Pakistan court orders ears and noses to be cut off

[Guest]

Aslamualikum

What do u think about it????????A Pakistani court has ordered that two men have their ears and noses cut off, as punishment for doing the same to a woman who refused to marry one of them.

The two brothers were found guilty of kidnapping 20-year-old Fazeelat Bibi, one of their cousins, in September.

The judge in Lahore also sentenced them to life in prison.

Sentence was passed on Monday under a rarely invoked Islamic law dating from the 1980s. In the past similar sentences have been revoked on appeal.

'Eye for an eye'

Government prosecutor Ehtisham Qadir said the punishment had been awarded in accordance with the Islamic principle of "an eye for an eye".

Sher Mohammad and Amanat abducted Fazeelat Bibi as she returned home from work at a brick kiln in the Raiwind area of Lahore, the court heard.

"They put a noose around her neck, and then cut off her ears and nose," Mr Qadir told the BBC.

Three alleged accomplices are still being sought by police.

The crime was committed after Fazeelat Bibi's parents refused to give her hand in marriage to Sher Mohammad, Mr Qadir said.

Islamic laws were introduced in Pakistan during the military regime of General Ziaul Haq in the 1980s.

The BBC's M Ilyas Khan in Islamabad says punishments prescribed under the laws have rarely been awarded, and never carried out.

Pakistani human rights activists have long campaigned for more to be done to stop attacks against women, which often include facial disfigurement.

However, they also disagree with the type of punishment handed out in Lahore, correspondents say.

To be honest i'm (pleasantly) surprised that the court actually took action and were not bought out or anything. Alhamdolilah

 

[wicky]

subhanAllah

 

[shagi]

Good job.......Pakistani court zinda Abad

 

[imran0033]

sir jee kamaal ho gaya.. aysa hi hona chahiya..

 

[hkniazi]

Very fair decision. hats off for that.

 

[masadi1980]

Very well decision. Only in this way he can feel the same severity of pain.

 

[contra]

1. This is wrong and outright dangerous.

2. A court needs to give punishment as is written in the Criminal Code. Nothing more nothing less.

3. I think this kind of punishment, an eye for an eye, is a feature of the Sharia.
Civil Law, as the name suggests is civil, not barbaric.
And Criminal Law means a law for dealing with criminals, it doesn't mean the law is "Criminal".

4. I hope that this punishment is repealed in the higher court.

5. The judge who gave this punishment is a fool and a moron.

 

[taul]

1. This is wrong and outright dangerous.

2. A court needs to give punishment as is written in the Criminal Code. Nothing more nothing less.

3. I think this kind of punishment, an eye for an eye, is a feature of the Sharia.
Civil Law, as the name suggests is civil, not barbaric.

4. I hope that this punishment is repealed in the higher court.

5. The judge who gave this punishment is a fool and a moron.

---Only imbeciles are the one's who can NOT comprehend their own existence and all the Punishments in Islam are the most Just :ugeek: hand a stern punishment and set that as a deterrent for any possible similar crimes :ugeek: An eye for an eye is mentioned in the bible :ugeek:

 

[Guest]

1. This is wrong and outright dangerous.

2. A court needs to give punishment as is written in the Criminal Code. Nothing more nothing less.

3. I think this kind of punishment, an eye for an eye, is a feature of the Sharia.
Civil Law, as the name suggests is civil, not barbaric.
And Criminal Law means a law for dealing with criminals, it doesn't mean the law is "Criminal".

4. I hope that this punishment is repealed in the higher court.

5. The judge who gave this punishment is a fool and a moron.

please dont take it in bad way what i m trying to talk u now
1st u said it is a wrong , so let me know if this happend with ur own family member or with ur sister and they cut her nose and aer

2nd this is court os islamic law not a hindu or britsh court so they did as law said in our country and this is very nice they have stared ,

3rd crimal law mean punishment where other people can lern and dont happend his crime again , not like put these criminal in jail for whole life and feed them with mony of civialn people tex for what , so it much better for cival socity , they punshih them same what they did so other people lern and leav them for there rest of life dont waist mont and sources on wrong people,

and i hope hight court or supreme court have same law inshallah they will give them same pushiment or he must may a big anount of mony which must be very huge ,

and u said judge is fool , i think if he was fool so no one make him judge , why people like you they r not a judge bcoz ur not able for this and if it as ur mother or sister on this girl place and if judge give same punshment so people like u realy going to say he is not a judge he is godfor hidus ,
i hope u dont take my post personly but just think on u b4 to give any comment and remeber must be afraid from bad time b4 to post any nonsens coments
but i hope u will post bad bcoz u belive u bcome human from a monky i think?
and answer my question if humaq was a monky or what else u think so why all monkys they r still monky and they die monky and why not any other animal is changing in last 2500 years???????????

 

[gazoomartian]

as you sow, so shall you reap. canwestern countries OR even terrorist India match this sentencing ??? NOT

In Canada and the US and also perhaps in UK, those two men would get 3 years of jail term, if that. Then they would have been out early because of good behavior.

Good work prosecutor and the jury (or Judge) !!! I am very happy on your verdict.

As for human rights: they will never be satisfied. if the had been given on year jail, they would have cried: oh no this terrible, women are not safe in Pakistan and all the other trash...

ppboy bhai, please stop replying to Inidians's post. Your irritations and angers are what they are looking. Like I said before, they are 'attention whore', in desparate need of attention cus, I am willing to bet, they have been banned by Indian sites

Gazoo Martian

 

[dukelondon]

Excellent and fair decision. However, unfortunately, I also read in a newspaper that such sentences in the past were not upheld by the High courts. I hope and pray that this sentence is carried out "as is" and then the whole of Pakistan gets to know about it so that anyone who has any intention of doing something similar thinks a thousand times before committing such a heinous crime. Ay Allah(SWT), hamaray mulk mein insaaf raij kar day. Aameen.

 

[niazi]

well done,Alhamdullilah islam has solutions for all problems,these kind of punishments will root out the crimes from society.

 

[contra]

please dont take it in bad way what i m trying to talk u now1st u said it is a wrong , so let me know if this happend with ur own family member or with ur sister and they cut her nose and aer

ppb bhai,
1. I have been asked the same question several times.

2. Look, the affected party does not decide the punishment of the accused, that is the job of the court.

3. If something like this were to happen to my family member, then maybe yes, i would want the same fate for the person who did this, but, i won't decide the punishment, the court will.

4. If for example, the victim is a family member of the judge, then the case will not go to him, but to some other judge. This is how it works, and is the right way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets take an example, lets see how an eye for an eye will work in the following situation:

1. A person X is driving a car, the brakes of the car malfunction, for no fault of X.

2. The car hits a person Y, and Y looses his left leg.

3. Now, in this situation, if the family of Y demands that X's leg should also be amputated, is such a demand valid?

4. Friend, the court needs to have a well defined course of action available to it, the moment you bring arbitration into decision making, thats when the problem starts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I stand by my earlier view that such a punishment is absolutely wrong and will set a very bad precedent if carried out.

 

[taul]

Lets take an example, lets see how an eye for an eye will work in the following situation:

1. A person X is driving a car, the brakes of the car malfunction, for no fault of X.

2. The car hits a person Y, and Y looses his left leg.

3. Now, in this situation, if the family of Y demands that X's leg should also be amputated, is such a demand valid?

4. Friend, the court needs to have a well defined course of action available to it, the moment you bring arbitration into decision making, thats when the problem starts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I stand by my earlier view that such a punishment is absolutely wrong and will set a very bad precedent if carried out.

---Your whole example is based on unequal stance and supposition,let me simplify the case presented in the post by making it 2 + 2=4.


--In the above scenario ( report) the accused willingly and in full senses took out the action for which they were charged,an eye for eye suggests they be punished accordingly :ugeek:


--Let's take an example of a case where someone intentionally killed a person and gets a sentence for max 30 years :evil: this will NOT do any justice to the victim and his/her family and even the time he would serve would in no way equal to the loss the victim's family members may have suffered :ugeek:


--Intention and will needs to be there whereas an accident/unintentional act is whole different scenario and is dealt with accordingly :)



--Justice demands that such an action be carried out for the culprit ( who has intentionally carried out a crime) so that it may serve as a deterrent for others to be miles away from it :ugeek:

 

[Guest]

please dont take it in bad way what i m trying to talk u now1st u said it is a wrong , so let me know if this happend with ur own family member or with ur sister and they cut her nose and aer

ppb bhai,
1. I have been asked the same question several times.

2. Look, the affected party does not decide the punishment of the accused, that is the job of the court.

3. If something like this were to happen to my family member, then maybe yes, i would want the same fate for the person who did this, but, i won't decide the punishment, the court will.

4. If for example, the victim is a family member of the judge, then the case will not go to him, but to some other judge. This is how it works, and is the right way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets take an example, lets see how an eye for an eye will work in the following situation:

1. A person X is driving a car, the brakes of the car malfunction, for no fault of X.

2. The car hits a person Y, and Y looses his left leg.

3. Now, in this situation, if the family of Y demands that X's leg should also be amputated, is such a demand valid?

4. Friend, the court needs to have a well defined course of action available to it, the moment you bring arbitration into decision making, thats when the problem starts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I stand by my earlier view that such a punishment is absolutely wrong and will set a very bad precedent if carried out.

again u making fun of u ur example dont make any sense with this and this court have decide not her family and these guys they did this kiuon key unhon nay us ko shadi ki offer ki jab us nay no keha to unhon nay esa kiya us lerki key sath , yaar ager kisi baat ka pata na ho to baat na kiya kero aur apni stupid masalen apny pass rekho haqeqat samjo aur baat keero
tum sirf behs kerty ho aur yahan per her us baat ki mukhalphat kerty ho jo mae post krta hon thats it

 

[foqia khan]

Lets take an example, lets see how an eye for an eye will work in the following situation:

1. A person X is driving a car, the brakes of the car malfunction, for no fault of X.

2. The car hits a person Y, and Y looses his left leg.

3. Now, in this situation, if the family of Y demands that X's leg should also be amputated, is such a demand valid?

4. Friend, the court needs to have a well defined course of action available to it, the moment you bring arbitration into decision making, thats when the problem starts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I stand by my earlier view that such a punishment is absolutely wrong and will set a very bad precedent if carried out.

The Noble Quran regarding accidental deaths:
"Never should a believer kill a believer; but (If it so happens) by mistake, (Compensation is due): If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased's family, unless they remit it freely. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (Is enough). If he belonged to a people with whom ye have treaty of Mutual alliance, compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed. For those who find this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two months running: by way of repentance to God: for God hath all knowledge and all wisdom. (The Noble Quran, 4:92)"
If a believer kills a believer by mistake, then he/she should:


1- If the believer belonged to the same tribe or other Muslim tribes, then free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the family of the deceased unless they remit it freely.

2- If the deceased was a Muslim and belonged to non-Muslims at war with us, then free a believing slave. The reason why his family wouldn't get compensated is because they are not believers. Unless they are believers, no money shall be paid to them.

3- If the deceased was a Muslim and belonged to non-Muslims who were allies with us, then free a believing slave and pay compensation to his non-Muslim family.

4- If any of the above is not possible for the accidental murderer, then fast for two months consecutively.