So, according to the Ordinance, the woman is not a criminal & is innocent if she has been raped.
The differences between the two crimes, as implemented in the Ordinance, have already been
discussed before.
There is an issue which is usually discussed & debated viz. whether Zina and Zina-bil-Jabr are
two forms of the same crime or not. Actually, this debate is usually heated to exclude or include rape
within the ambit of verse 2 of Surah Noor. But, the proof from Sunnah & Ijma is too clear and sticking
with this ambiguous discussion is like running in a never-ending circuit.
Similarly, it must also be noted that in Surah Noor, the term ‘zina’ is used. In fiqh and Arabic
lexicons, it is taken to mean illicit intercourse. There is no reference to consent or will and thus it is a
general term. With this definition in mind, zina may be consensual i.e. zina-bil-raza or forced i.e. zina-biljabr.
But, both these terms
will be covered by the general
term ‘zina’.
However, in the ordinance, the word ‘zina’ is defined in the meaning of ‘zina-bil-raza.’ So, the
term zina, in the ordinance, excludes zina-bil-jabr. Thus what the ordinance designates as zina is known
in the fiqh as zina-bil-raza. This thin difference must be kept in mind, otherwise, confusions &
ambiguity may arise.
Coming back to the original issue; to settle this issue we shall consult a dictionary & find the
meaning of crime. Merriam-Webster Dictionary, provided with Britannica Encyclopedia 2002 Deluxe
Edition, describes the word ‘crime’ as:
An act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty
that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to
punishment by that law.
In the light of the above definition, if we view zina-bil-raza and zina-bil-jabr, it is quite clear that
the two acts are completely different crimes, just like they are dealt in by the Hudood Ordinance. They
can never, on earth, be considered to be the same crimes! This is because of the fact that in zina-bil-raza,
both the man and woman are not only punished, but, are also involved in the commission of the crime.
Whereas, in zina-bil-jabr, only one person is involved in the offence and the woman is not only
innocent, but, is also not punished.
Some people forward the argument that just like theft is theft, whether it is with force or not,
same is the case here. But, this argument is fallacious on the face of it, because, in theft, the thief is the
criminal in both the cases and the one whose money has been stolen is the victim. Whereas, in zina-bilraza,
both are criminals and involved
in the offence, but, in zina-bil-jabr,
only one is involved in the
offence
and is liable to punishment.
Furthermore, this issue can be approached in one more way: in zina, both men and women
consensually commit an illegal act, whereas, in zina-bil-jabr, only the man commits an illegal act, whose
victim is the woman. Therefore, in zina, neither the man nor the woman is a victim—rather both are the
offenders. Whereas, in zina-bil-jabr, only the woman is a victim of an illegal act and the man is the
offender.
Here, I must remind again that we need to keep the definition of ‘zina’ in mind. If we take ‘zina’
to mean fornication or adultery, then ‘zina-bil-jabr’ is a very different thing. But, if we take ‘zina’ to
simply mean illicit intercourse, then fornication/adultery come under the flag of zina-bil-raza, whereas,
rape comes under zina-bil-jabr. According to the latter definition of ‘zina’, both zina-bil-raza and zina-biljabr
are covered by the term zina.
To sum up then, in view of the above arguments, we fully adhere to the view that the proof
required for zina or zina-bil-jabr liable to hadd is the same, because, it is a requirement of Shari’ah,
proved from Sunnah and Ijma. But, from the point of view of general understanding, zina and zinabil-jabr
are two different crimes, as provided in the Hudood Ordinance.It is noteworthy here that one of the experts has indeed pointed out this mistake made by the
Zara Sochieye team:
7
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.
Geo TV never pointed out that in the Hudood Ordinance, there are separate sections for zina
and zina-bil-jabr; separate definitions, punishments, etc. If the evidence for hadd punishment is same,
this does not mean that there is no difference between the two. Furthermore, Hafiz Salahuddin’s statement
was not shown completely; rather, only a small part was shown. Relying on the false information
provided by Zara Sochieye, many scholars gave their statements against the ordinance—never
knowing what the actual ordinance was!
3. Women’s testimony not taken
This is yet another misconception being spread by Zara Sochieye. In one of their advertisements,
they show a woman being raped infront of 5-10 women. The feet of these women are locked in chains,
while a person is commenting:
“According to the Hudood Ordinance, testimony of a woman is not acceptable ... Although, a woman is
being raped in front of these women, but, their testimonies are not acceptable.”
In the program Jawab Deyh, the host went to extreme when he said the following:-
“Some of 50 women witness a rape then there won’t be any convictions as there were no four male
witnesses?”
These are only two sources; this argument is spread by a large number of sources. In fact, even
educated persons, including legal experts, forward this argument. But, is it really so?
In the whole Hudood Ordinance, there is not even a single article which enshrines that the
testimony of women is not acceptable. If four Muslim adult male witnesses who are pious & God
fearing, testify of having seen the crime of zina or zina-bil-jabr, then the deterrent punishment i.e. hadd
will be awarded to the accused. If this condition is not fulfilled, but, there is evidence from other
sources like medical evidence, circumstantial evidence, testimony of women etc. then the rapist will be
punished under tazir, for 4-25 years rigorous imprisonment [henceforth, R.I.] (
ﺖﻗﺸﻣ ﺎﺑ ﺪﻴﻗ) alongwith
any number of strokes of lashes, provided in no case shall the whipping exceed 30 stripes.
In fact, a judgment of the Federal Shariah Court will be enough to shatter the veracity of this
claim:
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]
4. Four Witnesses Required For Punishing a Rapist
Another mountainous lie being spread about the Ordinance by Geo TV is that the rapist will not
be punished unless four witnesses are brought forward by the victim of rape. We have clarified this
issue under the very first heading, Crime never proved, and also cleared up that severe punishment—
without any witnesses, even on the solitary statement of the victim—can be awarded as tazir.
5. Women in jail
Another false accusation being made against the Hudood Ordinance is that it is due to this
Ordinance that many women are dwelling in jails. The NCSW established a Special Committee to
review the Hudood Ordinances in 2002, which wrote in its report, on page 3 that 80% of the women,
languishing in jail, are due to the Hudood Ordinance. Geo TV also re-iterates the same; in fact, several
leading newspapers do the same.
Are women resting in jail for several years due to Hudood Ordinance? Can this be fixed by
8
repealing Hudood Ordinance? The answer is a big NO!
The Hudood Ordinance neither deals with the lodging of FIRs, nor does it deal with how the
cases are to be heard. Therefore, connecting these issues with the Hudood Ordinance or to label it as a
‘torment’ of the Hudood Ordinance is nothing but ignorance!
The Hudood Ordinance merely deals with the following issues:
(a) Definition of sexual crimes
(b) Prescribing punishment for these sexual crimes
(c) Proof required for these crimes
It does NOT deal with the following issues:
(a) Lodging of FIRs
(b) Keeping women in jail or five star hotels or anywhere else
(c) Slow judicial process
(d) Hearing of pending cases, or hearing being too slow, etc.
It may be pertinent to note here that this issue of women lying in jail is a ‘blessing’ of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898) which was not made by a ‘revengeful’ Zia-ul-Haq or ‘idiot’ ulema.
This was made by the British in 1898 themselves and today, channels like BBC, CNN, etc. and of
course, various Muslim channels are blaming the Hudood Ordinance for this.
Someone may stand up to ask that before 1979, women were not languishing in jails, so, the
Hudood Ordinance must be connected with this issue. The answer to this argument is that the only
thing which the Hudood Ordinance did was to declare zina a crime, because, in the original PPC, zina
bil raza was NOT considered a crime!!! Neither was zina bil raza considered a crime, nor was there
any punishment for drinking wine and/or intoxicating liquor.
These women are languishing in jails for so many years because of the outdated slow judiciary
process, due to which the cases are never heard. At the beginning of 2005, there were 123,640 pending
hudood cases; out of which, more than 78,833 cases were that of the Prohibition Order alone! It is due to
the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth, CrPC) and some other defects in our judicial system,
which has caused the hearing of cases to become overly slow. Thus these women are lying in jails
because they were arrested, but, the cases have not been heard; they consist of both—innocent and
8 For example, see The Daily Dawn, Vol. LX, No. 275, Issue of Saturday, October 7, 2006, p.5; How Hudood Law Is Hurting
Society by Roshaneh Zafar guilty.
I would also like to ask my friends that there are several prisoners, men as well as women, lying
in jails for years, because, their cases have not been heard uptil now. In fact, in a few cases, even after
freeing the prisoners, they still remain in prison. If a person is being held in jail, because, the police
arrested him/her for a cognizable offence, punishable under any section of the PPC: will these people
repeal the PPC for solving that problem?
In fact, suggesting a repeal of the Hudood Ordinance as a remedy for the problem of women
lying in jail, which is actually due to the corrupt police, can rightly be explained with the following
example. A person got infection in a certain organ of his body; instead of curing the infection, he
thought that cutting off the whole organ will solve the
‘infection problem’ for good! Only a fool &
ignorant will be happy with such a solution, because, doing so will cause him to lose a vital part of his
body & even cause his death—alongwith the elimination of the infection.
Surprisingly enough, this is what the NGOs and the media has been asking for i.e. to solve the
problem of slow judiciary process, stop lodging cases unless in rare cases—in Zina, don’t lodge an FIR
unless four male Muslim truthful witnesses are available. This is akin to saying that in 90% of the cases,
the adulterers and fornicators should be given an ‘open sex’ environment.
Their recommendation is further that if any of the four witnesses do not qualify ‘tazkiyah al-
shuhood’ or if the judge is not satisfied with the testimonies, he may acquit the accused & subject all
witnesses and the complainant to a punishment of 80 strokes of lashes! A deep analysis of this
recommendation reveals that this is aimed at discouraging people from even reporting the remaining
10% cases, by terrorizing them of being subject to qazf. For example, if four people saw the heinous act,
they will still abstain from testifying of having seen it, because, if even a single witness did not qualify
the requirements of ‘tazkiyah al-shuhood,’ all of them will be punished with 80 stripes!
I would also like to shed light on a very oft-repeated argument that 80% of the women
languishing in jails, are due to Zina Ordinance. We already discussed that the Hudood Ordinance is
not responsible for this, but, let me warn you further. Don’t get confused by this figure!
Firstly, it does NOT reveal anything about the number of women in jail; it only shows the cause of
being in jail. Furthermore, it is still wrong to say that 80% of the women inhabiting jail are waiting trial
for zina ordinance. In the NWFP jails, during July 2003, the number of women languishing in jail for
trial for narcotics cases was 72, whereas, the number of those for trial under all four hudood ordinances
was 56.
From even the hudood cases, a major portion is that of the prohibition cases and furthermore,
the total number of women in jail was 172. This means that less than 20% (not 80%) of the women
languishing in jail were waiting trial under zina ordinance. [Source of these statistics is a report
prepared by the Women Aid Trust; see footnotes.]
9 Similarly, during 1988, the number of women prisoners in various jails of Punjab, was 657; out
of these, 306 were languishing for zina cases.
This, again, gives a figure of 46%, which is nearly half
of the figure claimed by feminist NGOs!
Note:-
10 Gen. Musharraf promulgated the Law Reforms Ordinance, 2006 this year, which added a new
section 156-B to the CrPC. According to this section, zina (not zina-bil-jabr) cases will not be
investigated by a police officer who is lower in rank than a SP (superintendent.) Furthermore, no
person shall be arrested for zina by the police until an arrest warrant has been issued by the magistrate
of a court of competent jurisdiction.6. Case of rape converts to case of adultery
BBC reported regarding the Hudood Ordinance:
11 If a rape victim fails to present four male witnesses to the crime, she herself could
face punishment and be prosecuted for adultery. The government says that
makes it almost impossible to prosecute a rape case.
12 These [hudood laws] place an almost impossible burden of proof on women by
compelling them to produce four ‘pious’ male witnesses to prove rape or risk
being convicted of adultery and face 100 lashes or death by stoning.
produce four eye witnesses then she has confessed to adultery and must be
punished for the crime of adultery.
four adult male Muslim eyewitnesses, who have physically seen the act of rape
against the victim, in order to prove her case ... But if a woman who claims she
was raped fails to prove her claims she can be convicted of adultery, which is
punishable by death in the most stringent circumstances.
A similar thing was found on the ONLINE International news network:
They [hudood laws] require a female rape victim to produce four male witnesses
to corroborate her account, or she risks facing a charge of adultery.
that she was raped. She has to bring along four male eyewitnesses. Only then
will the law consider her case. On the other hand, if she cannot prove that she
was raped, then she could be charged with adultery, a non-bailable offence that
can even invite the death penalty under certain circumstances. ABC news also adhered to the same view:
The differences between the two crimes, as implemented in the Ordinance, have already been
discussed before.
There is an issue which is usually discussed & debated viz. whether Zina and Zina-bil-Jabr are
two forms of the same crime or not. Actually, this debate is usually heated to exclude or include rape
within the ambit of verse 2 of Surah Noor. But, the proof from Sunnah & Ijma is too clear and sticking
with this ambiguous discussion is like running in a never-ending circuit.
Similarly, it must also be noted that in Surah Noor, the term ‘zina’ is used. In fiqh and Arabic
lexicons, it is taken to mean illicit intercourse. There is no reference to consent or will and thus it is a
general term. With this definition in mind, zina may be consensual i.e. zina-bil-raza or forced i.e. zina-biljabr.
But, both these terms
will be covered by the general
term ‘zina’.
However, in the ordinance, the word ‘zina’ is defined in the meaning of ‘zina-bil-raza.’ So, the
term zina, in the ordinance, excludes zina-bil-jabr. Thus what the ordinance designates as zina is known
in the fiqh as zina-bil-raza. This thin difference must be kept in mind, otherwise, confusions &
ambiguity may arise.
Coming back to the original issue; to settle this issue we shall consult a dictionary & find the
meaning of crime. Merriam-Webster Dictionary, provided with Britannica Encyclopedia 2002 Deluxe
Edition, describes the word ‘crime’ as:
An act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty
that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to
punishment by that law.
In the light of the above definition, if we view zina-bil-raza and zina-bil-jabr, it is quite clear that
the two acts are completely different crimes, just like they are dealt in by the Hudood Ordinance. They
can never, on earth, be considered to be the same crimes! This is because of the fact that in zina-bil-raza,
both the man and woman are not only punished, but, are also involved in the commission of the crime.
Whereas, in zina-bil-jabr, only one person is involved in the offence and the woman is not only
innocent, but, is also not punished.
Some people forward the argument that just like theft is theft, whether it is with force or not,
same is the case here. But, this argument is fallacious on the face of it, because, in theft, the thief is the
criminal in both the cases and the one whose money has been stolen is the victim. Whereas, in zina-bilraza,
both are criminals and involved
in the offence, but, in zina-bil-jabr,
only one is involved in the
offence
and is liable to punishment.
Furthermore, this issue can be approached in one more way: in zina, both men and women
consensually commit an illegal act, whereas, in zina-bil-jabr, only the man commits an illegal act, whose
victim is the woman. Therefore, in zina, neither the man nor the woman is a victim—rather both are the
offenders. Whereas, in zina-bil-jabr, only the woman is a victim of an illegal act and the man is the
offender.
Here, I must remind again that we need to keep the definition of ‘zina’ in mind. If we take ‘zina’
to mean fornication or adultery, then ‘zina-bil-jabr’ is a very different thing. But, if we take ‘zina’ to
simply mean illicit intercourse, then fornication/adultery come under the flag of zina-bil-raza, whereas,
rape comes under zina-bil-jabr. According to the latter definition of ‘zina’, both zina-bil-raza and zina-biljabr
are covered by the term zina.
To sum up then, in view of the above arguments, we fully adhere to the view that the proof
required for zina or zina-bil-jabr liable to hadd is the same, because, it is a requirement of Shari’ah,
proved from Sunnah and Ijma. But, from the point of view of general understanding, zina and zinabil-jabr
are two different crimes, as provided in the Hudood Ordinance.It is noteworthy here that one of the experts has indeed pointed out this mistake made by the
Zara Sochieye team:
7
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.
Geo TV never pointed out that in the Hudood Ordinance, there are separate sections for zina
and zina-bil-jabr; separate definitions, punishments, etc. If the evidence for hadd punishment is same,
this does not mean that there is no difference between the two. Furthermore, Hafiz Salahuddin’s statement
was not shown completely; rather, only a small part was shown. Relying on the false information
provided by Zara Sochieye, many scholars gave their statements against the ordinance—never
knowing what the actual ordinance was!
3. Women’s testimony not taken
This is yet another misconception being spread by Zara Sochieye. In one of their advertisements,
they show a woman being raped infront of 5-10 women. The feet of these women are locked in chains,
while a person is commenting:
“According to the Hudood Ordinance, testimony of a woman is not acceptable ... Although, a woman is
being raped in front of these women, but, their testimonies are not acceptable.”
In the program Jawab Deyh, the host went to extreme when he said the following:-
“Some of 50 women witness a rape then there won’t be any convictions as there were no four male
witnesses?”
These are only two sources; this argument is spread by a large number of sources. In fact, even
educated persons, including legal experts, forward this argument. But, is it really so?
In the whole Hudood Ordinance, there is not even a single article which enshrines that the
testimony of women is not acceptable. If four Muslim adult male witnesses who are pious & God
fearing, testify of having seen the crime of zina or zina-bil-jabr, then the deterrent punishment i.e. hadd
will be awarded to the accused. If this condition is not fulfilled, but, there is evidence from other
sources like medical evidence, circumstantial evidence, testimony of women etc. then the rapist will be
punished under tazir, for 4-25 years rigorous imprisonment [henceforth, R.I.] (
ﺖﻗﺸﻣ ﺎﺑ ﺪﻴﻗ) alongwith
any number of strokes of lashes, provided in no case shall the whipping exceed 30 stripes.
In fact, a judgment of the Federal Shariah Court will be enough to shatter the veracity of this
claim:
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]
4. Four Witnesses Required For Punishing a Rapist
Another mountainous lie being spread about the Ordinance by Geo TV is that the rapist will not
be punished unless four witnesses are brought forward by the victim of rape. We have clarified this
issue under the very first heading, Crime never proved, and also cleared up that severe punishment—
without any witnesses, even on the solitary statement of the victim—can be awarded as tazir.
5. Women in jail
Another false accusation being made against the Hudood Ordinance is that it is due to this
Ordinance that many women are dwelling in jails. The NCSW established a Special Committee to
review the Hudood Ordinances in 2002, which wrote in its report, on page 3 that 80% of the women,
languishing in jail, are due to the Hudood Ordinance. Geo TV also re-iterates the same; in fact, several
leading newspapers do the same.
Are women resting in jail for several years due to Hudood Ordinance? Can this be fixed by
8
repealing Hudood Ordinance? The answer is a big NO!
The Hudood Ordinance neither deals with the lodging of FIRs, nor does it deal with how the
cases are to be heard. Therefore, connecting these issues with the Hudood Ordinance or to label it as a
‘torment’ of the Hudood Ordinance is nothing but ignorance!
The Hudood Ordinance merely deals with the following issues:
(a) Definition of sexual crimes
(b) Prescribing punishment for these sexual crimes
(c) Proof required for these crimes
It does NOT deal with the following issues:
(a) Lodging of FIRs
(b) Keeping women in jail or five star hotels or anywhere else
(c) Slow judicial process
(d) Hearing of pending cases, or hearing being too slow, etc.
It may be pertinent to note here that this issue of women lying in jail is a ‘blessing’ of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898) which was not made by a ‘revengeful’ Zia-ul-Haq or ‘idiot’ ulema.
This was made by the British in 1898 themselves and today, channels like BBC, CNN, etc. and of
course, various Muslim channels are blaming the Hudood Ordinance for this.
Someone may stand up to ask that before 1979, women were not languishing in jails, so, the
Hudood Ordinance must be connected with this issue. The answer to this argument is that the only
thing which the Hudood Ordinance did was to declare zina a crime, because, in the original PPC, zina
bil raza was NOT considered a crime!!! Neither was zina bil raza considered a crime, nor was there
any punishment for drinking wine and/or intoxicating liquor.
These women are languishing in jails for so many years because of the outdated slow judiciary
process, due to which the cases are never heard. At the beginning of 2005, there were 123,640 pending
hudood cases; out of which, more than 78,833 cases were that of the Prohibition Order alone! It is due to
the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth, CrPC) and some other defects in our judicial system,
which has caused the hearing of cases to become overly slow. Thus these women are lying in jails
because they were arrested, but, the cases have not been heard; they consist of both—innocent and
8 For example, see The Daily Dawn, Vol. LX, No. 275, Issue of Saturday, October 7, 2006, p.5; How Hudood Law Is Hurting
Society by Roshaneh Zafar guilty.
I would also like to ask my friends that there are several prisoners, men as well as women, lying
in jails for years, because, their cases have not been heard uptil now. In fact, in a few cases, even after
freeing the prisoners, they still remain in prison. If a person is being held in jail, because, the police
arrested him/her for a cognizable offence, punishable under any section of the PPC: will these people
repeal the PPC for solving that problem?
In fact, suggesting a repeal of the Hudood Ordinance as a remedy for the problem of women
lying in jail, which is actually due to the corrupt police, can rightly be explained with the following
example. A person got infection in a certain organ of his body; instead of curing the infection, he
thought that cutting off the whole organ will solve the
‘infection problem’ for good! Only a fool &
ignorant will be happy with such a solution, because, doing so will cause him to lose a vital part of his
body & even cause his death—alongwith the elimination of the infection.
Surprisingly enough, this is what the NGOs and the media has been asking for i.e. to solve the
problem of slow judiciary process, stop lodging cases unless in rare cases—in Zina, don’t lodge an FIR
unless four male Muslim truthful witnesses are available. This is akin to saying that in 90% of the cases,
the adulterers and fornicators should be given an ‘open sex’ environment.
Their recommendation is further that if any of the four witnesses do not qualify ‘tazkiyah al-
shuhood’ or if the judge is not satisfied with the testimonies, he may acquit the accused & subject all
witnesses and the complainant to a punishment of 80 strokes of lashes! A deep analysis of this
recommendation reveals that this is aimed at discouraging people from even reporting the remaining
10% cases, by terrorizing them of being subject to qazf. For example, if four people saw the heinous act,
they will still abstain from testifying of having seen it, because, if even a single witness did not qualify
the requirements of ‘tazkiyah al-shuhood,’ all of them will be punished with 80 stripes!
I would also like to shed light on a very oft-repeated argument that 80% of the women
languishing in jails, are due to Zina Ordinance. We already discussed that the Hudood Ordinance is
not responsible for this, but, let me warn you further. Don’t get confused by this figure!
Firstly, it does NOT reveal anything about the number of women in jail; it only shows the cause of
being in jail. Furthermore, it is still wrong to say that 80% of the women inhabiting jail are waiting trial
for zina ordinance. In the NWFP jails, during July 2003, the number of women languishing in jail for
trial for narcotics cases was 72, whereas, the number of those for trial under all four hudood ordinances
was 56.
From even the hudood cases, a major portion is that of the prohibition cases and furthermore,
the total number of women in jail was 172. This means that less than 20% (not 80%) of the women
languishing in jail were waiting trial under zina ordinance. [Source of these statistics is a report
prepared by the Women Aid Trust; see footnotes.]
9 Similarly, during 1988, the number of women prisoners in various jails of Punjab, was 657; out
of these, 306 were languishing for zina cases.
This, again, gives a figure of 46%, which is nearly half
of the figure claimed by feminist NGOs!
Note:-
10 Gen. Musharraf promulgated the Law Reforms Ordinance, 2006 this year, which added a new
section 156-B to the CrPC. According to this section, zina (not zina-bil-jabr) cases will not be
investigated by a police officer who is lower in rank than a SP (superintendent.) Furthermore, no
person shall be arrested for zina by the police until an arrest warrant has been issued by the magistrate
of a court of competent jurisdiction.6. Case of rape converts to case of adultery
BBC reported regarding the Hudood Ordinance:
11 If a rape victim fails to present four male witnesses to the crime, she herself could
face punishment and be prosecuted for adultery. The government says that
makes it almost impossible to prosecute a rape case.
The Telegraph published a similar report:
12 These [hudood laws] place an almost impossible burden of proof on women by
compelling them to produce four ‘pious’ male witnesses to prove rape or risk
being convicted of adultery and face 100 lashes or death by stoning.
CBC news observed:
13 According to General Zia’s law, if a woman is raped she needs four eyewitnesses
to prove that she was raped. But if she files a complaint of rape and fails toproduce four eye witnesses then she has confessed to adultery and must be
punished for the crime of adultery.
WLUML noted:
14 Under section 8 of the Ordinance, a rape victim is required to produce at leastfour adult male Muslim eyewitnesses, who have physically seen the act of rape
against the victim, in order to prove her case ... But if a woman who claims she
was raped fails to prove her claims she can be convicted of adultery, which is
punishable by death in the most stringent circumstances.
A similar thing was found on the ONLINE International news network:
They [hudood laws] require a female rape victim to produce four male witnesses
to corroborate her account, or she risks facing a charge of adultery.
The Hindu magazine says:
16 Under this law, if a woman is raped, and reports it, the onus is on her to provethat she was raped. She has to bring along four male eyewitnesses. Only then
will the law consider her case. On the other hand, if she cannot prove that she
was raped, then she could be charged with adultery, a non-bailable offence that
can even invite the death penalty under certain circumstances. ABC news also adhered to the same view:
