Share:

HYDERABAD - JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rahman yesterday termed the future of husbands in the Punjab ‘horrible’ after the passage of Protection of Women against Violence Bill, 2015, in the provincial assembly.

Talking to media persons after offering condolences over the death of the local party leader, Maulana Azam Jahangiri, he said the bill passed in the Punjab Assembly in the name of women’s rights was in conflict with the Shariah.

The JUI-F chief said the bill had made men insecure in his own house. “The bill reflects the slave mentality. Now I have come to know why Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif is Khadam-e-Aala. The reason is that he is Khadam-e-Aala (the chief servant) of his family,” he added.

He termed Women Protection Bill violation of the Constitution and the Shairah, saying the entire family life would be destroyed with this bill.

The JUI-F chief said attempts were being made to destabilise the strong family system of Islam.

Answering a question, Fazl criticised the members of the Punjab Assembly on the recently passed Women Protection Bill. While taunting the legislators, he stated: “Islam addresses husband and wife as the protectors of each other’s honour, but such a law will disturb the basic fabric of a Muslim household.”

“If a woman is treated badly, she should go to family or tribal elders and if she doesn’t get justice, then she can go to the courts because this is our culture,” said Fazal-ur-Rehman.

The JUI-F leader recalled that during the Musharraf tenure, PML-N opposed a similar bill, but now they themselves had become the followers of the European culture. He further said it appeared the bill was brought by non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

Meanwhile, Fazl said an impression was being created that the decision of the army chief’s service tenure was in his own hands.

Fazl said: “The power of extension in service period is in the hands of army chief only in martial law.” He also said the provinces had reservations over National Action Plan (NAP).

He averred sending all the cases to military courts was giving an impression that civil institutions had failed, which was not right.

He said the matter of extension in the tenure of the army chief should be left to constitutional institutions. He added some elements were developing this impression that it was in their hands to extend the tenure of the army chief.