, who were better in knowledge and taqwa, because they say we should follow the Qur'an, then yet at the same time they relay on the corrupt understanding of the modernist heretics like Assad and Ghamdi or take shadd opinions from shayuookh like Kutty.

and Allah knows best

[Assad]

Jazak Allah bro Al boriqee for information on Ghamidi,

you are right that he is popular in the educated and elite class here.. I was having a discussion with my mentor and he belief and admire Ghamidi but I found little information about him.

Can you please provide more details so that I can circulate it and help them understand?

[al-boriqee]

The initial post is all anyone needs to know who this enemy of Allah is. Just the mere things this Satan stands for drive Muslims away from this munafiq if it is indeed that they are Muslim.