Pakistan needs laws against misogyny, not blasphemy

 The national narrative regarding blasphemy in Pakistan is that the offense is unpardonable: Once you utter words that disrespect the Prophet Muhammad, his companions or the Quran, only death or life imprisonment awaits you.

But earlier this month, Junaid Jamshed, an influential Islamic preacher, sought an alternative outcome. Accused of blasphemy by members of a different Islamic sect for remarks he made in a video posted on Facebook, Jamshed released a subsequent apology video, in which he pleaded ignorance and asked for forgiveness.

Jamshed�s case has attracted international attention and opened debate about whether blasphemy is pardonable. The week after the events, Dawn, Pakistan�s leading English newspaper, published a blog post outlining how Advocate Ismaeel Qureshi, the creator of Pakistan�s blasphemy law, has acknowledged the possibility that the regulation rests on an error in theological interpretation. Religious clerics and talk-show hosts on television devoted much airtime to discuss the blasphemy law and Jamshed�s apology video.

But one aspect of this episode ignored in the debate is the misogyny Jamshed displays in the alleged blasphemy video.

In the clip, Jamshed, speaking in front of a small group of men, tells them a story about how Ayesha, one of the wives of Muhammad, would often feign being ill to receive attention from him. The moral of the story, according to Jamshed, is that if Muhammad could not reform women�s crooked ways, then ordinary men do not stand a chance.

The message is simple: Even under the holiest of influences, women, by the simple virtue of being women, cannot be �fixed.�

Whether Jamshed committed blasphemy under Pakistani laws � and whether there is room for a pardon � is for the Pakistani courts to decide. But in this particular instance, Jamshed must be held accountable for more than the alleged blasphemy. And it is the moral responsibility of Pakistan�s media and civil society to call him out for imparting misogynist views to an unsuspecting audience.

 Full article:

Religious minorities under Ottoman rule

 Jews at the western or wailing wall circa 1900.

 

Much like previous Muslim Empires, the Ottomans showed great toleration and acceptance of non-Muslim communities in their empire. This is based on existing Muslim laws regarding the status of non-Muslims. They are protected, given religious freedoms, and free from persecution according to the Shariah. One of the first precedents of this was the Treaty of Umar ibn al-Khattab, in which he guaranteed the Christians of Jerusalem total religious freedom and safety.

The Millet System

The first instance of the Ottomans having to rule a large number of Christians was after the conquest of Constantinople by Sultan Mehmed II in 1453. Constantinople had historically been the center of the Orthodox Christian world, and still had a large Christian population. As the empire grew into Europe, more and more non-Muslims came under Ottoman authority. For example, in the 1530s, over 80% of the population in Ottoman Europe was not Muslim. In order to deal with these new Ottoman subjects, Mehmed instituted a new system, later called the millet system.

Under this system, each religious group was organized into a millet. Millet comes from the Arabic word for �nation�, indicating that the Ottomans considered themselves the protectors of multiple nations. Each religious group was considered its own millet, with multiple millets existing in the empire. For example, all Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire were considered as constituting a millet, while all Jews constituted another millet. 

Each millet was allowed to elect its own religious figure to lead them. In the case of the Orthodox Church (the biggest Church in the Ottoman Empire), the Orthodox Patriarch (the Archbishop of Constantinople) was the elected leader of the millet. The leaders of the millets were allowed to enforce their own religion�s rules on their people. Islamic law (Shariah) had no jurisdiction over non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire.

In cases of crime, people would be punished according to the rules of their own religion, not Islamic rules or rules of other religions. For example, if a Christian were to steal, he would be punished according to the Christian laws regarding theft. If a Jew were to steal, he were to be punished according to Jewish laws, etc. The only time Islamic law would come into account was if the criminal was a Muslim, or when there was a case involving two people from different millets. In that case, a Muslim judge was to preside over the case and judge according to his best judgement and common law.

In addition to religious law, millets were given freedom to use their own language, develop their own institutions (churches, schools, etc), and collect taxes. The Ottoman sultan only exercised control over the millets through their leaders. The millet leaders ultimately reported to the sultan, and if there was a problem with a millet, the sultan would consult that millet leader. Theoretically, the Muslim population of the Ottoman Empire also constituted a millet, with the Ottoman sultan as the millet leader.

Legacy

The Ottoman Empire lasted from 1300 to 1922. Throughout most of this history, the millet system provided a system of religious harmony and belonging throughout the empire. As the empire expanded, more millets were organized. Separate millets existed for Armenian, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians, for example, with each sect being divided further into more specific regional churches.

The millet system did not last until the end of the Ottoman Empire. As the empire weakened in the 1700s and 1800s, European intervention in the empire expanded. When the liberal Tanzimat were passed in the 1800s, the millet system was abolished, in favor of a more European-style secularist government. The Ottomans were forced to guarantee vague �rights� to religious minorities, which in fact limited their freedoms. Instead of being allowed to rule themselves according to their own rules, all religious groups were forced to follow the same set of secular laws. This actually ended up causing more religious tension in the empire, which was one of the causes of the genocide of the Armenians during World War One in the Ottoman Empire�s dying days.

The millet system was a unique and creative solution to running a multi-ethnic and multi-religious empire. The rights and freedoms it gave to religious minorities were far ahead of their time. While Europe struggled with religious persecution into the 1900s, the Ottomans created a harmonious and stable religious pluralistic system that guaranteed religious freedom for hundreds of years.

 Source: http://lostislamichistory.com/

"He culturally believed he had the right to hit his wife and discipline his wife.�

 I hope he enjoys the dhal in prison! So disgusted....

A Pakistani immigrant beat his wife to death in their Brooklyn home after she made the mistake of cooking him lentils for dinner instead of the hearty meal of goat meat that he craved, according to court papers.

Noor Hussain, 75, was so outraged over the vegetarian fare that he pummeled his wife, Nazar Hussain, 66, with a stick until she was a �bloody mess,� according to prosecutors and court papers.

�Defendant asked [his wife] to cook goat and [his wife] said she made something else,� the court papers indicated as Hussain�s murder trial opened on Wednesday.

�The conversation got louder and [his wife] disrespected defendant by cursing at defendant and saying motherf-?-ker, and . . . defendant took a wooden stick and hit her with it on her arm and mouth.�

Defense attorney Julie Clark admitted Hussain beat his wife � but argued that he is guilty of only manslaughter because he didn�t intend to kill her. In Pakistan, Clark said, beating one�s wife is customary.

�He comes from a culture where he thinks this is appropriate conduct, where he can hit his wife,� Clark said in her opening statements at the Brooklyn Supreme Court bench trial. �He culturally believed he had the right to hit his wife and discipline his wife.�

Prosecutors, however, said Hussain meant for his wife to die.

�His intentions were to kill his wife,� Assistant District Attorney Sabeeha Madni said in court. �This was not a man who was trying to discipline his wife.�

Madni said that Hussain �brutally attacked his wife as she lay in her bed� � leaving deep lacerations on her head, arms and shoulders, and causing her brain to hemorrhage.

He beat her with a stick that the family had found in the street and used to stir their laundry in a washtub, the court papers state.

He then tried to clean up the blood that had splattered onto their bedroom wall before calling his son for help, Madni said.

�I killed her. Hurry up and come over,� Hussain told his son, according to prosecutors.

Madni also said Pakistani women who lived in the same building as the Hussains would testify about the beatings Nazar received at the hands of her husband.

�They have told us about years of abuse they witnessed,� Madni said.

Hussain met his wife in Pakistan and the couple married before moving to Brooklyn, prosecutors said.

The trial continues Thursday before Judge Matthew D�Emic.

Source

How NGOs helped change Moroccan law on rapists marrying their victims

In parts of Morocco, particularly in rural areas, a girl or unmarried woman who is not a virgin, even if she lost her virginity through rape, is seen as bringing dishonour to her family. Marrying the rapist is thought to alleviate this stigma.

 Another horrific consequence of this law was that if a man wanted to wed a woman who was unwilling to be his bride, by raping her he could, in effect, force her into marriage. It took the tragic case of Amina Filali, 16, who was forced into marriage after she was raped, and who killed herself seven months into wedlock, to be the catalyst for action. Her plight caused such outrage across the country it triggered protests in several cities. Last August, several women's rights groups joined forces to tackle child marriage. We organised a so-called peace and white march � "peace" because our protest was non-violent; "white" to represent the colour of doctors' coats.

Our aim was to show how rape and forced and child marriage had a negative impact on women's health. A pair of doctors who work in our clinics joined us on the rally. We waved placards, but fell silent as we marched on the parliament building in the Moroccan capital, Rabat. Many women suffer in silence and we wanted our demonstration to emphasise that. The peace and white march was followed with a pink march � to symbolise women's rights. Each demonstration increased public interest. Victory came last month, in January, when we discovered that the law had been changed, though the clause relating to child marriage has been postponed for further consultation. Source