PUNE, 3 July 2005 — There is a new development in the Imrana rape case, with fingers being pointed, triggering off another debate over who exactly is in a position to decide the victim’s destiny.
Imrana is confused about her fate. So are the ulema at Deoband. Days after they unleashed a storm of protests across the nation, the ulema at Dar ul-Uloom Deoband, perhaps in a desperate attempt to wriggle out of an unsavory controversy over the rape case, said they passed no fatwa “whatsoever” that mandated Imrana break away from her husband.
Dar ul-Uloom Deoband spokesman Adil Siddiqui clarified the role of the institution and claimed that the confusion began after Muzaffarnagar-based journalist Ashraf Usmani, asked for a written declaration of the diktat. It had no mention of Imrana and only spoke of a hypothetical situation, asking what would happen if a woman was raped by her father-in-law, but wished to remain with her husband.
The application was forwarded to the ‘nayab nazim’ (head) of the ‘fatwa wing’ of Dar ul-Uloom Deoband, Mufti Habib ur-Rehman, who subsequently issued the fatwa “duly signed” by him.
Dar ul-Uloom’s comment that Imrana was now ineligible to live with her husband Noor Mohammad has once again turned the focus on the fate of the rape victim.
Trapped among the “irresponsible” utterances of a Lucknow qazi, provisions of law and this latest involvement of Dar ul-Uloom, Deoband, the Imrana issue has now caught the attention of the ulema in many other cities, some of whom question the implementation of Shariah in part. The Shariah on Imrana can be justified only if the accused is punished under the law that provides for Sangsar — her father-in-law being stoned to death in public view, is one of the views.
Imam of Aishbagh Eidgah Maulana Khalid Rasheed Firangi Mahli said: “There are no two views on Imrana going by the Shariah, but if the punishment for such crimes also follows on Shariat lines, then an effective check can be put on such incidents across the country.”
