Pakistan’s Domestic Violence Bill Is an Attack on Islam

I really cannot overstate how terrible this new bill is. Liberal and feminist Pakistanis are really trying to destroy the country.

Dawn:

The Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Bill, 2021, was initially moved in the NA by Human Rights Minister Shireen Mazari on April 19, 2021, and was passed by the Lower House the same day.

Through this act, a legal and institutional framework had been proposed for the territorial jurisdiction of Islamabad to ensure that victims of domestic violence were provided legal protection and relief and the perpetrators of this offence were punished, Mazari had said.

The bill was then referred to the Senate, where the opposition had defeated the government by one vote to block the immediate passage of the proposed law, insisting that the bill be referred to the relevant standing committee for further deliberation.

Only one vote stopped this bill from being passed. One vote!

Are the Pakistani legislators all that liberal that they are willing to pass this anti-Islam bill?

Thankfully, some opposition has been voiced.

In the letter dated July 5, 2021, Awan has pointed out that the bill, initially passed by the National Assembly (NA) in April this year, was referred back to the Lower House of Parliament after the Senate suggested amendments to the proposed law.

The letter further states that concerns have been raised “regarding various definitions and other contents of the bill.”

It adds: “Most importantly it is being highlighted that the bill contravenes the Islamic [injunctions] and way of life as enshrined in responsibility of the state in Article 31 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Yes, exactly. This bill completely contravenes the Islamic way of life. In fact, it contravenes every form of life.

This bill is putting extreme provisions in place that not even the US has instituted in the recent past.

This is what happens when you allow feminists to be legislators.

In 2016, the CII had proposed a bill that allowed a husband to “lightly” beat his wife “if needed” and prohibited mixing of the genders in schools, hospitals and offices.

That proposal had come under fire by rights activists.

Farzana Bari, human rights activist and academic at Quaid-i-Azam University, had termed the proposed bill unconstitutional.

Allowing a husband to beat his wife, in any way, is against Pakistan’s Constitution and the international laws and treaties that Pakistan has signed and is bound by. This Council is a burden on the Pakistani taxpayer and bringing a bad name to Muslims throughout the world,” she had said, warning that the bill “will take Pakistan further into ignorance.”

I don’t know why a bill is needed to allow a husband to “check” an intransigent wife. This is clearly in the Quran.

ٱلرِّجَالُ قَوَّٰمُونَ عَلَى ٱلنِّسَآءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ ٱللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ وَبِمَآ أَنفَقُوا۟ مِنْ أَمْوَٰلِهِمْ ۚ فَٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتُ قَـٰنِتَـٰتٌ حَـٰفِظَـٰتٌ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ ٱللَّهُ ۚ وَٱلَّـٰتِى تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَٱهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِى ٱلْمَضَاجِعِ وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ ۖ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّا كَبِيرًا

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance/rebelliousness – advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you, seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand. [Quran 4:34]

Aren’t we talking about the Islamic Republic of Pakistan? Doesn’t the Constitution of the country clearly state it is an Islamic country?

Then why are bills being considered that contravene the Quran?

Husbands have the right to check wives in Islam and, in fact, every civilized society has granted husbands this right. Checks — as in “checks and balances” — are required for any institution to function, especially the family institution. Without checks and balances, chaos ensues. Checking an intransigent wife by striking or threatening to strike is a basic human right.

The clear wisdom of this right to check rebellious wives is that it creates order in the household. No household can be peaceful and functional if the authority of the head of the household is being undermined. And this is what a minority of women try to do. They try to undermine their husbands by disrespecting him, deliberately disobeying him, insulting him. In those rare cases, the husband needs to have the right to reassert his authority, and sometimes that requires physical force.

Now does he have the right to beat his wife senseless? No. The Islamic schools of fiqh are very clear that there are limits and going beyond the limits makes the husband liable for prosecution. This is already the law in Pakistan and every country of the world, as it falls under criminal assault.

But if the husband does not have this right, then he doesn’t really have final authority in the household. And if he doesn’t have final authority, the household inevitably falls apart.

This is basic common sense. And the proof of this is the terrible state of marriage and family in the West. More than half of all marriages in the West end in divorce, often very bitterly. Children are left growing up with one parent or the other. But more than that, most young people don’t even want to get married anymore because they see it as not worth the risks and burdens. They see a life of zina as a better path.

RELATED: Malala’s Toxic Feminism: The Western Puppet Promotes Zina!

This level of dysfunction is closely tied to preventing men from occupying their God-given role as heads of the household. And being the head of anything, including the household, is only meaningful if one can leverage physical authority. We see this in every organization, every society, every institution.

Would the president of a nation have any authority if he could not marshal police or military to coerce compliance? Would the CEO of a company have any authority if he could not fire employees and hire security guards to physically remove intransigent workers?

So why can’t the husband have the same right as a president or CEO for the sake of his family? In fact, the family is more in need of a strong leader than some corporation. He has to have the right to exercise his authority, otherwise the whole thing falls apart. But, again, it is not a completely unchecked authority.

And yes, just like there are presidents and CEOs who are indeed oppressive brutes, there are a minority of husbands who are unfit, oppressive husbands who cross the limits. Such tyrannical men should face the consequences, either from their wives’ family or from the Islamic justice system (i.e., the qadi). The good news is, this is already the case in Muslim societies and has been the case for 1400 years.

But just because such men exist does not mean we nullify the husband’s God-given right. Do we nullify the executive powers of all presidents and CEOs just because there are some presidents and CEOs who are tyrants? Of course not!

A Feminist Reach

What is so shocking about this bill is that it is not only criminalizing basic Islamic rights, it is going far beyond that.

This is because of the definition of Domestic Violence the bill gives (PDF of bill):

Domestic Violence shall mean all acts of physical, emotional, psychological, sexual, and economic abuse committed by a respondent against women, children, vulnerable persons, or any other person with whom the respondent is or has been in a domestic relationship that causes fear, physical, or psychological harm to the aggrieved person.

This definition is copy-pasted from the most extreme left-wing feminists in the West. It is the most expansive definition of Domestic Violence possible.

What does “emotional violence” mean? What is “psychological violence”? What is “economic violence”? How are these things in a bill about Domestic Violence?

Feminists have extended the definition of “violence” to include anything that a woman feels she doesn’t like.

RELATED: Want to Be Set for Life? Beat Yourself and Blame Your Husband

If your wife feels like you didn’t treat her like an amazing queen everyday of the marriage and that made her sad, that is Domestic Violence according to this bill.

If your wife feels like you didn’t buy her the kinds of expensive designer clothes that she deserves and that has caused her an economical disadvantage, that is Domestic Violence according to this bill.

If you want to marry a second wife and your first wife disagrees and feels like you have psychologically harmed her, that is Domestic Violence according to this bill.

There is literally no limit to what a woman can claim to be violence according to this bill.

You might think I am exaggerating, but read the bill.

Here are the detailed definitions the bill gives:

Jealousy is abuse. So if you tell your wife, “I don’t want you to meet with those men,” that could be construed as an “obsessive act of jealousy” and you will be put in prison.

They literally say: “Threats of divorce or second marriage” is violent abuse. So if your wife treats you and your family like trash, don’t you dare threaten divorce because that is abuse! Don’t threaten to marry a second wife either, you violent monster.

The bill doesn’t even mention threats to marry a third or fourth wife, probably because the bill writers couldn’t even fathom such levels of sheer evil.

Locked Up

What will happen if you violently abuse your wife by telling her basic things she just happens not to like?

The bill specifies a minimum of 6 months in prison!

Also, the bill makes it very clear that the wife has the right to stay in the home but the violent abusive husband has to move out!

This basically ensures that malicious women can take the homes right out from under the feet of their husbands, and the Pakistani government will diligently help her kick him to the curb.

Imagine This Scenario:

Your wife wants to go hang out with a bunch of men. You say no. She says you’re being jealous and causing her psychological and emotional harm. Furthermore, if you do not allow her to take your car to go have a lavish dinner with these men, that means you are also committing economic abuse.

That’s three separate counts of abuse already!

So she takes you to court. The judge rules in her favor. You get put in prison for 6 months to 3 years. Meanwhile, she stays in the house and she invites her boyfriend(s) to come live with her too and sleep in your bed.

Isn’t feminism wonderful?

RELATED: What Is the Real Purpose of Aurat March?

All of this becomes a reality if this new bill is passed. You don’t believe me? Ask Muslim men in America who have gone through divorce about their horror stories dealing with ostensibly religious Muslim women. Feminists here have transformed the court system into a mechanism to grant women maximum rights and legal avenues to secure all their preferences, no matter how unreasonable, at the expense of their husbands. There is no other way to describe it.

And now they want to do the same in Pakistan.

Imran Khan?

Will the Prime Minister come out with a strong statement against this feminist insurrection?

Recently, he made excellent statements about how the indecent dress of women is an important factor in the scourge of sexual immorality. The same mindless, degenerate feminists who denounced him for such reasonable statements are the ones pushing this bill.

But make no mistake: This bill is a disaster and it is just a continuation of the “Gender Programs” the West is imposing on Muslim countries like Pakistan.

The big mistake Pakistan made was allowing Aurat Marches to take place. As long as things like that are allowed to happen openly in society, expect more of this feminist assault on Muslim families.

MuslimSkeptic Needs Your Support!
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
14 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
.

Should be treated on case by case bases making these laws is countering the Sharia, which will lead to corruption in the courts.

Elakiri

How did these feminists get so much control in Pakistan?

Gg

Emotional blackmail and Simps

akh

Simping sadly is the norm in the Indian subcontinent. Increasingly the most hardcore feminists in North America and the UK are originally from that part of the world. Might have to do with gender imbalance, which causes a chronic shortage of women. So, basically a supply and demand issue.

SL

The reason why any country has a large number of secular-liberals and feminists is very simple : URBANISATION.

It is a global trend all over the world that people who are brought up in major cities tend to become more relatively Liberal. Those who are brought up in small towns and villages are more likely to become Conservative and patriarchal. This applies in every country including the west and the east. So when the majority of population is urbanised, then expect the overall society and government to be more Liberal.

There is no need for any western intervention at all (including any NGOs or media) since Liberal mentality will naturally grow by itself like weeds in any city. Unless the rulers resort to the most extreme savage barbaric draconian totalitarian repression like North Korea, creeping western or Liberal influence cannot be kept out of any city. That’s why in Іrаn there is a huge Liberal rebellion every few years where the protestors demand to overthrow the clerical system to make Іrаn secular, because that country has more urban (and therefore more Liberal) than rural (Conservative) people.

SL

That’s also why the majority of people in Sаudіа supported most of their recent Liberal and feminist social-cultural reforms and there was no popular resistance to it, because all those ultra-orthodox hardliners who oppose the reforms out of nostalgia for the old Conservative days, are now just a mostly rural minority. Maybe this could also be related to the current project to expand Rіуаdh to double its size to become a megacity of 15 million like Теhrаn, which will only solidify relatively liberal people being the dominant demographic in the country.

SL

In Раkistan the urban population is a highly influential large minority of the overall population but the rural population is slightly larger, which is why Раkistan hasn’t gone too far to become too much secular/liberal like the west, and which is also why proposed secular/Liberal/feminist bills like this one only get defeated by a narrow margin in democratic legislature like a parliament.

The definition of “Conservative” and “Liberal” can vary from country to country. What is Conservative in America is considered relatively Liberal in the Muslim world. But still, Even in America a similar trend holds, as shown in election results where liberals (Democrats) have almost their entire support from the cities, and the relatively Conservative party (Republicans) get their bulk of support from rural areas and small towns.

SL

The lack of Urbanisation is also why Таlіban can so easily take over Аfghаnіstan, because the vast majority of people there are rural (therefore ultra-conservatives like Таlіbаn) with minimum exposure to Liberal outside world. And that country’s remaining native secular/liberal/feminist population fled abroad for fear of war, rather than staying behind to spread their ideas.

Felis Catus Chonginus

I’d argue theres more to it. The “urbanization” which leads to liberal values, results in a lack of persecution toward law breakers, given that the law breakers have a perceived moral high ground (aka fighting for some “rights”). Just look at the vegan extremists in the UK, or Australia. They literally ruin businesses for farmers (for a day or sth) by occupying farms. Hell sometimes they even use hundreds of people to walk in to farms, and steal animals. And what does the police do? They “negotiate” between the two sides, which ends up in the farmer having to give a few animals to placate the activists, when in fact, what should have been done was to arrest and charge every single one of the activists.

Now that we have that down, we must take a look at WHO are the activists. Chances are, it happens to be a youngun. I recall a western media hitpiece on China recently, regarding the suppresion of LGBT discourse. According to the article, the websites and forums taken down were run by, wait for it.. STUDENTS. And this is the case for almost any of the cancers plagueing our societies. It is almost always, the students/youth, who are the activists, like a bunch of teenagers who have not had the rebellious stage beaten out of them. Just look closely at the past decade or so. Most of the liberal “change” was due to the young. Which is why it never made sense to me, as it all seemed like something arsinine that a 15 year old would think of. Perhaps you, or even myself, might have had ideals in that direction during our immature youth.

Now what happens when we put the two together? We have a law breaker friendly society (with certain limitations), and a bunch of rebellious youngsters. It results in the students never having to “grow up”, which is defined as abandoning their childish feelings, and joining the narrative of the adults (who have learned about the virtues of tradition, and feel helpless enough to change it). In other words, we have rebellious teenage feelings, being brought up all the way into adulthood, aka rebellious teen minds in adult bodies, as opposed to proper adults who acclimatize into society, (by getting a job, starting a family, etc)

SL

So basically, if you are the ruler of a country and you want to prevent secular liberals and feminists from growing too powerful and influential within mainstream society (and therefore politics), make sure that the vast majority of the population will remain rural. The larger the city, the more Liberal the population will become. Any city which grows to more than 100,000 or 1 million inhabitants is a red flag since it will likely become a hotspot of creeping secular Liberal feminist mentality growing within the general population.

If a city grows to a metropolis of at least 5 million to 10 million then it will become a bastion of hatred and opposition against ultra-Conservative forms of Іslаm and the Мuslіms like Таlіban who promote it. No amount of public education or censoring foreign media and social media will stop this urban liberalization, as the rulers of Іran and Sаudі found out the hard way. This may also be why Resoolullah SAWS advised that in the end times the believers will have to go and live in isolated rural areas to protect themselves from the fitna (which may include popular secular-liberal mentality).

صاحب

Feminism is apostasy

Saad

Allah protect Pakistan from the reaches of these shayateen. Alot of ulama have also voiced against this bill.

akh

“SL July 15, 2021 at 6:33 am
The reason why any country has a large number of secular-liberals and feminists is very simple : URBANISATION.”

Urbanisation might be a factor initially, but I wouldn’t overstate this. Urbanized Gen Z is turning back towards conservatism. There are studies which show that Gen Z is much more conservative than prior generations. Every generation after the boomers has been consecutively more conservative.

I think two other factors are more important:

1. Pluralism – the more homogeneous a society is the more religious it is. The overwhelming majority of the people in the Gulf aren’t even natives, but economic migrants. The more diverse a society the less – generally – religious the people will be. The least religious people in the Arab world are the Lebanese. Lebanon is also by far the most pluralistic. One of the most conservative are the Yemenis. Yemen is highly homogeneous.

2. Affluence. The richer people get the more they tend to become detached from God. This might also explain the comeback of conservatism amongst Gen Z. This generation is poorer than their parents. And definitely poorer than the very wealthy boomers. It also might – at least- partly explain why European Muslims are much more conservative than US Muslims.

Iran is difficult to compare with Muslim nations on almost all levels. You must also take into account that secularism and agnosticism have always had supporters among significant numbers of Persians and Azeri (the two dominant groups in Iran). The same is true for anti-Islam and anti-Arab sentiment.

Tip: if you want to study this issue you might want to study Spain. It’s truely amazing how rapidly Spain turned from a very conservative Catholic nation into a liberal and higly feministic one almost overnight – pretty much in one generation. One of the prime initial reasons was mass tourism from Northern Europe – particularly Sweden and the Netherlands (Holland). They brought with them their ultra liberal culture during their summer vacations to Spain – topless sunbathing, promiscuous s*x and other loose behaviours.

Ofcourse there are many more factors at play like “women’s empowerment”, media, education, daycare, pop culture etc.

SL

Of course there convert some rural liberals and urban conservatives like some such as me who become more Conservative than their parents. However they are the exception to the rule. You can’t deny the reality that there is definitely a lot more popular Liberal sentiment in cities compared to small towns and villages, and this is reflected by election results in most or all democracy countries, and also by the fact that the ultra-Conservative “Іslаmіst insurgencies” in war-torn Muslim lands like Аfghаnistаn, Yemen and Mali get the bulk of their support from rural and tribal areas and struggle to get popular support from the majority of people of major cities. And regarding the two factors of increased wealth and pluralism/diversity, in the modern age it is the cities who have a lot more of both wealth and plural diversity/multiculturalism. That’s why millions of people from many regions or countries migrate to the cities as economic migrants. Unlike the distant past, nowadays having 20 children per person and 50 cows/sheep/goats in a farm village is not considered to be a sign of wealth anymore. So since wealth and diversity (both factors which you said are likely to increase liberalization) are nowadays in the cities, that’s why the overall trend is for city people to tend to become more Liberal and less religious than rural folks.