“I am in blood stepped in so far that should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o’er” — Macbeth, Act III.
The abdication from reason and awarding of unquestionable supremacy to religion has put the ‘unreasonables’ in an enviable position in this country. Incomprehensible, untenable and indefensible positions may not be countered if made in the name of religion. It seems the earth has stopped rotating under the midday sun of unreason.
Mr Munawar Hasan, ameer Jamaat-e-Islami, who amongst many others has resisted the repeal or amendment of the Hudood laws, had another field day under the sun last week on national television. Upon being questioned on how he justified his position of supporting the Hudood Ordinance requiring evidence of four male Muslim witnesses for conviction of rape, since such a requirement would render rape practically impossible to prove, he immediately took refuge in religion.
His initial argument was that Islam did not condone the ‘outing’ of evil; that if the deed were not done in public, then it should be covered up and not brought to light as that would sully society (and therefore the Hudood Ordinance, which makes rape perpetrated in private not punishable, is in keeping with Islamic values). When questioned closely whether he was saying rape should not be reported by women, he concurred stressing that it was in the best interests of the larger good of society (and, incredibly, of that of the victim as well as the rapist). Splendid! By that measure, society should not out any ill, including theft, murder, bribery, corruption, cheating or lying, lest such outing corrupt society. However, Mr Hasan confined himself only to declaring that women not report this heinous crime. Generous man, he. For surely, he supports the reporting and punishment of all other crimes?
The gentleman is the leader of a major religio-political party that has previously held seats in parliament. And some Pakistanis do vote for this party and what it stands for. Do people understand that they vote for a party whose leader, in effect, has given his go-ahead for every woman in the land to be raped as long as there are no four eyewitnesses around? I shudder to guess at his motivations.
The host of the programme, not having bought into the overall societal good argument, persisted in asking Hasan to justify such a preposterous stance. Failing miserably to provide any argument, Hasan proceeded to declare that the host was challenging the Quran and Sunnah (something that presumably by implication only a non-Muslim would do). The host asked if Hasan was issuing a fatwa (religious decree) against him but Hasan continued uninterrupted and invited the host to re-enter the fold of Islam by reciting the first Kalima and refused to justify his stance.
So this was Mr Hasan’s play. In the absence of a logical argument he tried to intimidate the host with the suggestion that he was no longer a Muslim (i.e. an apostate deserving of the death penalty). Everyone knows that after such a fatwa, a random fanatic may be relied upon to make an attempt on the decreed against blasphemer/apostate’s life. With such fatwas, intended as a convenient death threat, any semblance of a debate usually ends in favour of the violent ‘unreasonables’.
However, on a point of order with regard to what Mr Munawar Hasan was alluding to (whilst trying to justify sexual violence against women), the translation of the relevant verses in the Quran are as under:
“And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witness against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness, confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them” (4:15).
The most common interpretation of the ayat above refers to adultery or fornication between a man and a woman (though some scholars believe this verse refers to sexual relationships between women only — since it refers to women only). There is no mention of rape. How the likes of Mr Munawar Hasan make the jump from this verse of the Quran to requiring four witnesses for proving rape should be beyond comprehension of even the least intelligent. Yet, the law remains on the statute books, and parliament dare not change it for fear of the sex-crazed lobby.
Our esteemed scholars-turned-politicians-turned-legal-brains have made the leap of calumny and argued that the above ayat provides for requiring four eyewitnesses to the rape of a woman for conviction purposes.
One is at a loss for words to even state the obvious. Firstly, even if any religion propagated that rape should go unreported, un-resisted and unpunished for the larger good of ‘society’ (read lust-filled violent maniacs of the variety Mr Munawar Hasan appears to support), any civilised society would reject it. But as evidenced by the Quranic verses this law is based on, there is no sanction for such an atrocity.
But such is the pall of terror over this society, that the Hasans of this world are holding the country hostage with impunity, cowing all opposition with ‘God’s word’. Are we going to screw our courage to the sticking place and stand up to the bullying? Are we willing to say theirs is not our God? Or are we going to keep stepping further in blood?
The writer is a journalist and can be reached at [email protected]