View Single Post
Old Thursday, July 20, 2006
jsmawais's Avatar
jsmawais jsmawais is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Peshawar, Pakistan
Posts: 93
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
jsmawais is on a distinguished road
Thumbs up Objections answered!

Wa alaikum as salam Mr. Farhan!

Let me answer the objections raised by Mr. Humayun and angelfalls.

You took the text of the Hudood Ordinance from here:-
Geo TV also took it from there, but, they were so idiot that they did not even remove the words "Click here for amendment" from the copy-pasted version!
You took the beginning extracts from Geo TV's Zara Sochieye website and from the following links respectively:-
You can read my comments at the above second link in which I answered off some of their objections if you want to.

You also wrote:-
The civilian governments of the former Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto set up two commisions to investigate the excesses of Zina's Hudood Ordinance. Both commissions recommended disbanding it.Both the governments did not carry through the recommendations.
Although, I have not read the report of the first commission, headed by Justice (R) Nasir Aslam Zahid, but, I did read the report of the second commission. I can provide a few facts regarding the second commission.
A sub-committee was formed consisting mostly of members from the NCSW (National Commission on the Status of Women.) I am currently writing an article entitled "Critique of the NCSW Report on Hudood Ordinance" in which I have fully criticized this committee's report. This article contains will answer off about 95% of the objections raised on Hudood Ordinance and I have answered (roughly) more than 30 objections on the Hudood Ordinance. The article is 90% done and is currently 107 pages. (Alhamdulillah)
Anyways, without going deep into their report, let me give you an "easy way" to their report, which will also be a sufficient critique of the previous committee's report, since both of them gave the same recommendation.
The report of the committee headed by Justice (R) Majida Rizvi is available here:-
I quote here a few extracts from my article "Critique of the NCSW Report on Hudood Ordinance" which shall (Insha ALLAH) come online soon.

Ulterior Motives of the Committee
The chair-person of the Special Committee was Justice (R) Majida Rizvi and fully understands the laws of this country. The ulterior motives of this Special Committee were revealed when the Committee gave its final recommendations regarding the Hudood Ordinances:-

'Consequently, by a majority, this Special Committee recommends that all four Hudood Ordinances, 1979 should be repealed and the original laws with regard to the offences mentioned in these Ordinances be restored.' [NCSW Report, p.40 & p.130]

The term “original laws” refers to the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860) which was originally an “invention” of the British and contains no punishment for Zina (i.e. two adults consensually having illicit intercourse), a wife committing Zina with a third person with the consent of his husband and for drinking liquor. Furthermore, the Hudood are also not contained in the PPC [like cutting hand of thief, Rajm, etc.]
This clearly means that as Justice (R) Majida Rizvi and others understand what this means, the committee wants no punishment for consensual illicit intercourse, drinking liquor and is also not interested in implementing Hudood in Pakistan. So, their whole effort was directed at getting rid of these Ordinances and they were not worried about Hudood or Islamic laws. In fact, this is one reason why Justice (R) Mufti Taqi Usmani did not participate in the meetings; coz you already know the intentions of the meetings!"
[Pages 1 to 2 of my article]
The first committee also recommended the same, so both were replicas of each other!

"Recommendations without discussion
This is yet another “brain-storm,” but not of the whole committee; only of the chairperson i.e. Justice (R) Majida Rizvi. In the recommendations of the committee, it is written:

'An examination of the Minutes of all five meetings which have been summarized in this report, as well as the considered opinion of the members of the Committee, including the Chairperson, would reveal that out of fifteen (15) members, who have actively participated in the deliberations regarding the Hudood Ordinances and have given their views in person and in writing, twelve (12) members have recommended that the Hudood Ordinances should be repealed, while only two (2) members have recommended that these should not be repealed but amended with a view to removing lacunae and defective parts of it, and one (1) member has stated that the recommendations of the Committee should be given effect to.
This Special Committee, therefore, wishes to record that the participating Members of the Committee are unanimous in arriving at the conclusion that the Hudood Ordinances as enforced are full of lacunae and anomalies and the enforcement of these has brought about injustice rather than justice, which should be the main purpose of the enforcement of Islamic law. Consequently, by a majority, this Special Committee recommends that all four Hudood Ordinances, 1979 should be repealed and the original laws with regard to the offences mentioned in these Ordinances be restored.' [NCSW Report, p.40 & p.130]

The underlined recommendation has already been struck twice by us, but, it is even more stubborn! It is indeed interesting to note that Justice (R) Majida Rizvi has openly lied out of her teeth! As we shall see, out of the 14 members who gave recommendations, only 3 members recommended the restoration of the original laws, which constitutes less than one-fourth of the members who gave recommendations; not the majority! Furthermore, may we ask Justice (R) Majida Rizvi: “During which meetings of the special committee, the issue of restoration of the original laws was discussed?” So, it is pretty clear that she has openly lied and this has allowed everyone to see her real intentions."
[Page 102 of my article]
"In the report, it is written:

'Islam essentially is a religion that promotes justice, but when in the name of Islam, injustice is perpetrated then it becomes necessary to examine the laws introduced in the name of Islam to determine what went wrong.' [NCSW Report, p.2]

These ordinances are concerned with only three things: (a) Definition of the crimes; (b) Prescribing punishments for crimes; and (c) Evidence required for proving these crimes. In the whole introductory account [of the NCSW Report], there is nothing which challenges or even suggests the examination of these three things. Thus no injustice has been perpetrated by these ordinances in the name of Islam. If there are defects in the law-enforcing agencies and procedural codes, those things need to be amended and not the definitions, punishments or evidence required for the crimes.
It must also be noted done here that the purpose of establishing this committee, as apparent from the above quoted text, was to find out whether the laws are in conjunction with the injunctions of Islam or not. But, the final recommendations of this committee, as mentioned on page 40 and page 130 of the concerned report, are to restore the original British laws. Thus the committee has self-contradicted its very purpose of establishment!
And of course, the attitude of the committee, in the whole report, clearly shows that most of the members—especially the chairperson—had a preset mind of repealing these ordinances and their whole analysis was based on a preconceived notion i.e. the ordinances need to be repealed. In fact, the introductory paragraph is too explicit on this issue and not debatable."
[Page 100 of my article]
"The next issue:-

'While the majority of the Committee members agreed with the arguments of Syed Afzal Haider, Dr. Fareeda Ahmad and Mr. Shahtaj disagreed and were of the view that Surah Noor, verse 2 covers both offences of Zina and Zina-bil-Jabr along with the pre-requisite criterion of four witnesses to prove these offences…Dr. Fareeda Ahmad, Mr. Noor Muhammad Shahtaj and Dr. S.M. Zaman held that the provisions of the Ordinance on the offence of Zina-bil-Jabr, as reflected in Section 8, were in accordance with the Shariah.' [NCSW Report, p.9]

We appreciate these members on this issue and they were undoubtedly right in pointing out that four witnesses are required for proving rape; [liable to Hadd] but, their argument has been distorted by the one who prepared these conclusions. Their actual argument was:-

'However, FA (Dr. Farida Ahmed) and NMS (Noor Muhammad Shahtaj) disagreed with that and were of the opinion that it does fall under Hadd and FA relied on a Hadith of Tirmidhi Sharif, according to which bil Jabr if the offence of Zina is proved as per rules of evidence laid down for Zina then the punishment should be Hadd. If not then the punishment could be as per Tazir. [NCSW Report, p.57] (Text in red has been distorted by the one who prepared the report.)

Looks like the one who prepared this report was a die-hard and so missionary that he completely distorted the arrangement of the sentence to give a strange picture of the hadith!
The actual sentence if corrected is:-

'FA relied on a Hadith of Tirmidhi Sharif, according to which if the offence of Zina bil Jabr is proved as per rules of evidence laid down for Zina then the punishment should be Hadd. If not then the punishment could be as per Tazir.' [NCSW Report, p.57, with correction]

Did you see what that pervert did with the sentence?! (Iyazbillah!) He will surely have to face a tough account on the Day of Qiyamah. So, you will surely have noticed the unjust and missionary nature of those who were involved in making this draft report! On the issue of Rajm, even a small issue was made a big one and on other issues like the above one & the issue of puberty, etc. whole ahadith have been omitted and ignored!!!"
[Pages 45 to 46 of my article]
"Analysis of the opinions of various members
We shall also analyze the opinions given by various members and compare them with the conclusions deduced during various meetings of the Special Committee. The opinions of various members are mentioned on pages 37 to 40 of the NCSW Report. Let us discuss them serially.

Justice (R) Majida Rizvi
Being the chair-person, she attended all 8 meetings; in her comments, she said:-

'In her opinion these do not reflect the correct principles of Islamic criminal law and are not in accordance with Islamic injunctions.' [NCSW Report, p.37]

The above extract shows that the learned jurist is objecting the Ordinances, because, in her view, they “are not in accordance with Islamic injunctions.” But, it is quite ironic to see what she said right after the above statement:-

'These have caused great misery to women and ought to be repealed and the original laws be restored.' [Ibid]

Since she is a jurist, she is well-aware of what the “original laws” are and what will be the impact if “the original laws” are “restored.” Let me remind the reader that the original laws mean the original laws of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860) which were made by the British. These contain no punishment for committing fornication or adultery consensually i.e. Zina bil Raza. Furthermore, these laws also don’t contain any punishment for drinking intoxicating liquor and are devoid of Hudood.
It is quite amazing that Justice (R) Majida Rizvi recommends such “original laws” in contrast to the Hudood Ordinances and finds such “original laws” to reflect “the correct principles of Islamic criminal law” and to be “in accordance with Islamic injunctions.” (Astaghfirullah)
[Pages 102 to 103 of my article]
I hope that the above 5 points are enough for a sane guy to see that the Committee was reviewing the Ordinances with a preset & missionary mind and they were trying to get rid of the Hudood Ordinances by hook or crook; same applies for the first commission which made the same recommendation.

Angelfalls also wrote that the Hudood Ordinances were "promulgated by the martial law government of erstwhile dictator General Zia-ul-Haq in 1979, to impose his distorted Islam-view on a hapless nation." Later, you yourself contradict this statement by saying:-

"The ordinance was a result of some leading legal experts and religious scholars of the time."

Brother! Let me tell you that these Ordinances were made after TWO (2) YEARS OF DEBATE, not 2 hours of Zara Sochieye Debate, or 2 weeks of Justice (R) Majida Rizvi's debate. Experts were called for from all parts of the world like Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc. Objections were raised and were answered, too. Unfortunately, I can't find these discussions anywhere; may be, because they have not been published by any one? But, it is still clear that Zia-ul-Haq did not make these Ordinances on his own and neither were they a 'distorted view of Islam.'

Let's answer his highness' objections! You wrote:

This ordinance is often misused against rape victims if they are not able to provide four male witnesses. In such an event, the alleged rapist accuses the raped woman of confessing to consensual intercourse.
Amanullah Baloch sahib, an activist of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, challenged the NGOs in his dialog with Ummat newspaper that: "These NGOs claim that in cases of rape, the alleged rapist converts a case of rape into Zina. You just ask them to quote one such case; they have been working for so many years. You just ask them to give only one example, the name of any book, or register, or database, or the justice who dealt with such a case."[1]
[1]: Translated from here

As I discussed before, a rape victim is usually put in jail due to mistake of the police, rather than the Ordinance and this [putting in jail] is requirement of Police Major Act and CrPC. So, you should accuse these documents and ask for their amendment rather than that of the Hudood Ordinances.

I would also like to quote an extract from my article "Critique of the NCSW Report on Hudood Ordinance," page 53:-

"They are ignoring the fact that under this Ordinance if a case of Zina bil Jabr has been dislodged and enough evidence is not available to prove this (e.g. due to loss of evidence), then the case ends. A woman can only be booked under the offence of Zina, under the Hudood Ordinance, if there is evidence available to prove this and the court is satisfied. If there is not enough evidence available to show whether it was Zina or Zina bil Jabr, the judge simply ends the case without punishing anyone. Furthermore, men can’t register a complaint of Qazf against women, for the current Hudood Ordinance does not grant them this right!
...They claim that in many cases, the woman was raped & not had intercourse consensually, even though when there is evidence available to prove the contrary. I would like to quote here an authority in Forensic Pathology—Bernard Knight—Professor of Forensic Pathology at the University of Wales:-

'The genuineness of allegations of sexual assault
This is an extremely difficult topic, with strong emotive, social and feminist overtones. The fact is that a significant proportion of allegations of rape and indecent assault reported to the police are found to be untrue. This is often hotly denied by women’s groups, but is an indisputable fact' (Underlining ours)
[Simpson’s Forensic Medicine 10th Ed., Bernard Knight, Butler and Tanner Ltd. (London : 1992), Ch.17, pp.211-212]

So, the statistics are undoubtedly zero or near it, when seen through the eyes of the law which depends on solid evidence for ruling out anything and not mere emotions. These NGOs may make tall claims on the basis of their emotions and sympathy for women, but, evidence is available to prove the contrary."
[Page 53 of my article]
It must also be pointed out here that can anyone on this whole forum point out a defect from the 22 sections or give any recommendation to amend any section of the Ordinance, to fix this (so-called) 'defect'? Nay! There is nothing which can be changed!

You also wrote:

Hudood Ordinance is a law, which is perceived to be discriminating against women.
Let us discuss this issue and finish it off, once and for all, in a few steps:-

Section 8 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 reads as follows:-

"8. Proof of zina or zina-bil-jabr liable to hadd.
Proof of zina-bil-jabr liable to hadd shall be in one of the following forms, namely:-
(a) the accused makes before a Court of competent jurisdiction a confession of the commission of the offence; or
(b) at least four Muslim adult male witnesses, about whom the Court is satisfied, having regard to the requirements of tazkiyah al-shuhood, that they are truthful persons and abstain from major sins (kabair), give evidence as eye-witnesses of the act of penetration necessary to the offence..."

This part of the Ordinance is considered to be discriminatory against women; there is one more part which is considered to be discriminatory, too. Section 2, sub-section (a) of the concerned Ordinance reads:-

"'adult' means a person who has attained, being a male, the age of eighteen years or, being a female, the age of sixteen years, or has attained puberty;"

The NCSW's committee raised the objection that the age for male and female is different, when there is no basis for it and is discriminatory against women. Let us first deal with this issue, since, it reflects the ignorance and stupidity of the NCSW's sub-committee.
To answer off the objection, I again have to quote from my article "Critique of the NCSW Report on Hudood Ordinance," page 32:-

"The second issue is:-

'There should not be inconsistency or discrimination between the basic determining factors of a girl and a boy in age, i.e. if age was determined for boys at 18 years it should be the same for girls.' [NCSW Report, p.8]

It is a good time to go up and look at the definition of adult in Section 2(a) of the ordinance. Now, coming to the issue of difference in ages, this can easily be described by physiologists. I cite here an excerpt from a famous physiology book:-

'Puberty is the period of arousal and maturation of the previously nonfunctional reproductive system, culminating in attainment of sexual maturity and the ability to reproduce. Its onset usually occurs (in USA) sometime between the ages of 10 and 14; on the average it begins about two years earlier in females than in males.' (Underlining is ours)
[Human Physiology: From Cells to Systems 5th Ed., Lauralee Sherwood, Brookes/Cole – Thomson Learning, Inc. (2004), International Students Edition, Ch.20, p.757]

This explains why there is difference between the ages in the ordinance. If the ages are made the same then this would be unnatural and unjust."
[Page 32 of my article]
Now, we come to the second issue of the Hudood Ordinance i.e. women testimony. We already quoted Section 8 of the concerned Ordinance; we quote here Section 10 of that Ordinance which deals with Tazir:-

10. Zina or zina-bil-jabr liable to tazir.
(1) Subject to the provisions of section 7, whoever commits zina or zina-bil-jabr which is not liable to hadd, or for which proof in either of the forms mentioned in section 8 is not available and the punishment of qazf liable to hadd has not been awarded to the complainant, or for which hadd may not be enforced under this Ordinance, shall be liable to tazir.

An objective study of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the concerned Ordinance, shows that the accused can be punished with tazir, if the accused has committed zina or zina-bil-jabr, but, it is not liable to Hadd (e.g. in case of insane person) or "for which proof in either of the forms mentioned in section 8 is not available." It is quite clear that the court will see whether the accused has committed the offence or not and if the court is satisfied that the crime stands proved, but "proof in either of the forms mentioned in section 8 is not available" then the accused "shall be liable to tazir."

From the study of Section 8, 10 and the rest of the Ordinance, the following points can be deduced:-
(i) In the whole Ordinance, it is not mentioned anywhere that the testimony of women is unacceptable.
(ii) For Hadd punishment, either the criminal should confess the crime or four Muslim male sane adult pious witnesses should testify the act of penetration.
(iii) If male witnesses are not available, but, women witnesses are available and the court is satisfied that the crime stands proved, then the tazir punishment will be awarded.

So, at the first place, it is wrong to say that "women testimony is not acceptable" or that "punishment cannot be awarded on the basis of women testimony" under the Hudood Ordinance. Secondly, whether not awarding Hadd punishment on the basis of women witnesses is against the Shari'ah or in conformance with it? To answer this, we analyze the issue in the light of the Qur'an and Sunnah.

I am again compelled to quote from a mail which I sent to a friend:-

"It is found in Surah an-Nisa (4), verse 15 that:-

"And those of your women who commit illegal sexual intercourse, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst your men (Arabic: min kum) against them; and if they testify, confine them (i.e. women) to houses until death comes to them or Allah ordains for them some (other) way." [4:15]

The words in italics is the translation of the Arabic words "min kum." In Arabic grammar, kum is a 2nd person plural pronoun, used only for males. You can check the Arabic Grammar rules table given here if you don't believe me.

Furthermore, in Musnad ibn abi Shaibah, it is reported by Zehri (R.A.A.) that there has been consensus (Ijma) of Ummah during the Prophet's time as well as the era of the four pious caliphs on the issue that in cases of Hudood, testimony of women is not taken. [Tazir can be awarded on basis of women testimony] The authority of Ijma is well-known; in a famous hadith, the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) said: "My ummah will never get united (Ijma) on deviance (Gumrahi)." [Arabic: Man-layn-ajmal ummati alad dalaala]
So, this answers the objection of NGOs that the Ordinance discriminates against women; it is a requirement of the Shari'ah.
Then, you [that friend] wrote:

>>> I was confused for sometime that is this the way to deal with or the punishments prescribed in the other verses of Quran. But through tafseer I came to know that this was prescribed before the clear punisments.

Yes, you are right; it is reported in many ahadith. In Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Hudood, the following hadith is found:

'Ubada ibn as-Samit reported that whenever Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) received revelation, he felt its rigour and the complexion of his face changed. One day revelation descended upon him, he felt the same rigour. When it was over and he felt relief, he said: "Take from me. Verily Allah has ordained a way [which was promised in Surah an-Nisa] for them [those women who had committed Zina] (When) a married man (commits adultery) with a married woman, and an unmarried male with an unmarried woman, then in case of married (persons) there is (a punishment) of one hundred lashes and stoning (to death). And in case of unmarried persons, (the punishment) is one hundred lashes and exile for one year."

The above hadith is actually regarding the revealation of the verses of Surah Noor. The correct words are Muhsan instead of married and non-Muhsan instead of unmarried. Muhsan means a person who is Muslim, sane, adult, married and free. Most jurists agree that the punishment of 100 lashes is not awarded to Muhsan criminals; they are simply stoned to death. In case of non-Muhsan criminals, there is a difference of opinion whether they are to be exiled from the land or not. Imam Shafi'i (R.A.) holds that they are to be exiled and Imam Abu Hanifa (R.A.) says that they are not to be exiled; it is a Ijtihadi issue."
The above mail gives proof from Quran & Sunnah and further from Ijma that Hadd cannot be awarded on the basis of women testimony; although, tazir can be awarded on the basis of women testimony, as clearly accomodated by the Hudood Ordinance.

This answered the argument that the Hudood Ordinance discriminates against women; it firstly does not discriminate & if there is a little difference, it is the requirement of Shari'ah. Quite surprisingly, those NGOs who raise this objection, call for a repeal of all 5 Ordinances, whereas this issue needs the removal of a single word "male" from Section 8 [if one were to agree with them & leave the Shari'ah.]

Then, you [Mr. Humayun] wrote:-

Women and men convicted of Zina may ask Allah's forgiveness and vow never to commit this sin again, and they will be pardoned. For does not Allah (SWT) say in the Quran: "But, if they ask for Our forgiveness, leave them alone, for Allah is the most merciful."
I don't know what you mean, but, if you mean that the punishment will be dropped (as seems apparently) then, my answer is:-
NO! COMPLETELY WRONG! This is tafseer bil ra'y (tehreef / scripture-twisting) and is completely prohibited. Tafseer bil Ra'y means that one interprets any verse of the Qur'an or saying of the Prophet (S.A.W.) in a manner which is different from the way in which it was interpreted by the Prophet (S.A.W.) or the Companions (R.A.A.) or the Successors (R.A.) To this effect, the following sayings of the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) should be noted down:-
Narrated Ibn Abbas (R.A.A.) that the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) said: 'Whosoever interprets the Qur'an according to his own opinion (ra'yah), let him seek his abode in the hell fire.' (Tirmidhi)
Narrated Jundub (R.A.A.) that the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) said: 'Anyone who speaks on the Qur'an by his own opinion (ra'yah) and is right, is still wrong.'
In verse 68 of Surah al-An'aam (6), those people who indulge in false conversation over the Qur'anic verses are condemned. In Tafseer Mazhari, Vol.2, p.263, a saying of Ibn Abbas (R.A.A.) has been quoted whose mafhoom is that this verse condemns all those who make 'new' interpretations of any Qur'anic verse till the Day of Qiyamah. [By 'new' interpretation, Sayyidna Ibn Abbas (R.A.A.) means an interpretation which is different from that done by the Prophet (p.b.u.h) or the Companions (R.A.A.) or the Successors (R.A.)]

So, one should refrain from this henious sin. There is no hadith or scholar from among the Companions (R.A.A.), Successors (R.A.) or other classical scholars who hold such a view. There has been Ijma on the issue that a Hadd cannot be dropped under any circumstances, once it stands proved & the requirements are fulfilled. [There are two exceptions which are dealt with in a while.]

Anyways, let us find out the rationale of the fallacy of the interpretation of Mr. Humayun on this issue. Firstly, I will put your argument in two different ways and answer them both:-
(1) The verse which you quoted is verse 5 of Surah an-Noor, but, you have totally detached it from its context. When combined with the preceding verse, its meaning becomes clear:-

"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; except those who repent thereafter and do righteous deeds, Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." [24:4-5]

So, it becomes clear that in the verse which you quoted, the adulterer and the adulteress are not being mentioned; rather the one who 'accuse chaste women, and produce not four witnesses' is being mentioned. Furthermore, on the issue of pardoning adulterer & adulteress, the Holy Qur'an is too explicit:-

"The male & female fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred strokes of lashes and let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day..." [24:2]

This verse reveals two things:-
(a) We cannot drop the punishment for Zani & Zaniya, no matter how pity we feel for them
(b) The Hadd punishment is actually "a punishment prescribed by Allah" [We review this issue in a minute]

Getting back to verse 5 of Surah Noor, there is a difference of opinion between the scholars as to what is really pardoned. The wordings of the verse are:-

"Except those who repent thereafter and do righteous deeds. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." [24:5]

To explain this verse, I quote here an extract from tafseer Ma'ariful Qur'an by late Grand Mufti of Pakistan--Mufti Muhammad Shafi Usmani, English Edition, Vol.6, pp.361-362:

'Those who have been punished for false accusation of adultery, if they beg pardon and improve their habits, so that there is no risk of repetition of falsehood from them and also obtain forgiveness from one they had accused, then Allah Ta'ala grants forgiveness and is Merciful.
This exemption, that is "Except those who repented" refers to only the last sentence of the previous verse according to Imam Abu Hanifah and some other Imams, which is "and they are the Fasiqeen." So, with this exemption it means that the one who is punished for false accusation is a sinner, but if he repents with sincerity and improves himself after obtaining forgiveness from the one he had falsely accused, then he will no longer remain a sinner, and his punishment will be pardoned in the Hereafter. In other words the two punishments meant for this world, which are referred in the beginning of the verse, that is eighty stripes and inadmissibility of his evidence, will remain despite the repentance. It is because the big punishment of stripes has already been executed and the second punishment is part of Hadd. All scholars are unanimous on the point that repentance does not remit punishment of hadd, only the torment of the Hereafter is pardoned. Since inadmissibility of the evidence is part of hadd, it will not be remitted by repentance. Imam Shafi'i and some other Imams have taken this exemption toward all the sentences of the previous verse, which means that as one does not remain sinner after repentance, hence he would also not be debarred from giving evidence. Jassas and Mazhari have provided arguments on both sides...'
So, it is quite clear that your interpretation is totally wrong.

(2) A second argument may be forwarded that since Allah is Ar-Raheem and Most Merciful, on repentance, the Zani and Zaniya will remain free from being subject to any penalty. It is firstly clear from the above extract that there has been Ijma on this issue that Hudood cannot be dropped due to repentance and secondly, the Prophet (S.A.W.) has declared even hearing such recommendations as unlawful. [See Ma'ariful Qur'an, Vol.3, pp.130-133]
But, there is a doubt as to why will a person whose sin has been forgiven by Allah on repentance, be still punished for the crime? The answer to this doubt is a little technical; I explain this with an example.
It is well-known that one has to make up his missed Salats, which is popularly known as "Qaza Namaz." Have you ever pondered as to why do we have to make up the missed Salats i.e. pray Qaza Namaz, when the sin of missing them has been forgiven? The answer is that the sin has been forgiven, but, the Right of Allah (Haqqullah) remains there.
But, someone may say: 'What has this got to do with issue of Hadd?' This question can only be posed by the one who has no knowledge of Hadd! Hadd as defined in Hedayah, Vol.2, p.506 and Ma'ariful Qur'an, Vol.3, p.136 is "a fixed punishment for a specific crime, ordained by the Qur'an, Sunnah or Ijma, in which the Haqqullah (Right of Allah) is dominant." That's why in Surah Noor, verse 2, the Hadd for committing Zina is referred to as "a punishment prescribed by Allah."
Thus when a criminal liable to hadd repents, his sin is forgiven meaning that he will not be tormented in the hereafter, but, the Right of Allah (Haqqullah) is still there, so, he must be punished with Hadd.
But, there are two exceptions to this rule:-
(a) If a criminal of theft, robbery, dacoity or looting repents, before he/she is arrested, only then will he/she be not punished with the Hadd for that crime. [See Ma'ariful Qur'an, Vol.3, pp.136-140]
(b) Qazf is a punishment which is awarded to the complainant only when the accused requests it to be awarded; if the accused does not request the punishment, it will stand annulled. [See Ma'ariful Qur'an, Vol.6, p.361]

Then, Mr. Humayun wrote:-

Drinking is punished with 80 lashes; the punishment for theft is physical mutilation: the right hand is cut off.
It is pertinent to note that the cutting of right hand is a Hadd and subject to various conditions:-
(i) The thief should be sane and adult;
(ii) The amount or commodity stolen should be more than Nisab;
(iii) The crime stands proved on confession or testimony of two Muslim male adult sane pious witnesses;
(iv) There is not a condition of famine;
(v) The stolen thing is not a fruit;
... and some more conditions, too. Therefore, one should note these facts lest he sprouts up misconceptions in his mind.

--> Note that Nisab for theft liable to Hadd is 4.457 grams of gold or rate equivalent of it.

Then, 'The King' wrote:-

Well according to some experts. there is hadood in our Holy book and Sunnah, but this ordinance is make after some changes...
I know from where you found those experts; you found them from Geo TV's Zara Sochieye website.
First of all, let me tell you a few things about this effort. I have written many articles and sent about 35 to 40 mails to them, but, they did not pay any heed. The articles which I wrote along with a few selected emails can be found at my Yahoo! Group for discussion on Hudood Ordinance. Join the group; it only takes 2 minutes with NO approvals, etc. Once you have joined the group, go to the "Files" section of the group and you will find the articles in the following folder:-

Files->My Articles->Geo TV - Zara Sochieye

In the above folder, you will find the following articles:-
(a) Geo Politically Neutral on Hudood Ordinance--Really.Zip (An article which proves the fallacy of their claim that they have not taken a position on this issue and they don't want to repeal the Ordinance, etc.
(b) Lies & Distortions by Geo TV.Zip -- MUST-READ! HIGHLY RECOMMENDED! (An article recommended for all those who relied on Geo TV's effort 'Zara Sochieye.' This article points out the numerous lies and distortions done by Geo TV for straying & making public against the Ordinance.)
(c) (A handful of mails which I sent to the Zara Sochieye team; read these after reading article [B].)
(d) Commentary on the Experts (An article which answers off their 'Experts Commentary' and analyzes it critically.)

I will soon be (Insha ALLAH) writing an article which will be a complete Critique of their Declaration Statement.

Anyways, now we come to the issue of Experts. For a moment, keep Dr. Tufail Hashmi aside and consider the remaining two experts. In order to answer and understand what they meant, I reproduce here an extract from a fresh article of mine: "Commmentary on the Experts' Commentary," pages 1 to 5:-

'This article is for explaining to people what Geo TV has achieved by asking a few questions from many scholars. Some people think that Geo TV has persuaded the scholars for a repeal of the Hudood Ordinances by their section Experts Commentary. This article will be an analysis of their section Experts Commentary.
Note: All the statements of scholars or other material from the Experts Commentary is reproduced from here.

The magical words of this question were:-

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

For the analysis of the wordings of this question, I reproduce here an extract from my article “Geo Politically Neutral on Hudood Ordinance—Really?” which I wrote sometime ago.

‘Before going into the wonders of these questions, let me point out a few things. On the website of Zara Sochieye, it is written:-

“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’).”

I am not blaming Geo TV for being associated with anyone or doing this work with some pressure, but, they seem to be working with a preconceived notion.
What I want to say right now is that quite surprisingly, the same question is being asked simultaneously at many websites raising “awareness” about Hudood Ordinance like the NCSW (National Commission on the Status of Women) and many others women rights’ NGOs. Even more surprising is the fact that not even a single word differs between these websites. Is this really a pure coincidence?
On the NCSW website, there are even more interesting things happening with this question which is present as a poll. On June 10, 2006 there were 8 “Yes” votes on their website and on 11 June, 2006, there were only 5 “Yes” votes on their website! Decide for yourself!
Anyways, coming back to this wonderful question, its words are so ambiguous that both the questioner and the answerer don’t know what they really mean. This is a dirty trick learnt from the West; as an example recall the Sherif-McMahon correspondence, in which the same dirty trick of the British led to 1.5 million Palestinian people becoming refugees.
The words of the question for your reference are mentioned again:-

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

There are four pieces which are interesting and should be noted viz. presented as, a divine law, [I]cannot be touched[I] and Do you agree? If you put emphasis on each piece, a new door of interpretation opens up!
If you take the question to mean that now-a-days, Hudood Ordinance is being portrayed as untouchable then some will say “Yes” and others “No.” In this case, emphasis is on the use of the word presented.
If you put emphasis on the words a divine law then not even a single person on earth will say “Yes.” Even an idiot knows that the Hudood Ordinance was drafted and promulgated by a human and not God.
If you put emphasis on the words presented as and cannot be touched then this opens a new dimension of thought. This would mean that the Hudood Ordinance is not divine, but, is somewhat like pseudo-untouchable i.e. it is in conformity with the Islamic spirit and injunctions. Thus repealing or re-drafting the whole Ordinance(s) is not justified at all, but, making minor amendments in the procedures or purely judicial issues is allowed, provided they not go against the Shari’ah.
At a particular instant, which interpretation the questioner means or the answerer means is neither mentioned nor emphasized. This poses a serious threat and can later on cause severe problems. In fact, as coming events cast their shadows before, this really looks like a “Referendum for repealing the Hudood Ordinance.” Yes, the Zia-style referendum!!!’

This huge extract just focused on the wonders of the wordings of this question. Probably, Satan must have given them a great applause for developing such a tricky trap!

Let us now get to the real business and take a look at the answer given by various scholars.

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.

Hmm… what did he mean? I have underlined the word ‘can’ and I also did one more thing to find out. I have made a Yahoo! Group for discussion on Hudood Ordinance. I made one poll for this group; the text of the question was:-

“Is the 1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, divine and untouchable?”

The choices given were “Yes” and “No.” Now, everyone will choose the option “No” and cast his vote; so, should I say that the people have agreed to a “repeal” of the Constitution of Pakistan?!
No! No way! I only said… but, but… I just said it could be repealed; I did not say that it should be repealed. That’s the point! There is a big difference between COULD BE and SHOULD BE. Alas! Some idiots have dissolved the difference between these two words which has caused all misery.
[Please don't mind the use of word 'idiot', my tongue (or finger) usually slips in the heat of discussion!]
Quoting here only two idiots will suffice…be redrafted!

Now, you really understand what’s going on! Everyone is referring to this law as a “man-made law” which could be criticized constructively, or changed, or it could even possess flaws. But, they convert the ‘could’ into ‘should’ without any reason whatsoever which causes Geo TV’s Experts Commentary as well as numerous other things to have “made a consensus for repealing” the Ordinance!
Thus in the light of the above discussion, you now understand what the chairman of the Islamic Ideological Council meant, at least in his above statement. To the same effect are the statements given by Dr. Anis Ahmed, Maulana Muhammad Hasan Jan, Hafiz Abdul Rehman Madni, Qari Ruh Allah, Justice (R) K.M.A. Samdani, Khurshid Ahmed Gangoi, Dr. Mohammed Yousuf Farooq, Hafiz Ibtesam Elahi Zaheer, Maulana Muhammad Yousuf Qureshi, Hafiz Yousuf Salahuddin, Mufti Muneeb-ur-Rehman, Justice (R) Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani sahib and even (apparently) Javed Ahmed Ghamidi! The ones who recommended that the Ordinance should be or needs to be amended or reviewed include Dr. Mehmood Ghazi, Dr. Tufail Hashmi, Mufti Usman Yar Khan, Prof. Khalid Zaheer, Ahmed Javed, Dr. Fazal Ahmed, Maulana Ehthram-ul-Haq Thanvi, Dr. M. Farooq Khan, Abdul Qayyum Haqqani, Allama Syed Razi Jaffer Naqvi and Allama Shah Turab-ul-Haq Qadri.
Thus in a nut-shell, out of the 25 scholars from whom Question #1 was asked, the majority i.e. 14 out of 25 experts (56%), said that the Ordinance can be amended, whereas, the minority i.e. 11 out of 25 experts (44%), said that the Ordinance should be amended or reviewed. Majority is authority!"
[Commentary on the Experts' Commentary, pp.1-5]
It must also noted that Mr. Humayun has again quoted Maulana Hasan Jan incompletely to give a false impression from his statement; the complete statement as found here is as follows:-

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.

So, he only meant that the Ordinance could be improved, not should be improved!

Now, coming to Dr. Tufail Hashmi, he is not a scholar at all; in fact, he lied too. In answer to Question 2, his statement was as follows as found here:-

"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. "


Dr. Tufail Hashmi is one of those kind of modernists who consider Tafseer bil Ra'y to be permissible and present it with the sugar-coating of 'interpreting the Book and Sunnah according to spacetime forces.' (Mahz ALLAH!) Furthermore, he is also those kind of intellectuals in the view of whom, 'there are dozens of Hudood-e-Shar'i.' (Astaghfirullah)
Furthermore, let us take the statement of Dr. Tufail Hashmi which you quoted and critically analyze it:-

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.

There are three arguments presented by him:-
(a) Out of 101 sections, 83 have nothing to do with Hudood.
(b) The remaining 18 clauses do not conform to the Holy Book and Sunnah.
(c) One who writes something with hand and associates it towards Allah (S.W.T.) is the biggest oppresor. I heard exactly the same statement from the so-called "Dr." Aamer Liaquat; I think that these guys are inter-connected and working for the preparations of the funeral prayer, of one of the last Islamic laws, present in Pakistan!
We shall answer arguments (a) and (c), but, argument (b) is too broad to be covered here. Insha ALLAH, the answer of argument (b) shall be in the form of my article "Critique of the NCSW Report on Hudood Ordinance."

For argument (a), let us consider the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. From Dr. Tufail Hashmi's style of argumentation, we find that only three or four sections i.e. Sections 4, 5, 6 and Section 8 deal with Hudood; so, the remaining have nothing to do with Hudood. But, is it so?
NO WAY! Firstly, the Sections like "Short title, extent and commencement" are required in every law; simply writing one verse does not fulfill the legal requirements of the present judiciary system. Therefore, all sections of the Hudood Ordinances are related either directly or indirectly with the Hudood. As far as the proposal to include Ta'zirat in PPC, I have already dealt with this issue in one of my previous posts. The reader should refer to them if he hasn't read it before.

For argument (c), we would like to quote the actual verses and explain their real meaning:-

"Know they (Jews) not that Allah knows what they conceal and what they reveal?
And there are among them (Jews) unlettered people, who know not the Book, but they trust upon false desires and they but guess.
Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allah," to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby." [Surah al-Baqarah 2:77-79]

Does Dr. Tufail Hashmi want to accuse the supporters of this Ordinance of (Nauzubillah) selling the verses of Allah? This Hudood Ordinance is based on the Quran and Sunnah; it is an interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah. Whereas, the above verse is regarding those Ulema-e-Soo who give an edict (fatwa) keeping in view the desires of the person who is asking for it. Furthermore, it includes those intellectuals who don't have the expertise of deriving rulings from the Qur'an and Sunnah, but, throw out their 'expert opinions' without sufficient knowledge, merely on the basis of guesses and their own desires! It also includes those who write something with their hand and say that (Nauzubillah) this is divine and was revealed directly by Allah.

So, in this post, I have disposed of all objections as raised in this thread, uptil my last visit.
At the end, I would like to tell my friends that if you are interested in getting more information about the Ordinance, read the article "The Hudood Ordinance" by Dr. Abdullah.

Jazakumullah khair!

Abdul Rehman.
Reply With Quote