Veiled Muslim Women Rally Against Alleged “Pakistan Taliban” Flogging of Women

The photos below say it all, but obviously you won’t be seeing Faux Noise or any of the other MSM pick up these pictures  anytime soon. It just doesn’t fit the “official narrative”.

If you don’t know what this is about, then this should help. The “Pakistan Taliban” reps are denying it, saying that it wasn’t a 17-year old but a 34-old woman. I guess these clueless PR folks believe that the age of the woman really makes a difference! And to be honest, while I mantain some scepticism about its origin, the video does seems quite real, especially in the face of red-faced weak denials from the Taliban officials. I am no scholar of shariah, but it doesn’t take a scholar to see so much wrong with the “punishment” that was meted out in the video.

My point of this post was not to go into the politics of what is so messed up with the situation in this part of Pakistan, but rather to show Muslim women on the forefronts of condemning such actions. In fact, the rally was organized by a Pakistani religious party.

Pakistani women protest in Lahore on April 4, 2009, against the public flogging of a woman. Pakistan’s top judge has ordered a court hearing into the public flogging of the woman, filmed on an amateur video, that has raised alarm about the tightening grip of Islamist hardliners. (AFP/Arif Ali)

muslims-against-violence-against-women

Veiled women supporters of a Pakistani religious group chant slogans during a rally to condemn flogging of a woman, Saturday, April 4, 2009 in Lahore Pakistan. Pakistani authorities ordered inquiries into a video showing the public flogging of a screaming woman in a northwestern valley where officials have yielded to Taliban demands for Islamic law. (AP Photo/K.M. Chaudary)

Like this?
Get more of our great articles.

Pakistan

89 / View Comments

89 responses to “Veiled Muslim Women Rally Against Alleged “Pakistan Taliban” Flogging of Women”

  1. Concerned says:

    To be honest I do not know if the video is real, and if it is whether the woman was flogged for the right reasons and with due procedure.

    But, let’s just step back and ask ourselves what if she did do what she was accused of? Are you saying flogging is wrong? Are you saying such a punishment is barbaric? Because that’s exactly how you’re sounding, and that’s exactly what Pakistanis are saying.

    They’re condemning flogging as a punishment itself as much as the people doing it. They are calling flogging an act of jahilliyah!!! Ma’adh Allah. I was wondering if this is your position aswell.

    p.s. I’m no fan of Swati criminals calling themselves ‘taliban’.

  2. Amad says:

    It is not the lack of honest politicians for Pakistan (consider Imran Khan), but nearly zero chance of them having a say in government under the current political status quo.

    PRESS RELEASE

    Mr Imran Khan has condemned the Swat flogging incident in very clear terms. In a telephone talk with the Secretary General of the party Dr Arif Alvi he said that this brutal incident has nothing to do with Islam or Shariah. He appreciated the fact that Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry has taken suo moto notice of the incident and thorough investigation must be done and strong action taken against all those who are found responsible. Mr Imran Khan appreciated that major elements from among the people of Swat, including the Taliban have also condemned the incident.

    He told Dr Alvi that it is unfortunate that some people draw conclusions regarding Islam from such gory and brutal incidents. He said millions were brutalized in Afghanistan and Iraq by coalition forces from democratic countries under the false pretext of safe guarding human liberty and freedom. But not once did people around the world say that democracy is a bad institution because we know that it was the people, and not the system of democracy which was to blame.

    Similarly the Swat incident has no link to Islam or Sharia but it is a brutal violent act carried out by some individuals against a helpless woman and which was perpetrated in the lawless situation of Swat a couple of months ago. Mr Imran Khan said that it is all the more important that the deal between the people of Swat and the government should be finalized to bring law and order back to people of Swat. He warned that if such an incident is allowed to sabotage and derail the peace process, we would be playing in the hands of international conspirators who cannot accept Pakistan struggling back to normal, after the great people’s victory in the struggle for the Restoration of the Judiciary.

    Signed
    Dr Arif Alvi
    Secretary General
    Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf

  3. Concerned says:

    mr. Amad kindly respond to my concern brother…if you think it’s worthy your status to respond. ALthough I’m keeping my fingers crossed, that you’ll go on a long sarcastic tirade.

  4. Amad says:

    “Concerned”, the way this Muslim woman was flogged, by adult men, exposing her out of her jilbab, that is clearly the problem. Doesn’t seem too that due justice was undertaken, with all the rules of Islamic shariah courts, etc., at least from what is being reported. And to be honest, I cannot support a group of people establishing their own laws within the confines of a nation… esp. when the lack of education, esp Islamic education among these folks is a fact. Also, I find it amazing that the first thing that these people find applicable from shariah is the hadd— is that all shariah is about?

    And please don’t try to read too much into my position. it is Islamic groups who are leading the protest against this, so I have more faith in their positions than in a group of people appearing from nowhere and running their own Shariah franchise. My point of the post was clear. It was about Muslim women rallying against this, something that the MSM doesn’t show us.

  5. Concerned says:

    Subhan Allah, you’ve circumvented my question, as expected. AKhi I’m saddened.

    First off, I didn’t ask you to ‘support’ ANY group, because I don’t support any such group either. I didn’t ask you about the photos either, but if you really want to push it, in the second photo the women are hodling posters with ‘manhaj al-qur’an’ written on them. This organization is run by Mr. Tahirul-qadiri the world renowned Barelvi (actually now even barelvis have beef with him) sufi, who fancies himself as ‘shaykh ul-islam’, and has affiliated with secular political parties. But that’s besides the point, but I detracted because you did.

    My question was simple: Are you FOR or AGAINST flogging as mandated in Qur’an?

    • Amad says:

      I follow what is in the Quran and Sunnah, and to be honest, I am not the one on trial here and as AnonyMuslim said, this is not a True/False quiz.

      With a published literacy rate of 50% in Pakistan, finding educated people, let alone experts in the religious texts, is difficult at best. There is also little doubt that in these NW areas, religion is mixed up with customs and culture, so their definition of shariah is further tainted.

      Bottomline, just because someone calls something shariah, doesn’t mean it is shariah. And doesn’t mean we defend clearly wrong actions just because it has a label we like. The video is reprehensible, and there should be no ifs and buts about it. If you think there is any justification for it, then you should be more concerned about yourself than me.

  6. AnonyMuslim says:

    This is a positive development. The more these animals expose their true nature, the greater the likelihood that Islam in Pakistan will embrace it’s original nature, which is establishment of justice, including just procedures and punishment.

    The question posed above can’t be answered without context, don’t fall into that silly, anti-intellectual trap. Something so serious as punishment under Shari’ah can’t be answered by a mere yes or no.

  7. Concerned says:

    Allahul musta’an. You’re a joke.

    Do I have to get it tattooed on my forehead that I don’t agree with what was in that video?

    But thanks for nothing. You didn’t answer my question, as expected. I’d leave it at this, before I crumble before the great invincible Amad.

  8. AnonyMuslim says:

    He wants you to say “yes flogging should be condemned” so in his intellectually and morally bankrupt mind he can conclude that you are opposed to Hudood punishments per Qur’anic textual interpretation. What he fails to acknolwedge, and which is clearly relevant to this particular matter, is the video itself. The callousness of the video is demonstrative of the backwards, unIslamic ideology of the Taliban, who think literal application of an Ayah or Hadith, without any jurisprudential analysis, is somehow implementing divine decree. As I said before the Taliban are an anti-intellectual movement who should be shunned for their nihilistic and fascist policies.

  9. Qas says:

    Amad bhai, it’s called performing “a moral CAT scan”.

    • Amad says:

      lol Qas. I guess we have quite a few morality-doctors among us :) I think I will be electronically flogged over this… the trolls from our favorite sites haven’t started coming in droves yet ;)

  10. IlmQuest says:

    As-salamaulikum,

    He said the woman was punished for her illicit relations with her father-in-law

    http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=170821

    This is a case of adultery. Does the punishment fit the crime? I don’t know. I thought the crime for adultery (if and only if witnessed by 4 people) was stoning.

    Why is it that whenever a Sharia rule is passed out and word gets out to the western media, the whole world goes in uproar. Don’t you see the propaganda here? The west hates Shariah (with a passion). Also Amad did point out that it was a 34 year old woman and not a 17 year old. The western media is using the word “teenager” in all their headlines. Now what’s happened here is the same thing that happened to an incident in Somalia. An adult woman was stoned for prostitution but the media reported that a 13 year old was stoned. As I said before the west will do anything to throw dirt on Sharia.

    Also, you mentioned that:
    AnonyMuslim,

    The callousness of the video is demonstrative of the backwards, unIslamic ideology of the Taliban, who think literal application of an Ayah or Hadith, without any jurisprudential analysis, is somehow implementing divine decree. As I said before the Taliban are an anti-intellectual movement who should be shunned for their nihilistic and fascist policies.

    Now, I’m just a layperson, but don;t you think you went a bit too far by claiming to know the “unislamic ideology of Taliban”. Also you claimed to know that Taliban take the “literal application of an Ayah or Hadith”. Do you have any evidence to back this up. Like I would like to see your response on how Shariah should be interpreted. Also you forget that within the midst of Taliban we find reputable scholars, for example during the 1980’s Sheikh Abdullah Azzam (ra) was amongst them. So let’s not claim that they have unislamic ideologies.

    Now, I just wanna caution you. We should be very careful when we point fingers at other Muslims. What if they are right? What then would you say in your defense on the Day of Judgment?

    May Allah unite us all and give the mujahideen everywhere victory.

  11. AsimG says:

    maniacmuslim.com?
    Hey, I’m already here!

  12. amad says:

    No Asim jee, not trollish enough ;)

  13. Imran Kashmiri says:

    “Spokesman for the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Swat chapter, Muslim Khan, has claimed the video clip showing a young girl being flogged by the Taliban is fake…..”

    “He said Chief Justice of Pakistan ….. should question the originality of the footage and …take action against those responsible for preparing the ‘fake’ video.”

    Are you guys ready for this?

    “He said the accused was a 34-year-old woman and not a 17-year-old girl. He said the woman was punished for her illicit relations with her father-in-law.”

    “He said a conspiracy was being hatched against the Swat Taliban…..Muslim Khan said the video released to the media was nine months old and was made at a time when the military operation was going on in Swat.”

    One minute this idiot claims that its fake video and next minute he has knowledge of this girls age and case background !!!!!!!

    But it all makes sense when you read the interview of head of TTP. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C03%5C19%5Cstory_19-3-2009_pg3_4

  14. Imran Kashmiri says:

    http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/apr2009-daily/06-04-2009/col7.htm
    Its in URDU, but good article highlighting sate of denial of some Pakistani mullah’s regarding this case.

    • Amad says:

      Imran, thanks for the info. Can you summarize the jang Urdu article for those who don’t read Urdu or have a hard time reading it (ahem…)

  15. anon says:

    Most Muslims are just like Amad, they won’t admit they are against Quranic punishments. They will say something like there is no Islamic state or the society is corrupt etc. Even if a true ‘Islamic state’ existed they will always find some excuse to criticize any form of punishment.

    • Amad says:

      Mashallah, anon, at least “concerned” asked for my opinion; you are even ahead, with claims of knowing what most Muslims, including me, believe within ourselves. It’s great that we want from moral-police to thought-police in a few comments. Next up, takfir police?

  16. Sharif says:

    As Salaam ‘Alaykum,

    This video brings to light a lot of information that was conveniently left out by the media.

  17. Amad says:

    I must say this is the best part of the The News story:

    One of the stories making the rounds in Swat was that a Talib saw the accused, Adalat Khan, who was an electrician by profession, leaving the home of the girl, Chand. He called other Taliban and accused the two of committing adultery. The boy defended himself by arguing that he was asked to fix some electrical appliances in the girl’s house. The Taliban then went ahead with the punishment of 30 lashes awarded to both the boy and the girl. Subsequently, as the story goes the Taliban got the two to marry and even cooked rice to hold a feast for celebrating the occasion.

    All’s forgiven when there is biryani or palau at the end!

  18. AnonyMuslim says:

    “IlmQuest” says:

    [Now, I’m just a layperson, but don;t you think you went a bit too far by claiming to know the “unislamic ideology of Taliban”. Also you claimed to know that Taliban take the “literal application of an Ayah or Hadith”. Do you have any evidence to back this up. Like I would like to see your response on how Shariah should be interpreted. Also you forget that within the midst of Taliban we find reputable scholars, for example during the 1980’s Sheikh Abdullah Azzam (ra) was amongst them. So let’s not claim that they have unislamic ideologies.]

    No I don’t think I went too far. The Taliban are implementing Hudood punishments with absolutely zero evidence presented against the people charged and in direct contradiction of the existing legal system in the country of Pakistan, where they are residing. The Taliban are Islamically bound to respect the laws of the country in which they reside. Clearly you are a lay person when it comes to history as well as religion, Sh. Azzam died in 1989, well before the first CIA funded/ISI-trained “Talib” graduated from an NWFP madrassah. I’m not the only one “claiming” they have an unIslamic ideology, the Taliban have been spurned by Islamic scholars all over the world, both traditional and non-traditional.

    “IlmQuest” writes:

    [Now, I just wanna caution you. We should be very careful when we point fingers at other Muslims. What if they are right? What then would you say in your defense on the Day of Judgment?]

    Thanks for “cautioning” me, however I’m pointing a finger at those criminals who are usurping Islam to execute a vile and murderous campaign of terror against innocent people. Further I would caution you that you need to worry about your silence and inaction when being presented with incontrovertible evidence of their criminality in the name of Islam on the day of Judgment.

  19. Amad says:

    In the video posted by Sharif, Muslim Khan, Taliban spokesman, gives the following interview (main points listed below, the spokesman’s Urdu wasn’t very clear):

    -The video is about a year old.
    -It was in a war-zone, and scholars were not present. Whatever happened, the way it happened, was wrong. The punishment is correct, but implementation was wrong
    -When the limits of islam are exceeded, then there is punishment, whether man or woman.

    When asked your people involved?
    -Yes, Taliban were involved (not sure what he said), but the way was wrong.

    When asked that the way that this punishment was meted was wrong?
    -Yes, it was wrong. It should have been indoors by a boy who has not reached puberty.
    -But war was going on, there were no scholars or no Qazi-courts.
    -Taking out one-year video is a propaganda against current Qazi-courts.

    Do you agree that this happened in your area by your people?
    -Not disagreeing that it happened. Have to implement punishment.

    What was the woman’s fault?
    -She lived with her father-in-law instead of her husband for 3 yrs [isn’t her father-in-law mahram??!]

    Were the people holding her for punishment mahram to her?
    -Yes. They were her family-members.

    Will such punishments be given in future?
    -No taliban can’t do this. Qazi courts have to make the decisions.

    Have you completed investigations?
    -This was war-time. So we couldn’t complete investigations at the time. But the punishment was correct.

    If you didn’t complete investigation, how could you give punishment?
    -Scholars weren’t there, no shura took place. [didn’t answer question]

    Need 4 witnesses. If investigation didn’t get completed, then how could you do this?
    -If the 2 parties agree, then no need for witness. We can’t investigate the punishment, but the way was wrong.

    Did the father-in-law get the flogging?
    -Yes, he should also get it. [some other unclear words]
    -[asked again and unclear what he said, not sure if the man got the flogging or not]
    -[when asked again], yes the man got it. The video for that was hidden and not the video for the girl.
    -If Qazi was available, it would be worse for the girl and the father-in-law, i.e. stoning.

    When asked again about the investigations, Muslim Khan, then said that investigations were complete, because both parties admitted.

    [So Muslim Khan admits that the way of the punishment was wrong, and also apparently the punishment itself was wrong (should have been worse), and we’ll have to take his word for it that the 2 parties admitted to an affair!]

  20. ComplexitySimplified says:

    1) Is it really from Islam to have women (even if veiled) go out to chant and protest in demonstrations? (Any responses with daleel please – or let this remain unanswered and an issue to ponder)

    2) It seems we are adopting the ways of the western liberal elite when we take delight in seeing ‘Muslim women standing up for their rights’ by coming out to protest in such manner. Before taking delight in this matter, let us consider whether this action i.e. of women chanting in demos is an action that would be pleasing to Allah – refer to question 1 above.

    3) Person nick named ‘Concerned’ – you mentioned ‘keeping your fingers crossed’… this term ‘crossing the fingers’ by way of hope etc is Islamically inappropriate/incorrect. The obvious source of where this term ‘crossing the fingers’ comes from is clearly christianity and their superstitious beliefs about the power of the cross – and Allahu Alam. Saying ‘insha’Allah’ etc is more Islamic and does not constitute shirk.

  21. AnonyMouse says:

    From my (very limited) reading up on the issue, I see this whole thing as being incredibly shady… unless we can find authentic sources on location, I highly doubt we’ll ever be able to know all the facts surrounding the case (cases? since the stories so drastically differ depending on where you go).
    I truly dislike it when either side jumps to conclusions – those who start screaming at the “savage barbaric Taliban” and those who hold them to be the saviours of the Muslim world (or at least Pakistan/ Afghanistan). There doesn’t seem to be any black and white in this issue, just many many shades of grey… and I wish we’d recognize this. Enough of the condemnations and whatnot; can’t we just focus on either getting the facts straight or just acknowledging that we don’t have accurate knowledge of the circumstances and leaving it at that? The best recourse in some cases is silence, as speaking will either reveal our ignorance and/ or cause is to speak in error about that which we do not know.

    May Allah forgive us all for what we speak in haste; and may He forgive us all for the injustices and transgressions we commit upon others; and may He grant victory to the Muslims who are oppressed; and may He guide us all to that which is most correct and beloved to Him, ameen!

    • Amad says:

      Enough of the condemnations and whatnot; can’t we just focus on either getting the facts straight or just acknowledging that we don’t have accurate knowledge of the circumstances and leaving it at that?

      I am sorry, but even Mr. Abu Muslim is not denying the video’s accuracy. That is what we disagree with and we condemn. In the name of conspiracies and benefit of doubt, we cannot also put the wool over our eyes. Some things are quite obvious. Though I agree they should not become a reason for complete generalizations, silence is also not an option either, esp. these days. So, we should be fair and specific in what we disagree with.

  22. AsimG says:

    We as Muslims need to be a bit wiser when discussing the Taliban.

    One of my Professors is an expert on Islamic movements in SE Asia and she said, as a non-Muslim, we don’t know ENOUGH to give any labels to the Taliban.

    And here we are as Muslims, who more than likely haven’t studied the Taliban as much as her, going on and on about the Taliban as if we know anything.

    I’ve been guilty of it too so no finger pointing :)

  23. Naeem says:

    AA- Amad and Co.

    I really think we need to temper our reaction to news coming out from these areas. We needn’t be so quick to jump to conclusions, especially when its been made very clear that the antagonists of Sharia have very loud voices.

    Islamic activity in Pakistan has a very complex and confusing history. From the jihad in Kashmir to the Sunni-Shia sectarian violence to the current activities of jihadi groups in the North, it has never been clear who is behind what. So many three-lettered orgs (CIA, ISI, KGB, RAW, etc.) have their tentacles twisted around Pakistan that its become very disorienting to try and make sense of the mess.

    Corruption has become so deeply rooted into society that one doesn’t know who is being paid off by whom or who is acting as a double/triple agent.

    Personally, I find stories about the Pakistani Taliban to be so completely laughable (like the Biryani story you cited above or the one where Baitullah Mehsud claimed responsibility for the NY shooting) that they almost seem contrived in an effort to discount any legitimate struggle for Shariah. I remember similar campaigns directed against the Taliban in Afghanistan. And now, those Taliban are coming off as the moderate/good guys.

    In times of such confusion, its best to avoid absolute positions.

  24. shahgul says:

    Islamic Hudood can be established only in an Islamic society. An Islamic society is one in which there is no fear but that of Allah. Before accusing people of zina, the state makes it easy for them to get married. Before accusing people of theft, the state ensures that baitul mal is established, zakah is collected and the right of the poor, the hungry, the orphan, the widow is fulfilled. Justice is available to one and all. Everyone, including the amir is equal before law. All this is possible only when education is prolific and the customs and laws of jahiliyah are abolished.

    The Taliban are some of the most ignorant ceatures of all. In an oppressive society, women are not free to bear witness. No one can speak the truth. If the woman was accused of having relations with her father-in-law, perhaps she was raped and then accused.

    I had done some research in the 80’s about the so called ‘Hudood Ordinance’ promulgated by the American supported military dictator Zia ul Haq. The law, a lip service to shariah, did not work in a godless society such as Pakistan. There were instances in which poor rural girls were raped by their landlords and then accused of zina after getting pregnant. Men divorced their wives verbally and accused them of adultery if they remarried. There was no proof of divorce, therefore, the women and their new husbands were tried and found guilty under Hudood Ordinance.

    Punishing people for violating rules that were never established is putting the cart before the horse.

    P.S. It was horrendous to see the woman being held down by strange men. Those men deserved to be whopped just for doing that.

  25. Sarah says:

    Complexity Simplified you said: “Is it really from Islam to have women (even if veiled) go out to chant and protest in demonstrations? (Any responses with daleel please – or let this remain unanswered and an issue to ponder)”

    So – women can lead armies in war and fight on the battlefield, but not allowed to protest in demonstrations? The onus is on YOU to provide the daleel that there is anything wrong with it in the first place. Everything is halal unless proven haraam, not the other way around!

    And subhanallah, after all that is going on in this story, all you could focus on was this??

  26. Sadaf says:

    Praise be to Allaah.

    Firstly:

    It is not permissible for anyone to claim that someone else has committed zina unless that is proven in the way dictated by sharee’ah, such as a confession of the zaani, or the testimony of four men of good character who witnessed the act of zina. The one who claims that someone committed zina with no proof has committed slander, which is a major sin for which a person deserves eighty lashes; this is the hadd punishment for slander.

    Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

    “And those who accuse chaste women, and produce not four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes, and reject their testimony forever. They indeed are the Faasiqoon (liars, rebellious, disobedient to Allaah).

    5. Except those who repent thereafter and do righteous deeds; (for such) verily, Allaah is Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful”

    [al-Noor 24:4-5]

    Secondly:

    Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):

    “The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allaah, if you believe in Allaah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment.”

    [al-Noor 24:2]

    It was narrated that Abu Hurayrah said: A Muslim man came to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) when he was in the mosque and called out to him, saying: O Messenger of Allaah, I have committed zina. He turned away from him, so he came around to face him and said to him: O Messenger of Allaah, I have committed zina. He turned away from him, until he had repeated that four times. When he had testified against himself four times, the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) called him and said: “Are you insane?” He said: No. He said: “Are you married?” He said: Yes. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Take him and stone him.”

    Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6439) and Muslim (1691).

    This was taken from an answer to a question on IslamQA.com.

  27. ALGEBRA says:

    Aslamu-alaikum:
    What these people did was absolutely WRONG. I can’t believe we are actually arguing about this or the fact is actually under debate.
    These people that flogged her were NOT AUTHORITIES at All. THEY WERE NOT AN ELECTED GOVERNEMNT. they have NO RIGHT TO FLOG at All.
    Furthermore, one has to have four wittnesses that have seen the act and they have to be honest as well. What the heck is going on in Paksitan.
    Lastly, i can’t believe some commentators on this blog actually believe it was right. That is appalling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!IGNORANT AT THE LEAST>>>>>>>>>>>
    salam

  28. ALGEBRA says:

    Aslamu-alaikum:
    Comment to @Concerned:
    YOU KNOW WHAT I AM CONCERENED about is your IGNORANT MIND………………. I think you need to get some counseling.
    salam

  29. Abu Maryam says:

    Here is from fiqh hanafi:

    From Al-Jawharah Al-Nairah

    وَأَمَّا الْمَرْأَةُ فَتُحَدُّ قَاعِدَةً لِأَنَّهُ أَسْتَرُ لَهَا فَتُلَفُّ ثِيَابُهَا عَلَيْهَا وَتُرْبَطُ الثِّيَابُ وَيَتَوَلَّى لَفَّ ثِيَابِهَا عَلَيْهَا امْرَأَةٌ

    i.e. she should be flogged sitting, and properly covered and wrapped in a cloth. The wrapping shud be done by a woman. It also says a man shud not be pinned to the ground face down. I think the same wud apply to women, and also the one who holds her by extension shud be a woman.

    hashiat radd al-mukhtat [fatwa shami]

    قوله: (ولا يجوز الحفر له) لعله أخذ من قول الهداية وغيرها: إن الربط والامساك غير مشروع، وأما الحفر للمرأة فلكونه أستر لها.

    He says during stoning a pit shud be dug for a woman, since it is better to hide her from getting exposed.

    قوله: (وقال علي رضي الله تعالى عنه) لفظه كما في الفتح عن
    مصنف عبد الرزاق يضرب الرجل قائما، والمرأة قاعدة في الحدود

    He says the man shud be standing and woman sitting for flogging

    قوله: (غير ممدود على الارض) لان مبنى الحد على التشهير زجرا للعامة والقيام أبلغ فيه، والمرأة مبني أمرها على الستر، وإن امتنع الرجل ولم يقف لا بأس بربطه بأسطوانة أو يمسك.

    The man shud not be laid on the ground nor tied up except if he refuses to stand. He says in case of the woman, the basic principle is that she should remain unexposed.

    In majma’ al-anhar

    ( وَيُضْرَبُ الرَّجُلُ قَائِمًا فِي كُلِّ حَدٍّ ) ؛ لِأَنَّ مَبْنَى إقَامَةِ الْحَدِّ عَلَى التَّشْهِيرِ ، وَالْقِيَامُ أَبْلَغُ فِيهِ ( بِلَا مَدٍّ ) أَيْ مِنْ غَيْرِ أَنْ يُلْقَى عَلَى الْأَرْضِ وَتُمَدُّ رِجْلَاهُ كَمَا يُفْعَلُ الْيَوْمَ وَقِيلَ مِنْ غَيْرِ أَنْ يَمُدَّ الضَّارِبُ يَدَهُ فَوْقَ رَأْسِهِ وَقِيلَ مِنْ غَيْرِ أَنْ يُمَدَّ السَّوْطُ عَلَى الْعُضْوِ عِنْدَ الضَّرْبِ وَيَجُرُّهُ وَكُلُّ ذَلِكَ لَا يُفْعَلُ ؛ لِأَنَّهُ زِيَادَةٌ فِي الْحَدِّ وَفِيهِ إشْعَارٌ بِأَنَّهُ لَا يُمْسَكُ وَلَا يُشَدُّ ؛ لِأَنَّ الْأَلَمَ يَزِيدُ بِهِ إلَّا أَنْ يُعْجِزَهُمْ فَيُشَدُّ ( وَيُنْزَعُ ثِيَابُهُ ) أَيْ يُجَرَّدُ الرَّجُلُ عَنْهَا لِيَجِدَ زِيَادَةَ الْأَلَمِ فَيَنْزَجِرَ خِلَافًا لِلشَّافِعِيِّ وَأَحْمَدَ ( سِوَى الْإِزَارِ ) فَإِنَّهُ لَا يُنْزَعُ حَذَرًا عَنْ انْكِشَافِ الْعَوْرَةِ ( ، وَالْمَرْأَةُ ) تُحَدُّ ( جَالِسَةً ) فِي كُلِّ حَدٍّ ؛ لِأَنَّهُ أَسْتَرُ لَهَا ( وَلَا تُنْزَعُ ثِيَابُهَا ) أَيْ ثِيَابُ الْمَرْأَةِ ؛ لِأَنَّ فِيهِ كَشْفَ الْعَوْرَةِ ، وَهَذَا تَصْرِيحٌ بِمَا عُلِمَ بِالِاسْتِثْنَاءِ ( إلَّا الْفَرْوَ ) أَيْ اللِّبَاسُ الَّذِي مِنْ جُلُودِ الْغَنَمِ وَغَيْرِهِ ( وَالْحَشْوَ ) أَيْ الثَّوْبُ الْمَمْلُوُّ بِالْقُطْنِ أَوْ الصُّوفِ أَوْ غَيْرِهِ فَإِنَّهُمَا يُنْزَعَانِ لِيَصِلَ الْأَلَمُ إلَى بَدَنِهَا إلَّا إذَا لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهَا غَيْرُ ذَلِكَ .

    it adds that she shud always be clothed, except if there is some padding which prevents the pain to penetrate thru it, like wool or leather.

    I think it is safe to say that these people did what was contrary to the hanafi fiqh in terms of method of application:

    1) Making her lie face down
    2) Holding her down by men
    3)lifting her burqa

    Apart from this, it is permissible to flog, even if there are not 4 witnesses, if the evidence is compelling enough:
    http://www.islamqa.com/ar/ref/128448/%D9%8A%D8%B9%D8%B2%D8%B1
    فلو شهد الأربعة بأنهم رأوه كما يكون الرجل على امرأته ، فإنه لا يحد للزنا ، ولكن هل نقول : إن هذه تهمة قوية بشهادة هؤلاء الشهود العدول ، فيعزر؟ نعم ، فإذا لم يثبت الزنا الذي يثبت به الحد الشرعي ، فإنه يعزر لأجل التهمة ” انتهى من “الشرح الممتع” (14/271) .
    Ibn Utaimeen said:

    If four people of acceptable character say that they winessed him with her as a man is with her wife [but don’t actually say they saw the actual intercourse (penetration)], then these people cannot be given hadd punishment i.e. cannot be flogged a hundred lashes+outcasting from society or stoned to death. However, can we say: “this is a very strong accusation backed by the witness of four upright witnesses, and hence some other punishment should be aplied”? We say yes, if Zinaa is not proved, which proves the shar’ii hadd [of stoning or hundred lashes], but due to this [strong] accusation, they should be given ta’zeer punishment. [sharh al-mumti’]

    And ta’zeer can be lashes/flogging varying with the intensity of crime and compulsion of evidence.

  30. J says:

    Wa alaykum as-salam,

    The Taliban are barbarous cavemen. May they be removed from power completely so that they can stop earning sins against their own souls.

    The punishment of lashing is only for those who volunteer for the punishment as a means of expiation, and even then, the judge should turn his face away three times, as was the Sunnah of the Prophet [s].

    Yes, if four witnesses witness the act (meaning they see the penis inserted into the vagina), then theoretically the punishment should be given. But what people need to understand is that this requirement was placed for the very reason of making it virtually impossible to punish this crime; how on earth could four upright witnesses witness such an act!?

    So obviously the punishment is for those who volunteer themselves for punishment as a means of expiation. (Or those who refuse to take an oath to their innocence, in the case of a married couple.) The woman in the video was obviously not wanting to be punished, since she kept asking for them to stop.

    With regards to the video being fake, puh-lease.

    Fi Aman Allah.

  31. Talib says:

    As salam u alaikum wa rhamatullah,

    “My point of this post was not to go into the politics of what is so messed up with the situation in this part of Pakistan, but rather to show Muslim women on the forefronts of condemning such actions. In fact, the rally was organized by a Pakistani religious party.”

    I’m not trying to be confrontational or anything, but it would be a good idea to find out why such protests were actually held in the first place? What is the motive behind such a protest? If they’re intentions are good then where were they when the blood of young women was being spilled during the red mosque incident?

    It seems interesting that all these protesters remained silent when people were actually being killed, but when a girl gets flogged its time to come out on the streets.

    • Amad says:

      If they’re intentions are good then where were they when the blood of young women was being spilled during the red mosque incident?

      The two incidents are unrelated. This video is related to an unarmed, helpless WOMAN being abused in the name of Islam. That is why it is important that it be highlighted as being wrong and unjust, and definitely not part of Islam.

      If we start keeping a scorecard of protests, then we should also ask about protests for the recent destruction of the mosque that killed dozens of innocent people (in the name of killing paramilitary personnel), the killing of the policemen at the academy near Lahore, the suicide attack at the Shia mosque at Chakwal, and the list goes on, with our Wazirastan “mujahids” taking responsibility in many attacks. There is enough blame to go around, so let’s not lose focus on the point by raising unrelated issues.

  32. unlissted says:

    Let’s wait for “yassir Qadhi” to weigh in on the matter…..

  33. Abu Abdurrahman says:

    JazakumAllahu khairan Amad bhai for your efforts, may Allah reward you kindly, ameen.

    I’d just like to add though that what I have to say that I find alarming and quite saddening is the condition which we find ourselves in wherein it often makes us Muslims living in the non-Muslim lands as Defenders of the Faith and the Marja‘ of Islam for the other 1.5 billion Muslims who live in where?…the Muslim lands.

    Obviously personally my criticism is not for us in here in the UK or you lot in the States etc having a Shar‘i opinion on a given mattter; rather, my disdain is for us Muslims in our non-Muslim countries passing judgement on the rest of the world on what Islam *should* be or how other people should run their countries and cultures according to our “Western pristine standards”.

    I mean yesterday we found ourselves having ‘beef’ with something relatively simple, today it’s the prescribed punishments (Hudūd) and then tomorrow it’s whether there really is any need to have some resemblance of formal religious practice and devotion in our “daily, busy, 21st Century” lives. Slight hyperbole perhaps it may seem but it’s not a far cry from what we can see as reality pretty soon. None of this I say endeavouring to detract from anyone’s sincerity, Wallah.. I don’t think that is necessarily our problem always.

    Often the real problem, whilst growing up as Muslims in the Western liberal democracies that we form part of, is that we’ve lost the stomach for a society – any society for that matter – to be ruled by Islamic Law.

    No-one likes to admit it, but the signs are all there for everyone to see. In recent times, even moreso since 9/11, the *inferiority complex* that we have fallen into with respect to our Hudūd laws for example or indeed any form of punishment that a Muslim state might want to confer to its citizens, is galling to say the least. It’s almost as if we’ve become born-again Christians over night and the mantra of “love, love, love” has permeated our belief process – thus, everyone else in the world other than the Muslims must have the right to have a penal code and a criminal justice system. Just not the Muslims of course. What’s worse is that after being fed this belief ever so slowly and patiently in our democracies, we then proceed to establish it ourselves in our writings, speeches and ideas on the rest of the Ummah. The whole approach would be utterly laughable if it wasn’t so blatantly true and damaging.

    Part of our delusion in the West as Muslims is believing that we’re more special than we actually are. In fact, I find it interesting that some of us blame the Americans for not showing equal concern for an American casualty and a Muslim casualty during their neo-fascist advances into Muslim land. Yet, it is our very *own* Muslims here in the West who patronise and hold in contempt the rest of the Muslims in the “developing” world, and far from showing equal respect to our brothers and sisters abroad, we hold them to be backward, ignorant, stubborn, cruel and everything else that our Western masters feed us. Are we then any better then those who value their own peoples’ lives more than the foreign lives when *we* indeed value our own understanding of Islam so much more than those in the rest of the Muslim world? People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

    You’ll get called a savage ‘fanatics’ almost no matter what, but then why do we need to care so deeply about that? You willI almost inevitably get called that for having a wife that wears a hijab for that matter.

    Let them say what they want, we’ll clarify when we need to and support when we need to, and prove correct when we need to. And we’ll do it when we want and not when the media wants.

    Stick to what you know, this is all I’m saying. Clarify to all your friends and colleagues what the Islamic ruling is -with hikmah! – and explain something nice we know about the Deen

    And ultimately this is what we should all be doing all the time when something is troubling our fellow people. But it doesn’t mean we have to go out of Islamic boundaries and say things about other people’s systems or courts/countries/cultures/governments/whatever without clear proof and evidence.

    And with Allah lies all Success, and He subahanhu wa ta’ala knows best.

    Wassalamu alaykum wa rahmatullah
    Abid

  34. Smee says:

    Sarah: Thank you for responding to the ridiculous ‘point to ponder’ presented by ComplexitySimplified.
    I am absolutely shocked as to some peoples views regarding women; if these women weren’t in hijab then the sentiment would be related to their inappropropriate dress, yet even when IN hijab, the woman can do no right as long as he has dared leave her house.
    You seem to have missed out a huge gap in the Islamic history archives where: women were scholars and had male students, where women went into and feverently supported battles and where women were amongst the first to stand up against injustices.
    A scholar recently taught us: Just because you feel uncomfortable with a certain act does not make it haram or makruh. It is due to your own lack of knowledge (i.e. ignorance) that you think an act to be incorrect, so be careful when casting aspersions upon others, especially when you are not a scholar/do not have enough knowledge in the matter.

  35. coolred38 says:

    Maybe women in niqab or even hijab…or even without either…wouldnt need to gather and protest if they felt their rights were not being taken away one by one with complete disregard for what the Quran says concerning them. Those issues are what should be important to Muslims…not the fact that their gathering might be “unislamic”…puhleeze to the poster that said that…you are sad….period. Wouldnt it be so much better if their men were out there protesting on their behalf? Would that make you happier with the situation?

    Let us forget for one moment the very real fact that whether or not she “deserved” her punishment…the way it was meted out was completely unislamic…but also the fact that its rare indeed for a man to be punished in exactly the same way when he has been known to commit sexual misconduct. Obviously hands down women are more sooner to be punished then men, and the fact that she didnt commit zina alone never seems to bother anyone who is judging her and condemning her actions. very sad.

    I will add here that every single country on this planet that proposes that its practicing Sharia Law to some degree (and usually the more Sharia rules the worse off the people are) are among the most backward and anti women places that exist today…and just plain unfair and unjust when giving them their rights or protecting them against crimes and false accusations etc. very sad.

  36. Imran Kashmiri says:

    It is easy to claim that you want live by Islamic law and even more easy to expect other to do so, but most of these guys would run a mile if they had endure that this girl has.

    I want to see this pious Muslim to be punished in London’s Leicester Square (on Red carpet)
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1161909/Swilling-beer-smoking-dope-leering-porn-hate-preacher-Andy-Choudary.html

    “One former friend said: ‘I can’t keep a straight face when I see “fundamentalist Muslim Anjem Choudary” in the papers attacking the British for drinking or having girlfriends.
    ‘When I knew him, he liked to be called Andy, would often smoke cannabis spliffs all day, and was proud of his ability to down a pint of cider in a couple of seconds.
    ‘And he was ruthless with girls. When he briefly worked as an English teacher for foreign students in London, he’d pull one of them every few days, sleep with her, then move on to another.”

    And may be “Concerned and “anon”” can watch…….. see Mr Anjem its not that easy is it!!!

  37. Selected Benefits says:

    Dear Imran

    I am no great fan of Anjem, but I believe not only is it not correct for you to mention his past sins, it is quite clear that if what is said about his past is true he is no longer upon that and has no doubt repented for it.

    It seems that there are certain writers and posters on this website who get their kicks out of exposing “evil” Muslims, and this is more than evident in the language that is used in doing so.

    • Amad says:

      Restored Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry on the issue. Hopefully, he’ll help to get to the bottom of this:

      Chaudhry, who got his job back last month after two years of street protests, berated senior officials for failing to provide a satisfactory explanation of the incident and for failing to produce the girl, named as Chaand Bibi, in court.

      Chaudhry refused to accept a copy of the February peace agreement, saying it had no legal standing because President Asif Ali Zardari has yet to sign into law proposed changes to the valley’s legal system allowing for the implementation of Sharia law.

      In his final remarks, the judge said there was a chance that the video was not real, and ordered the government to produce a report on the matter every 15 days.

      In the supreme court, provincial officials said they had visited Chaand Bibi at her village and she had denied she was the burka-clad figure featured in the video.

  38. Concerned says:

    as-salamu ‘alaikum,

    First of all I’d like to thank Amad for being so fair and just, as always!

    Secondly, it’s amazing how I’m being called crazy and in need of counseling on a forum that supposedly represents a large no. of Muslims, and the people who run this place don’t see anything wrong with it. I guess I only get 70 excuses if I wag a tail like a dog, and become formally initiated in the MM clique.

    Thirdly, I had already mentioned that the how the flogging was done and the circumstances surrounding it are very questionable, yet I continue to get attacked by upholders of logical thinking.

    I wonder what’s preventing us from having a constructive dialogue on the ACT OF FLOGGING itself, regardless of who did it. Because, if you watch Pakistani Media that is essentially the problem they all seem to have. FLOGGING= BARBARIC, TALIBAN=BARBARIC, FLOGGING=TALIBAN, hence BARBARIC=BARBARIC. They’ve got it all figured out.

    My question was very simple, it wasn’t in the least any sort of inquisition. If someone asked you if you are a Muslim, would you hesitate from replying “Yes I am” ? Similarly I don’t see why you should have any problem with responding to a simple question regarding something which is well-established in Islam. Any knowledgeable Muslim should not hesitate from responding that “Yes flogging is mandated in Qur’an”. How hard is that?

    Also regarding what Mr. J said with regards to Shari’ hadd, here’s something from Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (ra):

    فلو شهد الأربعة بأنهم رأوه كما يكون الرجل على امرأته ، فإنه لا يحد للزنا ، ولكن هل نقول : إن هذه تهمة قوية بشهادة هؤلاء الشهود العدول ، فيعزر؟ نعم ، فإذا لم يثبت الزنا الذي يثبت به الحد الشرعي ، فإنه يعزر لأجل التهمة ” انتهى من “الشرح الممتع” (14/271) .

    Ibn Utaimeen said:

    If four people of acceptable character say that they witnessed him with her as a man is with her wife [but don’t actually say they saw the actual intercourse (penetration)], then these people cannot be given hadd punishment i.e. cannot be flogged a hundred lashes+outcasting from society or stoned to death. However, can we say: “this is a very strong accusation backed by the witness of four upright witnesses, and hence some other punishment should be applied”? We say yes, if Zinaa is not proved, which proves the shar’ii hadd [of stoning or hundred lashes], but due to this [strong] accusation, they should be given ta’zeer punishment. [sharh al-mumti’]

    Source: http://www.islamqa.com/ar/ref/128448


    Also another serious concern I have is following:
    This video, if real is pre-swat deal. Today in Swat, QADHI courts have become functional and have made progress, and there has been a lot of positive response from people. Why on earth doesn’t MM talk about that, why doesn’t it make it known what Muslims are DOING RIGHT? Why doesn’t it applaud such efforts? But hey I get it, since those guys who have made the implementation of Shari’ah at official governmental level possible are criminals and anti-intellectual thick knuckle heads, so even if they do it the right way, they are still wrong. Oh, it all makes sense now. Thank you Muslim Matters!!!

    Anyway, I’m expecting more personal attacks, as has become the hall mark of Mr. Amad and his cronies. But, I do seek forgiveness in advance if my words offend anyone of you.

    Fi Aman Allah.

    • Amad says:

      I am not sure how I attacked you “personally”, or how the people who disagree with you have become my “cronies”. Would you call the people that agree with you “your cronies”? I think not. Please re-read your earlier comments and my comments. I simply asked you why I am answerable to you, and you have not responded on that yet.

      Secondly, I should add that while there are disagreements over the authenticity, timing of video, I believe there is more agreement here than disagreement on the fundamental issue of the flogging itself. It seems no one, including “concerned”, agrees with the way the flogging was done, and the circumstances it was done under. So, for any outsider, that is an important point that may be missed in all the pointed rhetoric.

      Finally, I wonder what the ulemah of Pakistan, like Mufti Taqi Uthmani and other esteemed scholars are saying about Taliban setting shop in Pakistan; I mean it’s like someone comes into your home from a neighboring home and decides to implement their version of house-rules! If anyone has information as to the statements of non-allied scholars from Pakistan, who are recognized by mainstream Muslims, that would be very helpful.

  39. Concerned says:

    well br. amad, I don’t expect to get a straight answer from you.

    But here’s a video, that you and your friends may have a hard time watching. It’s video of a veteran and well respected journalist Ansar Abbasi talking on Geo news, regarding this issue. It’s in urdu, if someone wants to translate it feel free:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=109XWRm3-1o&eurl=http%3A%2F%2F

    ma’asalamah.

  40. AnonyMuslim says:

    So predictable. In the above referenced “Geo” clip the journalist avoids discussing the barabarity we see on the video and instead focuses on the West’s criticism of Hudood punishments. Set aside the Hudood issue for a minute. The fact of the matter is the VIDEO itself is reprehensible. The act of two men holding down a screaming woman, being videotaped on a cellphone and distributed to the people like its a reality TV show is reprehensible. The fact that no evidence was presented as to the allegations, witnesses, and defenses of the alleged perpetrator are reprehensible. Hudood is not something an illiterate Talib with a gun can implement based on hearsay or what he perceives himself. This weighty issue should be left in the hands of qualified Islamic jurists, not thugs with guns.

    As for Hudood itself, this is not a black and white issue that is beyond debate. Muslims of conscience and thinkers should reference Tariq Ramadan on the matter. In the article below, Tariq Ramadan gives the example of how Umar ibn Khattab (RA) placed a moratorium on the Hudood punishment of removing the hands for theft because of famine conditions existing at the time. Our Caliph (RA) suspended Qur’anic law in this instance because he understood that Allah in His infinite wisdom afforded that type of discretion to jurists in order to make sure society’s remain just. As a disclaimer, I don’t agree with everything in the article regarding suspension of capital punishment, however, it is a very compelling argument rooted in facts and Islamic law/precedent. Article link/title below:

    http://www.tariqramadan.com/spip.php?article=264?lang=en

    An International call for Moratorium on corporal punishment, stoning and the death penalty in the Islamic World

  41. Concerned says:

    haha funny guy. What if the conditions are once again right for actual punishments to be implemented, I’m guessing you would still cry on about its barbarity.

    It’s you who’s so predictable: your hatred for hudood Allah that no one has the right to abolish. But once bani asfar’s horns are permanently broken, atleast you’d be more than happy to be on the “right” side.

    And may I mention: People of swat, political administration of swat, all have been vehemently denying that this video’s real. They contend that even if it’s real it’s not from swat, as the people in the video, their accents, their dress up- none of it is SWATI.

    But hey that doesn’t really matter to a champion of truth such as yourself. Heh.

    • Amad says:

      And may I mention: People of swat, political administration of swat, all have been vehemently denying that this video’s real. They contend that even if it’s real it’s not from swat, as the people in the video, their accents, their dress up- none of it is SWATI.

      Excuse me? That’s news to me. Did you see the Geo video that has the interview with Abu Muslim, spokesperson for the taliban there? He did not deny the authenticity of the video, just the timing and its usage. Do you have information that this Abu Muslim person didn’t have?

  42. shahgul says:

    Jazakallaha Khair, AnonyMuslim.

    I don’t think anyone here is debating Islamic Hudood. We are just debating the qualification of the Talibaan (or any other country bumpkins) to implement them, as well as their methods.

    Abu Abdurrahman, I and a lot of Muslims on this forum did not grow up in the West. I personally, belong to the part of the country where this news is coming from. It is my intention to leave the US after I retire and go serve some part of the world where I am needed, with NWFP or Balochistan provinces being on top of my priotity list. So, we are people with very deep roots in the Islamic countries we are concerned about.

  43. Concerned says:

    Another nice little gift for Mr. Amad and his buddies:

    http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=21320

    The girl’s name was said to be Chand while the accused was mentioned by locals as Adalat Khan, son of Muslim Khan. Speaking at an emergency news conference in Mingora on Friday, NWFP Minister for Information Mian Iftikhar Hussain termed the release of the video to the electronic and print media a conspiracy against the peace deal in Malakand.

    He insisted that the incident happened before the provincial government’s peace agreement with the Tanzim Nifaz Shariat-i-Muhammadi (TNSM) in the Malakand division. He argued that some elements were presenting it as a fresh incident to sabotage the peace deal.

    The minister said the video was released by a non-governmental organisation (NGO), which is against the peace agreement. He said the incident took place on January 3 while the peace agreement with the TNSM was signed on February 16.

    “These are the people who don’t want to put a halt to bloodshed in Swat, stop subjecting people to lashes or dig out bodies from graves and hang them in public,” said the minister. He said their party believed in non-violence and this was why they inked the peace agreement with the Taliban to ensure peace in the Swat Valley. He said the Shariah draft law had been sent to President Zardari and the recent incident was a conspiracy to create hurdles in signing of the draft Nizam-e-Adl Regulation.

    Amad it seems like you’re clutching on straws here, you’re hell bent upon relying upon statement of ONE person, who you hate anyway. .

    Again you fail to mention the good that Qazi courts are doing. On the other hand there’s a much much LARGER number of people have made reservations about it. But hey I guess you know better than us Pakistanis- and your natural alliances dictate that you speak only acceptable ‘truths’

    *rolls eyes*

  44. Concerned says:

    As for the reports denying it’s authenticity: It wouldn’t hurt if you read urdu print media from pakistan, or is that too lowly for your status?

  45. AnonyMouse says:

    I am sorry, but even Mr. Abu Muslim is not denying the video’s accuracy.

    This wouldn’t be the first time that a member of a movement or government would have the facts wrong. Just because someone who is apparently a spokesperson for the Taliban didn’t deny the video’s accuracy, doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily the right vid w/ the right facts. There have been many instances where members of the same government spoke on the same case yet made contradicting statements. I see this as one of them.

    Again, I maintain that there is so much confusion regarding the entire situation wrt to the Taliban – and not just this particular incident – that we are absolutely in no position to judge or make sweeping claims about an “anti-intellectual” group, or accuse them of being “barbaric” (no matter who makes these claims).

    • Amad says:

      Anonymouse, hold your horses. My post was specifically about the brutality in the video, and what everyone agrees was not an Islamic form of punishment. There is a middle ground between generalizing the entire group and closing your eyes to all the problems in the area. To be honest, I am getting tired of the conspiracy theories every time anything bad emanates… the Sri Lankan cricketers issue, the Mumbai issue, the police academy attack, and the list goes on. If there is enough noise, then there is some source of it. Maybe it isn’t as bad as what is being reported, but it isn’t as perfect as we’d like to make it either.

      I find it amusing that first we reject the Western media because they are after us (and no doubt they are a biased entity), then we reject media of Muslim countries, and now we are going to reject the guy who clearly has a right to speak for the situation. It doesn’t matter if I like this guy or hate him. The point is that he wasn’t mincing any words either, he seemed very believable, and I think the Geo did a good job with probing questions and finding the appropriate official (his name has been mentioned in other media outlets).

  46. AnonyMouse says:

    I fully understand the context of this discussion, esp. wrt to the video. However, I maintain my stance. I see it all in the following way:

    1) We all agree that the video is disturbing, no matter what the true facts surrounding it are. If Hadd is truly being implemented here, then there is something wrong with it; if it is not, then something else wrong is happening also. Whoever is responsible for it is committing an injustice of some sort, and they will be held accountable for it on the Day of Judgement.

    2) The true facts of the situation are distorted; I am sure that there are very few people out there who have full knowledge of what exactly is going on. We need to recognize that, and acknowledge that we cannot use this incident or any other about which we do not have accurate information as a basis to make judgements about a certain group (in this case, the Taliban as a whole). Yes, perhaps the individuals involved did something pretty awful, but it still doesn’t mean that we can make sweeping generalizations such as claiming that so-and-so are an “anti-intellectual” movement. Nor can we claim that they are the saviours of the land. As I said before, most of us are far too quick to jump on a bandwagon, whether for or against the person/ people/ group in the spotlight.

    3) Just because someone “seems very believable” doesn’t mean that they are. Come on, how many times have spokespeople for the American government, or the FBI, or any other huge organization, made public statements that they seemed to have knowledge about and people believed them – yet in the end it turned out that they were wrong? Again, the vast majority of us – the media and laypeople alike, and heck, even the ‘legal authorities’ such as they are – don’t know what really happened. So if we’re not qualified to speak, why are we?

    4) It’s a sad fact that in today’s day and age, it has been proven so many times that we can’t really trust anyone (anyone = the media and governments). As someone else mentioned, it’s a hard bitter solid fact that corruption is so rife in both the Muslim countries and in the West that we can never be entirely sure who is telling the truth. And hey, as the saying goes “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that they’re not after you.”

  47. Ali Mirza says:

    I am no Alim and I am not as knowledgeable as mashallah all you brothers and sisters are in the matters that are being discussed.

    However, as a regular Muslim who strives to just fulfill the basics of my deen, I would still like to comment on this.

    The point of the matter is not if the Flogging of the young girl is right or wrong. Ullema will have different opinions on this and it is upto Allah (SWT) to know what is right and what is wrong.

    To me what is wrong are the TALIBAN. They are a VIRUS of our Muslim Society and need to be eradicated from the Muslim World for good. Their harsh interpretations of our deen is completely unacceptable. The sad part is that they feel they are doing Allah’s work!!!! Allah (SWT) is merciful and is forgiving. But these idiots feel that everyone should be punished. Their Judicial system is a joke. In my opinion completely Unislamic. Their Implementation of laws is completely absurd and is geared to instill fear of Islam in the hearts of the subjects that they cater to.

    To fear Allah (SWT) doesnt mean that we need to live in fear of committing wrongdoings when no wrongdoing is being committed. The fear of Allah (SWT) requires us to make the right choices. It requires us to work towards having Taqwa in our lives. It requires us to want to LOVE the acts Allah has ordained for us and follow them to achieve the highest levels of acceptance in His (SWT)’s eyes. I would want to worship Allah (SWT) because I love HIM for who HE really is, the True One and the only I’laah. I want to pray because I love bowing my head to him. I want to keep a beard because I want to make HIM happy. Not because some Taliban lunatic wants me to keep it.

    The Taliban consider themselves above anyone and everyone. They marry young girls at will and once they are done with them, they lock them up in a room. If she provides them with a son then she is great and if not then she does not even deserve the right to be treated properly. In Kabul during the time of Taliban… women were deprived of even proper Medical Treatment, let alone proper Education. What Islamic law says that women should not get proper education? what Islamic law disallows women from earning an honest living? I am not trying to be a women’s advocate, Mashallah the women can stand up for themselves but its the basic Human rights violation that these idiots are committing on a day to day basis that are appalling.

    We Muslims seriously need to do something to remove this disease from our society.

  48. Siraaj says:

    Right wing talk shows and news programs always say, “X, Y, and Z atrocity happened, yet why aren’t the muslims condemning it like they do the desecration of the Qur’aan, or the cartoon against the Prophet?”

    I think Amad’s point is that in fact Muslims do protest these things, even the conservative do. I think this point is buried because what is being termed barbaric is unclear – is it the hudood, or is it these people in what they did (real or not), or are both barbaric?

    Amad, I think if you simply stated that the hudood, in theory, done in the right context with the right circumstances, are not barbaric, and that it is for scholars and leaders to determine the applicability in a given situation. I think this will clear the air and give more focus on the point you’re trying to make.

    Siraaj

    • Amad says:

      Siraaj, absolutely. There is no doubt that there is no entity Who is the Most Perfect Law-giver than Allah. To Him belongs all sovereignty in this matter.

      So let me say, in agreement with Siraaj, “The hudood, in theory, done in the right context with the right circumstances, are not barbaric, and that it is for scholars and leaders to determine the applicability in a given situation.”

      In fact, if you look at the application of Hudood in history, the nuances and rarity of usage (of the most severe forms of it), that itself should tell us about the deterrence purpose of their harshness, more so for that than for punishment.

      Anonymouse, imperfect as the world and the news outlets are, we would go crazy if we doubted every single word that came out from them. I am sorry, but I use reasonable discretion and common sense to screen out what seems credible to me, and what does not. Some skepticism is always healthy, but living in a constant state of paranoia is not.

      To be honest, I think the issue is not the media or the spokesman in this case, they are just red herrings. Some people just don’t want to believe that these “saviors of Islam” could do such terrible things. It’s always the bogeyman from outside, even if he looks and talks like one of the saviors!

      There was a time when I used to admire the Taliban for the good they were doing (and did do in Afghanistan, like the drug eradication, etc.). And perhaps the educated, and wise among them still have a lot of good to offer (in AFGHANISTAN). But their failed experiment in Afghanistan, and now their arrival into Pakistan, where the majority of the country’s people don’t want them, has caused most of their good-will to dissipate (at least for me). wallahualam.

  49. Siraaj says:

    I think the 2nd point that can be emphasized, for the benefit of those keeping track, is that the protests are taking place. I’m with Anonymouse on the uncertainty principle, that without all the facts out, it’s better to reserve judgement of personalities until we’re more reasonably through the news cycle. We’ve seen the same with the Qatif girl case in Saudi, with the case of the Imams flying together, with the case of the masjid chemical attack in Dayton, and with the attack on the siser in Elmhurst College.

    I personally do not believe that neo-conservatives who attack us through this line of reasoning (where are the Muslim protests?) are really looking for the truth – I think what they’re looking to do is no different than the Nazi repeat a lie loud and long enough and it become the truth. But if there is anyone looking for intellectual honesty, and looking for Muslims protesting atrocities (real or not), it’s there for your viewing pleasure.

    Wallaahu a’lam.

    Siraaj

  50. @ all moderators Please introduce nested comments (comment threading).. i failed to followup on Concerned versus Amad’s quiz-oriented debate :)

    Anyways, I’ll do a precise claim here –

    let’s select 100 random muslims who oppose this flogging-vid vehemently.
    let’s assume that the shariah punishment for a flesh-trading woman is indeed what we see in this video (or stoning) ..
    let’s convey the message from the most revered religious authority to those 100 people that it’s indeed correct.

    ~80 out of those 100 would still oppose it.

    So, it’s not at all about the video!

    May Allah SWT make things clear for us, Ameen.

  51. IbnAbbas says:

    subhaanallah after reading an article and checking the video myself, im 100% convinced that its a fake video.

    check it out here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOOdhZreO88

    any person who has worked on cameras and video editing, you will know that dubbing has been done later on the video, indicating that the video was definitely recorded to allude to it some propaganda. notice how clear you can hear the voice of the man who is lashing. when recording outside in an open area, you can only get a clear voice when the mic is close attached to actors. Another thing, you don’t hear the sound of air or the crowds chating…… why is that??!

    this is preposterous. yet again the media has done a good in fooling the masses by showing the video without any clear evidence. and how quick are we to jump to the conclusion and make all sorts of accusations. Allahu musta’an.

  52. IlmQuest says:

    Actually that’s a good point IbnAbbas. If you take a video with a mobile camera (even a still camera) there will be a lot of background “static” noise mixed with the video. However the “flogging” video sound is crystal clear… theres no background “static” noise at all, also notice that its broad daylight.

    Something to really ponder about.

  53. AnonyMuslim says:

    Yeah it’s all fake, even though many of you who are saying its fake, adamantly defended the “fake” flogging to begin with. I’m sure if your sisters or mothers were subjected to the whip or burned schools you’d all have different opinions.

  54. IlmQuest says:

    As-salamaulikum,

    Calm down AnonyMuslim. There are people here who just like me, have also stated that we shouldn’t be too hasty in jumping to conclusions cause there are too many shady things surrounding the whole video. It seems we can’t reach a mutual agreement and I’m ok with that.

    Also I thank you as well for reminding me that I should be cautious as well. I’ll keep that in mind.

    Also…

    I suggest you and Amad meet up with me and allow me to serve you both a glass of cold Rooh Afza.

  55. J says:

    Ibn Utaimeen said:

    If four people of acceptable character say that they witnessed him with her as a man is with her wife [but don’t actually say they saw the actual intercourse (penetration)], then these people cannot be given hadd punishment i.e. cannot be flogged a hundred lashes+outcasting from society or stoned to death. However, can we say: “this is a very strong accusation backed by the witness of four upright witnesses, and hence some other punishment should be applied”? We say yes, if Zinaa is not proved, which proves the shar’ii hadd [of stoning or hundred lashes], but due to this [strong] accusation, they should be given ta’zeer punishment. [sharh al-mumti’]

    While I love and respect Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen, what he said that the tazeer punishment should be given like that, is simply wrong. The Prophet [s] turned his face away altogether when people CONFESSED their sin of zinnah to him. There can be no stronger evidence than self-confession. It is certainly a stronger proof than four witnesses who didn’t even see the actual act itself. Therefore, if the Prophet [s] didn’t wish to punish someone who had a strong proof against him/her (based on self-confession), then what about the one with even less proof against him/her (such as four witnesses who did NOT see the actual act).

    The entire idea contradicts the Quran. The verses that came down demanding four witnesses who saw the actual act came down to PREVENT people from accusing women of zinnah. In fact, according to the Shari’ah, if THREE men accuse a woman of zinnah (without a fourth), then their testimony is to be completely rejected, and I believe the Quran even calls them liars. Based on Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen’s argument, wouldn’t three witnesses be a “strong accusation” liable to tazeer? Yet, the Quran rejects it and says DON’T YOU DARE ACCUSE A WOMAN OF ZINNAH UNLESS YOU HAVE FOUR UPRIGHT WITNESSES WHO WITNESSED THE ACTUAL ACT, the entire point of which is to make it virtually impossible to do that.

    I believe that the way Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen interpreted this is indicative of the problem of the Saudi law in general. Can the proponents of this view bring forth an example from the life of the Prophet [s]? Why did the Prophet [s] say “perhaps you only kissed”, etc, meaning he was NOT going to punish the person, yet Saudi Arabia jumps to give tazeer to people who kiss? And what’s the point of saying you can punish women without the proof that the Quran demands, if the punishment can be equal in severity to the hadd?

    Why on EARTH does the Quran call the testimony of men (without four solid witnesses) as rejected, if in reality it can be accepted?! It makes no sense. Again ,while I love Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen, I reject his opinion on this matter.

    Fi Aman Allah

  56. Abu Maryam says:

    Amad said:
    [quote]If there is enough noise, then there is some source of it.[/quote]

    Perhaps it did not occur to you in your excitement, u have been identifying the source all along as biryani loving mullahs…

    Anyway the one most concerned about this Swat Deal is ur own wali-ul-amr Hazrat Obama Hussain, so it isn’t far-fetched that he cud ask a few brown sahibs un bud-bud land to launch a furore over an old and fake video.

  57. Abu Maryam says:

    [quote]The point is that he wasn’t mincing any words either, he seemed very believable, and I think the Geo did a good job with probing questions and finding the appropriate official (his name has been mentioned in other media outlets).[/quote]

    I have written else where:

    First of all we must realize that the comperes are very biased and repeatedly want to eek out the answers they want to hear. Because of his faltering urdu he is a misfit to answer.
    It is clear when he used the word “going out”, instead of ‘living in’. If u have interacted with pathhans, that is the way they speak urdu, if any.

    Secondly, when the idiotic girl asked him whether he confirms this was done by his men, he said ‘hum isko radd nahi kartay…saza to daina hi hoga’ [We donot reject this, the punishment has to be given]. Listen to it carefully, with his pathhan background in perspective, he is not saying he is denying the video’s authenticity, he is only saying we donot reject the punishment itself. He also stated that the method was WRONG. Which now leaves u to answer the question posed by “concerned”. Will u support flogging in the proper hanafi way: that is if the woman is seated and kept covered at all times, infront of a group of onlookers???? Please dont beat about the bush.

    And lastly, both Sufi Muhammad and Muslim Khan have denied the authenticity of the tape. Remember that taliban say video is haram [also ibn baz’s fatwa], and probably dont have TV sets to watch the actual news on TV. So Muslim Khan is commenting on some punishments carried out in the past, which he says should be carried out but by Qazi courts.

    [quote]; I mean it’s like someone comes into your home from a neighboring home and decides to implement their version of house-rules! [/quote]
    what house rules? the constitution of pakistan which is a joke in itself:
    ““The dignity of person is inviolable. No person can be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. *Punishment of whipping is prohibited by law*. The incident, therefore, constitutes a serious violation of the Constitution/law,” the note said.”
    http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/…ictim-in-court

    Do u agree that flogging being made unlawful is the correct house rule???

    Anyway, will u oppose american house laws to be repealed??

  58. Abu Maryam says:

    J:

    Do you know what ta’zeer is and what warrants it’s application? BTW u r comparing two disparate things:

    1) Someone confessing the act
    2) Someone commiting an act [even though not the actual penetration] so brazenly that four individuals were able to see it.

    The Prophet sallallaho’alaihiwasallam told people to cover mistakes of others, but once they were reported to him, he did not have to authority to not apply the punishment.
    Anonymuslim
    [quote]

    Yeah it’s all fake, even though many of you who are saying its fake, adamantly defended the “fake” flogging to begin with. I’m sure if your sisters or mothers were subjected to the whip ….you’d all have different opinions.
    [/quote]

    we wont be muslims in that case. And frankly, dont go down this road, u r nearing apostacy.

  59. J says:

    Wa alaykum as-salam, brother Abu Maryam.

    Yes, I know what Tazeer is. And I don’t think any of your post dealt with what I said. Please re-read my post, because you have not adequately dealt with the arguments I put forward.

    Fi Aman Allah

  60. Concerned says:

    Hehe Amad I guess for you a Muslim is always guilty unless proven innocent. Well here’s some more icing fro you and anonymuslim:

    The teenage girl who was filmed being flogged by the Taliban in Pakistan’s restive Swat valley has denied that the incident ever
    occurred in a statement made to government officials, media reports said on Monday

    Chand Bibi, the 17-year-old girl who was shown being held down by three men while a fourth flogged her, reportedly told the judge of a Qazi or Islamic court and Divisional Commissioner Syed Mohammad Javed yesterday that such an incident had never happened.

    This was reported by Times of India. Here’s the LINK: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Pakistan/Now-Pak-girl-denies-being-flogged-by-Taliban/articleshow/4364713.cms

    I’m betting my money on it, that you trust Indian media more than Paki media….BUT since it isn’t what you want to hear, you might aswell pull “oh it’s the kafir media, I don’t trust them” card.

    Furthermore, I just read in (urdu) news today that thousands of people took to streets in Swat condemning how media and others have been handling this issue, and at the same time declaring that no such incident took place.

    But to hell with all of this, because it doesn’t fit well with the picture you want to promote….as long as this is the case, wholesome flesh of your fellow muslims is as tasty as it gets.

    :)

  61. J says:

    Brother/Sister Concerned: what do you mean that the video is a fake? They are just actors? (I’m actually just asking, not challenging.)

    Is it not that girl (Chand Bibi) in the video? If she is in the video, then that speaks louder than her denials of the incident, and would indicate that she is under pressure to deny the incident, no?

    Again, I am asking you, not challenging. Is it some other woman in the video? And if so, is the woman in that video an actress? Please explain your view.

  62. Concerned says:

    I wonder why you’re so insistent upon asking such rhetorical questions? Are you telling me all those people from Swat are lying? It could be anyone, and it could be real OR fake.

    But what’s decided is that it’s not the women the media purported was in the video is not her.

    There are so many questions surrounding the video, the timing of its release, and who it was released by (which happened to be an NGO against implementation of shari’ah on swat).

    So please tell me who should I take seriously? The people of swat who are denying this ever happened. Or mr. Amad who thinks he knows it all about Pakistan?

  63. J says:

    I wonder why you’re so insistent upon asking such rhetorical questions? Are you telling me all those people from Swat are lying? It could be anyone, and it could be real OR fake.

    Concerned: I asked no rhetorical questions. I was asking for clarification of your view. No need to get combative.

  64. J says:

    dont go down this road, u r nearing apostacy.

    Please put your takfeer blaster on hold.

  65. AnonyMuslim says:

    Who are the “people of swat” denying its real?

    A few members of the government of Pakistan? That’s funny becuase when they say something against the barbarian Taliban you call them corrupt liars, but I guess this time it’s convenient because a few of the cowards who are calling it “fake” agree with you.

    Is the alleged girl in the video now denying it? Yeah, let’s believe her because she has already been whipped like a dog and had the video distributed all over the world. I’m sure she isn’t worried about the Taliban murdering her or her family for speaking out against their atrocities. The obvious fact is there is a long list of dead opponents and critics of the Taliban she can look forward to joining if she speaks the truth.

    Fortunately for Pakistani women in the NWFP, not all of the Pakistani government are cowards because the Chief Justice is going forward the investigation.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/world/asia/07pstan.html?ref=asia

    J – your takfeer blaster response was hilarious.

  66. IbnAbbas says:

    its amazing to see how some of you ‘the media spoon-feed’ are still deliberately ‘justifying’ that the video is not fake.

    In addition to the fakeness of the video, not a single actors’ accent including the ‘actress’ is anywhere near to how the people of swat speak. i know this for a fact as I speak the language and I have been to that part few times in the past – as it used to be a good holiday resort.

  67. Abu Ninja says:

    I have to say im really tired of Ahmad and his constant,

    ‘Lets use anything we can in attacking these Muslim groups who dare to try implement the hudood in these modern times we live in today. Dont these crazy barbaric backward Muslims know that we should follow a new modern mainstream version of Islam! One that has the approval of the Western governments and the Sufi ulamah.”

    Tired.. tired.. tired man..!

    Ahmad.. a question man.. do you really believe that if you criticize and condemn these fundamentalists who have hijacked your ‘modern’ understanding Islam hard enough, maybe one day you can become President of the United States?? : )

  68. Abu Maryam says:

    J:
    [quote]Yes, I know what Tazeer is. And I don’t think any of your post dealt with what I said. Please re-read my post, because you have not adequately dealt with the arguments I put forward.[/quote]

    Let’s look at the hanafi fiqh, and forget about Ibn ‘Uthaimeen, since the Sawati Muslim follow that particular school of thought. And for once, let’s agree that this opinion, whether you agree with it or not, is not without precedent in Islamic history.

    It says in Al-Badai’ Al-Sanai’ [a very respected hanafi text]:
    وَالْحَاصِلُ أَنَّهُ لَا خِلَافَ بَيْنَ أَصْحَابِنَا رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ أَنَّهُ لَا يَبْلُغُ التَّعْزِيرُ الْحَدَّ ؛ لِمَا رُوِيَ عَنْهُ عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ أَنَّهُ قَالَ : { مَنْ بَلَغَ حَدًّا فِي غَيْرِ حَدٍّ فَهُوَ مِنْ الْمُعْتَدِينَ } إلَّا أَنَّ أَبَا يُوسُفَ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ صَرَفَ الْحَدَّ الْمَذْكُورَ فِي الْحَدِيثِ عَلَى الْأَحْرَارِ .

    In summary, there is no difference between the scholars of our school of thought that the amount of ta’zeer punishment should not reach that of hadd punishment, since it has been narrated that the Prophet sallallaho’alaihiwasallam said: “Whoever gives a punishment equal to the hadd punishment for a non-hadd crime, then he has transgressed”, except that Imam Abu Yusuf says that what is meant here is the hadd for free men.

    وَرُوِيَ ذَلِكَ أَثَرًا عَنْ سَيِّدِنَا عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ أَنَّهُ قَالَ : يُعَزَّرُ خَمْسَةً وَسَبْعِينَ قَالَ أَبُو يُوسُفَ – رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ – فَقَلَّدْتُهُ فِي نُقْصَانِ الْخَمْسَةِ وَاعْتُبِرَتْ عَنْهُ أَدْنَى الْحُدُودِ .
    وَرُوِيَ عَنْهُ أَنَّهُ قَالَ : أَخَذْتُ كُلَّ نَوْعٍ مِنْ بَابِهِ ، وَأَخَذْتُ التَّعْزِيرَ فِي اللَّمْسِ وَالْقُبْلَةِ مِنْ حَدِّ الزِّنَا ، وَالْقَذْفَ بِغَيْرِ الزِّنَا مِنْ حَدِّ الْقَذْفِ ؛ لِيَكُونَ إلْحَاقَ كُلِّ نَوْعٍ بِبَابِهِ

    It has been narrated that ‘Ali bin Abi Talib said the ta’zeer should be 75 lashes. Abu Yusuf said, i follow his saying and subtract five out of each hadd…
    Abu Yusuf is reported to have said: I take the amount of ta’zeer from the hadd of its analogous crime. I take the ta’zeer for kissing and (sexual) touching from the hadd of fornication [i.e. 95 lashes for kissing as opposed to 100 for fornication] etc….
    _______________________________________________

    it is clear that he has no problem with giving ta’zeer punishment for less than zinaa.

    Also, your saying that: ”
    The entire idea contradicts the Quran. The verses that came down demanding four witnesses who saw the actual act came down to PREVENT people from accusing women of zinnah. In fact, according to the Shari’ah, if THREE men accuse a woman of zinnah (without a fourth), then their testimony is to be completely rejected, and I believe the Quran even calls them liars. Based on Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen’s argument, wouldn’t three witnesses be a “strong accusation” liable to tazeer? Yet, the Quran rejects it and says DON’T YOU DARE ACCUSE A WOMAN OF ZINNAH UNLESS YOU HAVE FOUR UPRIGHT WITNESSES WHO WITNESSED THE ACTUAL ACT, the entire point of which is to make it virtually impossible to do that.”

    This has entirely to do with if they are accusing one of zinaa, then they must say they saw the actual penetration. But here they are not claiming they saw zina. They are claiming they saw them doing something else. In that case they are not liars, and ta’zeer can be administered….

    Do you have a problem with implementing ta’zeer on an unmarried couple kissing openly in the public?

    If you do, then remember that George Micheal was jailed for doing a lewd thing publicly by western secularist courts:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/93900.stm

    Let’s be consistent, and say if a Muslim man is caught and seen in public doing such an act, he should not be punished and forgiven. Is that your point?

  69. Concerned says:

    Well abu ninja expect another satirical tirade from Amad, because you got his holy name wrong. it’s A-M-A-D not Ahmad STUPID!

    Anyway here’s another gift for Amad and his buddy the hudood-hating Anonymuslim (who doesn’t get any slack for calling of suspension of hudood…as if they were meant for utopia):

    http://arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=121274&d=7&m=4&y=2009&pix=world.jpg&category=World

    More and more media outlets are reporting this now…

    Here’s what Chief Justice said:

    “Possibility cannot be ruled out that a fake TV material or a video had been prepared with an ulterior motive to malign people of Swat,” said Chaudhry.

    oh my gosh Amad….is the Chief Justice also another nutcase? He must be because he contradicted you!!!!! Thank you MM, now it all makes sense.

    • Amad says:

      “Concerned”, thanks for proving that you don’t really read what others write, but only read what you want to read. Go up and look at one of my comments where I already mentioned the Chief Justice’s statement. Sorry to deflate your little bubble. In fact, ACTUALLY read all my comments, before jumping on your high-horse.

      The truth of the matter is that it is no longer the government, nor just the elitist class, that is turning against the imported Afghani version of the shariah. I don’t know how Swat gets tied into the roving lunatic, Beitullah Mehsud’s crowd, but for a lot of people its all packaged together. With the suicide attacks, the bombings, the day-light shootings; all these incidents somehow associated with these areas, or at least the semblance of that association. This is leading to precipice in Pakistani opinion about what these people are up to. I am not telling you what is right or wrong, just stating the fact of what is happening in Pakistan. The tide’s turning quite fast against them actually.

      • Amad says:

        Since it seems that this thread has turned into personal attacks, rather than a discussion of issues at hand, I am going to close it. If you still have something to get off your chest, feel free to backbite, frontbite, sidebite, slander, OR god forbid, praise me and others within your respective enclaves.

        In conclusion, the golden lining (yes I found one even in these comments) was that despite our disagreements about circumstances, about the people in charge of Swat, etc., we all still found the beating of this woman reprehensible and disagreeable (whether the video was a year old or current). I also think most of us don’t mind the Chief Justice taking a look at this, and I hope that he will help get to the bottom of this issue. And if indeed the Taliban were involved, then all those who were involved in the beating should be brought to a public square (manned by TV crews and general public), and flogged at least a hundred times each, to be made an example of, for all those who would think of doing such an act again. If it was fake (I don’t think so, but there is always a chance), then I hope we will also get to the bottom of the source of the video, and then that person(s) should be flogged instead (yes, televised as well). May Allah forgive all of us.

        • Amad says:

          Some important details from NY Times, insights from the hearing at the Pakistani Supreme Court (sorry to break in after comment closure):

          http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/world/asia/07pstan.html?_r=3&ref=todayspaper

          Chand was singled out for the punishment after she declined a Taliban fighter’s proposal for marriage, the head of the Peshawar Bar Association, Abdul Latif Afridi, said after the hearing.

          After her refusal to marry, an electrician visited the family home, and, according to Mr. Afridi’s account, the scorned Taliban suitor saw her leave the house with the workman. She was flogged on March 7, accused of consorting with the electrician as an unmarried woman, the lawyer said.

          And here is more…

          The atmosphere of fear and the absence of law was most vividly described to the judges by Mr. Afridi, the Peshawar lawyer, who appeared separately from the government officials.

          A seven-month operation by the Pakistani Army against the Taliban from last July until February had resulted “in a total surrender” and the killing of hundreds of people by Pakistani soldiers, he said.

          Now, he said: “The most fundamental rights are violated every second of every day. People are being ejected from their houses, courts are closed, 300 schools have been demolished.”

          More than 900 police officers had deserted the force of 1,600 in Swat, and now the Taliban were on the verge of taking over the neighboring area of Dir, Mr. Afridi said.

  70. Rifai says:

    Did it strike anyone that there was not much mention that there was a man who was also flogged and reportedly mentally scarred?

    Why was there no video conveniently posted of the guys flogging like there was for the girl?

    Doesnt it appear as though this story has an inherent message? One that doesnt come across as clearly if we raise as much a hue and cry over the mans flogging as we do for this girt?

    This is what I see being conveyed = Taliban = Fundamentalist Islamists => Utter disregard for women and their rights.

    Mentioning the mans sufferring and posting a video of his flogging waters down that main message dont you think?

    I can just imagine how well this chimes with self righteous western views on Islam.Associate it with barbarism and oppression of women. Nevermind that the men are held in as much terror in a case like this (were it to really have happened). Is this perhaps an attempt to seed the media to gain popular support for more intervention in this troubled area of the world? Maybe make less knowledgeable Muslims themselves convinced that this is all Islam stands for? Foil the peace deal in SWAT?Call me a conspiracy theorist but there is surely more than meets the eye here….taking this faux journalism as gospel and beating ourselves up over it is not a good idea before we are sure that it did happen as portrayed.

  71. Qas says:

    May Allah bless all the brothers and sisters who are concerned for their Deen and it’s people (ie. EVERYONE here). May Allah make the truth apparent and bless our hearts with love for each other only for his sake. Ameen.

  72. Abu Maryam says:

    Rifai:
    [quote]Mentioning the mans sufferring and posting a video of his flogging waters down that main message dont you think?[/quote]

    Not to mention they have previously flogged drug dealers [men of course], but ooooh, how can some body FLOG a benign being who is only passing around some powder?

  73. AnonyMuslim says:

    Well it looks like the Bin Laden cheerleader brigades have arrived.

    We don’t need the Taliban to release a camera phone video to conclude they have utter disregard for women and women’s rights. They obviously do not value human rights based on their use of suicide bombing and terror against their opponents to acheive their goals, let alone women’s rights. The Taliban’s inglorious history regarding women’s rights is a matter of public record which the entire world has witnessed, Muslims and Non-Muslims alike.

    More importantly, simple Islamic knowledge, even simple logic seems to escape you. Does it not surprise you that the flogging of a defenseless woman would be more disturbing to the conscience than the flogging of a man? Let me analogize to an issue that paradoxically (given their lack of regard for women’s suffering under the Taliban) seems to be the rallying cry for many Al Qaeda fanatics: Does the story of Sr. Aafia Siddiqui not bother you more than the story of the numerous brothers who have been unjustly detained or beaten? Obvoiusly it should, a woman is involved, hence the increased outrage at these animals beating a Muslim woman as if she were a dog.