Okay... I know that I am too much late and I'm sorry for that...
As I promised before, I am here to answer off Anwar Syed's article on Hudood Ordinance, which has been posted above by brother Faaroq. Let's waste no more time & start answering off the article...

I really wonder how the Dawn newspaper makes its readers digest and swallow such articles coupled with others. I feel quite shocked when I am reminded that this is the same newspaper which the founder of our couuntry, Quaid-e-Azam (May God grant him Jannah), had founded!
In previous articles, they once would say that a rape case is converted to adultery without four witnesses. Then, in another article, they would say that this is not the case but its impossible to produce four witnesses. In yet another article, they would say that tazir can be awarded on lesser witnesses. I just can't imagine how they can keep on contradicting their own selves and in the same breath, succeed in convincing their readers!

Now, bit-by-bit I take the above article...

The so-called "Protection of Women" Bill as originally presented in the National Assembly is available; I will post its text alongwith a Critique soon. What has happened with the bill since then is not well-known to me.

Again, the same worn-out stupid old argument has been presented that the Hudood Ordinance was promulgated by Zia-ul-Haq to protect himself.
I cleared up earlier that the Ordinance was drafted in Arabic first by a Committee consisting of the following members:-

Ulema
(1) Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani (Chair-person of the O.I.C. Fiqh Council)
(2) Maulana Zafar Ahmed Ansari (RA)
(3) Pir Karam Shah Al-Azhari (RA)
(4) Dr. Mehmood Ahmed Ghazi

Law Experts
(5) Khalid M. Ishaque
(6) Sharif-ud-din Pir Zada
(7) A. K. Burohi

Retired judges
(8) A. K. Samdani
(9) Muhammad Afzal Cheema
(10) Salahuddin

(Help was also sought from Dr. Maruf Dawalibi, former president of Syria, Hanafi jurist of international fame, president of Arab Muslim league and an advisor to King Khalid bin Abdul Walid.)

I described in an earlier post that this Committee prepared the draft after two years of thorough debate and discussion.
Then, it must be noted that the Ordinance did not remain as such. On 11 November, 1985, the National Assembly passed an Act (i.e. by two-third majority) whose name was The Constitution (Eight Amendment) Act, 1985 (XVIII of 1985). This Act modified Article 270-A to the Constitution which provides affirmation to the five Hudood Ordinances. Thereafter, the National Assembles of 1988, 1990, 1992, 1995, 1998 and 2002 never raised on objection these Ordinances!
We will be justified here to pause for a minute and ask Anwar Syed that do you still call this a law pasted by a single man on others?

Furthermore, saying that the law was used by Zia-ul-Haq to protect himself cannot denounce the law in any way, because of the obvious fact that an Ordinance consists of articles and sections which can neither think nor feel. The successive National Assemblies did not raise any objections on these Ordinances; if Anwar Syed can come up with a solid reason for repealing or even amending the Ordinance, then one might give due thought to it.

Some other people say that the Ordinances were not made by Parliamentary Debate and should be repealed for the same reason. The answer to this argument can be two-fold; firstly, the passing of an act by the 1985 National Assembly in support of it & no objections by the successive National Assembles is a clear proof that the law does not contain anything wrong.
Secondly, these Hudood Ordinances cannot be singled out as a major part of the laws of our country are Ordinances, for example, to name a few:-
(1) Police Order, 2002
(2) Income Tax Ordinance, 2002
(3) Legal Framework Order, 2002
(4) Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965
(5) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961
(6) Microfinance Institutions Ordinance, 2002
(7) Microfinance Banking Ordinance, 2001
(8) Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962
(9) Punjab Usurious Loans Ordinance, 1959
(10) Punjab Urban Rent Ordinance, 1959
... and this list can fill whole volumes!

After I unveil the "Protection" of Women Bill, you will (InshAllah) clearly see who's who and what's what!
Furthermore, as to my knowledge, MMA has not objected the amendments ONLY because the Government is tampering with the Quran and Sunnah. Justice (R) Khalil-ur-Rehman, Advocate Khalid Ishaque, Maulana Yusuf Ludhianvi Shaheed (RA), Justice (R) Mufti Taqi Usmani and so many others have answered almost all objections on the Ordinances. In fact, late Justice (R) Khalil-ur-Rehman even said: 'The answer to every question about the Islamic law is available.'
But, unfortunately, the media only quotes one or two statements in such a way as to obscure the truth. I can say with confidence that at least 85% of the people of Pakistan don't know that a rapist can be punished in the absence of four witnesses!

To give you a simple example of the above nature, I quote here the statement of Hafiz Salahuddin as presented on Zara Sochieye's website:-
Those who watch Geo TV regularly will realize that Geo TV has NEVER shown his full statement on TV. Only the following part of his statement is quoted, which too is sandwiched between the statements of others:-
This is just one example; there are so many examples I can't tell you! Most people rely on media and consequently, look at things in the way the media wants them to look at.

WOW! WHAT A WAY TO GO! A PERSON WRITES DOZENS OF ARTICLES ABOUT A CERTAIN LAW AND THEN, AFTER MANY YEARS, HE COMES FORWARD TO SAY: "OKAY! I HAVE NOW STUDIED THE LAW." WHAT DO YOU WANNA DO WITH SUCH A GUY????

I remember one of his articles entitled Sterile Public Debate in which he quoted someone else as saying:-
He based his argument upon this presumption and said that this is akin to postponing the hudood laws indefinitely. The reason I mentioned this argument here, is because of the fact that the above quote has got undue popularity even among sincere & educated persons; some ulema even forward this argument. Now's the time to trash this argument!
This argument itself is usually based on the presumption that unless there are four witnesses, a rapist cannot be punished; since, this is a fallacy, its fairly simple to dispose off this argument.
Furthermore, no person in Pakistan can guarantee or even suggest that in the coming years, the Islamic Shari'ah will be fully implemented in the society, or that all obscenity, immodesty, etc. will end and Islamic dress code, etc. shall be obeyed by all. Thus ending the Ordinances will only facilitate the further corruption of society.
But, the above two points are not enough as the absurdity of this argument is not unveiled yet!

To proceed to analyze this argument, we restate it here.
If I ask you as to what do the hudood laws constitute? Your reply will surely be that these laws are a part of the criminal law. Thus the argument becomes:-
If I ask: What is the criminal law for? Your reply might be that it is for punishing the evil-doers, etc. If I ask you further, you will say that the criminal law is for providing justice to the citizens of a state. In other words, the criminal law is a source of justice.
Putting this in the original argument, we get:-
This argument thus is based on the following general principle:-
And if that didn't quite take you away, take a look at a more familiar & specific application of the principle:-
We will be justified here to ask as to when do people use light bulbs or turn them on? Yes! In dark conditions i.e. where there is a deficiency of light. When there is a deficieny of x, you turn on the source of x to eliminate the deficiency.
This is a natural example; we see everywhere that light bulbs, lamps, etc. which are sources of light are used when there is less light. Street lights are turned on at night and not at day. [Of course, my locality Gulbahar in Peshawar is an exception ]
Going the other way around, it means that if x exists in adequate amounts, then there is no need for a source of x. If there is enough light in the room, we need not turn on the lights.
In the same way, if justice already exists in a society, then there is no need for a source of justice. If Islamic norms are being followed by almost each and every person, then there are no crimes or criminals and consequently, there would be no need of a criminal law.

To sum up then, if these hudood laws presume the existence of justice, then this is the greatest, biggest and most ABSURD NON-SENSE ever stated by any jurist in the history of Islamic criminal law!!!!!!

I will (InshAllah) do it soon as I have studied the whole bill (original one), so, (InshAllah) I will make a detailed post about the issues. In fact, the bill, on several issues, has decreased women protection, rather than increasing it!!!

Apparently, I think that Anwar Syed has misinterpreted the relevant Ordinance; to clear up some issues, it will be pertinent to quote a few important judgments:-

Muhammad Ashraf vs. The State (PLD 1987 FSC 33)
MR. JUSTICE ABDUR REHMAN KHAN KAIF
Puberty how to be determined:-
In determination of the factor of puberty, physical development shall be given preference over the age.

Sarwar vs. The State (PLD 1985 FSC 107)
MR. JUSTICE GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN
Puberty/Buloogh:-
The question before full bench was to determine the age of buloogh. It was held that “boys are considered to be sexually potent at the age of puberty which usually occurs at the age of 15/16. There is no doubt that the sense of potency in the medical science and buloogh in Shariah is not different.”

It should be noted that in the Ordinance, the words "and is not insane" are also included. The actual Ordinance is also given on Page 1 of this thread; it should be consulted for the accurate definitions.

The term 'named offences' has not been used in the actual Ordinance.

While interpreting a law, one section cannot be detached from others. As an example, take Section 378 of the PPC which prescribes a penalty for “theft”. The successive sections, thereafter, prescribe penalties for special types of theft; thus one cannot impose the penalty of Section 378 for all types of theft.
Similarly, in Section 6 of the respective Ordinance, there are four cases in which zina-bil-jabr is said to be committed, not zina. (Refer to the original Ordinance on Page 1 for details.)
I considered it important to clear up this, because, an intercourse which is 'willful' may not still be zina, e.g. if it is not 'consensual' as in the following case.
A woman allowing a man to have intercourse and not resisting, because of the fear of being killed. Here the act is willful, but not consensual and consequently, zina-bil-jabr not zina.

Only Allah knows what Anwar Syed wants to say! He says that rape is said to be commmitted in any one of the circumstances which he has mentioned; this includes the very first circumstance, namely:-
parties to the sexual intercourse are adults and they are not married to each other.
NOT ONLY IS THIS PURE NON-SENSE, BUT, ONLY THE AUTHOR HIMSELF CAN EXPLAIN HOW THIS WOULD TORMENT THE ADVOCATES OF “WOMEN'S RIGHTS” !!! In fact, if this is true, this should torment the advocates of “men's rights”, because, in accordance with Anwar Syed's interpretation of the Ordinance, an adult woman having illicit intercourse will always be considered a “victim” of rape.
I wonder how people still follow the opinion of such people & still believe in such pathetic newspapers!

I am quoting here the actual sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the concerned Ordinance for reference; please refer to this section for the actual definition of rape, circumstances, etc.
To proceed to clarify some points, its better to quote here the actual Section 7 of the respective Ordinance:-
The following points should be noted here:-
(1) Imprisonment is not mandatory; only fine can also be awarded as punishment, instead of imprisonment.

(2) Whipping is mandatory if the offender is 15 years or above in age, but, it must be noted that the phrase used in Section 7 is not exceeding thirty stripes, which means that the punishment of whipping can be as less as a single stripe! But, it must not exceed 30 stripes in any case whatsoever; it is at the discretion of the judge to decide the number of lashes according to the circumstances of the case.
Note: Recall the judgment of the FSC which I quoted a minute ago (i.e. PLD 1985 FSC 107). In this judgment, the court observed that boys have generally attained puberty at the age of 15/16. Age of puberty for females is on average 2 years lesser, so, the punishment of whipping being mandatory at the age of 15 is justifiable.

(3) If imprisonment is awarded as punishment, it may extend to a maximum of 5 years, but, the court can give as small period as it wishes. Usually, the court decides to give punishment equal to the period which the accused has undergone after being arrested; in this case, the person is 'acquitted' in the sense that he will not receive any additional punishment after the judgment.

The above extract proves one of two things:-
(i) Either Anwar Syed has given an extremely confusing approach to the Ordinance which keeps several questions unanswered and leaves it up to the reader to interpret them in whatever way they wish; or
(ii) He failed to interpret the Ordinance correctly; most people of the same nature simply skip through Section 10(1) because of its complexity.

Anyways, the incorrect, confusing & inaccurate points in the above extract need to be corrected. We start off one-by-one:-
(i) The act of zina or zina-bil-jabr may be liable to hadd if it is committed in the circumstances specified in Section 5(1) of the concerned Ordinance.

(ii) Hadd punishment shall be awarded if the accussed confesses the crime himself or if four male adult Muslim sane pious eye-witnesses testify of having seen the act.

(iii) Tazir punishment shall be awarded either if: (1) the crime is not liable to hadd; (2) hadd cannot be enforced in accordance with Section 9; (3) proof in either of the aforesaid forms is not available.

(iv) To award Tazir, the court can rely on any form of evidence e.g. medical evidence, DNA test, testimony of lesser people, etc.

From Anwar Syed's writing, apparently it seems that he holds a similar opinion to that of Maheen A. Rasheed i.e. tazir can be awarded if less than four witnesses are available. This is not correct as tazir can be awarded on the basis of any forms of evidence; we shall quote a few judgments in this regard after a while.
The reason why these two as well as several others hold such a view is because of the fact that they fail to interpret Section 10(1). I quote here Sections 9 and 10 of the respective Ordinance for reference:-
As you can see, most people skip Section 10(1) and think that tazir is awarded only under Section 9(4). This is completely wrong; let us take a closer look at Section 10(1).
This section states that the crime of zina or zina-bil-jabr is liable to tazir in one of the following cases:-
(a) Proof in either of the forms mentioned in Section 8 is not available. (The punishment of qazf liable to hadd cannot be awarded if tazir is awarded for zina or zina-bil-jabr to the accused.)
(b) Crime is not liable to hadd e.g. an insane person committing the crime.
(c) Hadd cannot be enforced e.g. a person retracts his/her confession.
The court itself shall decide whether the crime is proved on the basis of evidence on record or not; any form of evidence is applicable. Maheed A. Rasheed & Anwar Syed both misinterpreted the Ordinance, probably because they skipped Section 10(1). Furthermore, the following judgments in various cases must also be kept in mind while discussing tazir:-

Rashida Patel vs. The State (PLD 1989 FSC 95)
Shariat Petition No. 10/K of 1983 to 14/K of 1983 & 2/L of 1985
To prove the crime of Zina, the condition of four witnesses was necessary. However, if four male witnesses are not available, women can appear before the Court as witnesses, but in the light of their evidence, Hadd punishment shall not be awarded; only Tazir punishment shall be awarded.
[Annual Report of the FSC, 2002, p.33]

Muhammad Abid vs. The State (PLD 1988 FSC 111)
MR. JUSTICE GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN
Evidentiary value of Police Officials as witnesses:-
The police officers who are also Muslims, if they make a statement on oath, it has to be accepted unless it is shown from context that they are telling a lie or they have been declared as unreliable by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
[Annual Report of the FSC, 2002, p.51]

Mumtaz Ahmed vs. The State (PLD 1990 FSC 38)
MR. JUSTICE GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN
Scope and condition of Tazkiyah-al-Shuhood:-
Generally, every Muslim is a competent witness. He is ordained to speak the truth and should give evidence in favour of Allah & no one else, be it his parents, children, relatives or friends. No reason was stated for witness to have falsely involved accused persons. Involvement of accused in the offence thus stood fully proved.
(A very important judgment as it answers off the common misconception that a person who missed even a single Salah does not fulfill tazkiyah al-shuhood; this is totally incorrect.)
[Annual Report of the FSC, 2002, p.52]

Its pertinent to note here that in Section 8, the respective Zina Ordinance defines tazkiyah al-shuhood as follows:-
Mst. Safia Bibi vs. The State (PLD 1985 FSC 120)
MR. JUSTICE SH. AFTAB HUSSAIN
Status of self-exculpatory statement in zina-bil-jabr:-
Zina was committed with a blind girl and she was convicted by trial court. She gave birth to an illegitimate child. The Court held that: “In the present case, it is clear that except the self-exculpatory statement of the girl and the statement of her father, who also maintained that she had been subjected to zina-bil-jabr, there is no other evidence. In Shariah, if a girl makes a statement as made in the present case, she cannot be convicted of Zina.”
[Annual Report of the FSC, 2002, p.49]

(Women right's NGOs will be scratching their heads right now as to how authentic their claims are!)

Gulsher etc. vs. The State (2004 SD 159)
MR. JUSTICE S.A. MANAN
Sole testimony of victim of zina would be sufficient to prove zina case against accused when defence was not able to shatter the veracity of victim’s statement.
[Annual Report of the FSC, 2003, p.24]
(It should be noted that no witnesses were available in the above case.)

Muhammad Zafar Naeem vs. The State (2004 SD 352)
MR. JUSTICE ZAFAR PASHA CHAUDHARY
Statement of victim of zina-bil-jabr who is a young girl of 11/12 years which is confidence inspiring would be sufficient for recording conviction/sentence under S.10 (3). Omission to produce shalwar, qameez and dopatta of victim of zina-bil-jabr would not be fatal to prosecution case under S.10 (3), which cannot be thrown away for such omission by prosecution.
[Annual Report of the FSC, 2003, p.24]
(It should be noted that no witnesses were available in the above case.)

Shabbir alias Kakku & other vs. The State (SBLR 2004 FSC 35)
MR. JUSTICE SAEED-UR-REHMAN FARRUKH
It is well-settled that conviction can be based, in rape case, on the solitary statement of the victim if the same is found truthful and confidence inspiring.
[Annual Report of the FSC, 2003, p.24]
(It should be noted that no witnesses were available in the above case.)

Muhammad Ashraf vs. The State (NLR 1997 SLD 1)
MR. JUSTICE KHALIL-UR-REHMAN
Zina-bil-jabr by father with his daughter:-
Conviction of father for committing zina-bil-jabr with his teen-aged daughter; defence plea that he was substituted for real culprit, could not be accepted in circumstances of case. Conviction of the appellant u/s 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (E.O.H.) Ordinance and sentence of 25 years R.I. (rigorous imprisonment) awarded was proper to meet the ends of justice.
[Annual Report of the FSC, 2002, p.57]
(It should be noted that no witnesses were available in the above case.)

A few natural questions arise at this point in one's mind:-
(1) If this is the truth, then what about cases like Mukhatara Mai, Zafran Bibi, etc ?
(2) Do these newspapers misinterpret the law or do they intentionally portray things incorrectly?

As an answer to question 1, I decided to add a section to my book entitled A Bad Name Is Worse Than Bad Deeds. I present here just a brief account of an actual case viz. Zafran Bibi case.
Instead of writing the history of the case myself, I simply reproduce it from an article.
The FSC later acquitted Zafran Bibi:-

Mst. Zafran Bibi vs. The State (PLD 2002 FSC 1)
MR. JUSTICE DR. FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN
Pregnancy and subsequent birth of a child by the accused lady whose husband had been convicted about nine years before in a murder case, and confined in jail; imprisoned husband had submitted an affidavit and made statement on oath, before this Court (FSC) wherein inter alia, he owned legitimacy of the child born during trial. Such being a highly pertinent aspect of the whole case it was certainly noticeable that who else could better testify and be a better judge of the pregnancy/legitimacy of a child of a married lady than that of her husband. Accused lady also confirmed on oath the legitimacy of the child. Hadd sentence on such score awarded to the accused was not maintainable and was set aside.
[Annual Report of the FSC, 2002, pp.61-62]

Now, let me clarify some issues:-
(i) Zafran Bibi's lawyer started defaming her instead of defending her; this is not a problem of the Hudood Ordinance.
(ii) According to records, the FIR which was filed had accused Akmal Khan and not Jamal Khan. It carried Zafran Bibi's thumb impression too, but, the police officer might have taken bribes for doing an ulterior work. (Only God knows!) Recall that its the CrPC which deals with loding of FIR and not Hudood Ordinance. Furthermore, this is not a defect of the law; its a problem in the law-enforcing agencies. Consequently, the law does not require to be changed; the police needs to be corrected.
(iii) Jamal Khan was not called in the court; although, this is not an issue of the Hudood Ordinance, but still, it needs to be pointed out that the judge acted dishonestly and against law.

The only thing in this whole case which is related with the Hudood Ordinance is the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions judge:-
The NGOs raise protest against the Hudood Ordinance and bring arguments against it from this case (Zafran Bibi) as well as others (e.g. Mukhtara Mai case) by saying things similar to this one:-
Anyone who understands the English language knows that only a subjective analysis of Section 8 is sufficient to prove the fallacy of this statement; a confession is extremely different from an allegation. The judge was no doubt corrupt and his statement was not in accordance with the Hudood Ordinance. The FSC also said the same thing in its judgment that "this is not a defect in the hudood laws."
Let's not get involved in hair-splitting and ambiguous discussion as to whether confession includes allegation or not. The most simple method to settle the issue is to see as to how Section 8 was interpreted before this judgment by other courts. We enumerate here a few judgments which are related with confession under Section 8:-

Mst. Safia Bibi vs. The State (PLD 1985 FSC 120)
MR. JUSTICE SH. AFTAB HUSSAIN
Status of self-exculpatory statement in zina-bil-jabr:-
Zina was committed with a blind girl and she was convicted by trial court. She gave birth to an illegitimate child. The Court held that: “In the present case, it is clear that except the self-exculpatory statement of the girl and the statement of her father, who also maintained that she had been subjected to zina-bil-jabr, there is no other evidence. In Shariah, if a girl makes a statement as made in the present case, she cannot be convicted of Zina.”
[Annual Report of the FSC, 2002, p.49]

Conclusion: This judgment clearly expounds the fact that if a woman accuses someone else of zina-bil-jabr, but, no other evidence is available, then she cannot be convicted of zina. This judgment was of 1985 whereas in the case under discussion, the sentence of stoning was passed in 2002. This alone is a sufficient proof that the judge deliberately misinterpreted the law.

Ghulam Ali vs. The State (PLD 1981 FSC 224)
MR. JUSTICE ZAKAULLAH LODHI
Confessional statement of woman against co-accused:-
Prosecution case resting only on confession of woman co-accused, confession of co-accused does not occupy position of a statement on oath before court of law. Such confession cannot be made good ground to support conviction of another co-accused. Appeal accepted.
[Annual Report of the FSC, 2002, p.47]

Arif Nawaz Khan vs. The State (PLD 1991 FSC 53)
MR. JUSTICE TANZIL-UR-REHMAN
Confession of an accused person against co-accused:-
In Islamic law, the confession of an accused against the co-accused is not acceptable and if there is no other proof against him, he will not be punished on the said confession. Thus a confession only implicates the accused, but not the co-accused. If a person retracts from his confession, his retraction shall be accepted and he shall be absolved from hadd punishment, unless the Hadd punishment is proved by evidence.
[Annual Report of the FSC, 2002, p.52]

Conclusion: The above two judgments answer off the common objection raised by people that a rapist confesses his crime as zina before the court and the woman also gets convicted; this is a fallacy. The above two judgments clearly say that confession of one cannot be made ground for the conviction of co-accused. This is also proved from several ahadith e.g. a hadith found in Kitab al-Hudood of Sunan Abu Dawud.

Mst. Bakhan vs. The State (PLD 1986 FSC 274)
MR. JUSTICE GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN
1. Principle for recording of confession in cases of offence of zina.
2. Four times confession is necessary for a proof of offence of zina.
3. A plea of guilty is not a confession. Ultimate aim of Islamic law is correction and reformation & heavy punishment is provided only for incorrigible cases. Appeal accepted.
[Annual Report of the FSC, 2002, p.49]

Muhammad Sarwar and another vs. The State (PLD 1988 FSC 42)
MR. JUSTICE GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN
When a person wants to confess his guilt in accordance with the Offence of Zina (E.O.H.) Ordinance, Court should record his statement four times at intervals and each time accused should be asked to go out of the view of the Court. Order of the trial Court was set not supported by law and the same was, therefore, set aside.
[Annual Report of the FSC, 2002, p.50]

Ask yourself: Did the Additional Sessions Judge follow the above procedures in Zafran Bibi's case? And how could he follow the above procedures? Will he ask her to accuse someone four times or will Zafran Bibi have to retract her 'accusation' in order to fulfill the provisions of law of retraction of confession?
Don't be irrational! Use your mind! How can anyone on earth consider an accusation as a confession? The above judgments further prove the contrary that the law never meant any such thing.

And of course, I am not narrow-minded and have no problems in appreciating as well as praising all those NGOs which raised protest against this unjust judgment, especially, Ansar Burney Trust without whose efforts, a mother would have been unjustly punished. In my view, such corrupt judges should themselves be stoned to death to get a feel of how painful it is to get stoned to death for a crime which one has not committed!!!

Now, we come to the second question that can the media deliberately lie? The answer is a BIG YES! I will answer this question in somewhat detail later on as this will take us a little far from the real issue i.e. Hudood Ordinance.

First of all, it is not 39 stripes; it is 30 stripes. He also did not explain what kind of cases of rape are not liable to hadd.
The most confusing part of his statement is what he wrote about gang rape. He did say that all get the same punishment, but, he did not mention that the punishment--even under tazir--is death penalty.
The section 10(4) prescribes a penalty of death for gang rape even under tazir and no lesser punishment. This section was not present in the original Ordinance, but, came into being as a result of a judgment given by the Federal Shariah Court in Rashida Patel vs. The State (PLD 1989 FSC 95). In this judgment, the court ruled that gang rape is covered by verse 33 of Surah al-Maida (5).
The section 10(4) remained in the original Zina Ordinance till it was removed from this Ordinance and incorporated into the Anti Terrorism Act, 2002; nevertheless, it is still in force.

Section 11 --> Kidnapping, abducitng or inducing women to compel for marriage [ Death or R.I. extending to 25 years + fine + whipping not exceeding 30 stripes (if imprisonment awarded) ]
Section 12 --> Kidnapping or abducting in order to subject person to unnatural lust [ Ibid ]
Section 13 --> Selling person for purposes of prostitution [ Imprisonment for life + fine + whipping not exceeding 30 stripes ]
Section 14 --> Buying a person for purposes of prostitution [ Ibid ]
Section 15 --> Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage [ R.I. extending to 25 years + fine + whipping not exceeding 30 stripes ]
Section 16 --> Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a woman [ Imprisonment of either description extending to 7 years + fine + whipping not exceeding 30 stripes ]

All these punishments are tazirat i.e. the complainant can pardon the offender, any form of evidence is acceptable, etc. This was not mentioned by Anwar Syed and the reader may get the incorrect impression that witnesses are also required in this case also.

Is this really so? Ask yourself! From the 22 sections, only 2 sections viz. Section 6 and 8 are related to hudood and so, Anwar Syed's saying that they are 'unenforceable' would only apply to these sections. These two constitute less than one-tenth of the whole Ordinance--not the major part!
Then, it is a revolting thing to say that these sections are 'unenforceable.' We describe this in a while.

First of all, its a stupidity to say that confession seems impossible. Instead of playing in the air, I would like the reader to recall the cases which I mentioned above viz. Mst. Bakhan vs. The State (PLD 1986 FSC 274) & Muhammad Sarwar and another vs. The State (PLD 1988 FSC 42). But, the reason why hadd has not been awarded in cases of zina or zina-bil-jabr is because of the fact that the method of confession has been made a controversial issue. I think that some additional provisions be incorporated into the original ordinance itself so that a criminal confessing his crime should be punished with hadd.
Secondly, in accordance with the Ordinance, insane people are not Muhsan and furthermore, zina or zina-bil-jabr committed by insane person is not liable to hadd. But, of course, it is liable to tazir and insane people can be punished with tazir if the court deems fit; the punishment can be annulled too.

[The issue of availablity of four witnesses will be discussed in my next post. Keep in mind that this issue has got nothing to do with injustice to women as tazir can always be awarded. That's how much I have done uptil now, in the scarce amount of time available to me... I will be answering the remaining part of the article soon. After that, I will (InshAllah) make a detailed post about the Protection of Women Bill in a separate thread.)

A GOOD ARTICLE
Dr. Israr Ahmed, who is the founder of Tanzeem-e-Islami and also, the editor of the magazine Meesaq, included one article in the said magazine. The article Hudood Ordinance per Aitarazat ka Jaiza (Urdu) is also a good & concise article on the issue. It is only about 8 pages and can be easily finished within 10-15 minutes.
Note that the concept of awarding tazir, in the above article, is a little different from the one found in the original Ordinance.

Regards,
Abdul Rehman.