Another update on Imrana from Arab News, with thanks to all who sent this in.
PUNE - The rape case and plight of the 28-year-old Indian Muslim woman, Imrana, is slowly turning into a political drama with, both Muslims and non-Muslims pitching in their worth.While the fatwa issued by Ulemas of the Deoband and the Muslim Law Board has triggered a hornet's nest, the Hindu fundamentalists BJP turned to their pet peeve by calling for reforms in the personal laws of Islam and to bring these in consonance with the constitutional guarantees.
Imrana was raped by her father-in-law, who is now in judicial custody, and the issue of Imrana's marriage and Muslim personal law has all come under sharp focus, in the predominantly Hindu country.
There are 180 million Muslims in India and they were shell-shocked to see on the television screen the victim of rape begging and screaming to be let alone. Fully veiled and in black burqa she was shown on television pleading, "Please leave me alone, please, I'm tired, don't trouble me, don't highlight my case, and to look at this case from the point of view of a woman."
"I shall abide by the decision of the Shariah court, but I would like that the accused be punished severally," said Imrana. "I will do whatever the Shariah asks me to do," she added. "If they tell me to leave my husband, then I will. I will follow the fatwa," she said.
Meanwhile, newspapers too were having a field day by propounding on the issue. In an editorial, Indian Express said that the Ulemas of the Deoband and the Muslim Law Board have made it quite apparent that even in the 21st century, the Ulemas who act under the imprimatur of religion do not understand one simple principle: That a woman is a person in her own right and that Imrana was a victim of a heinous double crime...
Darul Uloom, of Deoband, which issued the controversial fatwa, stood firm before the Shariah court and had in an edict stated that Imrana's marriage stands nullified in light of the alleged rape and she should separate from her husband.
Her father-in-law Ali Muhammed raped Imrana Noor Elahi, mother of five children and resident of Charthawal town of Muzaffarnagar district in western state of Uttar Pradesh allegedly on June 4. The Islamic seminary Darul Uloom Deoband has ruled that a woman raped by her father-in-law could not be allowed to live with her husband any longer and issuing a fatwa (decree) that her staying with her husband Noor Elahi has become untenable as per the Islamic law after the rape.
The All India Muslim Law Board (AIMPLB) also concurred with the Darul Uloom of Deoband fatwa, while the lone woman member of the board Naseem Iqtedar Ali Khan too approved the edict and said that as per the Qur'an, Imrana's conjugal relationship with her husband stands dissolved, since she had been raped by the latter's blood relative. Had she been raped by anyone other than a blood relative, she could have stayed with her husband, but here, a sacred relationship has been violated, the consequences of which has to be borne by Imrana and her husband Noor Elahi and pointed out that the responsibility of the couple's five children would have to be shouldered by Elahi as long as required. "India is not a Islamic country were a rapist is stoned to death. Here it is the law of the land which prevails in cases of granting relief to a rape victim and punishing the offender" Naseem Khan stated...
The "sacred relationship" referred to above is that between father and son, not husband and wife.
India is not a Islamic country were a rapist is stoned to death
Are rapists stoned to death in Islamic countries? It tends to be rape victims.
What a sick, stupid law. In any case, how can you have different 'personal laws' for citizens of the same country?
It's quite understandable that the victim just wants to be left alone, rather than used as a political football, but I hope people do take up their case.
Bring back the British Empire - at least it spread a decent legal system to these benighted countries.
There are 180 million Muslims in India
Last I heard, there were 130 million of them in India. Numbers inflation is an old game with these schmucks, eh?
In any case, how can you have different 'personal laws' for citizens of the same country?
India's founding fathers, to their shame, capitulated to dhimmi appeasement at the time of partition and allowed moslems theiri own personal law in an otehrwise secular country. A pity they didn't implement sharia' in full where moslem prisoners could suffer amputations etc whilst non moslem prisoners would undergo secular prison sentences only....
Update on the case:
Turns out, this Imrana case maybe a massive fraud. The woman possibly was never raped but was conspiring with her husband in getting rid of the father-in-law over some property dispute of sorts. The story's still disturbing.
The woman possibly was never raped but was conspiring with her husband in getting rid of the father-in-law over some property dispute of sorts. The story's still disturbing.
Yes, the story is still disturbing because of the verdict given, even if it was in error.
Muslims are very fond of claiming that, unlike the decadent West, their religion/culture values the family. But in practice they have all the failures of the West where family are concerned, plus a whole lot more besides.
There is quite simply nothing good about Islam whatsoever.
"pitching in their worth.."
-- from the Arab News, quoted above
Isn't this a cross between "pitch your woo" and the cricketer's pitch, with something lost in the translation?
In general, the world-wide spread of English which is supposed to be altogether so wonderful, has led to a pidgin or bastard English that is incapable of full and rounded expression, and that insidiously pulls down the English of the native speaker. One sees this in university clases, where even a handful of non-native-speakers can bring down the level of the entire class on English literature. And some universities wish to be all things to all people, the "world" university that is "world-class" and similar idiocies.
Native speakers manage to mangle the English language all by themselves. I overheard on a bus the other day, 'That's no skin off my teeth'. My pet hate is 'may' instead of 'might', for example, 'If we had been nicer to the Muslims, September 11 *may* (should be 'might') not have happened'.
Some non-native speakers of English put native speakers to shame.
Coming back to the topic, we keep hearing about how India is a pluralist democracy, and so on. How, then, can it continue with a 'personal' law for Muslims? Surely equality under the law is one of the keystones of a democracy.
Do Muslims submit voluntarily to this legal system within a legal system, as was proposed in Candada recently?
Perhaps I need to do a bit of reading on this as I'm completely ignorant about it.
This case illustrates an important and insidiously subtle distinction between Shari'a and Western law. Under Shari'a human rights are allocated according to attributes and attitudes of the individual. In Western law all citizens are equal with respect to basic human rights whereas in Shari'a basic human rights differ according to gender and religious belief. Western law is not entirely devoid of these allocation asymmetries (e.g., adults vs. children) but allocation of rights based on gender and religious belief have long ago been abandoned as failed ideological components that have no place in a modern society.
Unless Sharia'a can be modified to conform to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it too has no place in a modern world. As long as there are nation-states in the world who adopt Shari'a as their constitutions, with its codified oppression of women and non-Muslims, those same nation-states are deserving of treatment as failed states within the community of nations.
The fundamental incompatability of Shari'a with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the elephant in the living room that everyone is afraid to talk about, including, or should we say especially, international human rights activists. Silence of human rights organizations on this matter is self-condemning, the proverbial log in the eye.
DrMack:
allocation of rights based on gender and religious belief have long ago been abandoned as failed ideological components that have no place in a modern society.
Some of these reforms have been surprisingly recent. In the UK, universal women's suffrage came in only in 1938. As recently as 1993 rape of a wife by her husband was not a crime in law. (Of course, this is virtually impossible to prove, but it should at least be on the books.) I don't know how this compares to the US.
However, of course you are right. These are anomalies in the West; discrimination is at the heart of Sharia law.
Silence of human rights organizations on this matter is self-condemning, the proverbial log in the eye.
Human rights organisations sometimes condemn the symptoms of the disease of Sharia, but not the cause. Then they'll go back to whingeing about Guantanamo.
Bring back the British Empire - at least it spread a decent legal system to these benighted countries.
Intrested that is a highly ignorant and hurtful statement. These Personal laws were passed by the British themselves following the maxim "Divide and Rule". India ofcourse plans to have a commonal Civil Code but they are just buying peace by letting Muzzies have Sharia. Atleast that way the cant blast a few "infidels" every friday on pretext of campaigning for Shariat.
Intrested that is a highly ignorant and hurtful statement
It was also highly flippant.
You can't go blaming the British in this day and age for the fact that Muslims have backward laws.
And don't forget, if the British hadn't ruled India, they'd still have the caste system, suttee and all sorts of other charming cultural features.
Just thinking out loud a little...
Maybe India's having a Muslim Personal Law is not such a bad idea. The good thing about it is that it's applicable only to Muslims. Thus, when a twisted judgment, such as the Imrana one, comes down, it exposes Sharia for the backward brutalism it is.
The defense from Muslims who blindly support Sharia, is, well, defensive -- devoid of logic -- and instead relies on the reflexive accusation of, yes, Islamophobia.
As for the human rights of those Muslims who have been wronged by retrograde Shariat judgments, those should be guaranteed by making the ultimate redress (that of going to higher courts) conform to a uniform code.
As for the uproar in the Muslim community that will follow, the one where the wronged who seeks further redress away from Shariat is branded an apostate... well, the more of a negative spotlight on Muslim intolerance! C.f. Shah Bano case.
Correction, the call to comparative citation in my previous post should have been as follows...
DrMack --
"The fundamental incompatability of Shari'a with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the elephant in the living room that everyone is afraid to talk about, including, or should we say especially, international human rights activists."
That's because they either know, or deep down suspect but are afraid of admitting, that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an expression of Western values in the context of imposing them upon the entire globe -- and therefore it is logically inseparable from Western Imperialism, of which it is a post-Colonial extension.
There is a growing movement among Leftists (who are detaching themselves from their Liberal roots) by which they are dimly becoming aware that most of the Liberal values they hold dear are really Western impositions upon the non-Western world -- and of course, that's BAD!!! (The Marxist nebula of the late 19th and first half of the 20th century was the prototype of this Leftist detachment from its Liberal "bourgeois" roots.) And there is a growing, dim sense among Leftists that there is no alternative to a Western domination of the globe except a... "revolutionary" Islam...
Metaxy:
There is a growing movement among Leftists (who are detaching themselves from their Liberal roots) by which they are dimly becoming aware that most of the Liberal values they hold dear are really Western impositions upon the non-Western world
I would not phrase it this way, but there is an element truth to the statement. We are speaking of the loony left. One can say similar things about the rabid right. One-note monomaniacs are are not exclusive to either side.
Interested:
“And don't forget, if the British hadn't ruled India, they'd still have the caste system, suttee and all sorts of other charming cultural features.”
You are not just flippant but ignorant as well.
Caste system, more or less still prevails in India and it is not much different to the British class system.
Indian women, mainly from the ruling Rajasthani families preferred to self-immolate on their husbands’ funeral pyres rather than get captured my the marauding muslims. Taking poison was not an option as these savages practiced necrophilia. Please check your history.
India was culturally advanced when the Brits went there.
Caste system, more or less still prevails in India and it is not much different to the British class system.
Well, Londoner, I've already admitted my ignorance about India. But from the second half of this ludicrous sentence, it is obvious that you are ignorant and don't know it. What British class system?
Suttee was all about Muslims, was it? Well it may have been partly about that, but it was partly to do with the fact that Indian culture was perhaps not as advanced as you think it was, though obviously enlightened compared with Islam.
The main point, though is that barbaric practices such as suttee have been stamped out, at least partly as Western values have spread to less enlightened societies. The impact of these values has been less on Muslims because of the recalcitrant nature of Islam.
Any way you look at this travesty, the woman is being punished because she was raped. This is just as insane as all Sharia rulings but not at all surprising.
Too bad there's not a face-saving loophole to fall back on, like blood money for murder. But I'm sure all of the loopholes in Sharia are applicable to male criminals only. Women get the death penalty for all crimes, directly or indirectly. Muslim women are so fortunate to enjoy true freedom! Maybe someday women in the West will savor the freedom that only Islam can provide.
This woman was violated and is now worthless. She's in a lower league than a leper; untouchable, filthy, unwanted, despised and ostracized. Her future looks bleak indeed. I'm surprised her family hasn't put her out of her misery and restored their honor. Imagine the horrible anguish they must be experiencing because of her heinous crime and the resulting publicity. They must be mortified to the max, poor things.
Her children are also being punished by being deprived of their mother. Islam's family values are commendable indeed! Oh well, most of them grow up to be psychopaths anyway, with or without a mother. The husband has probably already remarried and it's unlikely that he had any emotional attachment to his wife; love is reserved only for allah.
"What British class system? "
System is too scientific a word for the very flexible social studies convienience of identifying the social classes of Western European society. They were never fixed, never enshrined in religion, always very flexible. As much a matter of taste and life style as heritage and fortune. I was born working class. At some point in the last 30 years I became what is mysteriously described as middle class. But when? When I graduated? When I got promotion to £xxxx a year? When I married the son of a Church of England vicar? When I moved out of East London into tree lined suburbia? When I stopped eating winkles with a pin?
The difference with the castes is that they are fixed at birth and no matter what the individual does with their life, what profession she follows, how much he earns, that person will always be that caste.
A quotation from someone who will know far more on the subject than I.
'The caste system is based on descent. You are born into it, you cannot choose your caste, buy it or graduate into a different caste'.
Paul Divakar, Convenor of the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights (NCDHR)
Granny W, I suspect that the poster calling himself 'Londoner' isn't one. He spells 'practise' (verb) the American way.
SusanP - very good points. Sharia law stinks.
Well, London is said to be the most diverse city in the world. The same is said of Toronto, and there is a London in Ontario nearby. So who knows.
The important point is the misery that this whole affair will cause the children, and that Sharia law is to be avoided at all costs. There are 2 main legal systems in the world. English Common Law, as used in the US and most Commonwealth countries. And the Napoleonic Code which was based on Roman Law and is used by Europe (including Scotland and Russia) and many countries with a European influence in their history. Sharia is not a contendor for a third way.
Interested, lemme put things in perspective. At first of course the Indian was believed to be a filthy pagan a "faqeer" who had to be civilized. Then to counter this the western leftists went completely opposite to the extreme to denigrate Western culture. But the reality lies in the middle...now just because you know that Jihad is not the responsibility of the West, does not mean you whitewash the bloody British Raj of India. There are none of us Indians in London chanting slogans on the streets demanding apologies for anything. And yes you are indeed ignorant about the caste system and sati. No defense for those institutions whatsoever. But first learn about them the way you learned about jihad and dhimmitude and then plz return with your colonialist and imperialist comments on India. Dont forget that Lord Mountbatten was instrumental in the bloody partition of India though of course the fault lies with the Muslim tendency of separatism. And please read about the massive slaughters rapes and enslavement in the medieval period of India that spawned sati and lot of other objectionable (disgusting?) practices. Over here VICTIMISATION is valid indeed. A society under seige tries to wrap itself up like a turtle. The caste system also initially had no hereditary basis but research is still speculative/incomplete as to when this degradation happened. In any case, please do not rub salt into our wounds by your supposed British superiority. I respect Western civilization for all its contributions and Im not a howling leftist supporting terrorists. So please Interested lay off will you...
And yes you are indeed ignorant about the caste system and sati. No defense for those institutions whatsoever. But first learn about them the way you learned about jihad and dhimmitude and then plz return with your colonialist and imperialist comments on India.
What's to learn? These practices were backward and uncivilised. But Hindus living in Britain have moved beyond the more backward aspects of their culture and assimilated to ours, whereas Muslims seem to be more reluctant to do this.
I won't apologise for stating that Western culture is more advanced than Indian, or any other culture. This is just a fact. Don't be so touchy.
Intrested... Western culture is more advanced than Indian culture. Ppl culd debate on and on. U've really opened up a can of worms here. In Britain u'd never find the Indian family values. Indians rarely divorce. Indian teens rarely get pregnant. Indians are rarely caught doing drugs. Indian students excell in GCSE & A Levels. BTW There is NO SUCH THING AS AN INDIAN CULTURE. You can call that it's an umbrella term for over 50 distinct cultures. Sati to the best of my knowledge was prevalent in Bengal. I'm a Marathi, these things are alien to my culture. Conculsion: Every culture has its own advantages and disadvantages, you cant call and have no right to call Indian culture as backward until you yourself experience it and study it.
'Indian family values' are based on oppression of women.
Other cultures have a lot to learn from the West. The reverse isn't true. You're right - every culture has its advantages and disadvantages, but when it comes to being advanced - in science, technology, the arts, human rights, valuing the individual (as opposed to the family or tribe), freedom, creativity, inventiveness - the West beats all the others put together.
India itself is now joining the West by becoming more advanced. Muslim countries are being left behind.
All cultures have their problems. Western culture certainly has all sorts of social problems that are not found in other cultures. To say Western culture is the best is a little ignorant.