Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Sharia Law and Imrana's Rape

At Dhimmi Watch, July 3rd, there is a case for you to consider the next time some "progressive" asserts that Sharia Law is harmless and ought to be allowed to be used in civil cases in Ontario.

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.

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.

Things can't get worse than that you say. Oh, but it can.

BOMBAY -- (from Dhimmi Watch July 10) Hard-line Islamic clerics in a northern Indian village have declared that a woman's 10-year-old marriage was nullified when her father-in-law raped her -- and ordered the mother of five to marry the rapist. [emphasis is mine]. The fatwa, or religious edict, was issued by Darool Uloom Deoband, South Asia's most powerful Islamic theological school known for promoting a radical brand of Islam that is said to have inspired the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The decision has outraged both Muslim and Hindu leaders and prompted a fierce debate that has dominated the front pages of national newspapers across India.

The fatwa ordered Imrana Ilahi, 28, to separate from her husband and treat him as her son because she had sex with his father. "She had a physical relationship with her father-in-law, and it nullifies her marriage," said Mohammad Masood Madani, a cleric at the theological school. He said it made no difference whether the sex was consensual or forced. The village council then decreed that Mrs. Ilahi would have to marry her father-in-law.

Feminists and liberal Muslims reacted with fury, staging nationwide street protests.

But Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mulayam Singh on June 29 supported the fatwa, saying: "The decision of the Muslim religious leaders in the Imrana case must have been taken after a lot of thought. ... The religious leaders are all very learned and they understand the Muslim community and its sentiments.

No objections, for they are very learned and understand the Muslim community and its sentiments. That is sufficient.


At 3:33 pm, July 21, 2005 , Blogger DirtCrashr said...

One of the unfortunate legacies of the Raj was its multicultural abidance of India's multi-partite legal system, where by Hindus were judged by Hindus, Moslems by Moslemns, and Christians by Christians. It would have done the world (and India in particular) a greater good to dissolve it and unify the legal code under a single British one rather than rely on the sensitivites of the indigenous population.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home