Dear friends,
I'm forwarding the following article titled "Stoning to death: Zia's
legacy" from the INRFVVP listserv (see below). I think it's a very good
article explaining that hudood is un-Islamic. In fact, a lot has been
written on this subject by Pakistani friends and activists in the past
two decades, for example by Asma Jehangir, Hina Jilani, Afiya S. Zia and
others.
For a Western audience, it might be new, but there is no doubt among us
(as activists from Muslim societies) that Hudood has got nothing to do
with Islam. The point is that there are several other factors and
systems making it possible that such terrible practices are being
re-created, introduced or sustained through a combination of political,
social or economic inequalities in our countries, the seek of power by
fundamentalists and the support of fundamentalist agendas in the south
by northern powers, including the USA, for their own interests.
I'm trying to say that the concentration on "culture" as a source of
such practices is misleading and we should try to see the whole picture
!!!
Pinar Ilkkaracan
WOMEN FOR WOMEN'S HUMAN RIGHTS - NEW WAYS
Inonu Cad. 37/6 Saadet Apt.
Gumussuyu 80090 ISTANBUL - TURKEY
Tel: 90-212-251 0029 Fax: 90-212-251 0065
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.wwhr.org
Stoning to death: Zia's legacy
By Qazi Faez Isa
Does religion prescribe the punishment of stoning for adultery? The
Jewish answer to this question would be 'yes'. The Old Testament,
explicitly depicts various adulterous sexual acts, and prescribes that
those indulging in them be "put to death" (Leviticus 20:10-21).
If a husband accuses his wife that she was not a virgin when he married
her "and no proof of the girl's virginity is found, then they shall
bring her out to the door of her father's house and the men of her town
shall stone her to death. She has committed an outrage in Israel by
playing the prostitute in her father's house: you shall rid yourself of
this wickedness."
If, however, the accusation turns out to be false "they shall fine him a
hundred pieces of silver because he has given a bad name to a virgin of
Israel, and hand them to the girl's father" (Deuteronomy 22:20-21).
"When a man is discovered lying with a married woman, they shall both
die, the woman as well as the man who lay with her: you shall rid Israel
of this wickedness".
The Christian answer to this question is found in the amazing and
touching story narrated by the Apostle John. One day when Jesus Christ
was teaching in the Temple, "the doctors of Law (Rabbis) and Pharisees
brought in a woman caught committing adultery. Making her stand out in
the middle they said to him, 'Master, this woman was caught in the very
act of adultery. In the Law Moses has laid down that such women are to
be stoned. What do you say about it?'...
"Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they
continued to press their question he sat up straight and said, 'That one
of you who is faultless shall throw the first stone.' Then once again he
bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard what he said, one by
one they went away, the eldest first; and Jesus was left alone, with the
woman still standing there. Jesus again sat up and said to the woman,
'Where are they? Has no one condemned you? She answered, 'No, one sir.'
Jesus said, 'Nor do I condemn you. You may go; do not sin again' " (John
8:1-11).
The aforesaid is the only reference in the Bible (New Testament) to
adultery and stoning. The Bible does, however, have other references to
stoning, all of which mention Jews stoning the prophets or the apostles
of Jesus (Luke 13:34, 20:6; John 8:59, 10-31, 11-8; Acts of Apostles
7:58, 14:5, 14:19 and the 2nd Letter of Paul to the Corinthians 11:25).
The Bible records the propensity of the Jews to stoning.
The anguish of Jesus Christ is heart rending. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,
the city that murders the prophets and stones the messengers sent to
her! How often have I longed to gather your children, as a hen gathers
her brood under her wings; but you would not let me. Look, look! There
is your temple forsaken by God. And I tell you, you shall never see me
until the time comes, when you say, 'Blessings on him who comes in the
name of the Lord!' " (Luke 13:34).
The holy Quran does not prescribe stoning as the punishment for
adultery. There is not a single verse to this effect. The Holy Quran
stipulates the punishment of "a hundred stripes" for the act of
adultery, zina (24:2). If a particular sentence is prescribed in the
Holy Quran a harsher one cannot be imposed. The holy Quran also requires
the fulfilment of an almost impossible condition before conviction can
result. Four eye- witnesses have to testify to sustain the charge (24:4).
And if those who accuse a woman and fail to "produce four witnesses",
they are then to be flogged eighty times. If there are no witnesses and
a husband accuses his wife of adultery he has to repeat his testimony
and on the fifth invoke the "Curse of Allah" on himself if he is lying
(24:6-7). The punishment is averted if the wife similarly swears
(24:8-9). Therefore, the Holy Quran here places greater reliance on the
testimony of a woman.
In none of the verses pertaining to adultery in the holy Quran the term
stoning (rajama / rajim) is used. 'Rajim' means 'stoned', 'accursed' or
'damned' and is used as an epithet of Satan (3:36, 15:17, 16:98 Shaitan
nir rajim, Satan the stoned or accursed). The verb which derives from
rajim is rajama, and it means 'to stone', 'the act of stoning', 'a
missile', 'something to stone with', 'guesswork', 'guessing' or 'stoned'
(11:91, 18:20, 19:46, 36:18, 44:20, 18:22, 67:5 and 26:116). However,
none of the verses refer to adultery. The Arabic word rajim / rajama is
similar to the Hebrew word ragam, which means 'to collect or cast
stones'.
How is it then that some Muslims followed the Jewish practice and
prescribed stoning as the punishment for the sin of adultery?
General Muhammad Ziaul Haq discovered 'Islamic law' to secure his
tenuous position. He enacted a 'law' which for the first time in the
history of Pakistan ordained that "whoever is guilty of zina shall ...
be stoned to death at a public place." Zia gathered around him
semi-literate and self-styled ulema, legal and other sycophant advisers
and introduced laws which purported to be Islamic.
Every legal enactment is or ought to be preceded by an open debate.
There was no debate when any of the Hudood laws were enacted. The one in
which stoning was prescribed, The Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadd)
Ordinance, 1979, was enacted overnight. The arrogance of the lawmakers
knew no bounds. Since the Hudood laws claimed to be implementing God's
intent, it was expected that every care would be taken to ensure against
the possibility of any mistake, but none was taken.
The sycophants surrounding Zia had the audacity to refer to him as a
modern day Ameer-ul-Momineen (Leader of the Faithful). Any opposition to
such a ruler was it not opposition to Islam itself? The craftily drafted
question in Zia's referendum suggested as much.
Twenty-three years have passed since the law prescribed the punishment
of stoning and we have seen governments of democrats, technocrats and
autocrats, but not one has been able to undo Zia's legacy. No one is
apparently prepared to seek the truth, if it entails being perceived as
assailing 'mazhab'.
The facts of the Zafran Bibi case have shocked the nation. A judge has
sentenced her to death by stoning relying upon Zia's law. Zia enacted
the stoning legislation contending it to be a Hadd law. Hadd is a legal
term for the offences and punishments which are defined in the Quran.
The fact that the punishment of stoning for adultery does not find
mention in the Holy Quran did not deter Zia's Zina enactment.
The propagators of stoning support their contention by relying on
reports attributed to Hazrat Umar; that certain verses prescribing
stoning had been revealed but had been left out from the Holy Quran when
it was compiled. This effectively calls into question the very
infallibility and sanctity of the holy Quran as contained in the texts
handed down over fourteen hundred years and is anathema to believers and
is to be rejected. We are then left with certain traditions attributed
to the Prophet reported in the recognized works of hadith literature.
The most famous collectors of the Sunni Hadith were al-Bukhari (Sahih),
Muslim (Muslim), Abu Dawud, at Tirmidhi, an-Nasai and ibn Maja. All
these compilers died between 256 to 303 years after the Hijrah (or
between 870 to 915 AD). The Shiah collections of hadith are called
khabar and were compiled even later, between 320 to 454 after the Hijrah
(or between 932 to 1062 AD). The five recognized Shiah compilers were
Abu Jafar (Kafi), Saykh Ali (Man la yastihzau-hu al Faqih), Shaykh Abu
Jafar (Tahdhib and Istibsar) and Sayyid al-Razi (Nahj al-Balaghah).
It is an acknowledged rule in reading hadith literature that if a
reported hadith purports to record that which is contrary to the Quran,
it should be disregarded since the Prophet (pbuh) did not act contrary
to Allah's revelation.
But even if one examines the hadith recorded by the compilers of hadith
which purport to prescribe stoning there is no instance when the Holy
Prophet ordered stoning of a Muslim who was caught committing adultery
or against whom a charge had been levelled.
The instances that have been recorded by the hadith compilers are of
Maaz bin Malik and of the woman from the tribe of Azd Gaib. The two are
separate instances but the stories are similar. It is reported that they
voluntarily appeared before the Holy Prophet and without being
confronted with a charge, accusation or being coerced confessed their
own guilt. Then too the holy Prophet is reported to have been extremely
reluctant to hear them.
In both these instances it is reported that the Holy Prophet upon
hearing the confessions turned his face away, this he did no less than
four times, but the persons persevered and repeatedly confessed before
him. Thereafter he questioned whether they were mad or drunk. Only then
stoning was ordered. The Holy Prophet then read their funeral prayer
(namaz-i-janaza) which was a singular honour and prayed for them. The
hadith reports that the Holy Prophet then said that the person stoned
had sought such profound forgiveness that if it was spread over the
entire community (ummat) its blessing (sawab) would be enough for all.
Some hadith compilers record that once the stoning had commenced the
person being stoned ran away and was brought back. When this was
reported to the holy Prophet he said "if you had let him go then it is
entirely possible that he would have sought forgiveness and Allah would
have accepted his forgiveness" (Muslim, transmitted through Abu
Huraira).
The hadith which are relied by the propagators of stoning are really
examples of extreme atonement and expiation and can hardly be used to
expound a tradition (hadith) prescribing stoning. These incidents have
also not been fixed in time. It is possible that these incidents took
place before the verses ordaining the punishment of whipping for
adultery were revealed (the revelation of the Holy Quran having taken 23
years).
On such slender facts Zia prescribed that a person who commits adultery,
"be stoned to death", forgetting the tradition reported by Hazrat
Ayesha, that, "if the Imam (ruler) wrongly forgives it is better than if
there is a mistake in sentencing" (Tirmidhi).
By relying upon the Holy Quran it cannot be contended that adultery is a
hadd for which the punishment is stoning, but this could be contended if
reliance were placed upon Jewish scriptures. Ibn Khladun had noted just
such a tendency in the ignorant, "They turned for information to the
followers of the Book, the Jews ... so when these people embraced Islam,
they retained their stories which had no connection with the
commandments of the Islamic law ... commentaries on the Holy Quran were
soon filled with these stories of theirs" (Ulum al-Quran, Muqaddamah).
On 7 June 2002, Barbara Curda wrote:
>
> For me, this statement is most important in the present discussion
> because related to culture: it shows how the same culture produces
> diverse perspectives, and that a perspective allowing oppression can be
> countered by another perspective taken from the same "culture", forbidding
> the same form of oppression. It shows the 'political' nature of statements
> related to culture, and that what we call culture is not fixed, but captured
> for specific purposes.
>
***End-violence is sponsored by UNIFEM and receives generous support from
ICAP***
To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type:
subscribe end-violence OR type: unsubscribe end-violence
Archives of previous End-violence messages can be found at:
http://www.edc.org/GLG/end-violence/hypermail/
