ZARA SOCHIEYE

A Quick Stop for Media:

1. What is Zara Sochieye?

Zara Sochieye (THINK) is a formal drive initiated by GEO Television Network that attempts to highlight issues that promote and/or represent imbalance and injustice in our society and have divided us for years. As the name suggests Zara Sochieye will include all such issues that have become so integrated into our society that we have stopped thinking about them. GEO, therefore, aims to explore new dimensions of an existing problem and create a platform for creative thinking and discourse between diverse people and ideas.

2. Why is GEO initiating a debate on this (Hudood Ordinance) particularly religious sensitive issue, when there are so many other areas of concern in society to take on?

This is neither the first time nor the first issue that GEO is bringing to the forefront. This particular initiative should be seen as a part of our brand’s continued effort to shed light on ‘’controversial’’ issues which in actuality, might be less controversial than people think. They might be considered controversial because they haven’t been explored enough due to intolerance, lack of information, parochial mindset and political circumstances.

GEO respects all religions, especially Islam which, promotes tolerance peace and understanding. GEO believes that tolerance, peace and understanding will also come through debate and discourse and access to information, lack of which, is the primary road block to such high ideals.

3. Is GEO taking a position on this issue?

GEO doesn’t take sides on political issues. This is, in fact, not an issue that should be political and we are breaking the political barrier around it so that it can be discussed and debated. Having said that, GEO will always be on the side of Geo Aur Geenay Do (“Live and Let Live”). GEO’s moto promotes tolerance, freedom and equality and in making these words our slogan, we have taken on the responsibility to play our part in creating a society that promotes these values. These values will, in turn, promote independent thought in our society without fear of reprisals which, will be beneficial for all its stakeholders.

On an issue like the Hudood Ordinance, GEO wants to empower its viewers with information on all aspects of the issue so that they can independently decide what position they want to take on the matter. We think this is a difficult task, and therefore, we are invoking people to think with our slogan, “Zara Sochieye.”

4. Who has GEO worked with in order to produce this initiative?

GEO has developed this entire initiative in house without any pressure or influence from any other agency. No support has been taken from the Government of Pakistan, non- governmental organizations, any political party or any other local or foreign agency or government. The initiative has been researched, designed, developed and implemented thoroughly by GEO’s own research and production team. The members of this team are full time employees of the channel without any association to any social or political organization, but rather, with a conscience of Geo Aur Geenay Do (‘Live and Let Live’).

5. Does GEO want the Hudood Ordinance amended/repealed?

Geo does not aim to repeal the Hudood Ordinance or amend it. That is a decision that the people of Pakistan have to take through their representatives in the National Assembly. We do, however, want to shed light on the Hudood Ordinance, its issues and what experts on the topic think. We believe that there is more consensus about what should be done about the Ordinance than not. We would like to be a platform for the debate which can lead to such a consensus.

Like always GEO will attempt to live up to its credibility by involving all stakeholders, experts and most of all, public opinion and feedback throughout the debate process. Feedback is welcome and encouraged at zs@geo.tv.

6. Why are women and NGO representatives mysteriously missing from your experts and panels of the Debates and Promos?

For 27 years, the Hudood Ordinance issue has been polarized, as well as politicized. Another way to approach the issue besides from a human rights or women rights perspective is Islam's rights. Islam has a right to be represented properly, and not be tied with unjust or confusing laws. This point can be better and more clearly communicated by scholars. Ideally every stakeholder should have a role in this debate but we realized that including women could have polarized opinion and may have distracted from the main issue at hand. People could easily be distracted into concentrating on arguing over 'who' is commenting rather than 'what' is being said.

History of the Hudood Ordinance:

The Hudood consists of 5 Ordinances namely

The Offence of Zina Ordinance
Prohibition Ordinance
The Offence Against Property Ordinance
Offence of Qazf Ordinance
Execution of Punishment of Whipping Ordinance

The Hudood Ordinances were promulgated by Gen Zia ul Haq in 1979 with an aim to bring the existing laws in conjunction with the teachings of the Quran and Sunnah. The Ordinance was a result of homework of some leading legal experts and religious scholars of the time. The main area of contention with the law is how the Quran and Sunnah have been interpreted. Since their inception, the Hudood Ordinance has come under fire not only from human rights activists but also from religious scholars who deem it to be skewed representation of the Islamic texts

With the passing of the 8th Amendment in the Constitution in 1985, the Hudood Ordinance are now protected by the Constitution and changes in the law can only be made with a two third majority in the Parliament

The case that highlighted national and international protest against the Zina Ordinance was the Safia Bibi case in 1983. Safia Bibi, a 13 year old blind girl alleged rape by her employer and his son but was charged for adultery under the Zina Ordinance whilst the rapists were acquitted. Upon national and international pressure the Federal Shariat Court called for the records of the case and released Safia Bibi from prison

In 1994 the Commission of Inquiry for Women was set up to review the laws and in 1997, under the chairperson Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, the report recommended repeal of the Hudood Laws

Again in the year 2000 a permanent National Commission on the Status of Women was established to review all laws and policies affecting women. Under the chairperson Justice Majida Rizvi a 15 member special committee reviewed the Hudood Ordinances and recommended repeal of these laws

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.

Question 1:

Hudood Ordinance is presented as a divine law which cannot be touched. Do you agree?

Khalid Masood
Chairman, Islamic Ideology Council

Hudood Ordinance is a law like any other law. It cannot be called a Divine law. It is made by humans and it can, therefore, have weaknesses, even flaws. There can be procedural flaws as well. To look at all of these in detail, it is important that we treat it as a law. Unfortunately, this issue has been politicized because of which we do not see it as a law alone.

Professor Dr. Anis Ahmed
Former Director General
Dawah Academy

As far as the Hudood are concerned, no person who considers himself a Muslim can be critical of them because these are Quranic injunctions. The Quran has repeatedly said that these are Allah’s hudood, do not go near them, be careful of them, obey them. But if a law is made on the basis of these hudood, then there is always a possibility that the law can be improved and made better. Therefore, any ordinance that is made by man is open to changes and additions.

Dr. Mohammad Tufail Hashmi
Religious Scholar

Hudood Ordinance is based on four laws and has 101 clauses. Out of its 101 clauses, 83 have nothing to do with the Hudood.18 clauses are connected with Hudood but then again, these do not conform to the Holy Book and neither do they relate to Sunnah. The entire Hudood Ordinance is, therefore, made by humans but we attribute it to Allah. The Quran says that the one who writes something and calls it Allah’s words, is the biggest oppressor.

Moulana Mohammed Hassan Jan
Shiekh-ul-Hadees
Jama Al madada-al-Uloom-e-Islamia
Peshawer

On one hand there is the Shariat Hudood in which there can be no changes. Then there is the Hudood Ordinance which is made by man. These can be changed as there can be some mistakes. Mistakes need to be corrected. Hudood Ordinance cannot be called Hudood Allah in its entirety. There is room for changes and improvements.

Hafiz Abdul Rehman Madni
Director General
International Judicial Institute

In our country Pakistan, many laws along with the Hudood Ordinances were promulgated in the name of Shariat. The problem is that humans have drafted these in their own language and then they are promulgated in a special way. Shariat, on the other hand, is revealed by God in the form of the Quran and Sunnah which is available to all of us. Therefore, every law that has been made as a result of Ijtehad conducted by human beings (and is then promulgated) will always carry the possibility that in the course of implementation many changes will have to be made. For this reason, I believe, that instead of conducting ijtehad before the law is made, it should be done after the application of the law and that too by judges, who are by then, capable of Ijtehad.

Shah Turab Ul Haq Qadri
Central President
Jamaat Ahl-e-Sunnat
Pakistan

In my opinion there is on one hand, the Hudood Ordinance which was promulgated in the time of Gen.Zia Ul Haq and the way the Hudood is interpreted by our fiqh scholars like Allama Shami, Alamgir etc. These two should be compared and after thorough comparison, if there are any weaknesses in the Hudood Ordinance, they should be removed. I feel that the Islami Hudood are those as have been stated by the Quran and Sunnah or through Ijma-e-Ummat and Qiyas and in our religious books. We should compare the Hudood Ordinance with all these authorities so that we can see the picture more clearly.

Qari Rooh Allah
Chief Khateeb
Government of NWFP

There are two things. One is Hudood and the other is Hudood Ordinance. They are both separate things. As far as the Hudood are concerned, there can be no room for changes. But as far as the Hudood Ordinance is concerned, it was made and drafted by man and can, therefore, be discussed with logic and reasoning. One can reason for and against it and all people can be heard and all views can be considered. As far as the Shariat is concerned, there is no problem a debate of this kind.

Allama Syed Razi Jaffer Naqvi
Sarparast –e- Aala
Tanzeem ul Muqatab Pakistan

Just like life is the unity of body and soul, Islamic laws also have a body and a soul. Some punishments within the Hudood Ordinance represent the body but do not take the spirit into consideration. The Prophet (p.b.u.h) came to rid society of all roots that created evil. But the General who promulgated the Hudood Ordinances only had personal interest in mind. This is why we do not think that the Hudood Ordinances, as promulgated by him, are in conformity with the soul of Islam.

Justice (retd.) K.M.A Samdani
Former Law Secretary (1978 – 80)
Government of Pakistan

As far as discussing a law is concerned, every law can be discussed if it is made by humans. This Ordinance was also made by humans. The law makers believed that the foundations of the Ordinance rest on Allah’s and His Prophet’s (p.b.u.h) orders and principles. But since human beings have made this law, and it involves their interpretation and their drafting, we can surely talk about it. If someone says that we cannot talk about the Hudood Ordinance that would be wrong.

Abdul Qayyum Haqqani
Sarparast Jama-e-Abu Huraira
Akora Khattak

Hudood Ordinance is a man made code. Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet are the real things and the ordinance has been made in light of these. In the present circumstances and changed realities, the Ordinance can be and should be changed and added to.

Dr. Mohammed Farooq Ahmed Khan
Islamic scholar

All the laws made and stated in the Quran about the collective life of Muslims are called Hudood. In a Muslim country, after Muslims have been educated and taken care of, and there exists a welfare state and then when these laws are promulgated, then they are called Hudood laws. The Hudood Ordinance that was promulgated in Pakistan on the 10th of February 1979 has many aspects that are not in accordance with the injunctions of the Quran. This is why the Quran’s hudood laws and the Hudood Ordinance (the way it is present in Pakistan), are both very different from each other.

Maulana Ehthram ul Haq Thanvi
Religious Scholar

I think presenting the flaws of the Hudood Ordinance as flaws in Islam per se is great injustice. On the one hand people talk about the weaknesses in the Hudood Ordinance and on the other, they ask if it is Islamic or unIslamic. I would like to say that all the flaws with the Hudood Ordinance should be seen as flaws perpetrated by the rulers of that time. There is no flaw or weakness in Islam’s law making procedures or in Islamic law. Such a thing is unimaginable!

Khurshid Ahmed Gangoi
Naib Amir
Tehreek-e-Imaraat Shariat

Hudood Ordinance is the result of human efforts and was promulgated by man. So we cannot call it Hudood Allah. It is true that rejecting Hudood Allah is kufr but the Hudood Ordinance leaves room for us to examine it critically and try to make it better.

Professor Dr. Fazal Ahmed
Former Director
Sheikh Zayed Islamic University

Hudood are Allah’s laws. An Ordinance is the law that is made after interpreting the Word of Allah. Therefore, the Ordinance is merely an interpretation and so there is always a possibility to review them. In my opinion, these interpretations should be looked at again and if there is something incongruous with the Shariat laws, they should be expunged and the society should be brought in to harmony with Allah’s laws.

Dr. Mohammed Yousuf Farooq
Head of Shariat Law
International Islamic University

This is a very important question whether the Hudood Ordinance is a Divine law or whether it is an interpretation of the Divine law. Anyway, the hudood in the Quran and Sunnah alone can be called Hudood Allah. Once they are interpreted by man, then these must be called human interpretations. No matter how close these interpretations try to be to the Hudood Allah, there is always possibility of some flaws in a human’s interpretation Also some mistakes may be made in determining their procedure, for which we are directed to take reference from the Quran and Sunnah. Once we do that and we find something different from how it is stated in the Quran and Sunnah, we can make the necessary amendments.

Hafiz Ibtesam Elahi Zaheer
Director, Idara-e-Tarjumaan Sunnah

Although the Hudood Ordinance addresses the same hudood that are stated in the Quran and the Sunnah, the Ordinance was formulated and designed by human beings. And it is only natural that human beings may have a limited or erroneous understanding of some things. So, wherever there might be some weaknesses, we believe, there is room for refinement. But after a detailed study I have come to the conclusion that there are no fundamental differences between the Hudood Ordinance and Hudood Allah.

Ahmed Javed
Deputy Director
Iqbal Academy

I think it is very difficult to make the claim that Hudood Ordinance is a complete manifestation of Islami Hudood or that the two are identical. In this ordinance, there seems to be a feeling of great helplessness as far hudood and their implementation is concerned.

Maualana Muhammed Yousuf Qureshi
Advisor Fiqh
Federal Shariat Court

The first thing to note is that Hudood is the plural of hadd and according to the dictionary it is used to denote that which is not allowed. According to the Shariat, hadd are those punishments that are ordained by Allah and His Prophet (p.b.u.h) to make people refrain from wrongs that are prohibited. In the Hudood Ordinance, those things that are told to us by Allah and His Prophet (p.b.u.h) and which are the hudood of Islam, cannot be changed. But the part of the Ordinance that was drafted by law makers can definitely be changed. This is because it is a man made law and anything made by human beings can have flaws and weaknesses. If scholars believe that there is anything which deviates from the Shariat, then it can be changed.

Hafiz Yousuf Salahuddin
Advisor Federal Shariat Court

Hudood Ordinance cannot entirely be called a Divine Law although it is a reflection of Hudood Allah and the possibility of mistakes definitely exists. But the way to resolve this issue is to sit together and decide where these mistakes exist and where there can be a possibility of more errors. It should be reviewed carefully without surrendering to the shrill propaganda of certain people who assert that these Hudood are wrong and are giving us a bad name.

Professor Khalid Zaheer
Social Sciences Department
LUMS

The Hudood Ordinance definitely has references to the Holy Quran and the punishments that are stated in it, but that does not mean that the Hudood Ordinance itself is a Divine law. It is a law that has been made by human beings who have come together to understand the Word of Allah and tried to fulfill the needs of the people. But in its present shape, the ordinance has many weaknesses. Allah’s law is immutable but human beings decide the details of the law in using their abilities and their understanding. In doing so issues may arise. Therefore, all these things can be reviewed. This will not be tantamount to a rejection of Allah’s law although the way it is implemented, the needs of the people and time, and its weakness, will all come under consideration. If we do not do this, then we will not be understanding the true spirit of Allah’s law and will be rejecting the rationale of these revealed laws.

Mufti Usman Yar Khan
Jama-e-Darul-Khair

The Hudood Ordinance is not a law sent down to us from Allah. When human beings make an Ordinance then it is obvious that it will not be as comprehensive and complete as the law that Allah has revealed to us. It is true that the good thing about the Hudood Ordinance is that it provides a means of protecting our society and is an effort to take the society on to the right path. But it does not totally fulfill the needs of society. It definitely needs to be reconsidered.

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi
Director, Al Mawrid

Hudood Ordinance is a man made law. This is because the Ordinance is made in accordance with the way human beings have understood and interpreted the punishments stated in the Quran. Therefore, this is not a Divine document which cannot be debated or corrected. What Allah has said is, undoubtedly, Allah’s Word and we will always be obliged to follow it. However, anyone can critique or discuss the way humans have understood and interpreted Allah’s Word. Anyone can find faults in it and make corrections. And keeping all this in view, a change can also be made in such a law.

Dr. Mehmood Ghazi
Former Federal Minister for Religious Affairs

There has been room for improvement in the Hudood Ordinance from the very first day. And many people have supported this point of view. I will give you my example. In 1984, I have said this on several platforms that the Hudood Ordinance can be looked at anew. All its flaws or gaps should be removed and plugged. I was a member of the Council of Islamic Ideology between 1990 and 1993. In that period, we started the exercise of reviewing the Ordinance and many recommendations were made. But these were not implemented.

Mufti Muneeb ur Rehman
Chairman Roohat-e-Hilal Committee
Pakistan

It is one thing to look at these laws with the intention of making corrections. It is an entirely different thing to dislike the laws because of hatred for Islam or to rebel against the will of Allah. These are two different things. If these laws are looked at it in the light of education and research, then there is nothing wrong with it and in fact, they can be improved upon. But the demand of a complete repeal of these laws has no space in Islam.

Justice (retd.) Mufti Muhammed Taqi Usmani
Former Justice Supreme Court Appellate Bench
Naib Sadr Darul Uloom, Karachi

As far as the Hudood are concerned, these are laws that have been ordained by Allah and exist in the Prohet’s (p.b.u.h) Sunnah. No Muslim can have any doubts regarding these and nobody has the authority to rescind them. The foundations of Pakistan rest on the premise that the country was made so that, Allah and His Prophet’s (p.b.u.h) laws would be implemented here. Therefore, they must be implemented. The Ordinance that was made to ensure that this would happen is, after all, made by man. This man made effort can have its mistakes. Therefore, if we criticize this Ordinance constructively or present better recommendations, then it is acceptable.

Question 2:

The Hudood Ordinance places zina and zina bil jabr in the same category. Do you think they are crimes of a similar nature?

Dr. Mehmood Ghazi
Former Federal Minister for Religious Affairs

It is a matter of Ijtehadi opinion whether zina and zina bil jabr should be treated separately or not. One Ijtehadi view is that both zina bil jabr and zina bil raza are separate. The other Ijtehadi opinion is that they are both the same crime. The Hudood Laws were drafted on the basis of the latter point of view. But experience has taught us that it was not a correct decision. It should be changed.

Khurshid Ahmed Gangoi
Naib Amir
Tehreek-e-Imaarat Shariat

I think that zina and zina bil jabr have been given the same place in the Hudood Ordinance. This should not happen. It is very important to correct this. The punishments that have been stated in the Quran and Sunnah are for zina. As far as zina bil jabr is concerned, the punishments for this crime should be more severe because together with zina, there is also an element of terror is involved. Therefore, it is important that these two should be differentiated.

Justice (retd.) K.M.A Samdani
Former Law Secretary
Govt. of Pakistan (1978-80)

In my opinion zina and zina bil jabr are two different kinds of crimes and need to be handled in two separate ways. Unfortunately, the element of force as not been given much attention when it comes to zina bil jabr. It should have been attended to. As a result, the prosecution, and to a big extent, the courts have treated zina and zina bil jabr as one even though it is impossible for them to be of the same kind – especially because their names are different and there is an element of force involved. We should definitely give this attention.

Dr. Muhammed Yousuf Farooq
Dean Faculty Shariat Law
International Islamic University

There is a difference between zina bil raza and zina bil jabr. When the elements of force and terror are involved, it becomes a different thing. Some of our fiqh scholars and thinkers have also commented on this. For example, some religious scholars say that zina bil jabr comes under fisad fil arz and say that it should, therefore, be treated separately. They consider it to be kind of hiraba (theft of property). Hiraba is also a fisad fil arz and so is this. As far as the “fisad” is concerned, of course, it exists, but in addition to it when violence enters the equation then it becomes a different crime. Therefore, this heinous act will be seen in one way and the act of zina bil raza will be seen in another way.

Abdul Sattar Salfi
Head, Jama-e-Al Sattaria

If the Hudood Ordinance does not differentiate between zina and zina bil jabr, then I think it is essential that religious scholars be brought together and requested to take a decision on the matter. If Shariat has treated the two differently then why hasn’t this difference been made apparent in the Ordinance? Why should they have the same punishments whilst in the Shariat they do not?

Dr. Farooq Ahmed Khan
Islamic Scholar

According to the Quran, there is a big difference between zina bil jabr and zina bil raza. Both are crimes, but zina bil jabr is a very big crime. This is why the Quran talks about the punishment of zina bil raza in Surah Noor and the punishments of zina bil jabr are given in Surah Maida’s verses 33 and 34. In these verses it has been described as fisad fil arz, for which there are extremely severe punishments. A very big flaw in the Hudood Ordinance present in Pakistan is that zina and zina bil jabr have been placed in the same category. They have the same requirements of evidence and their punishments are also the same. From the spirit of Islam, from the spirit of humanity, from the spirit of common sense and honor, this is very wrong.

Qari Roohullah
Chief Khateeb
Government of NWFP

Zina and zina bil jabr are two separate things and both have different principles. Religious scholars have debated over this issue as it comes under the realm of Ijtehad and they have already formed an Ijtehadi opinion on it. According to that, there is a difference between the two. Even courts have given their remarks on the issue and made observations regarding it and following these, scholars have also clarified this issue on several platforms. If, in the beginning, the difference was not made in the Hudood Ordinance, then it should be reconsidered.

Dr. Tufail Hashmi
Islamic Scholar

There is a very odd thing in the Hudood Ordinance that the requirements of evidence to prove zina and zina bil jabr are similar. For both, the Ordinance requires four special kind of male witnesses although zina bil jabr is totally different kind of a crime. Consequently, if a woman has been raped, and she cannot produce four pious, male eye witnesses, then not only is she punished for accepting that she has been involved in the act of zina, she also become guilty of Qazf (false accusation) because she has wrongly accused someone. She, therefore, becomes charged with two crimes. On the one hand, she is a victim and has turned to a court to seek justice, while on the other she is charged with two crimes and is subjected to double punishment.

Allama Syed Razi Jaffer Naqvi
Saparast-e-Aala
Tanzeem ul Mukatib, Pakistan

The truth is that if we think at length about zina bil jabr then it seems impossible that someone can commit this crime in front of four pious and trustworthy people. If a person will want to use force against a woman, then these four people would use their strength to stop such a thing from happening. The perpetrator would not dare to do something like this, and if he is that daring then because these witnesses are expected to be pious, they would use their strength and stop the crime.

Maulana Hasan Jaan
Sheikh-ul-Hadith
Jama-e-Darul Uloom Islamia

There is definitely a difference between the two. In Shariat, there is zina which is consensual and both parties agree and undertake the action with a plan and of their free will, and then there is zina bil jabr. In the latter the girl has not consented and the man uses force against her. The punishment for this should be very sever. It will come under Tazeer and Tazeer also allows giving the death penalty.

Justice (retd.) Nasir Aslam Zahid
Former Chief Justice Sindh High Court

The Zina Ordinance should be made in accordance with the verses of the Quran. I would like to say that the Zina Ordinance in its present form has not been made according to the principles of the Quran verses. According to the Quran only zina bil raza should be included in the Ordinance and the law for zina bil jabr should be made according to the ordinary Penal Code or the law of the State.

Hafiz Yousuf Salahuddin
Advisor Federal Shariat Court

As far as my limited knowledge is concerned, there is no such thing in the Hudood Ordinance that it does not differentiate between zina and zina bil jabr. These are undoubtedly two different things. So, first of all, the Ordinance does not treat them in a similar way. If the opposite is indeed true, then it can be corrected because zina bil jabr is a totally different thing and in the case of rape, a woman cannot be punished.

Dr. Fazal Ahmed
Former Director
Sheikh Zayed Islamic Centre

In both cases, a woman has to produce four witnesses to prove that a crime has been committed. This is something to think about. How is it possible that a woman who is subjected to a crime will be able to find four witnesses to it as well? Here, I think that scholars should ponder over the matter and the evidence of those who were present at the time of the crime should be accepted by the court. Also, medical sciences and DNA tests etc., should be used to prove the crime. Anyway, it is a matter that should be looked into by scholars and intellectuals.

Prof. Khalid Zaheer
Social Sciences Department, LUMS

There is a common assumption and one that has also been incorporated into the Hudood Ordinance, that whether zina is consensual or forced, they are both the same. Although, the truth is that wherever the Quran has mentioned zina, it is of the consensual kind. Zina bil jabr has been referred to where Allah has mentioned those people who create chaos and put others’ life and property in danger. Those people are said to be the enemies of society and will be punished severely. Unfortunately, this understanding has not been appreciated much and, therefore, wherever the Quran has mentioned the word zina, people have confined its meaning to be both, consensual and forced zina. In view of the Quran and common sense, this understanding is, however, totally flawed.

Ahmed Javed
Deputy Director
Iqbal Academy

I think there is a lack of legal acumen reflected in the way the Hudood Ordinance has treated zina bil jabr and zina bil raza in the same manner. The way each crime is committed makes them both separate from each other and, therefore, their punishments and evidence both should accommodate for these differences. So, in my opinion, there is a lack on understanding as far as this law is concerned and in some cases it leads to injustice for a woman. Our inability to differentiate between the two kinds of zina can lead to a high possibility for injustice to be carried out. In fact, experience has shown that this law has oppressed women.

Mualana Abdul Qayyum Haqqani
Sarparast Jama-e-Abu Hurraira
Akora Khattak

There should be a difference between zina and zina bil jabr but this has not been attended to. When both parties consent, it is zina and when one person uses force and the other does not consent, then it is zina bil jabr.

Mufti Usman Yar Khan
Mudeer Jama-e-Khair

Regarding zina and zina bil jabr, the Hudood Ordinance says that a woman who has been raped has to bring four witnesses, but that is not necessary. Instead, four witnesses are required for zina bil raza. In the case of zina bil jabr, the victim’s statement is important. After that, we can use science and medical check ups to provide us with evidence. If the Hudood Ordinance does not accommodate this, then it should be corrected.

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi
Director
Idara Al Mawrid

The Hudood Ordinance does not recognize the difference between zina and zina bil jabr. This is against the Quran and against Sunnah. This is also against the Hadith. If we consider the decisions given by the Prophet (p.b.u.h) in his lifetime, then it (lack of difference between zina and zina bil jabr) is totally unacceptable and has given Islam a bad name. It distorts the face of Islam and many women, lawyers and judges have felt uneasy and anxious with it. Therefore, it is essential to differentiate between the two. Zina is one type of crime and zina bil jabr is totally separate in its nature.

Prof. Dr. Anis Ahmed
Former Director General
Dawah Academy

There is ample difference between zina and zina bil jabr and, therefore, I think it is inappropriate to put them in the same clause. The definition of zina is different from the definition of zina bil jabr. A proper change in the Ordinance should be made by determining different requirements of evidence and punishments for both zina and zina bil jabr.

Question 3:

“And those who accuse chaste women and produce not four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes and reject their testimony forever. They indeed are the Fasiqeen (liars, rebellious, disobedient to Allah)” (Al Noor (24):4, Al Quran)

According to the Hudood Ordinance, if someone falsely accuses another, then the court does not automatically charge the one making a wrong accusation with Qazf (Offense of making a false accusation). In fact, the accused has to file a separate case against the one who has made a false accusation. Can this be Islamic?

Justice (retd.) Nasir Aslam Zahid
Former Chief Justice Sindh High Court

I would like to say that if the law is to be made in accordance with the verses of Surah Noor, then parts of the Qazf Ordinance should be included in the Zina Ordinance. If a person accuses someone and cannot bring four witnesses then he should immediately be punished with 80 lashes and his evidence should never be accepted in a court of law in the future. He should be called a transgressor.

Dr. Fazal Ahmed
Former Director
Sheikh Zayed Islamic Centre

I would like to highlight the fact that according to the Hudood Ordinance, when a woman is tried under a Zina case, and the accuser is unable to produce four witnesses, (and the woman is found not guilty) then, (according to the Ordinance) this woman is now responsible for filing a case of Qazf (false accusation) herself. In my opinion, the Zina case has, in fact, turned into a Qazf case as the accuser was unable to provide evidence and therefore, the court should be responsible to automatically make a case for Qazf and give a sentence on it.

Maulana Hasan Jan
Sheikh-ul-Hadith
Jaama-e-Imdad-ul-Uloom Islamia, Peshawar

Shariat disallows every Muslim from slandering anyone or falsely accusing them. Before doing so, one should know that he will have to produce four witnesses who are just, pure, reliable and honest. If you do not have four witnesses, then do not accuse anyone. Even if you bring three witnesses or the fourth person’s evidence is a bit weak, then you will be punished. But the Shariat does give a woman the right to forgive. At the same time, the victim also has the right to ask the judge to demand four witnesses from the accuser and if they are not presented in court, then to ask the judge to punish the accuser. In my point of view, his (false accuser’s) evidence will also not be accepted for the rest of his life. The victim can make these demands.

Dr. Muhammed Farooq Khan
Islamic Scholar

The law of Qazf in the Quran states that if someone wrongly accuses a woman, then the court should punish the accuser and the witnesses. In complete contradiction to this, Pakistan’s Hudood Ordinance says that if a woman is wrongly accused and this accusation cannot be proved in a court and if the evidence shows that it was a false accusation, then the accusers will not be automatically punished. In fact, the victim will have to, once again, register a case, make her claim, prove her claim, and only then will the accuser be punished. This goes totally against the principles of justice. Those people accused this woman in a courtroom, and the witnesses gave false evidence. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the court that without any further investigation, it should punish these people. This is the only way that the practice of slandering women is ever going to stop.

Hafiz Ibtesam Elahi Zaheer
Director
Idara-e- Tarjuman Sunnah

Qazf Ordinance says that until the woman files a claim herself, the culprit will not be punished. I think that there is a need for refinement here. As an Islamic principle, if you accuse a woman and cannot provide four witnesses then in the light of the Quran (though not under the Qazf Ordinance) you should be punished with 80 lashes. Therefore, the need for refinement and change is necessary here.

Ahmed Javed
Deputy Director, Iqbal Academy

The Ordinance says a very strange thing about those who falsely accuse – something that worries me and leaves me with a feeling of guilt. And that is, that the woman who has been wrongly accused, is kept in jail for two or four years, although later it is decided that the accusation against this woman was false and she is respectfully pardoned. When this happens, then the law that works under the Hudood Ordinance does not automatically come into motion against the person who has made the false accusation. Strangely, it is necessary for the victim to register another complaint against this person and initiate a new trial. In my opinion, this law should be activated automatically and when it is proved that the accusation was false then the accuser should be immediately punished.

Shah Turab ul Haq Qadri
President, Ahl-e-Sunnat al Jamaat

There is a false accusation against a woman and she is jailed for say, five or seven years. First of all, it is the problem with the process itself that she is imprisoned for five years. This is, in no way, correct. In Islam, the conditions of justice need to be met. There could be a rudimentary trial so that she does not have to undergo this procedure. In that, it should be decided within four to ten days whether she is innocent or not. Once her innocence is proved, and if you think that victims and poor women are being oppressed by this law, then ulemas and judges should take note of it. There is nothing wrong with the view that the judge should summon the false accuser to the court and give him the punishment of Hudd Qazf as opposed to the Hudood Ordinance where the perpetrator will not be called into court unless a case is filed against him. When the Shariat judges are assured that the woman is innocent, then the court should take note of this and summon the accuser. This particular clause in the Hudood Ordinance should be reconsidered so that the oppressor can be punished.

Dr. Mehmood Ghazi
President, International Islamic University

The laws of the Hudood Ordinance are silent on what the procedure of Qazf should be – should there be a separate case and if so, then at what level of the on-going case can this new case be filed. The Hudood Laws have explained the necessary requirements of Qazf. Now it is the work of those who lay down the procedure and as far as the Hudood Laws are concerned, this responsibility lies with the government. If the government does not deliver, then the high level courts should fill this vacuum by case laws or judgment laws. They should clarify the procedure through which an automatic case should be registered against the one who has falsely accused once it is proved that the witnesses of the case were dishonest, or that the accusation was baseless. These accusers should be punished. If even four people had been punished till now, then no person would have dared to file a wrong case.

Maulana Muhammed Yousuf Qureshi
Advisor, Federal Shariat Court, Pakistan

If a person files or registers an FIR against someone saying that such and such person had committed a crime, then an investigation follows, there is a trial, and if a judge gives a sentence saying that the accusation was totally false, then it is essential that the person who has filed a false case should be given the Qazf punishment. This is because one Muslim has, for no reason, put another Muslim’s life in trouble, getting him/her involved in a legal mess and soiled his/her reputation. Islamic Shariat has determined a punishment for such a person which is 80 lashes. So if there is anything in the Hudood Ordinance to the effect of prolonging this case, then it should be changed and amended.

Allama Syed Razi Jaffer Naqvi
Sarparast-e-Aala
Tanzeem ul Mukatib, Pakistan

Hudood Ordinance has made this very clear. If a person accuses someone else of Zina and cannot prove his accusation according to the principles of Shariat, then the mere fact that he was unable to prove his accusation will be reason enough for the accuser to be liable to punishment. This does not require a separate case. The fact that he cannot prove his accusation is evidence enough that the accusation he made was false. If the person who hears the case feels that the accuser has not been able to provide evidence to support his accusation, then this would be reason for this the accusation to be called false and the accuser to be guilty of Qazf. Therefore, he should be punished for Qazf.

Dr. Tufail Hashmi
Islamic Scholar

According to the Hudood Ordinance, if a woman is accused of Zina and the following investigation proves that this accusation was wrong, and was, in fact, a case of Qazf (false accusation), then when she is released after serving her time in prison, and if she wants the person who wrongly accused her to be punished, she will have to file a new case against him. Islamic law, however, says that if the person accused her in court, and could not bring four witnesses, then the court will automatically give a Hudd Qazf sentence to the accuser and punish him accordingly. This is why, the clause that states that a woman will have to file a separate case, is, in itself against the Quran, Sunnah and the traditions of the Companions of the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H).

Abdul Sattar Salfi
Mudeer Jaama-e-Sattaria

In the case of Qazf, naturally, the punishment of Qazf is applied on a person who is unable to prove an accusation. If this does not happen in our court laws, then to bring them closer to Shariat, the court should automatically give the punishment of Qazf.

Mufti Usman Yar Khan
Mudeer Jaama-e- Darul Khair
Karachi

As far as the Hudood Ordinance is concerned, the clause regarding Hudd Qazf seems incomplete. A woman can be put in jail for 3, 4 or 5 years on the basis of a false accusation. When it is proved that the accusation against her was wrong, then she has to file another case. She does not have the strength to undergo this procedure again. So, I find this to be a weakness in the Hudood Ordinance. Actually the Hudd Qazf should apply on the person who has wronged and those who have given false witness. So, there will be a Hudd Qazf on lying and secondly, there must be a compensation for the time that the woman has spent in jail. I think this should be looked at again and this clause should be corrected.

Javed Ahmed Ghamdi
Director, Idara-al-Mawrid

Of the many flaws of the Hudood Ordinance, one is that once a woman has suffered a punishment based on a false accusation, she has to file another case against the accuser. This is totally wrong. When a person has falsely accused someone in a court of law, then it is the job of the court to lodge a Qazf case against the accuser. A woman should not be made to take the trouble to do so. And if someone thinks that it (filing a new Qazf case) is in the Quran or in the Sunnah, then that is totally wrong. There is no such thing in the Quran or the Sunnah or in the traditions of the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H).

Abdul Qayyum Haqqani
Saparast Jaama-e-Abu Hurraira
Akora Khattak

In the Hudood Ordinance, when a woman is wrongly accused and that accusation is not proved, then, the woman is, without any requisition or appeal, acquitted. Now, the person who accused her should be punished. This is where the Ordinance should be amended so that the one who has made a false accusation be treated as a criminal and the woman who is now pardoned is not required to provide a certificate of her purity.

Justice (retd.) K.M.A Samdani
Former Law Secretary
Government of Pakistan (1978 - 80)

It is not correct that if a person accuses a woman and it is later proved that the accusation was false, then the woman will have to fight yet another case. When a court accepts the accusation to be false and pardons the woman, then whether it is the Appellate court or a trial court, they should hold a trial against the witnesses of the case. There could be one problem though. Maybe the woman was acquitted on the basis of a benefit of doubt. In such a case it is difficult to say whether the accusation was true or false, it has just not been proved. And every time an accusation cannot be proved, it doesn’t mean that the statements of witnesses were necessarily false.

Qari Roohallah
Chief Khateeb
Government of N.W.F.P

I do not know whether the Hudood Ordinance accommodates for this or not. But if it doesn’t then it is the responsibility of the government and the courts that when it is proved that a person has accused another purely out of bad will and with ill intention, they can take appropriate action. They can punish such a person and this is not limited to Hudood cases alone, it should be applicable to all laws in the country. If the court thinks that these laws are being used for the wrong reasons and false cases are being filed against people then the court should take an action against this. If this has not happened till now, then it should happen in the future.

Dr. Muhammed Yousuf Farooq
Dean Faculty Shariat Law
International Islamic University

The entire law of Qazf is to protect the honor of women. Keeping this as the real basis, a person accuses another and because of that accusation someone has to spend, say, 5 years in jail. That itself is the biggest mistake. This needs to be looked into and without any proof nobody should be punished for all this time. Anyway, it is important for us to give our courts more authority. If it is proved that the woman is innocent and respectable, and that she did not commit any crime then it means that the person who accused her was a liar. Our courts should have the authority to then proceed against the liar. I don’t think there is a need for a woman to register a new complaint and then restart the procedure from the beginning. In fact, the court should automatically take note of it and this would resolve many issues.

Prof. Khalid Zaheer
Social Sciences Dept. LUMS

In the Quran, the real purpose of the punishment of Qazf is that respectable persons’ reputation and honor should be protected. As a result of the Hudood Ordinance, if an innocent woman has been wrongly accused and she serves time in jail and is then found to be ‘not guilty’ by the court, then she bears the responsibility to file yet another case against the person who accused her. Actually, it is the responsibility of the system to protect honest and upright men and women and the system should itself make a case against those who have made wrong accusations.

ZARA SOCHIEYE DECLARATION STATEMENT

English | Urdu