Pakistan gets mildly progressive.

In case you need any reminder of the cultural gap that exists between the West and the Arab Street, consider the controversy brewing in Pakistan over the Hudood Ordinance, an enactment of Shari'a law that enforces punishments mentioned in the Quran for crimes such as adultery and rape. The ordinance requires that a woman charging a man with rape provide four male eyewitnesses to prove her case (four Muslim male eyewitnesses in the event that the accused is a Muslim). If she cannot, then she risks prosecution for adultery. A charge of adultery does not carry the same evidentiary burden. Put simply, it is practically impossible to charge a man with rape in Pakistan. If a woman attempts and fails, then she is subject to either death by stoning or 100 lashes, depending upon whether or not she is married.

The Pakistani government is finally on the verge of changing the law. Pakistan's religious authorities naturally consider any such change to be "a harbinger of lewdness and indecency in the country." What strikes me when reading through the BBC article isn't necessarily that the religious authorities oppose changing the law, but that they do not advance a single common sense rationale for its existence. Each reason is some incarnation of "The changes are not in line with Islamic teaching." And that's sufficient justification for them. I admit that we Catholics abide by a few strange rules, like not eating meat on Fridays during Lent, but those are purely symbolic observances and don't stand to harm others. With something like this, though, how do you not scratch your head and ask yourself whether it really makes any sense?