Cleric terms Women’s Protection Bill contrary to Islamic Sharia

[curious]

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.

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!
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"

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.

Yes but MEN have rights too, you cant have one at the expense of another by denying men the right to their property.
[
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

 

[Spring Onion]

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!
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 him 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.
[
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.

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[/QUOTE]

read your post again and again NO clause is against Islam or any injustice to males.

Even under the Islamic law the husband is bound to pay all the expenses to the wife if she is forced to go to her parents house and lives there (as she is entitled in the nikah form as per willingness of the groom at that time).

And why would the court consider the accused party that is the men in this case without any proper trial?

It seems all of you guys who are opposing this bill in one way or the other must be either abusive towards your women or committing infidelity.

 

[Jf Thunder]

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!
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.
[
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.

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[/QUOTE]
so men can kick women out, and not vice versa?
what a good picture of Islam you are presenting to the world.

btw all the evidence you presented was not from the Quran or Sunnah but your own POV.
and if you dont know already, your POV will not become part of Islam

 

[Hell hound]

Who says I'm attacking Islam and Nauzubillah Allah And Rasool (SAW) ? Let me ask you, Allah laws are to be applied on a society who are truthful, honest will admit their own mistakes infront of a Qaazi. Name one Allah Law which can not be exploited in todays society and environment and I will agree with you on that to apply that law as it is and verbatim on the whole society !

When civil laws are made in addition to Islamic laws, it is so that Human nature can not exploit Allah Laws and if he tries to exploit that, We can nail him down with man made law.

Common sense has died in Mullahs and their followers. They should consider human nature before enforcing Allah laws on collective society and make human laws as per the requirements despite if it contradicts Quran and Sharia in some instances so that A person can get justice.



Now you are arguing for the sake of arguing shah. That's what makes me sad. You will write 100's of pages of argument without talking on point.

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.


Lets consider a scenario. What happened with Hazrat Ayesha (RA) that someone accused Her (RA) with slanderous accusations, If somethings occurs with todays women, what are the chances A person will decide her case based on Quran or Sunnah, or will he Decide her case based on Emotions and customs prevailing in the society ? Honor killing at worst, Slut shaming severe beating, forceful marriage to some bhudda khosat, social boycott, or evict her from home will occur ?


You @Zarvan forgets what happened to those Kohistani ladies whose only crime was to dance with some boys in a marriage function ? Supposedly Kohistani Mullahs killed them citing their custom they defiled their tribal honor. Where is Quran and Sunnah in such case ?

Do you have courage to stop the exploitation of Islamic laws ? No you dont. Thats why Civil laws such as these are made so to ensure Human nature can be controlled which cant be controlled through Islamic Law in any case.

And yeah I would love to hear how you think enforcing Islamic laws verbatim can control the human nature as well. Because there is a strong precedent of from Rightly guided calips eras of how shariah laws were collapsed and didnot obeyed by the masses.



This will depend on the courts then. They will define the law further and will be responsible that nobody will exploit it for their gains.

For the point 2. Immediate point comes into my mind is the medical report of the victim will be a strong evidence in this case.

If Female is harassing husband, sufficient laws exist. Both federal and provincial under which he can file case against her wife.

bro what do you think of eviction clause its the only thing in this whole bill that is cause of concern for me.its in conflict with ownership rights how can they force some one to evict a property which is solely own by him or is property of his parents.according to law you can't do that neither can you force someone to sell his property to only particular party.
but if property is co owned,co leased or is solely owned by victim then its a great clause as the abuser should be the one who should be forced to moved out of the property and restriction on selling his part only to victim makes perfect scenes.
so what i am saying here is this clause need more refinement and need more explanation that which properties can be evicted and which can't be .every thing else is great specially the cyber law let these mullah bark stop giving then attention and coverage an no one will care about them.

 

[Spring Onion]

We are not living in ideal world that's the problem

It is good that you also know in your heart that this law has not much flaw but since we are not living in an ideal world that is the problem

 

[Psychic]

This so called "women protection bill" is a slap on basic human freedoms. This draconian law will only amplify family tussles instead of minimizing them and will bring more harm than good to the society. There is no such law even in the Western countries. (GPS tracker...WTH)
As far as the issue of domestic abuse is concerned, the females already had the right to file a case against their husband/father....If that was not enough, steps should have been taken for it's implementation instead of introducing a completely new and ridiculous law.

 

[Hell hound]

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

bro legally you can even throw your children(after they are 18+) and parents of the property you solely own i am not saying you should but legally its your right.what this bill is doing is undermining your ownership rights which is the only thing i am against.

It is good that you also know in your heart that this law has not much flaw but since we are not living in an ideal world that is the problem

sis some of us are not against this bill because we think its not Islamic or that women should remain oppressed.what we are against is this bill will conflict with our right of ownership and it doesn't make us wife abuser.i agree that husband should be forced to pay for rent and expense of her wife or forcefully evicted from the property co owned or solely owned by wife.but he should not be evicted from the property solely owned by him its his legal right to live, use and sell that property as he deem fit.

 

[pak-marine]

Yes a Badmashi which can be put away by talking to a Guy may turn into murders becsuse of this dumb law

If there is traffic voilation for eg parking some where in a no parking there is a fine spot on you cant talk and discus this .. When applied on masses the talk and discus doesnt work sirkar... There is been serious cases and laws are applied and they are very soft for now its to discourage men and think about the circumstances before they do some thing silly ..its in every ones favour

 

[Hell hound]

ignoring this crazy mullah this bill still need some drastic changes it attacks some of our basic rights like privacy as explained by @Psychic no law can force you wear gps trackers unless you are under house arrest .ownership rights and selling rights. guilty until proven innocent nature of the bill is also cause of great concern.it does have some plus points like eviction from property owned by wife,baring expense of ones wife or cyber laws.
unless they change these points i will not support this bill and no i doesn't make me an abuser or wife beater .it only proves that i know my right and will do any thing to defend them.

 

[Zarvan]

If there is traffic voilation for eg parking some where in a no parking there is a fine spot on you cant talk and discus this .. When applied on masses the talk and discus doesnt work sirkar... There is been serious cases and laws are applied and they are very soft for now its to discourage men and think about the circumstances before they do some thing silly ..its in every ones favour

It isn't and will faily miserably just like they failed in the past

 

[curious]

read your post again and again NO clause is against Islam or any injustice to males

......i have already pointed it out several times

so men can kick women out, and not vice versa?

Well that depends on who the property belongs to, if the man is the owner and they cant get along then the woman moves out, if the woman is the owner then the man moves out, makes sense no?

what a good picture of Islam you are presenting to the world

It is how it is weather somebody likes it or not.You can take it or you can leave it, cheap snide comments are not going to change the facts.
The fact that this bill attacks basic rights like innocence until proven guilty, right to ones own property etc. is plain and obvious to anyone who bothers to go through its text.

 

[Psychic]

The laws were already there to deal with abusive husbands. Many cases appeared in the media as well in which, guilty husbands were punished. However, this new innovation of the Punjab Assembly surpresses the basic freedoms and ownership rights of a man. There will be misuse of this law on a massive scale.
Making someone wear a wrist band tracker, I mean afterall.....what next, you are going to make him wear a dog collar as well? This is only going to make someone mentally sick and perhaps more abusive than before. There is no such law in the West, whereas we are trying to become more angraiz than the angraiz himself. Family issues aren't resolved that way, this is only going to increase divorce rate.

And before you start bashing Islam or mullahs, let me tell you what, this is not about Islam--- this is about basic human rights.

Plus, what about the men who are victims of domestic abuse? Not at the hands of their wives but at the hands of their in-laws? I personally know of a few incidents in which, husbands were thrashed by their brother-in-laws.

 

[Jf Thunder]

......i have already pointed it out several times


Well that depends on who the property belongs to, if the man is the owner and they cant get along then the woman moves out, if the woman is the owner then the man moves out, makes sense no?


It is how it is weather somebody likes it or not.You can take it or you can leave it, cheap snide comments are not going to change the facts.
The fact that this bill attacks basic rights like innocence until proven guilty, right to ones own property etc. is plain and obvious to anyone who bothers to go through its text.

it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the HUSBAND according to ISLAM, to provide everything to the wife, no matter where she lives,
so if the man is jail, he still has to bear her expenses, the picture you have presented is of the West that the woman moves out.

i like and take what Islam says, not what you say

bro legally you can even throw your children(after they are 18+) and parents of the property you solely own i am not saying you should but legally its your right.what this bill is doing is undermining your ownership rights which is the only thing i am against.

we are taking about the Islamic Law, according to which i cannot throw out my parents nor my children out, otherwise i deserve hell

 

[Hell hound]

The laws were already there to deal with abusive husbands. Many cases appeared in the media as well in which, guilty husbands were punished. However, this new innovation of the Punjab Assembly surpresses the basic freedoms and ownership rights of a man. There will be misuse of this law on a massive scale.
Making someone wear a wrist band tracker, I mean afterall.....what next, you are going to make him wear a dog collar as well? This is only going to make someone mentally sick and perhaps more abusive than before. There is no such law in the West, whereas we are trying to become more angraiz than the angraiz himself. Family issues aren't resolved that way, this is only going to increase divorce rate.

And before you start bashing Islam or mullahs, let me tell you what, this is not about Islam--- this is about basic human rights.

Plus, what about the men who are victims of domestic abuse? Not at the hands of their wives but at the hands of their in-laws? I personally know of a few incidents in which, husbands were thrashed by their brother-in-laws.

i just went through the bill thoroughly this bill is also contradicting with right to bear arms wtf the bill makers were thinking and do politicians in punjab assembly even read it before passing it.this bill is fucking with every possible right it can.

The laws were already there to deal with abusive husbands. Many cases appeared in the media as well in which, guilty husbands were punished. However, this new innovation of the Punjab Assembly surpresses the basic freedoms and ownership rights of a man. There will be misuse of this law on a massive scale.
Making someone wear a wrist band tracker, I mean afterall.....what next, you are going to make him wear a dog collar as well? This is only going to make someone mentally sick and perhaps more abusive than before. There is no such law in the West, whereas we are trying to become more angraiz than the angraiz himself. Family issues aren't resolved that way, this is only going to increase divorce rate.

And before you start bashing Islam or mullahs, let me tell you what, this is not about Islam--- this is about basic human rights.

Plus, what about the men who are victims of domestic abuse? Not at the hands of their wives but at the hands of their in-laws? I personally know of a few incidents in which, husbands were thrashed by their brother-in-laws.

i just went through the bill thoroughly this bill is also contradicting with right to bear arms wtf the bill makers were thinking and do politicians in punjab assembly even read it before passing it.this bill is fucking with every possible right it can.

it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the HUSBAND according to ISLAM, to provide everything to the wife, no matter where she lives,
so if the man is jail, he still has to bear her expenses, the picture you have presented is of the West that the woman moves out.

i like and take what Islam says, not what you say


we are taking about the Islamic Law, according to which i cannot throw out my parents nor my children out, otherwise i deserve hell

according to the present law of Pakistan you can and even in islam you can separate your male child after they are balig and female child after she is married .islam don't forces you to live with your parents show me where it does

 

[Psychic]

according to the present law of Pakistan you can and even in islam you can separate your male child after they are balig and female child after she is married .islam don't forces you to live with your parents show me where it does

You are correct.

just went through the bill thoroughly this bill is also contradicting with right to bear arms wtf the bill makers were thinking and do politicians in punjab assembly even read it before passing it.this bill is fucking with every possible right it can.

True.
This bill is a rape of human rights. Throwing out of house, wearing wrist band (کڑا ) , confiscating firearm, paying compensations, and so on.
Most of the pdf'ers are expirates. Can they mention any Western law which bears resemblance to this law?

The fanatical supporters of this law on pdf have already assumed that this law will protect "opressed" women from their "maniac" husbands. However, it isn't always like that---women aren't always opressed and husbands aren't always maniacs in Pakistan.