- Messages
- 1,209
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
One of my friends asked me about the nature of Islamic Laws in Pakistan and how it was islamized. A general aspect of it. I would like to produce my reply here.
To what extent is the Pakistani Legal code Shariah Based and which laws are based on that?
Secondly
To what extent is the legal system affected by Islamic considerations?
Now I don’t need to tell you the Islamic history of Pakistan. As a student of political science, you are well aware of it.
So let us dive in
As you know that Pakistan was not born into Shariah law that is to say that it was not an Islamic country from the beginning and while the Constitutions may have seen addition of the world Islamic Republic, the nature of the state was not Islamic and the laws themselves were not completely Shariah. When islamization began in Pakistan, one of the first questions was on what to do with the legal history of the country which is based on British law. Zia was amalgamating power and was not interested in creating unnecessary chaos of declaring all legislations and statutes and case laws repealed but he also wanted to use islamization as a means to create further legitimacy and control on the country.
So what to do when most of the legal code in the country is British law but you want to bring in Shariah law? When we say Laws based on Shariah, we often mean that laws that are created from Shariah law and as you know, there is no one shariah law since sects have their own definition of Shariah law and its most highlighted example are the Sunni-Shia personal property law. If Pakistan were to have Shariah based legal code then it would have to scrap most of its laws so here is what Pakistan did. CII and the FSC declared most of Pakistani laws as Shariah compliant that it does not matter if they have british history since they are in conformity with Shariah. The reasoning was that they don’t go against the principles of shariah so technically speaking the entire legal system of Pakistan is Shariah law. Now what I have seen courts do in judgments is basically provide an interpretation for Islamic law and what it meant in the essence of it. As you know historically the Shariah laws of various areas were different apart from the a few major ones like hudood and in the courts have often interpreted it in the modern sense.
There are two important things you must understand. The courts have never said that Pakistan is entirely Shariah law but has always used the term Islamic law. Although the meaning is the same, but the baggage that comes with Shariah was to be avoided and the courts have avoided highlighting whether Pakistan is entirely Islamic law or common law or is a hybrid of both however actions speak louder than words and what their actions say is that it is common law made into Islamic law through interpretations that would suit modern legal world and system. This was no easy task and we repeatedly see conflict rising. Many senior lawyers themselves struggle with explaining to juniors on what kind of law Pakistan has. For example I kept asking a senior I interned with for a month to tell me whether Nikah needs a contract in law and he kept saying no and after one hour I finally got an answer that in Islamic law it doesn’t but in Pakistan you have to register. Needless to say, he paraded himself as some wali and sufi.
When Islamization of laws began, I would say the most affected legal system was the financial legal system and the criminal legal system and evidence. You see muslim personal law was already part of the subcontinent thanks to the ‘Muslim Personal Law Shariat Application Act 1937’ so property laws and marriage laws were already Shariah law for Muslims before Pakistan even came to be and then there is the D.F Mullah book on Muhammadan law which predates Pakistan. So within it is half the civil law since you got Family law entirely under personal law i.e. marriage, guardianship, wards e.t.c and then you have inheritance law in Civil law. So Civil law was not that affected by Shariat application. The only areas that were affected were the Evidence section requiring the signing of one male 2 female in transactions. Apart from that the civil side remained relatively untouched by Islamization. Again I will say that Pakistan does not have Shariah based laws but shariah compliant laws and in conformity laws. In the modern world, the legislature and the Supreme court have taken it upon themselves to pass laws and theoretically considering that no unislamic law can be passed and laws must be brought in conformity of Islam. How you might say? So there are two Islamic watchers on the Supreme court and the legislature which are the FSC for the Supreme court and Legislature has CII.
Lets come to the FSC. The FSC has 8 members of which there are 5 who are to be retired of Supreme court or High court with only 3 Ulemas and the Appellate bench has 3 Judges and 2 Ulemas. The court did that so that in any decision, they will always outnumber the Ulemas. This was done to control the interpretation of Islamic law. Part 7, Chapter 3A deals with Federal Shariah court and the appointments are done on the advice of the Chief Justice to the President, which I don’t have to tell you, how it is. The CJ is one of the judges in the FSC so this way the Court kept the Islamic review power for itself.
Now the Legislature has CII to act as an Islamic watcher on it however the powers of the CII are basically advisory and for that one simply needs to peruse the Chapter IX Islamic provisions. A law can only be referred to CII if 2/5th of the membership of the governor or President may request the CII for advisory. So their functions highlight that they have advisory role and the most interesting is Article 230 clause 3 where it states that if the Legislature or governor passes a law, whose Islamic question role, due to its passing being in the interest of the public and that passed law is later declared repugnant in accordance to Islam by CII, then they shall reconsider the law however there is no bar nor authority given to CII to declare the law not to be in force. You see the Courts and the legislature kept the interpretation of Islam in their own hands and this was highlighted by some Ulema that the judges would find technicalities in Shariah law and declare such and such as in conformity with Islam.
An example of this would be That Justice Khalil ur Rehamn Ramday was part of the committee that was to bring report on whether the laws were in conformity of Islam or not in 1981, and his report stated that most of the laws since 1841 were in conformity with Islam and its injunctions. So we see that the courts and legislature have taken the job of Islamic interpretation in Pakistan.
Another affect that Islamic consideration did bring is the power of court to challenge legislation. For example courts all over the world can challenge and declare any law passed by legislature as void if it is against the Fundamental rights however with Islam, courts can also declare any law void if it violates Islamic principles. So we see one major affect here that Courts are armed with another sword.
Now Lets talk about where where it had its affect. While the Qanoon e Shahadat did repeal the old evidentiary law of 1872 however most of the Qanoon e shahadat is composed of that evidentiary law apart from 9 sections most of it relate to financial transaction, Hadd and qualification of a witness. The rest remained similar to the old evidence law.
Then it had its impact on Criminal law where Hadd came in. Now hudood ordinance threw the criminal system out of balance since it described the entire criminal system into two. You have hadd and then you have Tazir. So the criminal law is a lot more complicated than that and the courts have struggled where hadd ends and tazir begins and this is mostly for Qatl-e-amd since you have Section 306 and Section 308 which highlights Qatl when it cant be tried as Qisas and then you have Qatl as Qisas. This is a controversy since in Tazir there is only life imprisonment but in Qisas there comes the death penalty but section 302 states both as punishments. This has been a controversy and evidence of confusion since then you have Section 304 which states when Qatl is Qisas and it says that it is when the accused either makes a confession or is in line with Section 17 of Qanoon e Shahadat.
The courts have been going around the grey areas, declaring this and that in conformity of Islam so to your question on what laws are based on Islam. Theoretically all of them and this has been stated repeatedly and to what extent. Well when every step is declared in conformity, don’t you think that its extended limit is the entirety of law?
So for Rape laws which were seriously thrown off balance, I have written on it already so let me highlight how the courts brought Rape laws in conformity of Islam and bypassed the 4 witness strategy. This is what I wrote
Pakistan has been a site of great infamy when it comes to litigation on rape and sexual assault.
Much of it stems from General Zia-ul-Haq’s infamous Hudood Ordinance 1979 which saw “Zina-bil-jabar” become part of the “offence of Zina” section 6 and 7. This, in accordance to section 19 of the Hudood Ordinance, repealed several sections including section 375 and 376 which related to rape from Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and made Zina either a Hadd offence as mentioned in section 6 and 7 of the ordinance or a tazir offence as mentioned in section 10 of the ordinance. With this the courts were revamped to follow this law which came with its own conditions such as the punishment of hadd requiring four witnesses (no female allowed) and two witness male in case of tazir. This provided much leeway for the accused to escape punishment as in both cases the victim could not be a witness. Moreover if the victim could not prove that rape had happened then she had committed Zina as defined in section 5 of the ordinance, since her very coming forward is seen as prima facie for a confession of Zina and it is up to her to prove whether that zina (fornication) was based on jabar (force) or not.
This, of course, made Pakistan infamous when it came to rape cases and many women, fearing social stigma and lack of legal evidence turning the case on themselves, simply avoided any reporting. However, Pakistan of 2019 and Pakistan of 1979 is very different. In 2006, it was a dictator’s government that corrected this wrong by passing the women protection act of 2006 which amended the ordinance removing the section 6 and 7 and 10 thus removing zina bil jabar and although this was met with great opposition in an already patriarchal society, the law still passed. The amendment saw to it that the victim would be punished in accordance to section 375 and 376 of Pakistan penal code and it removed the restrictions of hadd when it came to evidences. With that the Act also provided for the death penalty to be awarded in the offence which before Zia was not awarded.
The progression of litigation on rape is very slow but the country is making progress. The amendment saw to it that a women that files a rape charge shall never have to bring forth 4 witnesses. And with later amendments under the “the criminal law amendment act 2016″, any women bringing forth such a charge shall not be convicted under adultery – and no longer can the accused bring forth the victim’s sexual history as a defense.
Pakistan is often blamed for forcing its rape victims to bring forth 4 witnesses which is rightly so since in the period of 1979-2006 that’s exactly what we did, however to blame Pakistan now of that barbarity would be unfair since the legal setup has changed entirely. The Supreme Court has looked to pass judgments based on statements from the victim and used DNA evidences to point to the accused along with the medical report. The courts have made DNA kit and test mandatory within 72 hours and immediately with no compromise based on Jirga as valid. In the landmark judgment 2013 SCMR 2003, it was stated that the DNA test must be done as quickly as possible and all available aid to the victim must be given along with their presence in court done through secure channels, statement recorded ideally through female magistrates and female police staff and through camera if they wish and protection of identity of witness, victim and her family from the accused. On top of it all, the court called for the involvement of civil society and NGOs in all such cases. The case looked to answer DNA testing as a significant piece of evidence in the eyes of court which could help the court determine the perpetrators and exonerate any wrongful accused. The court also pointed out that if the victim does not want to continue the litigation, then the state must intervene and continue the litigation as well as the courts. The courts have looked to state that the society penalizes such a victim that comes forward and thus any attempt to come forward must be supported and be taken into consideration.
Along with this, the courts have repeatedly allowed the victim to become witness to the offence as well as the investigating officer and the medico-officer. In the case “Muhammad Siddique vs State” the victim was first witness and was called the most important one. And in the case “Dad Muhammad vs the state”, the ASI and the medical officer were witnesses number 5 and 6 respectively. In many cases the first discoverer of the victim is also counted as a major witness. The concept of 4 male witnesses is no longer valid in Pakistan, nor is it required.
The Pakistan legal system has also kept in mind the inadequacies of the law enforcement agencies and thus made proper amendments such as the “Criminal law amendment act 2016” which saw addition of section 166A deals with the law enforcement agent i.e. police officer which disobeys any direction in accordance to section 336B, 354, 354A, 376, 376A, 376B, 376C and 509, disobeys knowingly in prejudice to any person, disobeys any direction in regards to the medical examination of the victim, or fails to record any information provided then he shall be given a minimum 6 month rigorous imprisonment extending to 2 years and a fine.
Now the act added 166B as well, which stipulated that if medical officers of any hospital, whether private or public, contravene section 545 then they shall be given a fine of Rs. 25,000. And the act inserted 545A which stated that all medical officers and practitioners, be they in a private or public hospital, shall provide medical aid, free of cost to the victim. This means that whichever hospital the victim goes to, irrespective of its nature, must provide all medical aid free of cost.
The act also empowers with Section 129 in Qanun-e-shahadat order to add in that if the victim provides statement that there was no consent, then it will be deemed that there was no consent.
Pakistan still has a long way to go in providing proper litigation options to its rape survivors. But the progress that the country has made from 2006 must be appreciated. Awareness of this progress must be spread far and wide so that all the survivors of this heinous crime are educated on what remedies they have. They must know that they can demand free legal assistance, medical aid and testing as well as counter any lecherous behavior from the law enforcement agencies. They must be given to understand that they do not require a crowd as witnesses to bring the criminal to justice – that their statement, the medical report and the investigation are legally enough to bring forth justice and cases are now placed under a time limit of six months. They must be assured that they can avail all the remedies available.
Laws can only progress when they are effectively implemented. And although implementation is indeed decided by the state, the laws will not be implemented if the people themselves don’t come forward to report incidents pertaining to such laws. Courts will only be able to implement and interpret laws if cases are brought forward to them. It is we, as society, who must protect and support each victim that takes the courageous step of speaking up for themselves rather than attacking and blaming them.
https://nayadaur.tv/2019/12/rape-survivors-and-pakistans-legal-system/
So you basically get the jist of how the criminal law is in relation to Islamic law.
Then we have land reforms or revenue law. Islamic law had a major effect on it and its effect is neither seen nor heard but is everywhere and it was through the declaration that Land reforms are illegal in the famous Qazl Baksh case and thanks to that, Pakistan cannot pass any law that will see land owners get weaken. I don’t have to tell you where this led Pakistan to.
So lastly we have Financial. Oh boy. This began a huge battle since modern economy was based on interests and many unislamic things and Islam had to be brought here. This meant that a lot of stuff had to be declared in conformity with islam. Now the first battle for Interest free economy began with Bhutto declaring as such and started Interest free counters in banks thus the little advent of Islamic banking. I think we were the first ones who actually implemented a form of legalized Islamic banking. I am not sure on that, I think we did. Anyway In Aslam Khaki decision, the Shariah appellate bench called for the removal of all Riba in Pakistan and Pakistan asked them to reconsider since that would break the Pakistani economic back in the world. The court gave them a year and then Musharraf happened and the judges refused to take the Oath and thus new judges were there and they found flaws in the Aslam Khaki, overturning the entire judgment. So this is not easy.
I hope the above will make for a good reading in how Pakistan was able to create an Islamic system from a British system
@Joe Shearer @Nilgiri @Cabatli_53 @T-123456 @Saithan @DalalErMaNodi @Test7 @SOHEIL along with others
To what extent is the Pakistani Legal code Shariah Based and which laws are based on that?
Secondly
To what extent is the legal system affected by Islamic considerations?
Now I don’t need to tell you the Islamic history of Pakistan. As a student of political science, you are well aware of it.
So let us dive in
As you know that Pakistan was not born into Shariah law that is to say that it was not an Islamic country from the beginning and while the Constitutions may have seen addition of the world Islamic Republic, the nature of the state was not Islamic and the laws themselves were not completely Shariah. When islamization began in Pakistan, one of the first questions was on what to do with the legal history of the country which is based on British law. Zia was amalgamating power and was not interested in creating unnecessary chaos of declaring all legislations and statutes and case laws repealed but he also wanted to use islamization as a means to create further legitimacy and control on the country.
So what to do when most of the legal code in the country is British law but you want to bring in Shariah law? When we say Laws based on Shariah, we often mean that laws that are created from Shariah law and as you know, there is no one shariah law since sects have their own definition of Shariah law and its most highlighted example are the Sunni-Shia personal property law. If Pakistan were to have Shariah based legal code then it would have to scrap most of its laws so here is what Pakistan did. CII and the FSC declared most of Pakistani laws as Shariah compliant that it does not matter if they have british history since they are in conformity with Shariah. The reasoning was that they don’t go against the principles of shariah so technically speaking the entire legal system of Pakistan is Shariah law. Now what I have seen courts do in judgments is basically provide an interpretation for Islamic law and what it meant in the essence of it. As you know historically the Shariah laws of various areas were different apart from the a few major ones like hudood and in the courts have often interpreted it in the modern sense.
There are two important things you must understand. The courts have never said that Pakistan is entirely Shariah law but has always used the term Islamic law. Although the meaning is the same, but the baggage that comes with Shariah was to be avoided and the courts have avoided highlighting whether Pakistan is entirely Islamic law or common law or is a hybrid of both however actions speak louder than words and what their actions say is that it is common law made into Islamic law through interpretations that would suit modern legal world and system. This was no easy task and we repeatedly see conflict rising. Many senior lawyers themselves struggle with explaining to juniors on what kind of law Pakistan has. For example I kept asking a senior I interned with for a month to tell me whether Nikah needs a contract in law and he kept saying no and after one hour I finally got an answer that in Islamic law it doesn’t but in Pakistan you have to register. Needless to say, he paraded himself as some wali and sufi.
When Islamization of laws began, I would say the most affected legal system was the financial legal system and the criminal legal system and evidence. You see muslim personal law was already part of the subcontinent thanks to the ‘Muslim Personal Law Shariat Application Act 1937’ so property laws and marriage laws were already Shariah law for Muslims before Pakistan even came to be and then there is the D.F Mullah book on Muhammadan law which predates Pakistan. So within it is half the civil law since you got Family law entirely under personal law i.e. marriage, guardianship, wards e.t.c and then you have inheritance law in Civil law. So Civil law was not that affected by Shariat application. The only areas that were affected were the Evidence section requiring the signing of one male 2 female in transactions. Apart from that the civil side remained relatively untouched by Islamization. Again I will say that Pakistan does not have Shariah based laws but shariah compliant laws and in conformity laws. In the modern world, the legislature and the Supreme court have taken it upon themselves to pass laws and theoretically considering that no unislamic law can be passed and laws must be brought in conformity of Islam. How you might say? So there are two Islamic watchers on the Supreme court and the legislature which are the FSC for the Supreme court and Legislature has CII.
Lets come to the FSC. The FSC has 8 members of which there are 5 who are to be retired of Supreme court or High court with only 3 Ulemas and the Appellate bench has 3 Judges and 2 Ulemas. The court did that so that in any decision, they will always outnumber the Ulemas. This was done to control the interpretation of Islamic law. Part 7, Chapter 3A deals with Federal Shariah court and the appointments are done on the advice of the Chief Justice to the President, which I don’t have to tell you, how it is. The CJ is one of the judges in the FSC so this way the Court kept the Islamic review power for itself.
Now the Legislature has CII to act as an Islamic watcher on it however the powers of the CII are basically advisory and for that one simply needs to peruse the Chapter IX Islamic provisions. A law can only be referred to CII if 2/5th of the membership of the governor or President may request the CII for advisory. So their functions highlight that they have advisory role and the most interesting is Article 230 clause 3 where it states that if the Legislature or governor passes a law, whose Islamic question role, due to its passing being in the interest of the public and that passed law is later declared repugnant in accordance to Islam by CII, then they shall reconsider the law however there is no bar nor authority given to CII to declare the law not to be in force. You see the Courts and the legislature kept the interpretation of Islam in their own hands and this was highlighted by some Ulema that the judges would find technicalities in Shariah law and declare such and such as in conformity with Islam.
An example of this would be That Justice Khalil ur Rehamn Ramday was part of the committee that was to bring report on whether the laws were in conformity of Islam or not in 1981, and his report stated that most of the laws since 1841 were in conformity with Islam and its injunctions. So we see that the courts and legislature have taken the job of Islamic interpretation in Pakistan.
Another affect that Islamic consideration did bring is the power of court to challenge legislation. For example courts all over the world can challenge and declare any law passed by legislature as void if it is against the Fundamental rights however with Islam, courts can also declare any law void if it violates Islamic principles. So we see one major affect here that Courts are armed with another sword.
Now Lets talk about where where it had its affect. While the Qanoon e Shahadat did repeal the old evidentiary law of 1872 however most of the Qanoon e shahadat is composed of that evidentiary law apart from 9 sections most of it relate to financial transaction, Hadd and qualification of a witness. The rest remained similar to the old evidence law.
Then it had its impact on Criminal law where Hadd came in. Now hudood ordinance threw the criminal system out of balance since it described the entire criminal system into two. You have hadd and then you have Tazir. So the criminal law is a lot more complicated than that and the courts have struggled where hadd ends and tazir begins and this is mostly for Qatl-e-amd since you have Section 306 and Section 308 which highlights Qatl when it cant be tried as Qisas and then you have Qatl as Qisas. This is a controversy since in Tazir there is only life imprisonment but in Qisas there comes the death penalty but section 302 states both as punishments. This has been a controversy and evidence of confusion since then you have Section 304 which states when Qatl is Qisas and it says that it is when the accused either makes a confession or is in line with Section 17 of Qanoon e Shahadat.
The courts have been going around the grey areas, declaring this and that in conformity of Islam so to your question on what laws are based on Islam. Theoretically all of them and this has been stated repeatedly and to what extent. Well when every step is declared in conformity, don’t you think that its extended limit is the entirety of law?
So for Rape laws which were seriously thrown off balance, I have written on it already so let me highlight how the courts brought Rape laws in conformity of Islam and bypassed the 4 witness strategy. This is what I wrote
Pakistan has been a site of great infamy when it comes to litigation on rape and sexual assault.
Much of it stems from General Zia-ul-Haq’s infamous Hudood Ordinance 1979 which saw “Zina-bil-jabar” become part of the “offence of Zina” section 6 and 7. This, in accordance to section 19 of the Hudood Ordinance, repealed several sections including section 375 and 376 which related to rape from Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and made Zina either a Hadd offence as mentioned in section 6 and 7 of the ordinance or a tazir offence as mentioned in section 10 of the ordinance. With this the courts were revamped to follow this law which came with its own conditions such as the punishment of hadd requiring four witnesses (no female allowed) and two witness male in case of tazir. This provided much leeway for the accused to escape punishment as in both cases the victim could not be a witness. Moreover if the victim could not prove that rape had happened then she had committed Zina as defined in section 5 of the ordinance, since her very coming forward is seen as prima facie for a confession of Zina and it is up to her to prove whether that zina (fornication) was based on jabar (force) or not.
This, of course, made Pakistan infamous when it came to rape cases and many women, fearing social stigma and lack of legal evidence turning the case on themselves, simply avoided any reporting. However, Pakistan of 2019 and Pakistan of 1979 is very different. In 2006, it was a dictator’s government that corrected this wrong by passing the women protection act of 2006 which amended the ordinance removing the section 6 and 7 and 10 thus removing zina bil jabar and although this was met with great opposition in an already patriarchal society, the law still passed. The amendment saw to it that the victim would be punished in accordance to section 375 and 376 of Pakistan penal code and it removed the restrictions of hadd when it came to evidences. With that the Act also provided for the death penalty to be awarded in the offence which before Zia was not awarded.
The progression of litigation on rape is very slow but the country is making progress. The amendment saw to it that a women that files a rape charge shall never have to bring forth 4 witnesses. And with later amendments under the “the criminal law amendment act 2016″, any women bringing forth such a charge shall not be convicted under adultery – and no longer can the accused bring forth the victim’s sexual history as a defense.
Pakistan is often blamed for forcing its rape victims to bring forth 4 witnesses which is rightly so since in the period of 1979-2006 that’s exactly what we did, however to blame Pakistan now of that barbarity would be unfair since the legal setup has changed entirely. The Supreme Court has looked to pass judgments based on statements from the victim and used DNA evidences to point to the accused along with the medical report. The courts have made DNA kit and test mandatory within 72 hours and immediately with no compromise based on Jirga as valid. In the landmark judgment 2013 SCMR 2003, it was stated that the DNA test must be done as quickly as possible and all available aid to the victim must be given along with their presence in court done through secure channels, statement recorded ideally through female magistrates and female police staff and through camera if they wish and protection of identity of witness, victim and her family from the accused. On top of it all, the court called for the involvement of civil society and NGOs in all such cases. The case looked to answer DNA testing as a significant piece of evidence in the eyes of court which could help the court determine the perpetrators and exonerate any wrongful accused. The court also pointed out that if the victim does not want to continue the litigation, then the state must intervene and continue the litigation as well as the courts. The courts have looked to state that the society penalizes such a victim that comes forward and thus any attempt to come forward must be supported and be taken into consideration.
Along with this, the courts have repeatedly allowed the victim to become witness to the offence as well as the investigating officer and the medico-officer. In the case “Muhammad Siddique vs State” the victim was first witness and was called the most important one. And in the case “Dad Muhammad vs the state”, the ASI and the medical officer were witnesses number 5 and 6 respectively. In many cases the first discoverer of the victim is also counted as a major witness. The concept of 4 male witnesses is no longer valid in Pakistan, nor is it required.
The Pakistan legal system has also kept in mind the inadequacies of the law enforcement agencies and thus made proper amendments such as the “Criminal law amendment act 2016” which saw addition of section 166A deals with the law enforcement agent i.e. police officer which disobeys any direction in accordance to section 336B, 354, 354A, 376, 376A, 376B, 376C and 509, disobeys knowingly in prejudice to any person, disobeys any direction in regards to the medical examination of the victim, or fails to record any information provided then he shall be given a minimum 6 month rigorous imprisonment extending to 2 years and a fine.
Now the act added 166B as well, which stipulated that if medical officers of any hospital, whether private or public, contravene section 545 then they shall be given a fine of Rs. 25,000. And the act inserted 545A which stated that all medical officers and practitioners, be they in a private or public hospital, shall provide medical aid, free of cost to the victim. This means that whichever hospital the victim goes to, irrespective of its nature, must provide all medical aid free of cost.
The act also empowers with Section 129 in Qanun-e-shahadat order to add in that if the victim provides statement that there was no consent, then it will be deemed that there was no consent.
Pakistan still has a long way to go in providing proper litigation options to its rape survivors. But the progress that the country has made from 2006 must be appreciated. Awareness of this progress must be spread far and wide so that all the survivors of this heinous crime are educated on what remedies they have. They must know that they can demand free legal assistance, medical aid and testing as well as counter any lecherous behavior from the law enforcement agencies. They must be given to understand that they do not require a crowd as witnesses to bring the criminal to justice – that their statement, the medical report and the investigation are legally enough to bring forth justice and cases are now placed under a time limit of six months. They must be assured that they can avail all the remedies available.
Laws can only progress when they are effectively implemented. And although implementation is indeed decided by the state, the laws will not be implemented if the people themselves don’t come forward to report incidents pertaining to such laws. Courts will only be able to implement and interpret laws if cases are brought forward to them. It is we, as society, who must protect and support each victim that takes the courageous step of speaking up for themselves rather than attacking and blaming them.
https://nayadaur.tv/2019/12/rape-survivors-and-pakistans-legal-system/
So you basically get the jist of how the criminal law is in relation to Islamic law.
Then we have land reforms or revenue law. Islamic law had a major effect on it and its effect is neither seen nor heard but is everywhere and it was through the declaration that Land reforms are illegal in the famous Qazl Baksh case and thanks to that, Pakistan cannot pass any law that will see land owners get weaken. I don’t have to tell you where this led Pakistan to.
So lastly we have Financial. Oh boy. This began a huge battle since modern economy was based on interests and many unislamic things and Islam had to be brought here. This meant that a lot of stuff had to be declared in conformity with islam. Now the first battle for Interest free economy began with Bhutto declaring as such and started Interest free counters in banks thus the little advent of Islamic banking. I think we were the first ones who actually implemented a form of legalized Islamic banking. I am not sure on that, I think we did. Anyway In Aslam Khaki decision, the Shariah appellate bench called for the removal of all Riba in Pakistan and Pakistan asked them to reconsider since that would break the Pakistani economic back in the world. The court gave them a year and then Musharraf happened and the judges refused to take the Oath and thus new judges were there and they found flaws in the Aslam Khaki, overturning the entire judgment. So this is not easy.
I hope the above will make for a good reading in how Pakistan was able to create an Islamic system from a British system
@Joe Shearer @Nilgiri @Cabatli_53 @T-123456 @Saithan @DalalErMaNodi @Test7 @SOHEIL along with others
