Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Kevin · Nov 16, 2006, 09:48 AM

Well it's a start.

SLAMABAD (Reuters) - Rights activists welcomed on Thursday amendments to Pakistan's Islamic laws that will allow rape victims to seek justice without the need for four male witnesses but said the laws should be scrapped altogether.

Islamist parties opposed the changes pushed through the lower house of parliament on Wednesday, in the latest battle of a long struggle between progressives and religious conservatives to set the course of the predominantly Muslim nation

The Islamic laws, known as the Hudood Ordinances, were introduced by a military ruler, Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq, in 1979, and laid down punishment for crimes such as theft and adultery.

They also made a rape victim liable to prosecution for adultery if she failed to produce four male witnesses to her ordeal.

The main amendment approved on Wednesday takes rape out of the sphere of religious law and puts it under the penal code.

"As an interim measure, the separation of rape from adultery is a welcome step but we don't consider this the end of the road," said veteran women's rights activist Tahira Abdullah.

"Our struggle continues and we will fight until the end of the Hudood Ordinances," she said.

President Pervez Musharraf, who espouses a vision of "enlightened moderation", hailed the amendment that was passed after members of the Islamist alliance walked out of parliament.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...C2_worldNews-6

Millennium · Nov 16, 2006, 10:00 AM

So let me get this straight: Hudood required four male witnesses to a crime that is usually committed with no male witnesses (or witnesses at all, for that matter) before a victim could prosecute?

Um, yeah. Glad to see steps in the right direction, but the law needs to go outright. It's unlikely that rape will ever be an easily-prosecutable crime in any remotely fair legal system, but it's certainly possible to do better than Hudood.

Doofy · Nov 16, 2006, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Millennium

So let me get this straight: Hudood required four male witnesses to a crime that is usually committed with no male witnesses (or witnesses at all, for that matter) before a victim could prosecute?

No no no, it's way worse than that. She needs four male witnesses to prove that it was rape and not adultery. If she didn't find the witnesses she'd be prosecuted for adultery and stoned to death.

turtle777 · Nov 16, 2006, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Well it's a start.

Post & run ?

Kevin, are you new to the PWL, or are you following in abe's steps ?

-t

Millennium · Nov 16, 2006, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

No no no, it's way worse than that. She needs four male witnesses to prove that it was rape and not adultery. If she didn't find the witnesses she'd be prosecuted for adultery and stoned to death.

Point well taken, but I was focusing on the absurdity of requiring four witnesses of either gender to a crime that usually has none. Requiring a specific gender, as Hudood did, only makes it even more ludicrous.

Kevin · Nov 16, 2006, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

Post & run ?

Kevin, are you new to the PWL, or are you following in abe's steps ?

-t

Post and run? What the... I posted this before I went to work. And just now starting to post again.

Dakar² · Nov 16, 2006, 10:29 AM

Hehehe, post and run after 30 min, apparently

turtle777 · Nov 16, 2006, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Post and run? What the... I posted this before I went to work. And just now starting to post again.

Well, I dunno.

I was just wondering...

-t

Doofy · Nov 16, 2006, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Point well taken, but I was focusing on the absurdity of requiring four witnesses of either gender to a crime that usually has none. Requiring a specific gender, as Hudood did, only makes it even more ludicrous.

Yep. I agree that it's full-on ludicrous. But then what else do you expect from a law associated with a religion which thinks that hell is mostly full of ungrateful women?

Rumor · Nov 16, 2006, 12:16 PM

Chances are the four male witnesses wouldn't be witnesses.

marden · Nov 16, 2006, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

Post & run ?

Kevin, are you new to the PWL, or are you following in abe's steps ?

-t

Eighth rule of the Political Lounge: No posting and running. Give an opinion, your slant, anything in regards to what you're posting. Simply posting a news story and no context or direction is not conducive to fostering discussion. Avoid it.

There are a few things you need to be taught.

Posting and running means giving no context or direction. Kevin said this about the article:

Well it's a start.

Do you understand what that actually means or do you need to have it spelled out? Never mind, I'll just teach you.

"Well it's a start" indicates that a good deal of the job still needs to be completed but that the task is one step closer to being finished because the first step has been taken and with that there's a greater probability that the problem WILL eventually be solved, but also recognizing that there is no assurance that the job will be completed. The start might be the last act taken in that matter. But progress HAS taken place and one is appreciative of and recognizing the fact that progress has taken place.

Now. That is a HELL of a context and it very much gives Kevin's opinion on the matter and most EVERYONE reading it understood this.

Except you.

Then you'll notice, if you bother to read thoroughly, that DH said, "AVOID IT."

In this instance Kevin did avoid it but even if he didn't it isn't an offense, it's an ADVISORY.

Write that down because you will be tested on it later.

And finally, the name's marden.

turtle777 · Nov 16, 2006, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by marden

...bla...
And finally, the name's marden.

Yes, abe. I got it.

-t

Pendergast · Nov 16, 2006, 09:17 PM

The world is full of such stupid Laws. There is nothing new about it.

Oh, and Pakistan is an ally in the War on Terror.

But there cannot be irony for the blind, as usual.

Sayf-Allah · Nov 17, 2006, 03:52 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yep. I agree that it's full-on ludicrous. But then what else do you expect from a law associated with a religion which thinks that hell is mostly full of ungrateful women?

BS.

As for the change in the laws. It's a good first step but much is still to be done.

Doofy · Nov 17, 2006, 04:39 AM

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

BS.

So it doesn't say that three times in the Hadiths then?

Sayf-Allah · Nov 17, 2006, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

So it doesn't say that three times in the Hadiths then?

You know what every single Muslim on this board thinks of the Hadiths. Do we need to remind you of it once again?

But go on, keep telling us what we believe. I'm sure you know it better than us.

Doofy · Nov 17, 2006, 04:53 AM

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

You know what every single Muslim on this board thinks of the Hadiths.

I'm aware of what you think about them. What about what the assholes running things in Pakistan? What do they think?

Sayf-Allah · Nov 17, 2006, 04:58 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

I'm aware of what you think about them. What about what the assholes running things in Pakistan? What do they think?

You said:

But then what else do you expect from a law associated with a religion which thinks that hell is mostly full of ungrateful women?

Next time, try to be more specific.

(unless, of course, you are specifically trying to make Islam look bad...... but there's absolutely no chance of you trying that is there?

)

Doofy · Nov 17, 2006, 05:05 AM

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

You said:

Next time, try to be more specific.

(unless, of course, you are specifically trying to make Islam look bad...... but there's absolutely no chance of you trying that is there?

)

Ummm... ...so this law wasn't a result of sharia, which is associated with a certain religion, which has a book which states three times that Hell is mostly populated by ungrateful women?

Sayf-Allah · 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Ummm... ...so this law wasn't a result of sharia, which is associated with a certain religion, which has a book which states three times that Hell is mostly populated by ungrateful women?

I don't have the time to continuously educate you so I'll just keep it short.

The Hudood ordinance is the result of the actions and preference of Zia-ul-Haq. He changed the laws as he wanted and if the Sharia court overruled any of the laws he declared he simply fired everyone and got new "judges" in.

There's nothing Islamic about the Hudood ordinance. It's a law based on the opinions of a despot.

Taliesin · Nov 17, 2006, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

You know what every single Muslim on this board thinks of the Hadiths. Do we need to remind you of it once again?

Really? Do you think and believe like me that all hadith-collections are fabricated fairy-tales, that need to be completely abolished in order to reform Islam?

Neither orthodox nor fundamentalistic muslims are ready to go that far, most would say that at least the socalled "strong" hadiths must be saved and kept.

Taliesin

Sayf-Allah · Nov 17, 2006, 06:34 AM

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Really? Do you think and believe like me that all hadith-collections are fabricated fairy-tales, that need to be completely abolished in order to reform Islam?

Neither orthodox nor fundamentalistic muslims are ready to go that far, most would say that at least the socalled "strong" hadiths must be saved and kept.

Taliesin

I would prefer to discuss this through pm.

Doofy · Nov 17, 2006, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

I would prefer to discuss this through pm.

So you don't have to educate the infidels?

Kevin · Nov 17, 2006, 08:12 AM

It's a secret!

ebuddy · Nov 17, 2006, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yep. I agree that it's full-on ludicrous. But then what else do you expect from a law associated with a religion which thinks that hell is mostly full of ungrateful women?

You mean hell isn't mostly full of ungrateful women?

Doofy · Nov 17, 2006, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

You mean hell isn't full of ungrateful women?

Dunno. I've never met one, so I wouldn't be able to tell you whether they're hell-material or not.

Kevin · Nov 17, 2006, 08:49 AM

Well they get pretty ungrateful when you cut their clitoris off.

I imagine I would too.

ebuddy · Nov 17, 2006, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Dunno. I've never met one, so I wouldn't be able to tell you whether they're hell-material or not.

Let's see today's honey-do;

- yard-work
- change oil in both vehicles
- dishes

BUT I'M A MAN, WHAT AM I DOING IN HELL?!?

I'll get back to you some time this evening.

*kidding of course.

ebuddy · Nov 17, 2006, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Well they get pretty ungrateful when you cut their clitoris off.

I imagine I would too.

eww.

vmarks · Nov 17, 2006, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

I would prefer to discuss this through pm.

Pity, I was interested in the answer.

Sayf-Allah · Nov 17, 2006, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by vmarks

Pity, I was interested in the answer.

I've already explained to you the basics of my opinion on hadiths. Use the search function.

vmarks · Nov 17, 2006, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

I've already explained to you the basics of my opinion on hadiths. Use the search function.

And what I recall was you saying that the ones you didn't like were weak, and the ones you did like were strong, but even the strongest was not given the same weight as the words of the Qur'an.

Which is what Taliesin disagrees with. What is your resistance to having that discussion out in the open?

Sayf-Allah · Nov 17, 2006, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by vmarks

And what I recall was you saying that the ones you didn't like were weak, and the ones you did like were strong, but even the strongest was not given the same weight as the words of the Qur'an.

The most basic version of my opinion of Hadiths, yes.

Which is what Taliesin disagrees with. What is your resistance to having that discussion out in the open?

Since when did my personal religious beliefs become any of your business?

turtle777 · Nov 17, 2006, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

I would prefer to discuss this through pm.

From the forum rules:

Don't ask for replies via email or private message. That defeats the purpose of a forum, of allowing everyone to see the question and replies.

-t

Sayf-Allah · Nov 17, 2006, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

From the forum rules:

Don't ask for replies via email or private message. That defeats the purpose of a forum, of allowing everyone to see the question and replies.

-t

Report me then.

turtle777 · Nov 17, 2006, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Report me then.

It's not about that.

If you want to discuss things via PM, do so, but DON'T announce it in the thread. What's the whole point of telling the world that you won't tell, besides making you look weird ?

-t

Sayf-Allah · Nov 17, 2006, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

It's not about that.

If you want to discuss things via PM, do so, but DON'T announce it in the thread. What's the whole point of telling the world that you won't tell, besides making you look weird ?

-t

Try sending Taliesin a pm.

turtle777 · Nov 17, 2006, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Try sending Taliesin a pm.

Why ?
What's your point ?

-t

vmarks · Nov 17, 2006, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

The most basic version of my opinion of Hadiths, yes.

Since when did my personal religious beliefs become any of your business?

Since you made them a part of the thread. You're happy to post them in threads in the past (per your 'do a search.')

marden · Nov 17, 2006, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

From the forum rules:

Don't ask for replies via email or private message. That defeats the purpose of a forum, of allowing everyone to see the question and replies.

-t

So if that's your policy why didn't you post this in a thread instead of sending it to me in a PM?

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

Originally Posted by vmarks

Dear what_the_heck,

You have received an infraction at MacNN Forums.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?p=3208759

Reason: Inappropriate Language
-------
Yeah, there was some language here.
It's not here anymore.

Thanks.
-------

Marden, you're such a loser.
I actually pity you. Go live your simple life. Fool.

-t

Hypocrite much?

Moderator · Nov 17, 2006, 05:46 PM

Love how the Religious Right here wants Islamic nations to become more secular but wants the US to become less secular. They want those countries to become more liberal but they fear liberals at home. Go figure.

vmarks · Nov 17, 2006, 06:28 PM

Well, it depends on the definition of liberal.

Liberal as in libertarian? Yes.
Liberal as in socialist left? No thank you.

And I know of no conservative who wishes for a theocratic nation in America.

Rumor · Nov 17, 2006, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by marden

So if that's your policy why didn't you post this in a thread instead of sending it to me in a PM?

Hypocrite much?

Fail to comprehend what you read much?

Taliesin · Nov 18, 2006, 07:09 AM

Sorry, Logic, but I have long ago personally decided against the concept of pm-ing in discussion-fora, that's why it's deactivated in my profile.

Taliesin

Nicko · Nov 18, 2006, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by Moderator

Love how the Religious Right here wants Islamic nations to become more secular but wants the US to become less secular. They want those countries to become more liberal but they fear liberals at home. Go figure.

Yea, ironic really.

Kevin · 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by vmarks

What is your resistance to having that discussion out in the open?

Because it could be used against him. It would be devastating to his argument.

Sayf-Allah · Nov 18, 2006, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Sorry, Logic, but I have long ago personally decided against the concept of pm-ing in discussion-fora, that's why it's deactivated in my profile.

Taliesin

No problem.

Sayf-Allah · 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Because it could be used against him. It would be devastating to his argument.

...

Kevin · Nov 18, 2006, 09:19 AM

No, no I did not know that. You usually keep your specific beliefs hidden for some reason.

Helmling · Nov 18, 2006, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by vmarks

Well, it depends on the definition of liberal.

Liberal as in libertarian? Yes.
Liberal as in socialist left? No thank you.

And I know of no conservative who wishes for a theocratic nation in America.

Really, you must not be looking very hard. They are many. Throw a heavy stone a short distance from the president's inner circle and you will fine enough to fill a jumbo jet...but you better pick the pilot from a different pool of applicants in case of rapture.