|
When Zee TV’s
representative, Dileep, read this news, he made a spicy news based on this
incident and telecast it on Zee TV. Thereafter the whole electronic media
was attracted to this and each channel presented this news according to
its own expediency and business interests, without any reliable and
authentic enquiry, in such a way as if this was judgement or fatwa
of Islamic Shariah. Some self-styled policemen of Shariat compelled Imrana
and her husband to live separately. Thereafter, some women’s
organisations met Imrana and allegedly offered her Rs 5000 without any
demand from her and insisted upon her to make a statement that instead of
Shariah judgement, she will give preference to court’s judgement.
It may also be
noted that Imrana on her own did not lodge any complaint with the police,
but after the publication of the news, police on its own came to Imrana
and on the pretext of orders from above compelled her to give a statement.
Not only this, after continuous insistence they got her medically examined
after 15 days and compelled her to have her statement recorded before a
magistrate. One can only imagine as to what would be the medical report of
a married woman, 15 days after she was allegedly raped, especially that
she was living with her husband for quite sometime after the alleged rape,
not to speak of the authenticity and correctness of this step.
The background
of this whole matter is that for the past several months a dispute is
going on between Noor Ilahi and his father about partition of their
ancestral house. Noor’s father wants to sell the house to pay the debt
of Rs 20,000 but Noor and Imrana do not want the house to be sold. Because
of the lingering dispute, according to eye-witnesses, three days before
the alleged incident in question Imrana’s father-in-law Mohammed Ali had
made an unsuccessful attempt to commit suicide by swallowing poison.
As regards fatwa
in this case, it is meaningless because the above mentioned two persons
Jameel and Shah Deen had casually asked Mohammed Shameem, a local maulvi
who is a teacher in a local Madrasa and who is neither a Mufti nor has a
deep knowledge of Shariat, that if a father-in-law rapes or commits
adultery with his daughter-in-law, what is Shariat’s rule for such a
person or such an act. Maulvi Mohammed Shameem, without referring to
Shariat, expressed his own opinion that the marriage of such a wife to her
husband will be annulled.
When the
delegation members talked to Maulvi Shameem in this connection, he said
that he was neither fully aware of this incident nor had expected the
gravity or consequences of his views. He had simply given his opinion when
asked about it. In spite of repeatedly questioning by the delegation about
the basis in Shariat of this rule, he failed to give any logical
reference.
Local Ulama and
some responsible people told the delegation that the views of Shar’i
court of Muzaffarnagar district have been sought in this case but so far
no reply has been received. Darul Uloom, Deoband has also declined to
issue any fatwa in this matter and advised to refer this case to
Muzaffarnagar Shariah court at Sarawat.
After visiting
Charthawal, and making enquiries and recording the statements of the
concerned people, the Muslim Political Council feels that this incident is
nothing but sensationalisation of an incident by media, the aim of which
is simply to blow up a small and ordinary incident in order to project a
bad image of Muslims and make fun of Islam. The Council feels that such
attitude of the media is a criminal conspiracy to discredit Islam and such
incidents receive wide publicity because the Muslim Personal Law Board and
other Muslim organisations adopt criminal silence or raise their voice
only when the conspiracies of the enemies are almost successful.
The President of
the Council has demanded that the Muslim Personal Law Board should take
immediate action in such cases and should also take immediate steps to
counter the unnecessary and irresponsible statements of Maulvis and
non-Muftis, and take disciplinary action against them. At the same time,
it should make known Shar’i commands and instructions regarding
such cases so that irresponsible media should not get any opportunity to
indulge in such shameless and base games. Dr Rahmani has warned Indian
media that if no caution and control is exercised in reporting religious
events or incidents with religious implications, the matter will be
brought to the notice of the Press Council of India and suitable legal
action will be taken against the erring media.
The delegation included
Pervez Aftab Siddiqi, General Secretary, Dr Hasan Raza Kameli, spokesman,
Sayeed Ahmad, Maulana Arshad Jamali, Salim Amrohi, Badruzzaman etc.
Earlier, a two-member delegation comprising Sayeed Ahmad and Mirza Aabad
Husain had visited Charthawal to make preliminary enquiries.
Muslim Political Council of India,
www.mpcindia.org, drrehmani2003@yahoo.co.in
«
Read Also:
-
Imrana case: Rape by Media
:: Imrana on video - no rape
-
Text of the Question and fatwa on Imrana
-
Statements on Imrana case
-
"Deoband
Fatwa"
Latest
Indian Muslim Islamic News
Latest
Indian Muslim Organisation Press Releases / Statements
Subscribe to the PRINT
edition NOW: Get the COMPLETE picture
32 tabloid
pages choke-full of news, views & analysis on the Muslim scene in
India & abroad...
Delivered at your doorstep, Twice a month
|
The way in which
the print and electronic media have presented the incident of the alleged
violation of chastity, or rape, of a Muslim woman, Imrana, by her
father-in-law, Mohammed Ali in Muzaffarnagar district's Charthawal town is
against facts. The whole incident is a case of calumny, a result of an
unsuccessful attempt by the media to blackmail Imrana and her in-laws.
There was neither any panchayat meeting in Charthawal about the
incident nor any Darul Uloom, Darul Ifta or Mufti, etc. issued any formal fatwa
on this issue. The statement published or telecast by the newsmedia that
Imrana and her husband Noor Ilahi have expressed their views not to abide
by the verdict of Shariat and instead to agree to the verdict of a
civil court is also not correct.
