The New York Times this week reported that Pakistan may, possibly, could perhaps relax the Hudood Ordinance; a set of decrees which, among many clauses, states that if a woman reports a rape, she must prove her case with four male witnesses, or else face imprisonment and trial for adultery.
As my roommate so delicately put it: “In fucking what situation would there be four male witnesses?!”
The Zina Ordinance, enacted in 1977 along with other measures in the Hudood, was intended to put Pakistan law more in line with the values and teachings of Islam. The Zina states that consensual sex between a man and woman, not married and not planning to get married, is a punishable crime. If, however, one party can prove that the sex was not consensual, the ordinance will not apply; of course, the necessary four adult males are rarely present at the scene of the crime to prove that a rape has indeed occurred.
Rape is not a fun issue to talk about, nor is it an easy one, but that doesn’t excuse the fact that the U.S. government is not engaging in that dialogue. No one from the Bush administration has taken the time to expressly urge Pakistan President Musharraf to abolish archaic rape statutes; although Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice recently issued praise for Pakistan’s attempts at “enlightened moderation” (which includes some easing of the Hudood laws), the U.S. has issued no statement illustrating our nation’s firm opposition to all instances wherein rape victims are punished for the crime that someone else has committed.
This repeated victimization of women, once by a rapist and then by the government, certainly constitutes a human rights violation of the most disturbing kind. The rape laws of the Hudood also stand to seriously discourage women from reporting assaults; why go to the authorities when you, the victim, will then be accused of adultery?
Hudood laws aside, if a Pakistani woman, or a woman belonging to most any Islamic community goes to the authorities with details of a rape, she has already put herself in an uncomfortable situation, due to a religious tradition that prizes sexual discretion.
In her essay critiquing Pakistani rape laws, Asifa Quraishi (who was on the Board of Advisor for Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights and a Member of the California Bar), writes that “The Qur’an contemplates a society in which one does not engage in publicizing others’ sexual indiscretions. Qur’anic principles honor privacy and dignity over the violation of law.”
And so the rape victim is victimized yet again; along with undergoing an assault and facing the crime of adultery, the victim may feel guilty or ashamed – or be made to feel that way by family and community – for speaking publicly about sex.
Although President Musharraf has yet to find the balance between holding onto important Islamic ideals and creating a society in which women are not triply victimized for rape, Quraishi’s essay offers important insight into why Hudood may be counter to the Quran.
Quraishi explains that the Hudood’s stipulation of four witnesses emerged from a tradition of punishing public indecency, rather than doubting the validity of a rape victim’s testimony; officials were simply more interested in prosecuting sexual acts offensive enough to be seen by four people, rather than sexual assaults occurring in the private sphere (perhaps because the document was authored by men, with no personal concern for the experience of rape victims).
The Quran, however, specifically notes that it is inappropriate to speculate upon the sexual activity of women. The Hudood ironically attempts to enforce public decency by demanding that rape victims undergo speculation and judgment in a courtroom. Women are forced to subvert their own religious
inclinations in order to convince a court that rape has indeed occurred, in order to avoid prosecution for adultery. Even if a woman does not wish to report a rape, should she finds herself pregnant and without the necessary witnesses to the rape, there is no choice but to stand trial for adultery.
Thankfully, a substantial amount of Pakistani citizens have at last come forth in agreement that rape laws should be changed. Mir Ibrahim Rahman, chief executive of a popular Pakistani television network has criticized the Hudood laws extensively; the New York Times notes that Rahman’s public seminars
decrying rape case legal practices may be one major reason that
Musharraf assented to the recent release of 1,300 out of the approximately 4,621 women currently in jail for Hudood violations.
The Pakistani president is off to a good start, and it is the duty of the United States to not only give a loud holler of approval, but to push for further rape law……? reform.
The United States cannot call itself a progressive, humanitarian nation if we do not publicly stand in solidarity with the persecuted rape victims of Pakistan; Rice’s praise of Musharraf ought to be tempered by the fact that he still has a long way to go.
[email protected]
PUNISHING the victim
Daily Emerald
July 10, 2006
0
More to Discover