Showing posts with label Oppression. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oppression. Show all posts

Aberration is the norm



THE twists in the case of Farzana who was bludgeoned to death outside the Lahore High Court increasingly feel like film noir. Her husband killed his first wife and was forgiven by his son. She was killed by her relatives, who had earlier killed her other sister and were forgiven by her son. Money involved, compromises involved, betrayals involved, moral questions involved, and now, belatedly, outrage involved.
The act of Farzana’s murder was met with shock based on three perceived aberrations. First, the instruments of death were bricks, evoking the image of the medieval punishment of stoning to death for adultery. The second was that it happened just outside the premises of a court — the place for dispensation of justice, presumably a secure zone. And the third is there were witnesses who did not try to prevent the crime. Barring these, it was just another routine honour killing that we now take in our stride.
However, all three are not aberrations. There are four previous known cases of women being killed with stones for sexual relations, and thousands more murdered with different weapons for the same crime. Nor is it the first time such crimes were perpetrated near or within a court premises. In 1998, Rifat Afridi and Kanwar Ahsan were shot in a Karachi court for contracting a marriage by choice; they survived. In 2012, Raheela Sehto was killed for the same reason inside a court in Hyderabad. Earlier this year, Humaira Ashraf was killed, weeks after her marriage, by her brother inside the court premises in Gujranwala.

Impunity is not specific to cases of violence against women.


Finally, there have been many cases of people becoming spectators in violence against women. In 2010, 14 people stripped and thrashed a mother and daughter in front of the whole town of Shehr-i-Sultan near Mirwala. In 2011, Shahnaz Bibi was paraded naked across Neelor Bala in Haripur. No one stepped forward to stop the abuse in either case. In countless jirga judgements, entire communities are complicit in crimes passed off as custom. Domestic violence is tolerated.
The underlying impunity context has evolved over decades. When Samia Sarwar was shot dead by her family in Hina Jillani’s office in 1999, there were many witnesses willing to record testimonies, including a staffer kidnapped by them and Hina Jillani herself, one of the leading human rights lawyers in Pakistan. It should have been an open-and-shut case. It wasn’t. The family walked free; the father went on to head the Sarhad Chamber of Commerce; the uncle was forgiven by the family; the killing was called accidental, and the court refused to let Hina Jillani fight the case. Even the parliamentary resolution was defeated with a thumping majority.
Of course, impunity is not specific to cases of violence against women. If (the then former) Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s lawyer Iqbal Raad was killed while defending his case, and Benazir Bhutto’s case lawyer Chaudhry Zulfiqar was killed, with no conviction in either murder, it may be pointless to lament about impunity in the case of Rashid Rehman, who was representing a mere university lecturer.
Rehman’s assassination for his brave defence of Junaid Hafeez has parallels to Farzana’s case. Both signal laws that are on the statutes (blasphemy law in the former, Hudood Ordinance in the latter), in which people remain under trial for years but no one is punished by the state with the prescribed forms of death. In both cases, people themselves inflict the legally prescribed punishment through legally proscribed ways of vigilante action. And they get away with it because of the perceived religious and social pardon.
Impunity compromises the state’s legitimacy. The state is not a monolith. Its composite institutions can and do work. There are signs of change. New and improved laws have been legislated. The police are becoming more responsive in swara cases. But with less than a 3pc conviction rate in honour killings and rapes, deterrence is non-existent. Protest against the state for failing to protect the people is not a demand for security guards for everyone. It is a demand for the revocation of impunity.
Tougher is the fact that ‘ordinary’ people kill women in their family with societal consensus, and collude in premeditated acts of murder on blasphemy cases. It has nothing to do with poverty and illiteracy. Samia’s family is part of the elite. The aggressors in Rehman’s case comprised educated lawyers.
In Farzana’s case, this is the third woman’s murder in one family. Intolerance and violence seem to be the only factors to have had a trickle-down effect. But nuanced understandings consolidate into cataracts of cynical acceptance. So, after the outrage, what next?
The writer is a researcher. nazishbrohi.nb@gmail.com , Twitter: @Nazish_Brohi
http://www.dawn.com/news/1109883/aberration-is-the-norm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

سزا

وہ کافرہ تھی؟ نہیں! اہل کتاب میں سے تھی؟ نہیں! ہندو تھی؟ نہیں! پارسی تھی؟ نہیں! وہ مسلمان تھی۔ نبی آخرالزمانﷺ کی اُمت میں سے تھی۔ 
اسے مارنے والے امریکی تھے؟ نہیں! بھارتی تھے؟ نہیں! غیر مسلم تھے؟ نہیں! وہ سب مسلمان تھے! 
اسے کہاں مارا گیا؟ مقبوضہ کشمیر میں؟ نہیں! اسرائیل میں؟ نہیں! بھارتی گجرات میں؟ نہیں! مشرقی پنجاب میں؟ نہیں! غزہ کی پٹی میں؟ نہیں! برما میں؟ نہیں۔ اسے اس ملک میں مارا گیا جسے اسلام کا قلعہ کہا جاتا ہے‘ جس کے بارے میں تواتر سے کہا جاتا ہے کہ ستائیسویں رمضان المبارک کو وجود میں آیا تھا۔ جس کے متعلق بتایا جاتا ہے کہ واحد مسلم ملک ہے جو نظریاتی بنیادوں پر تخلیق ہوا۔ جہاں اسلامی نظام کے بارے میں آئے دن تحریکیں چلتی ہیں‘ جلوس نکلتے ہیں‘ شاہراہیں بند ہو جاتی ہیں۔ 
محمد رسول اللہﷺ کی یہ امتی کیا تنہا ماری گئی؟ نہیں! اس کے بطن میں اس کا جائز بچہ تھا‘ جو ذی روح تھا! اُسے بھی ساتھ ہی موت کے گھاٹ اتار دیا گیا۔ 
اس مسلمان خاتون کو دنیا کی واحد اسلامی نظریاتی مملکت میں کس طرح قتل کیا گیا؟ کیا اُسے گولی ماری گئی؟ نہیں! کیا تلوار سے سر قلم کیا گیا؟ نہیں! کیا اُسے تختۂ دار پر لٹکایا گیا؟ نہیں! کیا اُسے برقی کرسی پر بٹھا کر بٹن آن کر دیا گیا؟ نہیں! کیا اُسے زہرکا ٹیکہ لگا کر ہمیشہ ہمیشہ کے لیے سلا دیا گیا؟ نہیں! کیا اُسے دیوار میں چنوا دیا گیا؟ نہیں! کیا اسے مینار سے نیچے پھینکا گیا؟ نہیں! اُسے اینٹوں اور پتھروں سے مارا گیا۔ مسلسل مارا جاتا رہا، یہاں تک کہ اس کا سر ریزہ ریزہ ہو گیا‘ اس کا حمل ضائع ہو گیا اور وہ زندگی کی سرحد سے گزر گئی! 
جب اسے سنگ باری کا نشانہ بنایا جا رہا تھا‘ کیا وہ اس وقت تنہا تھی؟ نہیں! کیا یہ واقعہ کسی دور افتادہ ویرانے میں پیش آیا؟ نہیں! کیا یہ سانحہ کسی چھوٹے قصبے یا قریے میں واقع ہوا؟ نہیں! یہ سب سے بڑے صوبے کے سب سے بڑے شہر کے سب سے زیادہ پُررونق اور پُرہجوم حصے میں پیش آیا۔ اس وقت وہاں بہت سے لوگ موجود تھے۔ یہاں تک کہ پولیس کے افراد بھی وہیں تھے۔ انہوں نے اپنی آنکھوں سے یہ سب کچھ دیکھا۔ کسی نے بھی مسلمان خاتون کو بچانے کی کوشش نہیں کی! 
کیا اس مسلمان خاتون نے کوئی جرم کیا تھا؟ نہیں! کیا یہ زنا کی مرتکب ہوئی تھی؟ نہیں! کیا یہ چوری ڈاکے یا قتل کی مجرم تھی؟ نہیں! اس نے اپنی مرضی سے شادی کی تھی جس کی اس کے مذہب‘ اس کے قانون نے اسے اجازت دی ہوئی تھی! 
کیا اس وحشیانہ قتل پر کسی مذہبی رہنما نے احتجاج کیا؟ کیا کسی مذہبی جماعت نے اس سانحہ پر کوئی ردِعمل ظاہر کیا؟ نہیں! کیا میڈیا کے وہ ملازم جو بزعمِ خود مذہب کے ٹھیکیدار بنے ہوئے ہیں‘ جن کی آنکھوں کو ہر شے میں فحاشی نظر آتی ہے اور جن کے ایک ایک کالم میں بیس بیس مرتبہ ''میں‘‘ کا لفظ ہوتا ہے‘ اس بربریت پر کچھ بولے یا انہوں نے کچھ لکھا؟ نہیں! 
کیا ان مذہبی جماعتوں نے‘ جو چیچنیا سے لے کر برما تک اور فلسطین سے لے کر افغانستان تک‘ ہر خطۂ زمین کے مسلمانوں کے قتل پر ہڑتالیں کرتی ہیں‘ احتجاج کرتی ہیں‘ جلسے برپا کرتی ہیں اور دھرنے دیتی ہیں‘ اس پاکستانی خاتون کے بہیمانہ قتل پر کوئی احتجاج کیا‘ کوئی جلسہ کیا‘ کوئی جلوس نکالا‘ کوئی قراردادِ مذمت پیش کی؟ نہیں! ان مذہبی رہنمائوں نے اور ان دینی جماعتوں نے خواتین پر ہونے والے ظلم کے خلاف کبھی ایک لفظ نہیں کہا۔ اس ملک میں آئے دن کم سن بچیوں کے نکاح ونی اور سوارہ کی رسموں کے تحت عمر رسیدہ مردوں سے کر دیے جاتے ہیں‘ کاروکاری میں عورتوں کو ہلاک کیا جاتا ہے‘ یہاں تک کہ عورتوں کو کتوں کے ذریعے بھی مارا گیا اور صحرا میں جنازے کے بغیر دفن کیا گیا‘ زمیندار اور ان کے کارندے اکثر عورتوں کو برہنہ کر کے گلیوں میں پھراتے ہیں، لیکن کسی مذہبی رہنما‘ کسی عالم دین‘ کسی دینی جماعت نے ان غیر شرعی جرائم کے خلاف کبھی آواز نہیں اٹھائی۔ 
کیا کم سن بچیوں کے نکاح کو جائز قرار دینے اور دوسری شادی کے لیے پہلی بیوی کی اجازت کو حرفِ غلط کی طرح منسوخ کرنے والوں نے اس گھنائونے جرم پر کسی قسم کی کوئی رائے دی؟ نہیں! عورتوں کے ساتھ ناانصافی کا مسئلہ ان کے دائرہ کار سے باہر ہے! 
کیا اس بات کا امکان ہے کہ منتخب اداروں میں غیرت کے نام پر قتل کے خلاف قانون سازی کی جائے؟ نہیں! ماضی میں کوشش کی گئی لیکن اکثریت اس قانون سازی کے خلاف متحد ہو گئی! 
کیا حضرت مولانا مفتی عمران خان مد ظلہم العالی نے اس دلگداز واقعہ پر کسی افسوس کا اظہار کیا؟ نہیں! وجہ ظاہر ہے‘ چونکہ اس خاتون کو قتل کرنے والے امریکی نہیں تھے‘ نہ ہی یہ کسی ڈرون حملے کا نشانہ بنی‘ نہ ہی اس کا قبائلی علاقے سے تعلق تھا‘ اس لیے آپ نے اس کا کوئی نوٹس نہیں لیا! حضرت مولانا مفتی عمران خان مدظلہ‘ جو اہلِ مدرسہ کے دستِ راست ہیں اور عنقریب تحریک انصاف کو جے یو آئی میں ضم کر دیں گے‘ کسی پاکستانی فوجی یا پاکستانی مرد یا پاکستانی عورت یا پاکستانی بچے کی ہلاکت پر افسوس کا اظہار نہیں کرتے! ابھی مئی کے پہلے ہفتے کے اختتام پر نو پاکستانی فوجی بم دھماکے میں شہید کیے گئے، عمران خان نے اُف تک نہ کی۔ لیکن جیسے ہی دہشت گردوں کے خلاف پاکستانی عساکر حرکت میں آئے‘ خان صاحب نے واویلا مچا دیا اور اپنے ملک کی فوج پر گھنائونا‘ شرم ناک اور بے بنیاد الزام لگایا کہ وہ امریکہ کی جنگ لڑ رہی ہے۔ فرماتے ہیں کہ شمالی وزیرستان کو الگ کرنے کی سازش کی جا رہی ہے۔ یہ وہ صاحب کہہ رہے ہیں جنہوں نے کبھی قبائلی علاقوں کو مین سٹریم میں ضم کرنے کی بات کی‘ نہ وہاں کی زراعت، تعلیم یا صنعت و حرفت کے بارے میں کبھی کوئی منصوبہ پیش کیا۔ رشتہ داری کی وجہ سے جذباتی تعلق کی نوعیت یہ ہے کہ وہاں کے جرگہ سسٹم کو‘ جس کا شریعت سے تعلق ہے نہ قانون سے‘ آئیڈیل بنائے ہوئے ہیں۔ قیاس کہتا ہے کہ وزیر اعظم بننے پر پورے ملک میں عدالتوں کے بجائے جرگہ سسٹم نافذ کر دیں گے خاص طور پر وہ شق جس کے تحت ''مجرموں‘‘ کے رہائشی مکانات بلڈوزروں سے مسمار کیے جاتے ہیں! 
کیا اسلام کے اس قلعے کو‘ جہاں نبی آخرالزمانﷺ کی امت کی بیٹیاں‘ بہنیں اور مائیں وحشیانہ ظلم کا رات دن شکار ہو رہی ہیں‘ جہاں ان کے حقوق ہیں نہ ان کی حفاظت‘ جہاں وہ بوڑھوں سے بِن پوچھے باندھ دی جاتی ہیں‘ جنازوں کے بغیر صحرا میں دفن کر دی جاتی ہیں‘ گلیوں میں برہنہ پھرائی جاتی ہیں‘ زبردستی زیادتی کا شکار ہونے کے باوجود‘ جیل میں پھینک دی جاتی ہیں اور جہاں کسی جرم کے بغیر اینٹوں سے کچل دی جاتی ہیں، یہاں تک کہ ان کے پیٹوں میں سانس لینے والے بچے بھی موت کے گھاٹ اتار دیے جاتے ہیں‘ کیا اس ملک کے بے حس باشندوں کو‘ ان قاتلوں کو، ان قاتلوں کے محافظوں کو کوئی سزا نہیں ملے گی؟ ضرور ملے گی! کیا یہ بُش اور اوباما اپنی قوت سے حکمران بنے تھے؟ کیا وہ طاقت جو قبر میں بچھو سانپ اور آگ پیدا کر سکتی ہے‘ قبر سے باہر مودی کو اقتدار نہیں دے سکتی؟ 
http://dunya.com.pk/index.php/author/muhammad-izhar-ul-haq/2014-06-01/7286/44202450#tab2


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Humanity, Religion, Culture, Ethics, Science, Spirituality & Peace
Peace Forum Network
Over 1,000,000 Visits
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Criminal Advances

Free%20Books%20%26%20Articles

Ask any Pakistani woman, and she’ll tell you it doesn’t take much to cross the line between banter and lewdness: an inappropriate touch, an unwanted remark, or even indecent flirtation. With women often advised to stay mum in the face of abuse, sexual harassment is reaching epidemic proportions in Pakistan.



It started with what seemed like harmless office pranks. Six months into a new job in Karachi; Saima started noticing strange happenings at her place of work — sabotaged equipment and missing property. She grew concerned when one day, she stepped out of her office to discover some missing documents appear suddenly outside her office door, neatly cut up and displayed, like some horrific scene out of an Alfred Hitchcock flick.Crouched on the edge of her bed, she scrolled the touch screen of her mobile phone as her hands trembled. She read and re-read the text messages arriving seemingly every second from an unknown number. She knew who this was and wished she didn’t. She broke out into a cold sweat; yes she was scared. Abusive words, threats of physical abuse, violence in public, damage to her car — he was telling her how dirty, advanced, low, helpless and alone she was and how he would punish her for ignoring his attention. This was sexual harassment that she had heard happens to others and now it was happening to her.
As the ‘pranks’ grew more worrisome, Saima and her co-worker, Kiran, began reporting the incidents to the management, who were slow to react, “They weren’t quite sure how best to handle the situation. Often, they didn’t seem to know what the next step should be.”
Unfortunately for the women, the incidents only escalated. Like characters caught in a bad film, they regularly began receiving lewd text messages, accurately describing what they were wearing to work. “Disgusting messages would arrive from an individual who seemed to be fantasising about us. It was obviously someone who was commenting from within work premises,” recalls Saima.
At first these text messages professed love, but when the girls didn’t respond, the messages became filthy. Not willing to lose their employees, the management tried to investigate, “They told us that they would handle it but the emails and texts wouldn’t stop.”
The text messages and emails suddenly turned into threats of rape, gang rape and murder. Saima’s husband Aftab insisted that she should quit work and hand in her resignation. But the nightmare did not end. “We have nearly 100 emails and text messages from this fellow, who might have tried to follow the women home. At one point, he described our street and the house we lived in. I don’t think he knew or cared if my wife was married,” says Aftab.
Presently, the two harassed employees have resigned and they still don’t know if they are safe.
Photo by Hussain Afzal
Photo by Hussain Afzal
What drives a man to threaten a woman with sexual violence? Erum Riaz-Ghazi is a department head at her hospital, and is currently pursuing her PhD from the Institute of Clinical Psychology at the University of Karachi. Here, she shares some insight, “Threats of bodily harm, rape, acid attack are all regressive behaviours. When anyone, be it a man or woman, resorts to threats of bodily harm to get what they want — it is like a child thwarted in his attempts to get what he wants, resorting to either screaming or shouting or hitting out at whoever is obstructing his path.”
If you think Saima’s case is an isolated one, think again.
“I am married and my husband was overseas for work. This senior executive at the bank clearly found me attractive and asked me out for coffee, which I politely declined. After this, I started getting abusive messages. This continued and, traumatised, I had to resign because I just couldn’t work there anymore,” says Zainab, a mother of two children who was employed at a top-tier multinational bank in Pakistan.
Erum points out that following such incidents, victims of sexual harassment tend to become depressed. “In a biased society when a group of people are marginalised and treated as outsiders; the victims feel helpless and hopeless,” she says.
Nadia was subjected to worse than what Zainab experienced. “One day at work, I was shocked to get an email where my Facebook picture was photoshopped into a porn[ographic] setting. It was definitely someone from work who was responsible,” she says.
Sana Saleem, a director at Bolo Bhi, a nonprofit organisation which among other social causes also works for gender rights explains that predators often use easily available pictures of their victims to blackmail them, “As Facebook keeps changing its privacy settings, women should be careful. Unless you are comfortable, don’t put your pictures on the internet because they are out there forever.”
Is it that Pakistani men are simply not used to working with the opposite sex? According to a report published by the Population Reference Bureau in 2005, alarmingly, only 16 per cent of Pakistani women were economically active, as compared to over 50pc in Indonesia.
Erum adds, “due to the economic crisis, women who earlier stayed at home had to step out and earn a living. Moreover, higher and widespread education entails that women are more open to realising their potential and becoming independent by entering the workplace. Taking over jobs previously held by men is a recent practice in Asia as compared to the West, which is going to take time to get used to as far as both men and women are concerned.”
Sadly, some men behave like wolves even though they are in committed relationships, “I was a junior resident and this sleazy senior resident with a bad reputation kept hitting on me. At one point I needed to go rest between shifts and he said, ‘why don’t you come and sleep in my bed?’” says Asma, once employed at a prominent hospital in Pakistan. “I was so angry! The next day, I exposed him in front all the staff members, which humiliated him and taught him a lesson to not mess with women. The worst part is that he was engaged and I feel sorry for his future wife!”
Despite the 2010 laws against sexual harassment (see Sherry Rehman’s interview), few women are willing to report the matter to authorities. According to Erum’s analysis, these victims feel that quitting is their only option, “Women resign because they are taught to compromise and stay silent. Silence means respectability. You are beaten, you remain silent; you are coerced into incest, you remain silent. Because if you make a noise then it is not the perpetrator who will suffer, it is the victim.
Ludicrously enough, it is believed that sexual harassment may have happened because the victim was provocative, the victim laughed too loud, was attractive, or independent. Anything you say or do will be held against you. It is the mantra of society where women’s plight is concerned.”
One single woman from Lahore who was harassed by her former landlord with threats of rape and sexual violence said, “Who shall we report it to? Even the police are men, and the attitude seems to be that if you are facing this you must have done something to deserve it.”
One couple did try reporting the matter. When Saima’s husband Aftab approached the Citizens-Police Liaison Committee (CPLC) in Karachi, he claims they asked him to just ignore the issue until it went away. An infuriated Aftab adds, “There is absolutely no recourse for women in this country.”
Although a working woman can be a victim of sexual harassment from any colleague, it seems that often, it is usually powerful male superiors who turn into predators. Erum adds, “Senior men usually are more secure in their positions and know the loopholes in their system and hence are able to manipulate individuals and rules alike.



Sheela, a Pakistani executive working in the UAE shares a story, “A few years back, I was mentoring a woman who was working in Islamabad and was recently divorced. She said that she was in desperate need of a job as she had to support herself and had to bear her living expenses. There was no support from her family for leaving her husband, plus the stigma of ‘being divorced’.Moreover, sexual harassment is less about lust and more about power, whereby men devalue a woman’s role in the workplace by actually emphasising her sexuality. According to Dr Gottman, a psychologist in the University of Washington, ‘sexual harassment is a subtle rape, and rape is more about fear than sex.”
On some probing, she revealed that her boss had somehow found out that she got recently divorced and was living alone. So every night he would arrive outside her home and invite her out for a drive and coffee. She was afraid that if she refused him, she may lose her job and also that if she could not control the situation diplomatically, things may move beyond ‘coffee’. Eventually, she had to leave her job solely because she refused to be available for the late night drives with her boss.”
Erum agrees, “Single, divorced and widowed women have one thing in common which is that there is no ‘husband’ backing them or providing them protection.” This, in our society, puts them in the ‘easy prey’ category as far as sexual harassers go.
“What we need is a wakeup call! Start educating sons about respecting human beings, be they male or female. More than the victim I would like to ask the family and society as a whole to step forward and provide protection and legal recourse to victims of sexual harassment. A person given justice is a person well served by society,” says Erum.
Sadly, it is the victims of sexual harassment who are often left feeling guilty. Erum advises, “As a psychologist I would say keep yourself safe. Learn to trust your instincts; if something does not feel right it probably is not. You have a right to be in a safe and secure environment. No one has the right to force you to do anything you do not wish to.”
Photo by Hussain Afzal
Erum would like to see organisations spruce up their Human Resource policies. “Such cases need to be addressed immediately, and with sensitivity and tact, so when something like this is reported, it is imperative that the person is put on probation on condition that he will undergo therapy. The individual will then be given a clean bill of mental health, so to speak, and only then will he be put off probation. The victim also needs to undergo psychotherapy to undo the trauma caused by the harasser. The expenses may be covered by the company.”
Men with a history of sexually harassing women may have the capacity to change, but the will to change needs to come from within. Erum digs into their psyche, “Sometimes people do not realise the pain they are causing, and so creating empathy for the person in the weaker position is something that needs to be addressed. One’s own insecurities lead one to coerce others into taking part in illicit or forced behaviour. The psyche of one who does this is immature and dysfunctional. The harasser may view the opposite sex as mere sex objects, or is very conservative in his thinking, believing women who step out to work as ones with loose morals or ‘easy’. He may also feel threatened by women in his workplace, and may resort to such means to undermine them.”
Meanwhile, as someone who has delivered talks at many organisations and schools, Sana Saleem believes that sexual harassment often begins at school, “It can be devastating for young children and I have seen it amongst 14-year-olds. Often, girls will, without thinking, put up pictures online and then it leads to harassment from classmates. In one case a father came to us talking about his friend’s daughter, who stopped going to school because of harassment.”
Sana believes that changes at organisational level are sorely needed. Bolo Bhi offers free talks, which she says should be taken advantage of. But she doesn’t advocate that women facing harassment should instantly react by resigning; instead they should fight back.
If it is sexual harassment through digital means from an anonymous source, Sana says that it is better to ignore such threats; as such people, protected by anonymity, thrive only on responses. But in case of a colleague or a boss, it is important to not only maintain evidence, but to clearly tell such people that their behaviour is a source of discomfort. However, it is often not the words but the tone of a comment which is inappropriate.
Predators who hide behind the ambiguity of harmless ‘jokes’, should be combated with technology, “Voice recorders are very important. Nowadays you can download a voice recording app on your smart phone, and use it to collect evidence”, says Sana. It isn’t the words but the tone of the comments you need to capture. Keep a record of everything and report it to management. The predators themselves will back off when you have evidence.”
http://www.dawn.com/news/1099622
In the mid-90s, an incident shook the Pakistani corporate world. Ayesha*, a female employee in a multinational pharmaceutical company complained of sexual harassment by her male superior. His inappropriate conduct wasn’t limited to her alone; many women from the organisation had dodged his advances and had adopted the ‘suffer-in-silence’ approach. Ayesha wasn’t going to be one of them. She stepped up and issued a verbal complaint to the management. And then all hell broke loose.
The management asked her, point blank, to take back her complaint since the culprit was a very senior member of the organisation and a ‘family man with grown up daughters.’ She refused. The harasser, in the company of another colleague, admitted to what he had done and told her to take back her complaint or suffer the consequences. Instead, she registered a written complaint and also contacted the regional management, who told her that they had full faith that the Pakistan office would handle her case fairly.
An inquiry committee had to be formed. The standard practice of inducting a female member was ignored, thus bringing into question the integrity of the committee. In an online statement to an advocacy group for civil liberties, she related, “The inquiry committee, instead of playing the role of an unbiased body, followed the lead of the management and formalised the intimidation process. In this instance it led to defamatory remarks, threats and ridicule by the higher management to coerce me to take back the complaint. The management threatened me and labelled me a ‘troublemaker’ and ‘whistleblower’.”
The list of witnesses she had issued to the management were individually tracked down one by one. Using both intimidation and reward tactics, the committee told those witnesses to withdraw their written statements regarding having suffered similar treatment by the culprit. One of the witnesses, who had taken a transfer from the culprit’s department because of his harassment towards her, even came out in support of him. Needless to say, the witnesses who changed their stance were all given promotions and sent on foreign trips once the investigation concluded.
Ayesha was forced to work under her harasser whose behaviour went from bad to worse — especially now since he realised that he could get away with murder in broad daylight. When she complained again, she was told to put up with it or leave. She chose the latter.
It was only 14 years later that the government of Pakistan would introduce a law criminalising workplace sexual harassment.

Safe on paper


On Jan 30, 2010 the Bill against Harassment of Women at the Workplace was signed into law by then president, Asif Ali Zardari. During its passage there had been strong criticism from religious parties, and last-minute amendments also extended the protection to men as a compromise.
But even four years later, many remain ignorant of its existence. However, with an increasing number of women joining the workforce in the corporate sector, many organisations have chosen to adopt their own Standard Operating Procedures when it comes to the handling of a complaint regarding sexual harassment in the workplace. Having said that, these organisations often don’t make it a point to make their employees aware of the existence of such policies. As a result, these questions are left unanswered: What is the procedure to file complaints, how are they to be handled and what are the repercussions for harassing another colleague?

Bullying by numbers


It isn’t just men who may engage in inappropriate and intimidating conduct, and sometimes both male and female colleagues will gang up against the victim of harassment.
“We once hired a woman, a fresh graduate, very bright and one of the best in that department,” related Hasan who has been working at a top managerial position in a media-buying house for several years now. “She used to wear sleeveless outfits and a group consisting of several female and male colleagues began giving her lectures on morality.”
She immediately went and complained to her boss. “I didn’t take it seriously at first,” said Hasan, “I thought it was a passing phase. She wasn’t attracting any kind of vulgar attention and what she wore was her personal business anyway. But the second time when she complained, she broke down crying in my office. That’s when I knew things had gotten serious.”
The harassment by her colleagues, instead of dying down, had only become worse. It came to a point where she was having difficulty doing her work. “We filed a complaint with the HR and, as per policy, a woman manager was inducted into the investigating team,” said Hasan, “Eventually that group was made to apologise to her.”

Unspoken policy: no woman, no cry


Ask a group of people employed in the corporate sector in which industry they believe women enjoy the same treatment as their male colleagues at work, or where the chances of them being sexually harassed are at a minimum, and the most common response you get is banking or advertising.
While the participation of women is very prominent in both of these sectors, it emerges there are a few banks and advertising agencies that have an ‘unspoken policy’ of not hiring women at all! Some go as far as to restrict their male employees from even receiving any female guests.
When asked why, responses ranged from claims that women are unable to spend as many hours at work as compared to men or that women are a ‘distraction’ to their male colleagues and ruin the ‘environment’ at the office. Finally what also emerges is an institutional unwillingness to deal with potential sexual harassment complaints.
“While visiting a friend’s advertising agency, it took me a while to figure out what was odd about the place,” said Asad, who also works in advertising. “I realised there was not a single woman … anywhere!” says a surprised Asad. “This was rather strange, because you expect to find women in such a workplace, if for nothing else then to contribute to the women’s product market at least. When I asked my friend he laughed and said they’ve had issues before, where employees have gotten ‘involved’ and things have gotten ‘ugly’ so now to prevent that they simply don’t hire women.”
According to them, prevention is better than cure. If there are no women, there is going to be no sexual harassment. Academic studies in the subject, however, show that segregation fuels sexual harassment instead of diminishing it. Adopting a policy based on avoidance is not a solution.

Fatal attraction: when the roles are reversed


“I came across a very strange case once,” related Fahad*, who works in local bank. “An acquaintance worked in the head office of a bank and soon after he joined, he became the object of the somewhat indecent attention of his female boss.” He did not return her affectation and that became a source of problem at work. From harmless flirting, the boss’s behaviour slowly started to become aggressive.
“He would be called into her office at the smallest of pretexts and plied with questions about his personal life, asked out for dinner (which he’d politely refuse) and his interaction with other female colleagues was closely monitored,” said Fahad, “He was even told by his boss that she didn’t approve of him interacting with them! Every time she made a pass at him and he wouldn’t respond, she would find an excuse to berate him in front of his other colleagues. He didn’t know what to do!”
Needless to say the man was mortified. Going to his colleagues and complaining would only invite teasing from their side. After all, what kind of a man doesn’t want attention from another woman? Most importantly, ‘real’ men don’t get bullied by women. Eventually, he decided to quit and find employment in another organisation.
The general assumption might be that only women are harassed, but the opposite can also hold true. Where most women don’t register complaints for fear of having their reputations ruined by defamatory remarks, the stigma surrounding men being harassed by women very much exists and is a cause of great mental and emotional stress by the victims. Men often ask themselves the same questions women do in a similar situation: “Whom do I go to? Who will believe me? Will this blow up in my own face instead?”
Names of all of the people mentioned in the article have been changed to protect privacy
One step Forward:
In January 2010, the Senate unanimously passed The Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Bill amid strong criticism from religious parties, further amending the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Though last-minute amendments extended protection to men — an apparent compromise — this legislation pertains to an amendment in the Pakistan Penal Code, Section 509, to include the definition of sexual harassment, making it a criminal offence at home, on streets and at workplaces, with a punishment of up to three years imprisonment and a maximum fine of Rs500,000. It defines sexual harassment as “any unwelcome sexual advance, request for sexual favours, or other verbal or written communication or physical conduct of a sexual nature or sexually demeaning attitudes, causing interference with work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment or the attempt to punish the complainant for refusal to comply to such a request or to make it a condition for employment.”
The law calls for all registered organisations and the public sector to institute a code of conduct, which is basically an anti-sexual harassment policy that includes the formation of a three-member standing committee to deal with complaints. After an inquiry, the committee will recommend penalties/punishment which the management must execute. In case the owner or a senior manager is implicated, an employee will have the choice of going outside the organisation to file a complaint with the Federal Ombudsperson, specifically for this purpose.
As Minister for Women Development in 2008, Ambassador Sherry Rehman, who has also authored other pro-women bills, such as the Women Empowerment Bill, the Domestic Violence Prevention Bill, and Anti-Honour Killings Bill, initiated legislation for The Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Bill which she explains was necessary to support women in the workplace. In an interview with Dawn Ms Rehman talks of the challenging course adopted to protect women’s rights.
Q) When The Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Bill was passed critics said it was un-Islamic. What were the challenges at the time?
A) Critics of human rights legislation have always used religion to skew the debate and orchestrate opinion against change. I took up this bill as the one thing I would get done in the three months I had as Federal Minister for Women’s Development as additional portfolio. I was supposed to ‘just look after it’ until it went to another cabinet colleague in the Nawaz League. I decided not to waste the opportunity of holding the portfolio and called in women from all political parties; women’s rights activists and federal secretaries from the law, labour and women’s ministries for consultative meetings. We would roundtable with these people, who all had objections as well as ideas; one of our objectives was to ensure that the bill would not just get flagged as anti-Islamic, because there really was no reason for it to be treated as such. Given that Islam does offer protections to women, I cited such clauses in the non-written preamble.
At the early stages though, hurdles came from the politics of government and not from the bill itself, which is usually the case. The labour ministry opposed it strongly, because they felt that their laws already allowed for adequate protections and saw it as an invasion of their turf. So I made sure I kept the Labour Minister, an old PPP colleague, on board and withdrew his bureaucracy’s objections.
Q) It’s an assumption that certain male parliamentarians would oppose pro-women legislation, but did you have trouble convincing women legislators, especially from the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (JUI-F) and Jamaat-i-Islami (JI)? Was support easily available from female legislators across party lines?
A) Most women did support it. But treasury bills have to get past the cabinet before they go to the parliament and this is not always easy. My plan was to take it to the cabinet before the ministry went into the doldrums with someone not passionate about human rights legislation. So I thrashed out the objections, added value and had it presented at a cabinet meeting. At the cabinet meeting we got road-blocked by two ministries that had been involved from day one. First, what was shocking was the briefing by the women’s ministry secretary. He made it sound like a bill that should not get past the cabinet into parliament for voting and committee scrutiny.
So while he could not oppose the bill, he did all he could to block it until the last day. After his disastrous presentation to the Prime Minister, the Law Minister just outright opposed it.
A stunt like this normally kills all such bills, but I made my own presentation to the cabinet and appealed to Prime Minister Gilani that this was a PPP government and that we need to pass such laws. He overruled the Law Minister and consulted the two other women — Samina Gurkhi and Shahnaz Wazir Ali — present in the cabinet that day, to see if they agreed with me (which they did). Following that, he allowed it to get past the cabinet in principle, which is what we needed. I made sure this decision became irreversible. As I was also the Information Minister who conducted the cabinet briefing, I took the Prime Minister’s permission to announce it to the media that day, because once that is done, the government has to try and carry it through the parliament over the objections of other ministries. And that is exactly what happened. Later, when the bill got stuck after a year in parliament because of objections raised by powerful ministers and the JUI-F, it was the same cabinet colleagues and women across party lines who kept pursuing it with the Prime Minister and the President. A year later, we gave the JUI-F the concession of having the law become gender-neutral, which means it would protect male victims as well. There was much quibbling and hair-splitting on language, but it got done in the Speaker’s office over a meeting. Many women came forward, and we are grateful to all of them for this truly collaborative outcome.
Q) When Alliance Against Sexual Harassment (ASHA) drafted a code of conduct which also served as the foundation of The Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Bill, women politicians and those within the women’s ministry had lobbied for the bill. How significant was ASHA’s lobbying and what role do women activists play when it comes to pressurising and getting parliamentarians to move bills and draw attention to issues of significance?
A) ASHA was the non-governmental organisation, and Fouzia Saeed brought the bill to me initially; it is a result of their draft and later much lobbying that we got it passed. The bill would never have passed without the women who collaborated on this, both within and outside the parliament. Fouzia also continues to monitor responses to it and owns it in ways legislators cannot once the law is passed. So in a sense this bill is the best example of a law made in collaboration with civil society, which was the initiator of the draft, and also carried its implementation forward.
Q) Many point to the weaknesses and legal loopholes in this bill saying it was a good idea to initiate but not easy to implement with various kinds of working environments and harassment cases within universities. Would you agree?
A) There may be many flaws, but getting it passed was the actual goal; flaws can be ironed out later on. This is one law that is actually being enforced in many private sector entities. I myself saw it being used in the public sector. I was on the board of Quaid-i-Azam University, for instance, where we actually used the law to address complaints and the Higher Education Commission took our use of it as a roadmap for other institutions under its purview. I have never seen such proactivity for progressive laws.
There may be an onerous number of cases, obviously, where it doesn’t get applied or loopholes get exploited, but that would be the case for any law, anywhere in the world. We do need to start somewhere and as time goes by, usage can dictate amendments. No law is perfect, nor is it immune from reform. Most bills are works-in-progress. The important thing is establishing the principle. Now it is hard to take this law back as well as the principle that the state has to stand up to protect a woman or man being harassed in the workplace.
Q) Should there be government-led monitoring organisations perhaps under provincial women’s ministries to check that organisations/work places are implementing the law?
A) Yes, this is what the Provincial Women’s Ombudsman should be doing. This was my suggestion, so it also becomes an option for appeal between the public step of going to a court and the private and often predatory accommodations of an office committee.
http://www.dawn.com/news/1099503/one-step-forward


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Humanity, Religion, Culture, Ethics, Science, Spirituality & Peace
Peace Forum Network
Over 1,000,000 Visits
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Oppression, injustice to women!


..



           Free eBook: 
  1. Click here to read online or download PDF 
  2. Online or Download as Google Doc  or formats of choice
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Pronouncing three Times divorce [Talaq] in one go is un-Islamic

Islam does not hold Tripple Talaq as Lawful
There is a common misconception that a man can say Talaq, Talaq, Talaq to his wife in a row and it will lead to Talaq. This is totally an unIslamic practice.

While marriage is the rule of life, and divorce only an exception, the latter must also be accepted as a reality. Indeed there already exist commandments to deal, accordingly, with such cases in both divine and human laws.
The only true, authentic representation of divine law now exists in the form of the Qur’an, it having been preserved in its entirety by God and free, therefore, from all human interpolations. In the Qur’an, and in the Hadith, there are various commandments regarding divorce, the main point being that divorce should be sought only under unavoidable circumstances. The Prophet spoke of it as being the most hateful of all the lawful things in the eyes of God, and said that when it does take place, it should be done in an atmosphere of good will. In no way should one harbor ill will against the other. Abu Dawud, Sunan, Kitab at-Talaq, 2/255

Just think of couples wasting away the whole of their lives in mental torment only because the conditions of separation and its consequences are hard to meet. It is as unnatural as anything can be.

Islam is a natural religion. Such a situation has not developed in Muslim communities because Islamic law on marriage and divorce provides for all, or almost all, eventualities. For example, when a woman wishes to divorce her husband, she has to put her case before a religious scholar, or a body of religious scholars. They then give consideration to her circumstances in the light of the Qur’an and the Hadith, and, if they find that there are reasonable grounds for separation, they decide in her favor. The reason that the woman must have scholars to act on her behalf is that women are more emotional than men-as has been proved by scientific research-and it is to prevent hasty and ill-considered divorces taking place that she is thus advised. If we seldom hear of Muslim women committing suicide, or being murdered by their in-laws, it is because they have the alterative - separation.

Separation, of course, is strongly advised against in the case of minor provocations. Are we not commanded by God to be tolerant and forgiving? It is meant only as a last resort, when it has become truly unavoidable.
Islamic law is thus fair to both husband and wife, unlike occidental law, which places an undue burden on the man, while Hindu society forces the woman into familial rejection, destitution and social ostracism.

Divorce in Islam

Nature demands that men and women lead their lives together. The ideal way of leading such a life is, according to the shari‘ah, within the bonds of marriage. In Islam, marriage is both a civil contract entered into by mutual consent of the bride and groom, and a highly sacred bond to which great religious and social importance is attached.

However, in the knowledge that an excess of legal constraints can lead to rebellion, such injunctions have been kept to a realistic minimum and have been formulated to be consistent with normal human capabilities. Moreover, their enforcement is less relied upon than the religious conditioning of the individual to ensure the maintenance of high ethical standards and appropriate conduct in marital affairs and family life.

The state of marriage not only lays the foundations for family life, but also provides a training ground for individuals to make a positive adjustment to society. When a man and woman prove to be a good husband and a good wife, they will certainly prove to be good citizens in the broad spectrum of their social group. This has been aptly expressed in a Hadith: “The best of you is one who is best for his family.” Ibn Majah, Sunan, Kitab an-Nikah, 1/636

The family being the preliminary unit for the training of human beings, its disintegration has an injurious effect on the society to which those human beings must individually make a positive contribution, if collectively they are to form a good and just nation. If the family no longer exists, it is the whole of humanity, which suffers.

Once a man and a woman are tied together in the bonds of matrimony, they are expected to do their utmost, till the day they die to honor and uphold what the Qur’an calls their firm contract, or pledge. (Qur’an, 4:21) To this end, the full thrust of the Shariah is leveled at preventing the occurrence of divorce; the laws it lays down in this regard exist primarily, therefore, as checks, not incentives.

Islam regards marriage as an extremely desirable institution, hence its conception of marriage as the rule of life, and divorce only as an exception to that rule. According to a Hadith, the Prophet Muhammad said, “Marriage is one of my Sunnah (way). One who does not follow it does not belong to me.” Ibn Majah, Sunan, Kitab an-Nikah.

When a mail and a woman live together as husband and wife, it is but natural that they should have their differences, it being a biological and psychological fact that each man and each woman born into this world are by their very nature quite different from each other. That is why the sole method of having unity in this world is to live unitedly in spite of differences. This can be achieved only through patience and tolerance; virtues advocated by the Prophet not only in a general sense, but, more importantly, in the particular context of married life. Without these qualities, there can be no stability in the bond of marriage. According to Abu Hurayrah, the Prophet said, “No believing man should bear any grudge against a believing woman. If one of her ways is not to his liking, there must be many things about her that would please him. “Muslim, Sahih, Kitab ar-Rada’, 2/1091

It is an accepted fact that everyone has his strengths and his weaknesses, his plus points and his minus points. This is equally true of husbands and wives. In the marital situation, the best policy is for each partner to concentrate on the plus points of the other, while ignoring the minus points. If a husband and wife can see the value of this maxim and consciously adopt it as the main guiding principle in their lives, they will have a far better chance of their marriage remaining stable.

However, it sometimes happens, with or without reason, that unpleasantness crops up, and goes on increasing between husband and wife, with no apparent indication of their being able to smooth things out by themselves. Their thinking about each other in a way that is conditioned by their maladjustment prevents them from arriving at a just settlement of their differences, based on facts rather than on opinions. In such a case, the best strategy according to the Qur’an is to introduce a third party who will act as an arbiter. Not having any previous association with the matters under dispute, he will remain dispassionate and will be able to arrive at an objective decision acceptable to both parties.

For any arbiter to be successful, however, the husband and wife must also adopt the correct attitude. Here is an incident from the period of the four pious Caliphs, which will illustrate this point.

When ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib reigned as fourth Caliph, a married couple complaining of marital discord came to him to request a settlement. In the light of the above-mentioned Qur’anic guidance ‘Ali ordered that a board of arbiters, one from the husband’s family and one from the wife’s family, be set up, which should make proper enquiries into the circumstances and then give its verdict. This verdict was to be accepted without argument by both sides.

As recorded in the book, Jami’ al-Bayan, by at-Tabari, the woman said that she gave her consent, on the book of God, whether the verdict was for or against her. But the man protested that he would not accept the verdict if it was for separation. ‘Ali said, “What you say is improper. By God, you cannot move from here until you have shown your willingness to accept the verdict of the arbiters in the same spirit as the woman has shown.”

This makes it clear that a true believer should wholeheartedly accept the arbiters and their verdict in accordance with the Qur’anic injunctions. Once their verdict is given, there should be no further dispute.

Two Ways of Divorcing

However, it has to be conceded that life does not always function smoothly, like a machine. Despite all safeguards, it sometimes does happen that a couple reaches a stage of such desperation that they become intent on separation. Here the Shariah gives them guidance in that it prescribes a specific method for separation. The Qur’an expresses it thus: “Divorce may be pronounced twice, then a woman must be retained in honor or allowed to go with kindness.” Qur’an, 2:229

This verse has been interpreted to mean that a man who has twice given notice of divorce over a period of two months should remember God before giving notice a third time. Then he should either keep his spouse with him in a spirit of goodwill, or he should release her without doing her any injustice.

This method of divorce prescribed by the Qur’an, i.e. taking three months to finalize it, makes it impossible for a man seeking divorce suddenly to cast his wife aside. Once he has said to his wife (who should not at this time be menstruating), “I divorce you,” both are expected to think the situation over for a whole month. If the man has a change of opinion during this period, he can withdraw his words. If not, he will again say, “I divorce you,” (again his wife should be in a state of “purity”) and they must again review the situation for a further month. Even at this stage, the husband has the right to revoke the proceedings if he has had a change of heart. If, however, in the third month, he says,“I divorce you,” the divorce becomes final and the man ceases to have any right to revoke it. Now he is obliged to part with his wife in a spirit of good will, and give her full rights.

This prescribed method of divorce has ensured that it is a well-considered, planned arrangement and not just a rash step taken in a fit of emotion. When we remember that in most cases, divorce is the result of a fit of anger, we realize that the prescribed method places a tremendous curb on divorce. It takes into account the fact that anger never lasts -- tempers necessarily cool down after some time-¬and that those who feel like divorcing their wives in a fit of anger will certainly repent their emotional outburst and will wish to withdraw from the position it has put them in. It also takes into account the fact that divorce is a not a simple matter: it amounts to the breaking up of the home and destroying the children’s future. It is only when tempers have cooled down that the dire consequences of divorce are realized, and the necessity to revoke the decision becomes clear.

When a man marries a woman, he has to say only once that he accepts her as his spouse. But for divorce, the Qur’an enjoins a three-month period for it to be formalized. That is, for marriage, one utterance is enough, but for a divorce to be finalized, three utterances are required, between which a long gap has been prescribed by the shari‘ah. The purpose of this gap is to give the husband sufficient time to revise his decision, and to consult the well-wishers around him. It also allows time for relatives to intervene in the hopes of persuading both husband and wife to avoid a divorce. Without this gap, none of these things could be achieved. That is why divorce proceedings have to be spread out over a long period of time.

All these preventive measures clearly allow frayed tempers to cool, so that the divorce proceedings need not reach a stage that is irreversible. Divorce, after all, has no saving graces, particularly in respect of its consequences. It simply amounts to ridding oneself of one set of problems only to become embroiled in another set of problems.

Despite all such preventive measures, it does sometimes happen that a man acts in ignorance, or is rendered incapable of thinking coolly by a fit of anger. Then on a single occasion, in a burst of temper, he utters the word “divorce” three times in a row, “talaq, talaq, talaq!” Such incidents, which took place in the Prophet’s lifetime, still take place even today. Now the question arises as to how the would-be divorcer should be treated. Should his three utterances of talaq be treated as only one, and should he then be asked to extend his decision over a three-month period? Or should his three utterances of talaq on a single occasion be equated with the three utterances of talaq made separately over a three-month period? There is a Hadith recorded by Imam Abu Dawud and several other traditionists which can give us guidance in this matter: Rukana ibn Abu Yazid said “talaq” to his wife three times on a single occasion. Then he was extremely sad at the step he had taken. The Prophet asked him exactly how he had divorced her. He replied that he had said “talaq” to her three times in a row. The Prophet then observed, “All three count as only one. If you want, you may revoke it.” Fath al-Bari, 9/275

A man may say “talaq” to his wife three times in a row, in contravention of the shari‘ah’s prescribed method, thereby committing a sin, but if he was known to be in an emotionally overwrought state at the time his act may be considered a mere absurdity arising from human weakness. His three utterances of the word talaq may be taken as an expression of the intensity of his emotions and thus the equivalent of only one such utterance. He is likely to be told that, having transgressed a shari‘ah law, he must seek God’s forgiveness, must regard his three utterances as only one, and must take a full three months to arrive at his final decision.

In the first phase of Islam, however, a different view of divorce was taken by the second Caliph, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab. An incident that illustrates his viewpoint was thus described by Imam Muslim.

In the Prophet’s lifetime, then under the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and also during the early period of the Caliphate of ‘Umar, three utterances of talaq on one occasion used to be taken together as only one utterance. Then it occurred to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab that in spite of the fact that a system had been laid down which permitted the husband to withdraw his first, or even second talaq, men still wanted to rush into divorce. He felt that if they were bent on being hasty, why should not a rule be imposed on them binding them to a final divorce on the utterance of talaq three times in a row. And he proceeded to impose such a rule.

This act on the part of the second Caliph, apparently against the principles of the Qur’an and Sunnah, did not in any way change the law of the shari‘ah. To think that this led to any revision of Islamic law would be to misunderstand the situation: the Caliph’s order merely constituted an exception to the rule, and was, moreover, of a temporary nature. This aptly demonstrates how the Islamic shari‘ah may make concessions in accordance with circumstances.

Each law of the shari‘ah may be eternal, but a Muslim ruler has the power to make exceptions in the case of certain individuals in special sets of circumstances. However, such a ruling will not take on the aspect of an eternal law. It will be purely temporary in nature and duration.

It is a matter of Islamic historical record that when any such person was brought before ‘Umar for having uttered the word talaq three times on one occasion, he held this to be rebellious conduct and would order him to be flogged on the back. Fath al-Bari, 9/275

Perhaps the most important aspect of this matter is that when ‘Umar gave his exceptional verdict on divorce being final after the third utterance on a single occasion of the word talaq, his position was not that of a powerless ‘alim (scholar) but of a ruler invested with the full power to punish-as a preventive measure-anyone who went against Qur’anic injunctions. This was to discourage haste in divorce. By accepting a man’s three talaqs on the one occasion as final and irrevocable, he caused him to forfeit his right to revoke his initial decision, thus leaving him with no option but to proceed with the divorce.

On the other hand, the Caliph had it in his power to fully compensate any woman affected by this ruling. For instance, he was in a position to guarantee her an honorable life in society and if, due to being divorced, she was in need of financial assistance, he could provide her with continuing maintenance from the government exchequer, baitul mal, etc.

Today, anyone who cites ‘Umar’s ruling as a precedent in order to justify the finality of a divorce based on three utterances of the word talaq on a single occasion should remember that his verdict will remain. Unenforceable for the simple reason that he does not have the powers that ‘Umar, as Caliph, possessed. ‘Umar’s verdict was that of a powerful ruler of the time and not just that of a common man. It is necessary at this point to clear certain misunderstandings which have arisen about the extent of agreement which existed on ‘Umar’s ruling. Of all the Prophet’s Companions who were present at Medina at that time, perhaps the only one to disagree was ‘Ali. As a result of this, certain ‘ulama have come to the conclusion that the Prophet’s followers (Sahabah) had reached a consensus (‘ijma) on this matter. Rawai’ ai-Boyan, 1/334

But the consensus reached was not on the general issue of divorce, but on the right of Muslim rulers to make temporary and exceptional rulings, as had been done by ‘Umar. It is obvious that the Companions of the Prophet could never have agreed to annul a Qur’anic injunction or to modify for all time to come a prescribed system of divorce. All that was agreed upon was that exceptional circumstances warranted exceptional rulings on the part of the Caliph. He was entitled to punish in any manner he thought fitting, anyone who digressed from the shari‘ah. This right possessed by the ruler of the time is clearly established in the shari‘ah. Many other instances, not necessarily relating to personal disputes, can be cited of his exercise of this right.

The Meaning of Provision

In Islamic jurisprudence, the material arrangements that a man makes for his divorced spouse are termed “divorce provision.” There is a consensus among Muslim scholars that this provision in no way means life-long maintenance, there being absolutely no basis for this in the divine scriptures. The concept of maintenance for life is, in fact, a product of modem civilization. It was never at any time enshrined in divine laws, either in Islam, Judaism or Christianity. In material terms ‘provision’ simply takes the form of a gift handed over by the man on parting, so that the woman’s immediate needs may be catered for, and in all cases, this is quite commensurate with his means.

But the Qur’an makes it explicit that the parting must above all be humane and that justice must be done: “Provide for them with fairness; the rich man according to his means, and the poor according to his. This is binding on righteous men. Do not forget to show kindness to each other... reasonable provision should also be made for divorced women. That is incumbent on righteous men.” Qur’an, 2:236.

When divorce takes place before the settling of the dowry and the consummation of the marriage, even then the man must give the woman money or goods as a gesture of goodwill. In this instance the question of his repaying dowry money does not arise. The Qur’an is also quite explicit on this,

“Believers, if you marry believing women and divorce them before the marriage is consummated, you have no right to require them to observe a waiting period. Provide well for them and release them honorably.” - Qur’an, 33:49.

This “waiting period” (iddah) actually applies to a woman who has been married for some time and who may, subsequent to the divorce, discover that she is pregnant. This statutory waiting period of three months makes her position clear and then the man is required to pay her additional compensation if she is expecting his child. But again there is no question of maintenance for life, for the Qur’an seeks a natural solution to all human problems. It would, therefore, be wholly against the spirit of the Qur’an for a woman to be entitled to life maintenance from the very man with whom she could not co¬exist. Such a ruling would surely have created a negative mentality in society. The Qur’an again has the answer: “If they separate, God will compensate each of them out of His own abundance: He is Munificent, Wise.’’ - Qur’an, 4:130

The munificence of God refers to the vast provision that God has made for his servants in this world.

In various ways God helps such distressed people. For example, when a woman is divorced, it is but natural that the sympathy of all her blood relations should be aroused. And, as a result, without any pressure being put on them, they are willing to help and look after her. Besides, a new will power is awakened in such a woman and she sets about exploiting her hidden potentialities, thus solving her problems independently. Furthermore, previous experiences having left her wiser and more careful, she feels better equipped to enter into another marital relationship with more success.

After Divorce

The question that arises immediately after divorce is of ways and means to meet one’s necessary expenses. . One’s answer is to resort to the Islamic law of inheritance. If women were to be given their due share according to Islamic law, there would be no question of a woman becoming destitute. But, sad to say, the majority of Muslim women fail to get their due share of inheritance from their deceased fathers and husbands as stipulated by Islamic law. If they could do so, this would be more than enough to meet such emergencies.

However, Islam has not just left women’s financial problems to the vagaries of inheritance, because parents are not invariably in possession of property that can be divided among their children. Further arrangements have been made under the maintenance law, but this has no connection with the law of divorce. The answer to this question must be sought therefore in the Islamic law of maintenance. Here we shall briefly describe some of its aspects:

1. In case the divorced woman is childless or the children are not earning, according to Islamic law, the responsibility for her maintenance falls on her father. That is, her situation will be the same as it was before marriage.

To quote from Path al-Qadir (A standard book on Islamic Law):

The Father is responsible for bearing the expenses of his daughter till her marriage, in the event of her having no money. The father has no right to force her to earn, even if she is able to. When the girl is divorced and the period of confinement is over, her father shall again have to bear her expenses.

2. If the divorced woman has a son who is an earning member of the family, the responsibility for her maintenance falls entirely upon him.

All that rightfully belongs to a wife will be the duty of the son to provide, that is, food, drink, clothes, house and even servants, if possible. Ibn ‘Abidin, Ramal-Mukhtar ‘ala ad-Durr al-Mukhtar, 2/733

3. In the case of the father being deceased, and where even her children are unable to earn, her nearest relatives such as brothers or uncles are responsible for her upkeep. In the absence of even this third form, the Islamic shari‘ah holds the State Treasury (baitul mal) responsible for bearing her expenses. She will be entitled to receive the money for her necessities.

Because of the number of provisions made under Islamic law for women it has never been the case in Islamic history that Muslim divorced women have been cast adrift, helpless, with no one to look after them.

Indian columnist, Khushwant Singh has remarked that we do not hear of Muslim women committing suicide or being tortured like Hindu women, which is a proof that Islam has already given them adequate liberty and has- made enough provision for them to be supported in times of emergencies.

A new dimension has been added to the issue since the women of this day and age can leave their homes to work, and are therefore not as entirely dependent on men as they used to be in the past: there is no need then to make laws which provide for them at the expense of their men folk. When they are earning like men, what is the point in making such a law? Only in exceptional cases, surely, do they need to be looked after, and ways and means of doing so can generally be worked out quite satisfactorily on a personal level.
By Molana Waheed ud Din Khan: http://cpsglobal.org

Notes
1.  Encyclopaedia Britannica (1984), vol. 7, pp. 163Q64.
2.  Ibid.
3.  Ibid.
4.  Bertrand Russell, Autobiography, (London, 1978), pp. 563-564.
5.  The Hindustan Times, (New Delhi), October 12, 1985.
6.  Abu Dawud, Sunan, Kitab at-Talaq, 2/255.
7.  Qur’an, 2:236.
8.  Qur’an, 33:49.
9.  Qur’an, 4:130.
10.  Ibn Majah, Sunan, Kitab an-Nikah, 1/636.
11.  Qur’an, 4:21.
12.  Ibn Majah, Sunan, Kitab an-Nikah.
13.  Abu Dawud, Sunan, Kitab at-Talaq, 2/255.
14.  Muslim, Sahih, Kitab ar-Rada’, 2/1091.
15.  Qur’an, 2:229.
16.  Fath al-Bari, 9/275.
17.  Fath al-Bari, 9/275.
18.  Rawai’ ai-Boyan, 1/334.
19.  A standard book on Islamic Law.
20.  AI-Shaokani, Fath al Qadir, 3/344.
21.  Ibn ‘Abidin, Ram al-Mukhtar ‘ala ad-Durr al-Mukhtar, 2/733.
For further information, contact us at info@
Videos More>>>>>>

Search Results


  1. 3 three talaq divorce in islam.flv - YouTube

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fuPRB_KUdg

    Feb 18, 2010 - Uploaded by islam1234uk
    the true and right concept of the most controversial issue of divorce explained by Dr zakir naik, muslims can ...

  2. Three divorces at once - Sheikh Dr. Muhammad Salah - YouTube

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTFVS8RPyL4

    May 12, 2013 - Uploaded by Call to Islam Dawah
    Three divorces at once - Sheikh Dr. Muhammad Salah ... What if housband says divorce three times - Sheikh Assim Al Hakeemby Call to Islam ...

  3. What if housband says divorce three times - Sheikh Assim Al Hakeem - YouTube

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVzGA57AvC8

    Jan 2, 2013 - Uploaded by Call to Islam Dawah
    ... on the Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Call-To-Islam/396274540429922. ... What if housband saysdivorce three times - Sheikh Assim Al Hakeem.... Ruling on taking your wife back after Divorceby Imam Karim  ...

  4. Three Divorce in Islam Beautiful explanation By Respected Dr Israr Ahmad (Rehmatullah Aliah) - YouTube

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD68e2QmO_k

    Feb 3, 2013 - Uploaded by DrIsrarisgreat
    Three Divorce in Islam Beautiful explanation By Respected Dr Israr ... says divorce three times - Sheikh Assim Al Hakeemby Call to Islam  ...

           Free eBook: 

Featured post

Front Page

Generally it is believed that in Islam the women are mistreated, their status is lower than men and they do not enjoy equal rights. ...