And how do we solve this problem? by forcefully taking the mans property and giving it to the woman? Claiming to get rid of one injustice you create an even bigger one, as if this country isnt plagued with enough problems already!Define the beating as per Quran and Sunnah and How Prophets before Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) used to punish or beat lightly their wives for their disobedience and then compare the beating,violence and psychological torture of 21st century that Punjabi women in general and Pakistan women in specific faces.
Look at the text:
"On receipt of the complaint, the Court shall issue a notice to the defendant
calling upon him to show cause within seven days of the receipt of notice as to why any order
under this Act may not be made and if the defendant fails to file a reply within the specified
time, the Court, subject to service of the notice on the defendant, shall assume that the
defendant has no plausible defense and proceed to pass any order under this Act."
"If the Court is satisfied that the complaint prima facie shows that the defendant
has committed an act of violence or is likely to commit an act of violence, it may issue an
order on the basis of an affidavit of the aggrieved person or any other material before the
Court."
Prima facie. Latin for "at first sight." Prima facie may be used as an adjective meaning "sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted;" e.g., prima facie evidence.
In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that, unless rebutted, would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.
In other words the court will assume that that the man is guilty unless he rebuts it with evidence or in other words, guilty until proven innocent.
So if some woman comes to the court all teary eyed and tells them a story of how cruel her husband and the evil in laws are to her and shows them a scar or a blue patch of skin while beads of tears rolling down her cheeks then thats it ,hes the villain who must prove otherwise or else.And by the way women have on average higher emotional intelligence compared to men and they are very good at invoking people's sympathies for them.
Now consider the text:
"Right to reside in house.– Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the
aggrieved person, who is the victim of domestic violence, shall not be evicted, save in
accordance with law, from the house without her consent or if wrongfully evicted, the Court
shall restore the position obtaining before the eviction of the aggrieved person if the aggrieved
person has right, title or beneficial interest in the house."
"Protection order.– (1) If the Court is satisfied that any violence has been committed
or is likely to be committed, the Court may pass a protection order in favour of the aggrieved
person and direct the defendant:
(a) not to have any communication with the aggrieved person, with or without
exceptions;
(b) stay away from the aggrieved person, with or without exceptions;
(c) stay at such distance from the aggrieved person as may, keeping in view the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, be determined by the Court;
(d) wear ankle or wrist bracelet GPS tracker to track the movement of the
defendant twenty four hours, seven days a week;
(e) move out of the house;
(f) surrender any weapon or firearm which the defendant lawfully possesses or
prohibit the defendant from purchasing a firearm or obtaining license of a
firearm;
(g) refrain from aiding or abetting an act of violence;
(h) refrain from entering the place of employment of the aggrieved person or any
other place frequently visited by the aggrieved person;
(i) refrain from causing violence to a dependent, other relative or any person who
provides assistance to the aggrieved person against violence; or
(j) refrain from committing such other acts as may be specified in the protection
order."
"Residence order.– (1) The Court, in case of domestic violence, may in addition to any
order under section 7, pass a residence order directing that:
(a) the aggrieved person shall not be evicted, save in accordance with law,
from the house;
(b) the aggrieved person has the right to stay in the house;
(c) the defendant shall not sell or transfer the house to any person other
than the aggrieved person;
(d) the aggrieved person may be relocated from the house to the shelter
home for purposes of relief, protection and rehabilitation;
(e) the defendant shall deliver the possession of any property or
documents to the aggrieved person to which the aggrieved person is
entitled;
(f) the defendant or any relative of the defendant is restrained from
entering the shelter home or place of employment or any other place
frequently visited by the aggrieved person; or
(g) shall arrange an alternative accommodation for the aggrieved person or
to pay rent for the alternative accommodation."
It is quite clear form the text that if it is established that he has done "violence" or is likely to commit violence which he fails to disprove, he stands to loose his property.
The state has no right to take property from its owner and give it to another. Just because he has done some violence and/or likely to do the same doesn't make it ok to kick him out of his own house, thats simply wrong and unjust. In case of minor offense like mental torture or slapping etc, wife can complain to the court and divorce declared between them, in case of major beating or bodily injury, in addition to divorce, some punishment will have to be imposed on the perpetrator(s) like jail terms. In case of heinous crimes like so called honor killings or acid attacks, harsh punishments must be imposed or the offenders without any exceptions.Having said that you still cannot deprive them of their property, that is simply wrong. And yes its unislamic too.Islam doesn't allow driving people off their property for committing domestic violence.
And we haven't even gotten to the "monetary relief" part of it yet:
"Monetary order.– (1) The Court may, at any stage of the trial of a case, pass an order
directing the defendant to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses
suffered by the aggrieved person and such relief may include:
(a) such compensation, as the Court may determine, to the aggrieved person for
suffering as a consequence of economic abuse;
(b) loss of earning;
(c) medical expense;
(d) loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of any property from
the control of the aggrieved person to which the aggrieved person is entitled;
and
(e) reasonable maintenance for the aggrieved person and her dependent children,
if any, in addition to an order of maintenance under family laws.
(2) The Court shall have due regard to the financial needs and resources of the
parties before passing any order under subsection (1).
(3) The defendant shall pay monetary relief to the aggrieved person within the
period specified in the order made under subsection (1).
(4) If the defendant fails to make payment within the period mentioned in the order,
the Court shall direct the employer or debtor of the defendant, directly to pay the aggrieved
person or to deposit with the Court a portion of the wages or debt due to or accrued to the
credit of the defendant.
(5) The amount paid or deposited under subsection (4) shall be adjusted by the
employer or debtor towards payment to the defendant."
Wow! talk about tying people up in knots! so after being kicked out of his house, the poor bugger has to work his butt off to provide "monetary relief" to the woman living in his house which he cannot enter and for all he knows she may already have another man living there in his place.No wonder men in the west avoid marriages.
As i said before
This law would would be like a sword hanging over mens necks all the time, they misbehave but a little,get angry and say something rash,slam the table and before he knows it hes "likely to commit an act of violence" and that sword falls straight through.
Its just an attempt to re engineer the social/economical/moral fiber of this society under the guise of protecting women by artificially establishing women as overlords whose approval men must have in order to keep their property and dignity or else "likely to commit an act of violence"
Yes but MEN have rights too, you cant have one at the expense of another by denying men the right to their property.Well please tell the mullas to read those thousands of books so that at least they could understand a simple thing that WOMEN also have Human rights.
[
QUOTE="Spring Onion, post: 8186667, member: 391"]The reality is that these men interpreted sharia according to their own will and wishes even then they failed to act according to their own styled sharia so we are left with no other option but to pass bills that are protecting women and which are also NOT against Islam.
This bill has nothing against Islam.[/QUOTE]
So the makers of this bill claim, but as it is obvious that:
it assumes, atleast partially, that the man is guilty who must prove otherwise;
it deprives men of their property;
and establishes woman at the helm of the family and relegates man to a subservient role;
This is not only wrong from Islamic viewpoint, but generally its unjust and unfair and against nature.
Theres a lot of vague & ambiguous language language in there and the potential of abuse is clear.And it sets a very dangerous precedent where the state can just evict anyone from their homes citing domestic violence.Even if they have done some domestic abuse that does not make it right to take their property away from them
Last edited: