Then we have a situation where a 16-year old girl is raped. But her rapist is pardoned while she is subjected to 101 lashes. And the father is made to pay a fine. And until the family agrees to the 101 lashes punishment the girl is to be subjected to ‘house arrest’.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Rape victim receives 101 lashes for becoming pregnant
By Dean Nelson, South Asia Editor, The Telegraph UK
A 16-year-old girl who was raped in Bangladesh has been given 101 lashes for conceiving during the assault.
The girl's father was also fined and warned the family would be branded outcasts from their village if he did not pay.
According to human rights activists, the girl, who was quickly married after the attack, was divorced weeks later after medical tests revealed she was pregnant.
The girl was raped by a 20-year-old villager in Brahmanbaria district in April last year.
Bangladesh's Daily Star newspaper reported that she was so ashamed following the attack that she did not lodge a complaint.
Her rape emerged after her pregnancy test and Muslim elders in the village issued a fatwa insisting that the girl be kept in isolation until her family agreed to corporal punishment.
Her rapist was pardoned by the elders. She told the newspaper the rapist had "spoiled" her life.
"I want justice," she said.
*************************************************
That was what the Telegraph reported today, a news item that was in turn picked up from Bangladesh’s Daily Star.
Now, why do I highlight this news report? The first reaction from Muslims would be to allege that my ‘agenda’ is to embarrass Islam and to focus on the negative aspects of what some Muslims are doing.
Well, if they consider this an embarrassment and negative to Islam, well and good. At least this shows there are some Muslims who have the capacity to think that there may be something wrong here.
But that is not the reason I am raising this issue. The reason I am raising it is to bring your attention to the debate that Khalid Samad, Marina Mahathir and Yusri Mohamad had in Al Jazeera recently (101 East - Malaysia: Whose God?) -- which you can view below in case you have not yet seen it.
Now, note the part in the video where Yusri repeats many times that this is the opinion of the ulamak (religious scholars) and that this is their fatwa (religious decree). Therefore, what Yusri means is, since the ulamak have issued a fatwa, then Muslims should not be allowed to challenge this ‘opinion’. This must be regarded as ‘law’, almost like a ruling from God Himself.
Then we have a situation where a 16-year old girl is raped. But her rapist is pardoned while she is subjected to 101 lashes. And the father is made to pay a fine. And until the family agrees to the 101 lashes punishment the girl is to be subjected to ‘house arrest’.
Never mind what the ulamak say and never mind what fatwa they may have issued and never mind that they may have the ‘authority’ to do this. The question I am raising is: is this situation involving the 16-year old rape victim right?
Muslims always defend their position with the argument that we must listen to the ulamak because they are learned in matters involving Islam -- so they know better than people like you and me who are jahil (ignorant on matters involving Islam). And once a fatwa has been issued then that is final and can no longer be challenged.
A fatwa, Muslims would argue, would be issued depending on what the Quran, Hadith and/or Sunnah say. A fatwa is issued based on ‘the traditions of the Prophet’, we hear often enough.
If these are the standards being applied, then the family has to pay the fine, the 16-year old girl must be punished with 101 lashes, and until the family agrees to this punishment the girl must remain under ‘house arrest’.
Is it not ironical that the Al Jazeera program below is called 101 East? 101 as in 101 lashes for a 16-year old rape victim maybe?
No, this is not an Islam-bashing article although many would be of the opinion it is. This is an article to rebut Yusri’s argument in the Al Jazeera program, 101 East - Malaysia: Whose God?, in that the ulamak have the final say and once a fatwa is issued that becomes almost like a decree from God Himself.
Ulamak, with due respect to their religious knowledge, are man and not God. And the fatwa they issue is merely their opinion, not the word of God. They may be right and then again they may be wrong. And in the case of punishing a 16-year old rape victim with 101 lashes and fining the family, while pardoning the rapist, surely this cannot be right and surely this cannot be what God has commanded.
So where does that place Yusri’s argument about the banning of the Allah word for Christians being the opinion of the ulamak and that they have issued a fatwa on the matter, which can no longer be challenged?
No comments:
Post a Comment