Home
  Zara Sochieye FAQs
  History of Hudood Ordinance
  Zina Ordinance
  Hudood: Verses from the Quran
  Both Sides of the Story
  Experts Commentary
  Program Transcripts
  Zara Sochieye Declaration
  Email The Declaration to friends
  A Quick Summary for Media
  Press Quotes
  Foreign Media Coverage
  Promos and Print Ads
  Submit Feedback
  Review Feedback
  External links
  Disclaimer

Both Sides of the Story

ISSUE
Argument in favor of the Hudood Ordinance
Argument against the Hudood Ordinance
Hudood Ordinance is presented as a Divine law that cannot be touched. The question is, is it a Divine Law? The Hudood Ordinance itself is not the Divine Word of Allah, but is in close reference to it. It was made after great deliberation between legal experts and religious scholars and is an essential step towards the creation of an Islamic Republic. The Hudood Ordinance is NOT the Divine Law. It aims to be an interpretation of the Word of Allah, but it fails to be a true representation of Quran and Sunnah. It is an Ordinance that was passed hurriedly without any homework or public debate and was promulgated to achieve narrow political interests rather than with the intention to establish the writ of Allah in the country.
ISSUE
Argument in favor of the Hudood Ordinance
Argument against the Hudood Ordinance
The Hudood Ordinance treats Zina and Zina bil Jabr in a similar way as far as the requirements of evidence and the nature of punishments are concerned. Should Zina and Zina bil Jabr be treated in the same manner?
Zina and zina bil jabr are both two forms of the same crime and therefore, the rules of evidence that apply for zina will apply for bil jabr. The only difference is that one is consensual and, therefore, both the man and the woman involved will be punished. And in zina bil jabr, the woman is innocent and, therefore, will not be punished. Islam only makes a distinction between married and unmarried parties. For the case to be tried under Tazeer, 4 witnesses are not required and punishments can still be given. In fact, these punishments are very severe and include life imprisonment. Tazeer is a secondary issue. The first is that we must recognize that Zina and zina bil jabr are two very different crimes. Zina is hudd (maximum punishment) whilst other (bil jabr) comes under the realm of Tazeer (mitigated punishment) since Allah has not mentioned it as a hudd. Zina bil jabr therefore, is either seen as harraba (theft of property) or as a part of fisad fil arz (that which involves terror and force) in the Quran. The method of proving zina bil jabr through the testimony of four witnesses is a man made idea and not the rule of Allah since it is not hudd to begin with. Zina bil jabr comes under Tazeer and in the same manner, for zina, there cannot be Tazeer since it is directly a hadd crime. This means that a person should be immediately acquitted for zina if the condition of 4 witnesses is not met. There can be no lesser punishment. Again, the other problem is that the Hudood Ordinance contains Hudd as well as Tazeer punishments. When a crime does not fulfill the conditions to be tried under hudd, it is tried under Tazeer. This is a flawed idea since a crime is either 100% proven or not. If the evidence does not meet the conditions of hudd, the case has to go in the favour of the victim..

ISSUE
Argument in favor of the Hudood Ordinance
Argument against the Hudood Ordinance
Qazf is a law that applies against those who falsely accuse someone of zina. It is presented in the Hudood Ordinance as a separate ordinance than the Zina Ordinance and it states that once the case has run its course and it is found that the accused is not guilty then the accused has to file a separate case against the person who falsely accused her/him. Should Qazf apply automatically or should there be a separate Ordinance for it?


According to Surah Noor, Qazf applies automatically if a person accuses someone of zina but is unable to bring 4 witnesses. A person guilty of Qazf is liable to be punished with 80 lashes and his/her evidence will never be accepted in a court of law. He/she is, in the Words of Allah, a “transgressor”. This is one area which can be improved and changed in the Hudood Ordinance. The changed version will lead to fewer false accusations of zina. This should be condition that applies at the time somebody files an FIR against someone for zina. If 4 witnesses are not brought at the time of filing a zina complaint, the accuser should be flogged right there and then. (From the people we have interviewed, all religious scholars think that this change should be made in the Ordinance.) The Quran refers to Qazf as a means of protecting women. Surah Noor says that if a person accuses a pious woman of zina and is unable to produce 4 witnesses to prove his/her accusation, he/she must be flogged with 80 lashes. The main point of the verse is to protect women from being falsely accused or slandered. If Qazf is made part of the Zina Ordinance, many false zina cases would not be attended to and it will surely limit misuse of the Ordinance. This should be condition that applies at the time somebody files an FIR against someone for zina. If 4 witnesses are not brought at the time of filing a zina complaint, the accuser should be flogged right there and then. Most zina cases end up as false accusations but only 1% of them find their way back in the courts again as Qazf cases.
ISSUE
Argument in favor of the Hudood Ordinance
Argument against the Hudood Ordinance

The Zina Ordinance in the Hudood Ordinance prescribes the punishment of Rajam (stoning to death) as the Hudd punishment for a married man and / or a married woman if found guilty of Zina or Zina bil jabr liable to hudd. Is this a punishment prescribed in the Quran?

Rajam as a punishment was awarded in the time of the prophet (P.B.U.H) and the Caliphs. Some also believe that there was a verse regarding Rajam that was written on a leaf. At the time of the Prophet’s (P.B.U.H) death, the leaf was misplaced and it was later discovered that it may have been eaten by a goat and reference to it was later added in several collections of ahadith. Rajam has not been mentioned in the Quran. The maximum or ‘hudd’ punishment for zina is 100 lashes (that is, when the requirements for hudd punishment are met). This in itself is a very severe punishment. And therefore, the Quran states that solid proof, beyond any doubt, is required before convicting the accused.
ISSUE
Argument in favor of the Hudood Ordinance
Argument against the Hudood Ordinance

Evidence by women is unacceptable for a crime to be liable to hudd punishment for all ordinances within the Hudood Ordinance. Women as witnesses do not fulfill the criteria for a punishment to be liable to hudd and in the case where women do provide evidence, the case is automatically tried under tazeer.

In matters of Hudd, a woman’s evidence is not accepted. But this does not mean that women’s evidence is not accepted anywhere in Islam. There are some things for which only women can be witnesses such as birth. And then there are some where a woman's testimony is not accepted such as the sighting of the moon. Islam does not allow a woman to act as a witness to crimes of hudood. Women are emotional and may not be in the right state of mind to report on a crime of this nature. Also, the court of law is surrounded by men from all sides and so it may be improper for a woman to describe in detail, the acts of zina and zina bil jabr. Giving witness is NOT a right, it is a responsibility and women have been wavered this responsibility. However, where no male witnesses are available, women may be witnesses but then the punishment given will be that of tazeer, not hudd.
Wherever the Quran talks about witnesses, it does not differentiate between the two genders. The only place where the Quran talks about 2 females in place of one male witness is to undertake business transactions and in signing business contracts etc. Here too, there is actually just one female witness. The other woman is only expected to provide moral support, but does not act as a witness. The whole idea of not accepting women’s evidence to be equal to that of men’s, is a patriarchal interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah. There are many Ahadith to support the fact that the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H) took decisions based solely on the witness of a woman.
ISSUE
Argument in favor of the Hudood Ordinance
Argument against the Hudood Ordinance

How does the Hudood Ordinance apply to Non Muslims? Do Non Muslims come under the ambit of the Ordinance? For a crime to be liable to hudd punishment, why is a Non Muslim’s evidence accepted ONLY when the accused is a Non Muslim? Why can’t Non Muslims be accepted as witnesses for hudd crimes if the law is to apply to them as well?

The Hudood Ordinance applies to all citizens of the country whether they are Muslims or Non Muslims since it is part of the law of an Islamic state. Also it would not be logical for there to be two parallel laws, one for Muslims and the other for Non Muslims.

Non Muslims cannot be used as witness to a crime committed by a Muslim since the Quran says “people amongst you” and in other places uses the word “momineen” for witnesses. Non Muslims may not grasp the nature of the sever punishments prescribed by these laws and the consequences of these crime in the Life Hereafter. They may also intentionally do something to hurt Muslims. Since it is important that the witnesses fulfill the requirements of “tazkiya-al-shahood”, this would necessarily include a Muslim who says his prayers regularly, fasts and abstains from major sins.

The Hudood Laws are specifically for Muslims since they are stated in the Quran and the Quran applies only to Muslims. Also, the Constitution of Pakistan makes the rights of Non Muslims very clear allowing them to live under their own personal religious laws for all personal matters. We cannot enforce this law on Non Muslims unless we first provide an Islamic welfare state where the rights of minorities have been secured and they are given special protection.

As far as being witness to a hudd crime, the condition of “tazkiya-ul-shahood” includes any person, Muslim or Non Muslim, man or woman, who can be trusted and is honest (i.e. not display honesty occasionally but are known to be honest persons). A person who prays regularly or fasts etc, may not necessarily be an upright and honest citizen of the state.