Hubbry Logo
HududHududMain
Open search
Hudud
Community hub
Hudud
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Hudud
Hudud
Hudud
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Part of a series on
Islamic jurisprudence
(fiqh)
Ritual
Shahada
Salah
Sawm
Zakat
Hajj
Political
Family
Marriage
Sexual
Criminal
Etiquette
Economic
History
Zakat
Banking
Inheritance
Hygiene
Dietary
Military
Social
Islamic studies

In traditional Islamic jurisprudence, Hudud (also Hadood, Hadud, Hudood, Arabic: حدود, romanized: ḥudūd pl., Hadd Arabic: حد sing.) literally "borders, boundaries, limits"),[1] refers to punishments (ranging from public lashing, public stoning to death, amputation of hands, crucifixion, depending on the crime),[2] for several specific crimes (drinking alcohol, illicit sexual intercourse, false accusations of adultery, theft, apostasy from Islam, highway robbery, revolt against the ruler),[3][4][5] for which punishments have been determined by verses of Quran or hadith.

Hudud is one of three categories of crime and punishment in classical Islamic literature, the other two being Qisas ("eye for an eye")–Diya (paying victims compensation), and Ta'zeer, (punishment left to the judge's or ruler's discretion).[6] Hudud are crimes "against God",[7] and cover the punishments given to those who exceed the "limits of God" (hududullah), associated with the Quran and in some cases inferred from hadith.[8][9] (Qisas, Diya, and Ta'zeer deal with "crimes against man".)

Hudud crimes cannot be pardoned by the victim or by the state, and the punishments must be carried out in public,[10] but in traditional practice were rarely implemented because the evidentiary standards were so high.[9][11] Offenders who escaped a hudud punishment could still receive a ta'zir sentence.[12]

These punishments were applied through most of Islamic history,[11][12] replaced in many parts of the Islamic world in the 19th century by European inspired models,[12][13][14] and then restored in the late 20th/early 21st century, in several Muslim-majority states as a result of the Islamic revival and calls by Islamists for full implementation of Sharia.[13][15] In the 21st century, hudud, including amputation of limbs, is part of the legal systems of Afghanistan,[16] Brunei,[17] Iran, Mauritania,[18] Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates,[19] Yemen,[20] and northern part of Nigeria.

Scriptural basis

[edit]

Hudud offenses with prescribed punishments are mentioned in the Quran. The punishments for these offenses are drawn from both the Quran and the Sunnah. The Quran does not define the offenses precisely: their definitions were elaborated in fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence).

Hududullah, or the "limits of God", is a phrase found several times in the Quran, but not as a label for a particular type of crime. The Quran warns Muslims of the sin of transgressing the limits, which should not even be approached (Quran 2:187). But nowhere does the phrase appear in the clear context of labeling certain crimes (see Quran, 2:229, 4:14, 58:4, 65:1), though 4:14 is followed by discussion of sexual impropriety.[21]

Quran

[edit]

The Qur'an describes several crimes determined by scholars as hudud and in some cases sets out punishments.[8]

Theft (sariqa)

[edit]

The hudud crime of theft is referred to in Quran verse 5:38:[8]

As for male and female thieves, cut off their hands for what they have done—a deterrent from Allah. And Allah is Almighty, All-Wise.

— Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:38

Hirabah

[edit]

The crime of waging war against Allah and His Messenger and spreading mischief in the land is traditionally thought to be referred to in verse 5:33, but while the verse gives punishments for the crime, it does not explain what it is, its "constituent elements, modes of crime and conditions".[22] It is often defined by scholars as "robbery and civil disturbance against Islam" inside a Muslim state:[8]

Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and spread mischief in the land is death, crucifixion, cutting off their hands and feet on opposite sides, or exile from the land. This ˹penalty˺ is a disgrace for them in this world, and they will suffer a tremendous punishment in the Hereafter.

— Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:33

Zina

[edit]

The crime of illicit consensual sex (zina) is referred to in several verses, including Quran 24:2:[8] The Quran gives lashing as the punishment, not stoning; stoning being found in hadith.[23][24]

As for female and male fornicators, give each of them one hundred lashes, and do not let pity for them make you lenient in ˹enforcing˺ the law of Allah, if you ˹truly˺ believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a number of believers witness their punishment.

— Surah An-Nur 24:2

Qadhf

[edit]

The crime of "accusation of illicit sex against chaste women without four witnesses" (qadhf) has a hudud punishment based on several Quranic verses,[8] including 24:4, 24:6.

Those who accuse chaste women ˹of adultery˺ and fail to produce four witnesses, give them eighty lashes ˹each˺. And do not ever accept any testimony from them——for they are indeed the rebellious—

— Surah An-Nur 24:4[Note 1]

Drinking alcohol

[edit]

The crime of drinking alcohol is referred to in Quranic verse 5:90, (thehudud punishment however, is described in hadiths):[8]

O believers! Intoxicants, gambling, idols, and drawing lots for decisions are all evil of Satan's handiwork. So shun them so you may be successful.

— Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:90

Hadiths

[edit]

In some cases Islamic scholars have used hadiths to establish hudud punishments, which are not mentioned in the Quran.[8] Thus, stoning as punishment for zina is based on hadiths that narrate episodes where Muhammad and his successors prescribed it.[24]

Sahih hadith are "sound" hadith. Hadith are the sayings, practices and traditions of Muhammad as observed by his companions, and compiled by scholars. Sahih hadith are considered by Sunni Muslims to be the most trusted source of Islamic law after the Quran. They extensively describe hudud crimes and punishments.[25][26] The tendency to use existence of a shubha (lit. doubt, uncertainty) to avoid hudud punishments is based on a hadith that states "avert hadd punishment in case of shubha".[27]

Hudud offences and punishments

[edit]

Difference in number

[edit]

Sources differ as to how many Hudud crimes there are. According to at least one scholar (Muhammad Shafi) there are just five hudud crimes in shariah -- (1) Robbery, (2) Theft, (3) Adultery, (4) False Accusation of Adultery, plus one more, drinking wine -- added as a result of the consensus (Ijma`) of the Companions of Muhammad.[28] Article One of the Penal Code of the state of Qatar lists six hudud punishments, adding apostasy to those of Muhammad Shafi.[29] Hajed A. Alotaibi in his book on Minor Crimes in Saudi Arabia, states that Hudud "generally" covers seven crimes, adding "rebellion" to the Qatar list of crimes.[30]

Offenses

[edit]

The offences subject to hudud punishment:

  • Theft (sariqa, السرقة). Punished with amputation of a hand.[31][8]
  • Illicit sexual intercourse (zina, الزنا). Includes pre-marital sex and extra-marital sex.[32][33] Although the punishment for zina mentioned in the Quran is lashing, not stoning, all schools of traditional jurisprudence agreed on the basis of hadith that the offense is to be punished by stoning if the offender is muhsan (adult, free, Muslim, and married or previously married). Lashing is the penalty for offenders who are not muhsan, i.e. they do not meet all of the above criteria. The offenders must have acted of their own free will.[23][24] Classification of homosexual intercourse as zina differs according to legal school.[23] Some understandings tend to add homosexual relationships to these crimes, which are defined as an evil act in the Qur'an with an undefined response such as "punish/discipline them" (4ː16).
  • False accusation of zina (qadhf, القذف).[31][34] Punished by 80 lashes.[8] (See: The Necklace Incident)
  • Drinking alcohol (shurb al-khamr).[31] Punished by 40 to 80 lashes, depending on the legal school.[8] This is a Hadd crime "on the basis of a consensus (Ijma`)" of the Companions of Muhammad.[35]
  • Apostasy from Islam, i.e. leaving Islam for another religion or none at all,[36][37] is regarded as one of hudud crimes liable to capital punishment in traditional Maliki, Hanbali and Shia jurisprudence, but not in Hanafi and Shafi'i fiqh, though these schools also regard apostasy as a grave crime whose punishment is death.
Apostasy from Islam is condemned in the Quran, but the punishments prescribed are in the afterlife (except that we are asked to "not accept their testimony forever") and do not include execution. However the classical understanding of sharia punishes them with death. Furthermore, some interpretations include acts such as failure to worship ("abandoning prayer and alms") as evidence of apostasy and punishable by death.[38] (See: Ridda wars)
Cross amputation survivors, Adam Ismaeel (left) and Ibrahim Osman (right), of the September 1983 Laws in Sudan, pictured in 1986; the amputees were allegedly guilty of declared "war against Allah and the Prophet".
Punished with death followed by crucifixion, amputation of the right hand and the left foot (the combined right-left double amputation procedure is known as the ancient punishment of "cross-amputation") or banishment. Different punishments are prescribed for different scenarios and there are differences of opinion regarding specifics within and between legal schools.[31][8] Expanding or narrowing the conditions and scope of this crime according to new situations and universal standards are issues that continue to be discussed today.[45]

Differences among schools

[edit]

There are a number of differences in views between the different madhhabs with regard to the punishments appropriate in specific situations and the required process before they are carried out.[8] There are also legal differences (ikhtilaf) over the term limitation of pronouncing the punishment. Hanafite scholars assert that punishment for hadd crimes other than qadhf (false accusation of illegal sex) have to be implemented within a month; except for witnesses with a valid legal justifications for delayed testimony or in cases of self-confession.[46]

Marja' following Shia jurisprudence generally believe that hudud punishments can be changed by appropriately qualified jurists.[47][48]

Nonhudud crimes

[edit]

Murder, injury and property damage are not hudud crimes in Islamic criminal jurisprudence,[49][50] and are subsumed under other categories of Islamic penal law in Iran which are:

  • Qisas (meaning retaliation, and following the principle of "eye for an eye"), and Diya ("blood money", financial compensation paid to the victim or heirs of a victim in the cases of murder, bodily harm or property damage. Diyyah is an alternative to Qisas for the same class of crimes).
  • Ta'zeer – punishment administered at the discretion of the judge.

History

[edit]

Because the stringent traditional restrictions on application of hudud punishments, they were rarely applied historically.[12] Criminals who escaped hudud punishments could still be sanctioned under the system of tazir, which gave judges and high officials discretionary sentencing powers to punish crimes that did not fall under the categories of hudud and qisas.[12] In practice, since early on in Islamic history, criminal cases were usually handled by ruler-administered courts or local police using procedures that were only loosely related to Sharia.[51][52] During the 19th century, Sharia-based criminal laws were replaced by statutes inspired by European models nearly everywhere in the Islamic world, except some particularly conservative regions such as the Arabian peninsula.[12][13][14]

Flogging of a man who seduced a woman in Islamabad, Pakistan (1970s)

Post-colonial era

[edit]

The Islamic revival of the late 20th century brought along calls by Islamist movements for full implementation of Sharia.[13][15] Reinstatement of hudud punishments has had particular symbolic importance for these groups because of their Quranic origin,[13] but in countries where hudud have been incorporated into the legal code under Islamist pressure, the punishments have often been used sparingly or not at all, depending on local political climate.[13][14]

By 2013 about a dozen of the 50 or so Muslim-majority countries had made hudud applicable,[53] with many countries disregarding traditional strict requirements.[13] In 1979 Pakistan instituted the Hudood Ordinances. In July 1980 Iran stoned to death four offenders in Kerman. By the late 1980s, Mauritania and Sudan had "enacted laws to grant courts the power to hand down hadd penalties". During the 1990s Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, and northern Nigeria followed suit. In 1994 the Iraqi president Saddam Hussein (who had persecuted and executed many Islamists), issued a decree "ordering that robbers and car thieves should lose their hands".[54] Brunei adopted hudud laws in 2014.[55][56]

Enforcement of hudud punishments has varied from country to country. In Pakistan and Libya, hudud punishments have not been applied at all because of strict evidentiary requirements.[12] In Nigeria local courts have passed several stoning sentences for zina, all of which were overturned on appeal and left unenforced because of lack of sufficient evidence.[57]

During the first two years when Sharia was made state law in Sudan (1983 and 1985), a hudud punishment for theft was inflicted on some criminals, and then discontinued though not repealed. Floggings for moral crimes have been carried out since the codification of Islamic law in Sudan in 1991.

Zina

[edit]

The hudud punishment for zinā in cases of consensual sex and the punishment of rape victims who failed to prove the coercion, which has occurred in some countries, have been the subject of a global human rights debate.[58][59][60]

In 2012 a Sudanese court sentenced Intisar Sharif Abdallah, a teenager (but an adult under Islamic law), to death by stoning in the city of Omdurman under article 146 of Sudan's Criminal Act after charging her with "adultery with a married person". She was held in Omdurman prison with her legs shackled, along with her 5-month-old baby.[61] (She was released on July 3, 2012 after an international outcry.)[62]

In Pakistan many rape victims who have failed to prove accusations have been jailed this has been criticized as leading to "hundreds of incidents where a woman subjected to rape, or gang rape, were eventually accused of zināʾ" and incarcerated.[63] Charles Kennedy states that majority of cases against women jailed on charges of zina in Pakistan are filed by their family members against disobedient daughters and estranged wives as harassment suits. Hundreds of women in Afghanistan jails are victims of rape or domestic violence, accused of zina under tazir.[64] In Pakistan, over 200,000 zina cases against women under the Hudood laws were under way at various levels in Pakistan's legal system in 2005.[65] In addition to thousands of women in prison awaiting trial for zina-related charges, rape victims in Pakistan have been reluctant to report rape because they feared being charged with zina.[66] The resulting controversy prompted the law to be amended in 2006, though the amended version has been criticized for continuing to blur the legal distinction between rape and consensual sex.[24]

Judicial amputation

[edit]

According to Amnesty International, between 1981 and December 1999 there were at least 90 amputations (although this punishment is not exclusively used to carry out a hudud punishment) and at least five cross-amputations (hand and foot on opposite sides amputated) for judicial punishment.[67] Amputation as punishment is also practiced in Muslim countries like Brunei, the United Arab Emirates,[68] Iran,[69][70] Saudi Arabia,[71] Yemen,[72] and 11 of the 36 states within Nigeria.[73][74]

Crucifixion

[edit]

Verse Q.5:33 mentions crucifixion (Arabic: الصلب, romanized: aṣ-ṣalib) as among the punishments for waging war against God and His Messenger and spreading corruption in the land. There are different interpretations of crucifixion in Islam,[75] but at least in Saudi Arabia, takes the form of displaying beheaded remains of a perpetrator "for a few hours on top of a pole".[76] They are far fewer in number than executions.[77] One case was that of Muhammad Basheer al-Ranally who was executed and crucified on December 7, 2009 for "spreading disorder in the land" by kidnapping, raping and murdering several young boys.[77] ISIS has also reportedly crucified prisoners.[78]

Requirements for conviction

[edit]

Confession and eyewitness testimony are the principle means of establishing guilt for hudud crimes.[79] Hudud were famous for seldom being implemented because the evidentiary standards were very high.[9][11] Based on a hadith, jurists stipulated that hudud punishments should be averted by the slightest doubts or ambiguities.[a][80][9] Meeting hudud requirements for zina and theft was virtually impossible without a confession in court, which could then be invalidated by a retraction.[80][9]

Illegal sex

[edit]
Main article: Zina

Certain standards for proof must be met in Islamic law for zina punishment to apply. In the Shafii, Hanbali, and Hanafi schools of fiqh, rajm (public stoning) or lashing is imposed for religiously prohibited sex only if the crime is proven, either by self-confession or by four male adults witnessing at first hand the actual sexual intercourse at the same time in its most intimate details.[4] Shia Islam allows substitution of one male Muslim with two female Muslims, but requires that at least one of the witnesses be a male. The Sunni Maliki school of law consider pregnancy in an unmarried woman as sufficient evidence of zina, unless there is evidence of rape or compulsion.[4][81] The punishment can be averted by a number of legal "doubts" (shubuhat), however, such as existence of an invalid marriage contract or possibility that the conception predates a divorce.[23] The majority Maliki opinion theoretically allowed for a pregnancy lasting up to seven years, indicating a concern of the jurists to shield women from the charge of zina and to protect children from the stigma of illegitimacy.[4] These requirements made zina virtually impossible to prove in practice.[24]

If a person alleges zina and fails to provide four consistent Muslim witnesses, or if witnesses provide inconsistent testimonies, they can be sentenced to eighty lashes for unfounded accusation of fornication (qadhf), itself a hadd crime."[23] Rape was traditionally prosecuted under legal categories requiring less stringent evidentiary rules.[82] In Pakistan, the Hudood Ordinances of 1979 subsumed prosecution of rape under the category of zina, making rape extremely difficult to prove and exposing the victims to jail sentences for admitting illicit intercourse.[24] The resulting controversy prompted the law to be amended in 2006, though the amended version is still criticized by some for blurring the legal distinction between rape and consensual sex.[24]

Theft

[edit]

Malik ibn Anas, the originator of the Maliki judicial school of fiqh, recorded in his work Al-Muwatta[83] a great many detailed circumstances under which the punishment of hand amputation should and should not be carried out. In his comments on the verse in the Quran on theft, scholar Yusuf Ali asserted that most Islamic jurists believe that "petty thefts are exempt from this punishment", and that "only one hand should be cut off for the first theft."[84] Islamic jurists disagree as to when amputation is mandatory religious punishment.[85]

Another list of restrictions comes from a fatwa given by one Taqī al-Dīn ʿAlī b. ʿAbd al-Kāfī al-Subkī (d. 756/1356), a senior Shafi scholar and judge from one of the leading scholarly families of Damascus. According to Taqi, Hadd [punishment] is only obligatory for perpetrator of a theft for whom the following conditions apply:

# [the item] was taken from a place generally considered secure (ḥirz)

  1. it had not been procured as spoils of war (mughannam)
  2. nor from the public treasury
  3. and it was taken by his own hand
  4. not by some tool or mechanism (āla)
  5. on his own
  6. while he was of sound mind
  7. and of age
  8. and a Muslim
  9. and free
  10. not in the Haram
  11. in Mecca
  12. and not in the Abode of War
  13. and he is not one who is granted access to it from time to time
  14. and he stole from someone other than his wife
  15. and not from a uterine relative
  16. and not from her husband if it is a woman
  17. when he was not drunk
  18. and not compelled by hunger
  19. or under duress
  20. and he stole some property that was owned
  21. and would be permissible to sell to Muslims
  22. and he stole it from someone who had not wrongfully appropriated it
  23. and the value of what he stole reached three dirhams of pure silver by the Meccan weight
  24. and it was not meat
  25. or any slaughtered animal
  26. nor anything edible or potable
  27. or some fowl or game
  28. or a dog
  29. or a cat
  30. or animal dung
  31. or feces (ʿadhira)
  32. or dirt
  33. or red ochre (maghara)
  34. or arsenic (zirnīkh)
  35. or pebbles or stones
  36. or glass
  37. or coals
  38. or firewood
  39. or reeds (qaṣab)
  40. or wood
  41. or fruit
  42. or a donkey or a grazing animal
  43. or a copy of the Quran
  44. or a plant pulled up from its roots (min badā'ihi)
  45. or produce from a walled garden
  46. or a tree
  47. or a free person
  48. or a slave
  49. if they are able to speak and are of sound mind
  50. and he had committed no offense against him
  51. before he removed him from a place where he had not been permitted to enter
  52. from his secure location
  53. by his own hand
  54. and witness is born
  55. to all of the above
  56. by two witnesses
  57. who are men
  58. according to [the requirements and procedure] that we already presented in the chapter on testimony
  59. and they did not disagree
  60. or retract their testimony
  61. and the thief did not claim that he was the rightful owner of what he stole
  62. and his left hand is healthy
  63. and his foot is healthy
  64. and neither body part is missing anything
  65. and the person he stole from does not give him what he had stolen as a gift
  66. and he did not become the owner of what he stole after he stole it
  67. and the thief did not return the stolen item to the person he stole it from
  68. and the thief did not claim it
  69. and the thief was not owed a debt by the person he stole from equal to the value of what he stole
  70. and the person stolen from is present [in court]
  71. and he made a claim for the stolen property
  72. and requested that amputation occur
  73. before the thief could repent
  74. and the witnesses to the theft are present
  75. and a month had not passed since the theft occurred

Another restriction is that a thief who makes a confession before the testimony be allowed to retract his confession after. For if the thief does that first and then direct evidence (bayyina) is provided of his crime and then he retracts his confession, the punishment of amputation is dropped according to the more correct opinion in the Shafi school, because the establishment [of guilt] came by confession not by the direct evidence. So his retraction is accepted.[86][87]

Efficacy

[edit]

Amputation

[edit]

Those arguing in favor of that the hudud punishment of amputation for theft often describe the visceral horror/fear of losing a hand as providing strong deterrence against theft, while the numerous restrictions on its application make it seldom used and thus more humane than other punishments. Supporters include Abdel-Halim Mahmoud, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar from 1973 to 1978, who stated amputation was not only ordained by God but brought law and order to the land when implemented by Ibn Saud in Saudi Arabia — though amputation was carried out only seven times.[88] In his popular book Islam the Misunderstood Religion, Muhammad Qutb asserts that amputation punishment for theft "has been executed only six times throughout a period of four hundred years".[89]

However, according to historian Jonathan A.C. Brown, at least in the mid-1100s in the Iraqi city of Mosul the Muslim jurists found the punishment less than effective. Faced with a crime wave of theft, the ulama "begged their new sultan ... to implement harsh punishments" outside of sharia. The hands of arrested thieves were not being cut off because evidentiary standards were so strict, nor were they deterred by the ten lashes (discretionary punishment or tazir) that Shariah courts were limited to by hadith.[88][90]

Disputes and debates over reform

[edit]
Protests in Hanover against stonings of women in Iran (2012)

A number of scholars/reformers[91][92] have suggested that traditional hudud penalties "may have been suitable for the age in which Muhammad lived" but are no longer,[91] or that "new expression" for "the underlying religious principles and values" of Hudud should be developed.[92] Tariq Ramadan has called for an international moratorium on the punishments of hudud laws until greater scholarly consensus can be reached.[93]

Many contemporary Muslim scholars think that the hudud punishments are not absolute obligations as they are acts of mu'amalah (non-worship),[failed verification] thus, they think that hudud is the maximum punishment.[incomprehensible][94]

Hudud punishments have been called incompatible with international norms of human rights and sometimes simple justice. At least one observer (Sadakat Kadri) has complained that the inspiration of faith has not been a guarantee of justice, citing as an example the execution of two dissidents for "waging war against God" (Moharebeh) in the Islamic Republic of Iran—the dissidents waging war by organizing unarmed political protests.[95][96] The Hudood Ordinance in Pakistan led to the jailing of thousands of women on zina-related charges, were used to file "nuisance or harassment suits against disobedient daughters or estranged wives".[97] The sentencing to death of women in Pakistan, Nigeria, Sudan for zina caused international uproar,[98] being perceived as not only as too harsh,[99] but a punishment of victims not wrongdoers.

Among the questions critics have raised about the modern application of hudud, include: why, if the seventh-century practice is divine law eternally valid and not to be reformed, have its proponents instituted modern innovations? These include use of general anesthetic for amputation (in Libya, along with instruction to hold off if amputation might "prove dangerous to [the offender's] health"), selective introduction (leaving out crucifixion in Libya and Pakistan), using gunfire to expedite death during stoning (in Pakistan).[100] Another question is why they have been so infrequently applied both historically and recently. There is only one record of a stoning in the entire history of Ottoman Empire, and none at all in Syria during Muslim rule.[100] Modern states that "have so publicly enshrined them over the past few decades have gone to great lengths to avoid their imposition." There was only one amputation apiece in Northern Nigeria and Libya,[101] no stonings in Nigeria. In Pakistan the "country's medical profession collectively refused to supervise amputations throughout the 1980s", and "more than three decades of official Islamization have so far failed to produce a single actual stoning or amputation."[102][Note 3] (Saudi Arabia is the exception with four stonings and 45 amputations sentences during the 1980s though they were overturned because of lack of required evidence.[101] As of 1999, Frank Vogel stated that there were four cases of execution by stoning reported between 1981 and 1992, but nothing since.[103]The Thomson Reuters Foundation reports that as of 2013 stoning was legal in Saudi Arabia and offenders had been sentenced to stoning but there were "no reports of stonings being carried out".) [104]

Among two of the leading Islamist movements (the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami), the Muslim Brotherhood has taken "a distinctly ambivalent approach" toward hudud penalties with "practical plans to put them into effect ... given a very low priority". In Pakistan, Munawar Hasan, then Ameer (leader) of the Jamaat-e-Islami, has stated that "unless and until we get a just society, the question of punishment is just a footnote."[76]

Supporting hudud punishments are Islamic revivalists such as Abul A'la Maududi (the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami),[105] who writes that in a number of places the Quran "declares that sodomy is such a heinous sin ... that it is the duty of the Islamic State to eradicate this crime and ... punish those who are guilty of it." According to Richard Terrill, hudud punishments are considered claims of God, revealed through Muhammad, and as such immutable, unable to be altered or abolished by people, jurists or parliament.[106]

Opposition to hudud (or at least minimizing of hudud) within the framework of Islam comes in more than one form. Some (such as elements of the MB and JI mentioned above) support making its application wait for the creation of a "just society" where people are not "driven to steal in order to survive."[107] Another follows the Modernist approach calling for hudud and other parts of Sharia to be re-interpreted from the classical form and follow broad guidelines rather than exact all-encompassing prescriptions.[108][109] Others consider hudud punishments "essentially deterrent in nature" to be applied very, very infrequently.[108][109]

Others (particularly Quranists) propose excluding ahadith and using only verses in the Quran in formulating Islamic Law, which would exclude stoning (though not amputation, flogging or execution for some crimes).[110][111][112][113] The vast majority of Muslims[111] and most Islamic scholars, however, consider both Quran and sahih hadiths[112] to be a valid source of Sharia, with Quranic verse 33.21, among others, [Note 4][114] as justification for this belief.[112]

Indeed, in the Messenger of Allah you have an excellent example for whoever has hope in Allah and the Last Day, and remembers Allah often. ...It is not for a believing man or woman—when Allah and His Messenger decree a matter—to have any other choice in that matter. Indeed, whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has clearly gone ˹far˺ astray.

— Surah Al-Ahzab 33:21-36

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Sources

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Hudud

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Hudud (: حدود, limits) constitute a category of mandatory punishments in for offenses classified as transgressions against divine boundaries, primarily derived from explicit prescriptions in the and . These include of the hand or foot for (sariqa), flogging for illicit by unmarried persons (), stoning to death for by married individuals, flogging for false accusation of unchastity (qadhf), flogging for consumption of intoxicants (shurb al-khamr), and severe penalties such as execution, , or for highway robbery or (). (riddah) is also subject to in many traditional interpretations, though its classification as hudud varies among jurisprudential schools. The hudud framework emphasizes retribution, deterrence, and manifestation of God's , with punishments fixed in quantum and method to preclude judicial discretion, distinguishing them from ta'zir (discretionary penalties) for other offenses. Implementation demands extraordinarily high evidentiary thresholds—such as four male eyewitnesses to the act of penetration for or without —to invoke these sanctions, a requirement rooted in prophetic practice and intended to prioritize doubt (shubha) over punishment, leading to rare historical enforcement even under classical caliphates. In contemporary settings, hudud remain codified and occasionally applied in countries like , , and under Taliban rule, where they target crimes such as and , often disproportionately affecting marginalized groups due to socioeconomic barriers to evidentiary compliance or avoidance. Such applications have sparked debates over compatibility with international norms, yet proponents argue their efficacy as moral deterrents aligns with empirical reductions in reported offenses in enforcing jurisdictions, underscoring tensions between revealed law and secular legal evolution.

Definition and Conceptual Foundations

Etymology and Core Principles

The term ḥudūd (حدود) is the Arabic plural of ḥadd (حد), derived from the ḥ-d-d (ح-د-د), signifying "to limit," "to restrain," or "to prohibit." In Islamic (fiqh), it denotes the divinely established boundaries delineating permissible from impermissible actions, as referenced in the Quran's repeated exhortations to uphold "the limits of " (ḥudūd Allāh), such as in Surah Al-Baqarah 2:187 and Surah Al-Talaq 65:1, where transgression invites severe consequences. Core to ḥudūd are fixed punishments (ḥadd penalties) mandated by Allah for specific offenses deemed violations of divine rights (ḥuqūq Allāh), distinguishing them from discretionary penalties (taʿzīr) or retaliatory justice (qiṣāṣ). These penalties—enumerated classically as amputation for theft (sarīqa), flogging for fornication (zina or intoxicants), stoning for married adulterers, and execution or crucifixion for highway robbery (ḥirāba)—serve as deterrents against societal corruption, expiate the offender's sin, and reinforce communal moral order, per scholarly consensus rooted in Quranic texts like Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:38 and prophetic traditions. Application demands stringent evidentiary thresholds to prioritize over retribution, including voluntary (repeated without ) or from multiple upright witnesses—e.g., four for zina—reflecting the principle that erring toward acquittal fulfills divine intent, as articulated in collections like , where the Prophet Muhammad stated doubt should suspend ḥadd enforcement. This framework underscores ḥudūd as safeguards of sacred limits rather than routine instruments, applicable only in governed Islamic polities with qualified jurists, amid debates on suspension in non-ideal conditions to avert misuse.

Distinction from Other Islamic Penalties

Hudud penalties are distinguished primarily by their divine origin and fixed nature, prescribed explicitly in the Quran and Sunnah for offenses deemed violations of God's rights (huquq Allah), such as theft, adultery, highway robbery, apostasy, and consumption of intoxicants. These punishments, including amputation for theft or stoning for adultery under certain conditions, cannot be altered, waived, or substituted by judicial discretion once the stringent evidentiary requirements—often four eyewitnesses or confession without coercion—are met. Unlike other penalties, hudud enforcement is considered a collective religious obligation, with no provision for pardon by victims or the state, emphasizing their role in upholding public moral order rather than private redress. In contrast, qisas penalties address crimes against individuals' rights (huquq al-ibad), such as intentional murder or bodily harm, allowing for retaliation in kind ("an eye for an eye") or commutation to diyyah (blood money) at the discretion of the victim or heirs. This framework prioritizes restorative justice, where forgiveness or negotiation can avert execution, reflecting a human-centered claim enforceable only with the aggrieved party's initiation, unlike the impersonal, God-ordained hudud. Qisas thus operates on principles of equivalence and mercy absent in hudud, where doubt or evidentiary shortfall leads to acquittal rather than alternative sanctions. Ta'zir, the third category, encompasses discretionary punishments for offenses neither qualifying for hudud nor , including minor , , or moral lapses, determined by the judge's assessment of circumstances and Islamic objectives. These may involve fines, , or measures like flogging, but their severity is capped below hudud equivalents to avoid encroaching on divine prescriptions; for instance, ta'zir flogging for illicit relations cannot exceed the hudud limit for intoxicants. Ta'zir serves preventive and rehabilitative functions, adaptable to societal needs, and can apply when hudud proof fails, underscoring its flexibility against hudud's rigidity. This distinction ensures hudud's sanctity as unyielding deterrents, while and ta'zir accommodate interpersonal equity and judicial pragmatism.

Scriptural and Jurisprudential Basis

Quranic Prescriptions

The explicitly prescribes fixed punishments, known as hudud, for four primary offenses: theft (sariqa), illicit sexual intercourse (zina), highway robbery and public corruption (hirabah), and false accusation of unchastity (qadhf). These verses emphasize retribution proportional to the crime, public enforcement for deterrence, and stringent evidentiary standards to prevent . Punishments are described as divine ordinances (hudud Allah), underscoring their non-discretionary nature unless doubt (shubha) arises, in which case leniency is favored over strict application. For theft, Surah (5:38) states: "As for the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they earned as a deterrent [punishment] from ." This applies to deliberate theft of valuable above a minimum threshold (), excluding cases of necessity or minor value, with the amputation targeting the right hand typically. The subsequent verse (5:39) allows potential if the thief repents sincerely before , highlighting mercy intertwined with justice. Regarding , Surah An-Nur (24:2) prescribes: "The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse—lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the of , if you believe in and the Last Day." This flogging targets non-marital illicit sex, requiring four eyewitnesses to the act itself for conviction; the verse specifies application in public to maximize deterrent effect. While the Quran does not detail for married offenders (muhsan), this derives from prophetic practice rather than direct Quranic text. Hirabah, encompassing armed robbery, , or terrorism-like disruption of public order, is addressed in Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:33): "The penalty for those who wage war against and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] is none but that they be killed or or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land." Judicial allows selection among these based on severity—execution or for or lethal threats, cross-amputation for non-fatal robbery, and exile for lesser —aimed at restoring societal security. For qadhf, the false imputation of zina against a chaste believer, (24:4) mandates: "And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses—lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept their testimony ever after." This safeguards honor and deters unfounded slander, with perpetual testimonial disqualification reinforcing social trust; the accuser bears the burden absent the same evidentiary rigor demanded for convictions. The prohibits apostasy (ridda) and intoxicant consumption (shurb al-khamr)—as in 5:90 labeling alcohol a "abomination of Satan's handiwork"—but prescribes no explicit worldly hudud penalties for these, leaving such details to prophetic tradition and juristic extension. This scriptural framework prioritizes prevention through moral exhortation alongside punitive measures, with overall application conditioned on Islamic governance and qualified judges.

Hadith and Sunnah Corroboration

The , encompassing the recorded sayings, actions, and approvals of Prophet Muhammad, corroborates Quranic hudud prescriptions through authenticated narrations () that detail their application, evidentiary thresholds, and procedural nuances. Collections such as , , and preserve accounts of the Prophet implementing these penalties, often emphasizing strict proof requirements like four eyewitnesses for or voluntary confessions repeated under scrutiny to minimize errors. These reports establish the Prophet's practice as a binding interpretive framework, filling gaps in Quranic text—such as specifying the minimum value for (sariqa) or the method of execution for —while underscoring deterrence over vengeance. For theft, hadith narrate the ordering hand amputation for offenses meeting the threshold, defined as property worth one-quarter or more, stolen covertly from secure custody. In one instance, he mandated the cutting of a man's hand for pilfering a shield valued at three dirhams from a women's quarter, applying the penalty publicly after confirming intent and value. Such applications align with Quran 5:38's directive, with the adding safeguards like excluding or necessity-driven theft. Regarding or (), the supplements Quran 24:2's flogging of 100 lashes for unmarried offenders by prescribing (rajm) to death for married culprits (muhsan), based on multiple sahih narrations of the Prophet's judgments. The case of Ma'iz ibn Malik, who confessed four times despite opportunities to recant, resulted in stoning after verifying no or intoxication; similarly, a Ghamidi pregnant from was stoned post-delivery upon repeated . These corroborate evidentiary rigor, rejecting doubt-ridden claims, and reflect the Prophet's reported statement to avert hudud penalties wherever possible through legal outs or shubha (doubt). For highway robbery and rebellion (hirabah), hadith depict the executing captured bandits by or based on severity, mirroring 5:33's options of execution, , or cross-amputation for spreading terror. Narrations from campaigns against highwaymen confirm application against groups terrorizing travelers, with punishments scaled to harm caused—killing for , for wounding—while sparing those who repented pre-capture. On false accusation of illicit sex (qadhf), the Sunnah reinforces Quran 24:4's 80-lash penalty through examples of the Prophet flogging accusers lacking four witnesses, as in cases where companions faced punishment for unsubstantiated claims against chaste women. For intoxicant consumption (shurb al-khamr), though Quranic verses evolved from reprimand to unspecified punishment, hadith record the Prophet flogging drinkers with palm stalks, branches, or sandals—up to 40 lashes initially, later standardized at 80 by companions—administered non-lethally on the back and face to induce shame. Overall, these narrations portray hudud as divinely delimited deterrents, applied sparingly amid the Prophet's preference for repentance over penalty.

Interpretations Across Madhabs

The four principal Sunni schools of jurisprudence—Ḥanafī, Mālikī, Shāfiʿī, and Ḥanbalī—concur on the Qurʾānic and Sunnah-derived foundations of ḥudūd, encompassing offenses such as theft (sariqa), illicit sexual intercourse (zina), brigandage (ḥirāba), calumny (qadhf), and intoxication (shurb al-khamr), with punishments executed only upon rigorous proof to safeguard against error. Divergences manifest in the enumeration of categories (ranging from five to eight, depending on inclusion of apostasy or ancillary acts), precise conditions for culpability, evidentiary modalities, and occasional punitive modalities, often stemming from methodological variances: Ḥanafī reliance on rational analogy (qiyās), Mālikī emphasis on Medinan praxis (ʿamal ahl al-Madīna), Shāfiʿī textual-systematic rigor, and Ḥanbalī literalist adherence to ḥadīth. A unifying doctrine across madhhabs mandates suspension of ḥudūd upon any ambiguity (al-ḥudūdu tudraʾu bi-l-shubuhāti), prioritizing exoneration to avert injustice. In the Ḥanafī madhhab, founded circa 767 CE, five core ḥudūd are delineated, excluding public and certain as non-ḥudūd offenses treatable under discretionary taʿzīr. Evidentiary thresholds are stringent, demanding four male eyewitnesses for or iterative confessions (retractable without penalty), with pregnancy deemed inconclusive absent corroboration, permitting interpretive doubts like spousal return after prolonged absence. For sariqa, amputation applies only to theft exceeding a niṣāb threshold (approximately 10 dirhams' value in gold or equivalent) from a secured locus, excluding necessities-driven acts; Ḥanafīs reject exile post-lashing for unmarried , citing insufficient ḥadīth authentication. The Mālikī school, codified around 795 CE, expands to eight ḥudūd, incorporating Medina-derived expansions like epidemic banditry (ghīla) and flexible evidential allowances, such as circumstantial indicators in select zina or ḥirāba contexts, though core proofs remain eyewitness-based. Punishments adhere closely to scriptural minima, with 100 lashes for non-muḥṣan zina and stoning for married perpetrators, but Mālikīs permit victim testimony in ḥirāba unlike stricter schools. Shāfiʿī , systematized by 820 CE, posits seven ḥudūd, mediating between literalism and analogy with detailed conditional frameworks; for instance, shurb incurs 40 or 80 lashes variably authenticated, and non-ḥudūd may accept one male and two female witnesses under taʿzīr, barred for ḥudūd proper. stoning for muḥṣan offenders (those with conjugal access) is affirmed via consensus on , with four confessions requisite, nullified by retraction. Ḥanbalī interpretations, rooted in Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal's 855 CE corpus, fluctuate between five and seven ḥudūd, favoring unyielding ḥadīth fidelity and minimal doubt-admission, rendering application more resolute than Ḥanafī rationalism—e.g., stricter exclusion of shubha in sariqa thresholds or zina proofs, with 80 lashes standard for shurb. Victim testimony is generally disallowed in ḥudūd trials to preserve impartiality.
MadhhabNumber of ḤudūdKey Variance Example
Ḥanafī5Lenient on proof via doubt; no for fornicators
Mālikī8 in some cases; includes ghīla
Shāfiʿī7Balanced rules; variable shurb lashes
Ḥanbalī5–7Strictest application; literal ḥadīth priority

Categories of Hudud Offences and Punishments

Theft (Sariqa)

Sariqa, or , constitutes a hudud offense in , defined as the intentional taking of another's without consent, with knowledge of its illicit nature, and with intent to deprive the owner permanently. The punishment prescribed is the of the thief's right hand, applied under stringent conditions to ensure the offense qualifies as hudud rather than discretionary ta'zir penalties. This fixed penalty derives directly from 5:38, which states: "As for the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they earned as a deterrent from ." Supporting hadiths, such as those narrated by Bukhari, detail the Prophet ordering the amputation for a thief who stole a valued at a quarter . For the hudud punishment to apply, multiple conditions must be met, reflecting juristic efforts to limit its scope to egregious violations. The stolen property must exceed the threshold, typically a quarter of (approximately 0.85 grams) or equivalent value in silver (about 3 dirhams), excluding items like slaves, , or perishable not customarily stored. It must be taken from a hirz, a secure or custodied location such as a locked or guarded premises, excluding open areas or unattended items. The act excludes necessities seized during or dire need, as per prophetic exemptions, and must not involve violence, which elevates it to (). The perpetrator must be a sane, Muslim capable of restraint, with the offense unprovoked by or intoxication negating intent. Evidentiary standards are exacting to prevent erroneous application: proof requires either a voluntary repeated at least three times without duress or the of two upright male witnesses who directly observed the act of extraction from hirz. Doubts (shubha) arising from circumstantial ambiguity, such as economic distress or unclear ownership, suspend hudud enforcement, favoring lesser penalties. prior to may avert in some interpretations, though the dominant view holds it ineffective once convicted. Across madhabs, consensus exists on core elements, but variances occur: Hanafis set a stricter and require the occur at night for certain applications, while Shafi'is and Hanbalis emphasize the property's ; Malikis allow broader qualifications. For recidivists, subsequent offenses may warrant of the left foot, though repeated hand amputations are not prescribed. Historically, sariqa hudud was infrequently imposed even in early Islamic caliphates due to evidentiary rigor; from the Prophet's document fewer than a dozen cases, often waived amid doubt. In modern contexts, enforces it selectively, with 45 documented amputations for between 1981 and 2000, typically after verification and royal ratification. applies similar penalties under its penal code, though executions for related crimes overshadow cases, reflecting state interpretations prioritizing deterrence amid varying socioeconomic conditions. These applications underscore the penalty's role as a societal deterrent, though critics from perspectives argue incompatibility with international norms, a view contested by proponents citing low in applied jurisdictions.

Adultery and Fornication (Zina)

, defined as unlawful outside of , encompasses both by unmarried individuals and involving at least one married party in Islamic . The offense applies to free who have reached , with distinctions based on : muhsan (married, free, ) and ghair muhsan (unmarried or otherwise ineligible for the higher penalty). The Quranic prescription in Surah An-Nur 24:2 mandates 100 lashes for , to be administered publicly in the presence of believers, applicable primarily to the unmarried or ghair muhsan. For muhsan adulterers, traditional sources derive the punishment of to death (rajm) from prophetic , such as in , where it is described as a for married offenders upon proof or confession, overriding the lashing in this case due to the severity of violating an existing marital bond. This differentiation reflects the emphasis on protecting family integrity, with executed publicly by the community using stones that cause death without immediate lethality from a single blow. Proof requires either the testimony of four upright male Muslim eyewitnesses directly observing penile penetration or a voluntary confession repeated four times without retraction, standards intentionally stringent to deter false accusations and ensure near-certainty. Confessions under duress or later withdrawn exempt the accused from hudud, shifting to discretionary (ta'zir) penalties, underscoring procedural safeguards against error. Repentance prior to judgment may avert hudud in some interpretations, though post-conviction enforcement prioritizes deterrence over mercy.

Highway Robbery and Rebellion (Hirabah)

Hirabah encompasses acts of armed aggression aimed at terrorizing communities, including ambushing travelers or residents with weapons to kill, rob, or intimidate, whether in deserts, highways, or cities, thereby disrupting and spreading fear. Classical jurists define it as waging against divine order (baghy) or the , or employing to seize property, murder, or mutilate, extending to , , or organized that undermines societal order. This offense differs from simple by requiring overt intimidation or , distinguishing it from sariqa (theft without ) and aligning it with fi al-ard (corruption on earth) as per Quranic terminology. The prescribed hudud punishments under 5:33 scale with the crime's severity to deter escalation: execution followed by for cases involving both and ; execution alone for without property seizure; or of the right hand and left foot (or vice versa) for without ; and , , or banishment for terrorization without killing or theft. Jurists across major madhabs—Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali—concur on these tiers but differ in execution details, such as whether involves live suspension or post-mortem display, with Hanafis sometimes favoring for non-lethal akin to . before capture may avert punishment, reflecting a discretionary element to encourage over retribution. Evidentiary standards demand high certainty, typically two upright male witnesses to the overt acts of aggression or a voluntary confession repeated multiple times without coercion, though unlike , does not mandate four witnesses due to its public nature and immediate threat. In contemporary applications, such as in , proof via two witnesses or confession suffices for conviction, but procedural safeguards like judicial discretion prevent misuse amid incomplete evidence. Historical examples include the Prophet Muhammad's execution of the Uraniyyun tribe members for murdering a and apostasy-linked , illustrating early enforcement against combined elements. Modern extensions to or invoke for organized violence, though application remains rare due to evidentiary rigor and on force.

Apostasy (Ridda)

Apostasy, termed ridda in , denotes the willful abandonment of by an individual who previously professed the , manifested through explicit denial of fundamental beliefs (such as God's oneness or Muhammad's prophethood), verbal , or overt acts contradicting Islamic tenets, such as converting to another . In classical Islamic , it ranks among the gravest offenses, often grouped with hudud crimes due to its prescribed capital penalty, though some jurists distinguish it as a separate category grounded more in prophetic tradition than direct Quranic stipulation. The offense applies only to those who attain and rational capacity, excluding children or the insane, and requires clear intent absent . The fixed punishment for an unrepentant adult male apostate is execution, typically by beheading, enacted after a mandatory of three days (or up to three months in some views) to allow for and return to , during which the offender's property is safeguarded but marital ties and are suspended. This derives principally from the : "Whoever changes his religion, kill him," narrated in as reported by . Female apostates face similar proceedings, but rulings vary: the prescribes indefinite imprisonment until rather than immediate , while the Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali schools mandate execution for both genders if is refused. All Sunni madhabs and the dominant Ja'fari Shi'i school affirm the death penalty as consensus (ijma') among early jurists, viewing apostasy not merely as personal disbelief but as a threat to the community's covenant and .
MadhabPunishment for Male ApostatePunishment for Female Apostate
Hanafi after periodImprisonment until
Maliki after period after period
Shafi'i after period after period
Hanbali after period after period
Repentance nullifies the penalty entirely, reflecting the offense's unique tie to ongoing disbelief rather than an irrevocable act, unlike other hudud crimes. Historically, enforcement occurred during the (632–633 CE) against tribes renouncing allegiance post-Muhammad's death, establishing precedent for treating collective apostasy as rebellion (), though individual cases emphasized personal recantation opportunities. While the warns of otherworldly consequences for apostasy (e.g., 2:217; 4:137) without mandating temporal execution, juristic prioritizes hadith-derived rulings to preserve faith's communal integrity.

Consumption of Intoxicants (Shurb al-Khamr)

Consumption of intoxicants, known as shurb al- in , constitutes a hudud offense involving the ingestion of any substance that impairs mental faculties, with originally referring to fermented wine but extended by jurists to encompass all intoxicants such as date wine, , and narcotics that produce similar effects. The Qur'an explicitly prohibits intoxicants in verses such as 5:90-91, declaring them "an abomination of Satan's handiwork" that incite enmity and hinder remembrance of , though it prescribes no fixed penalty, establishing only the and spiritual prohibition. The hudud punishment derives solely from prophetic , reflecting the Prophet Muhammad's practice of flogging offenders to deter public corruption without causing lasting injury. The prescribed penalty is corporal flogging (jald), administered on the bare back, buttocks, or thighs using a or strap, with the number of lashes varying by : the Hanafi, Maliki, and Hanbali schools mandate 80 lashes for a first offense, escalating for recidivists up to in some Hanbali interpretations after repeated convictions, while the fixes it at 40 lashes based on a narrating the Prophet's flogging of a man 40 times for drinking. This punishment applies only to free, sane adult Muslims who voluntarily consume the intoxicant, excluding cases of , medical necessity, or non-intoxicating amounts; non-Muslims and minors face discretionary (ta'zir) penalties instead. Jurists emphasize that the flogging must avoid vital areas to prevent or severe harm, aligning with the hudud's retributive and deterrent aims rooted in prophetic precedent rather than Qur'anic text. Proof for conviction demands stringent evidentiary standards to safeguard against error, requiring either the voluntary of the offender—repeated at least twice without retraction—or the of two upright adult Muslim male witnesses who directly observed the act of swallowing the intoxicant, excluding mere smell or behavioral signs as insufficient. Unlike or , where physical evidence like or missing property corroborates claims, shurb al- relies heavily on of the ingestion itself, with any doubt (shubha)—such as disputed intoxicant status or witness credibility—nullifying the hudud and invoking lesser ta'zir. post-conviction does not avert the penalty, as hudud upholds divine rights over individual reform, though preemptive tawba may mitigate spiritual consequences. These safeguards reflect principles prioritizing certainty, with differences mainly in lash count and intoxicant definitions—e.g., Hanafis permitting low-alcohol if non-intoxicating, versus stricter views in other schools equating all ethanol-based drinks to .

False Accusation of Illicit Sex (Qadhf)

Qadhf refers to the act of falsely accusing a chaste, free adult Muslim—typically of committing (unlawful sexual intercourse)—without producing the requisite four eyewitnesses to the act. This offense safeguards lineage, personal honor, and social order by deterring unsubstantiated claims that could destabilize families and communities. The accusation must be explicit and public, attributing or sodomy directly to the accused, and excludes vague insinuations or general insults. The Qur'anic foundation for qadhf is outlined in an-Nur (24:4-5), which states: "And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses—lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after. And those are the defiantly disobedient." This verse establishes the hudud penalty as eighty lashes, administered publicly to enforce deterrence, alongside a perpetual bar on the offender's testimony in legal matters, except in their own favor. The punishment applies only to the accuser if they fail to substantiate the claim, emphasizing the high evidentiary threshold shared with prosecutions to prevent misuse. To establish qadhf, the prosecution requires either the accuser's voluntary —repeatable up to four times for validity—or from two upright Muslim witnesses who heard the explicit . The accused must be muhsan (chaste and protected by or ), and the offender must be a sane, mature, free Muslim capable of rational intent; slaves or non-Muslims face discretionary penalties instead. does not avert the fixed hudud lashes but may mitigate spiritual consequences or discretionary add-ons. Across major Sunni madhabs, the core elements of qadhf remain consistent, drawing directly from the Qur'anic text, though minor variations exist in scope: Hanafis and Malikis extend it to accusations against men, while Shafi'is and Hanbalis emphasize the Qur'anic focus on women but apply analogously; similarly includes accusations with comparable conditions. Enforcement historically prioritized doubt resolution in favor of the accused, reflecting broader hudud safeguards against erroneous application.

Evidentiary Requirements and Procedural Safeguards

Strict Standards for Proof

Islamic imposes stringent evidentiary requirements for hudud offenses to ensure absolute certainty, prioritizing the prevention of unjust punishment in accordance with the prophetic tradition that "hudud are warded off by doubts" (shubuhāt). Proof is limited to two primary forms: voluntary confessions or from qualified eyewitnesses, with any , , or shifting the case to ta'zir (discretionary penalties) rather than fixed hudud sanctions. Confessions must be repeated multiple times without duress—for , four separate admissions—and remain retractable at any stage before execution, reflecting an emphasis on genuine remorse over compelled admission. Eyewitness testimony demands witnesses of impeccable moral character ('adl), typically adult Muslim males free from vices, who provide direct ocular evidence of the prohibited act without inference. For zina, Quran 24:4 explicitly requires four such witnesses to the precise act of penetration, a threshold that classical fiqh texts describe as extraordinarily difficult to meet, often rendering convictions improbable absent confession. Similarly, for sariqa (theft), two male witnesses must attest to the act of surreptitious removal from a secure location (hujra mahfuzah), with the stolen property exceeding the nisab threshold (approximately 3 dirhams of gold or equivalent) and no extenuating circumstances like necessity or famine; judges are instructed to probe for doubt, such as prompting the accused to claim ownership, which nullifies hudud liability. These conditions, enumerated in fiqh as up to 82 specific criteria for theft alone, underscore a systemic bias toward acquittal in hudud proceedings. Procedural safeguards further elevate the proof bar, excluding minors, the insane, or those under impaired judgment, while prohibiting hudud for offenses lacking full intent (qasd) or where shubha arises from legal excuses like error in prohibition. Modern forensic evidence, such as DNA, is generally inadmissible in classical hudud frameworks, which restrict proof to traditional bayyina (ocular evidence) to maintain the Quran- and Sunnah-derived certainty. This rigor has historically resulted in rare applications of hudud, even in Sharia-governed polities, as evidentiary failures default to lesser penalties, aligning with the doctrinal preference for mercy in ambiguity.

Role of Confession and Repentance

In Islamic jurisprudence, (iqrar) constitutes a primary evidentiary mechanism for establishing guilt in hudud offenses, serving as an alternative to the stringent requirement of . A valid confession must be explicit, voluntary, free from , and typically repeated a number of times matching the testimonial threshold for the specific crime—such as four times for (zina) or (sariqa). This approach reflects the Sharia's emphasis on personal accountability while incorporating safeguards against false admissions, as jurists across major schools (madhabs) stipulate that the confessor must be sane, , and fully aware of the consequences. Retraction of confession prior to the execution of generally nullifies its evidentiary weight in hudud cases among Sunni scholars, preventing the imposition of the fixed penalty and potentially redirecting the matter to discretionary (ta'zir) if demands it. For instance, Hanafi and Maliki jurists permit retraction at any point before flogging or , viewing it as indicative of (shubha), which aligns with the prophetic directive to avert hudud in ambiguous circumstances. Shafi'i and Hanbali opinions similarly favor leniency upon retraction, though some restrict it for to avoid undermining property rights. In contrast, Shi'i often deems a binding even after retraction, prioritizing its initial validity unless proven coerced. This divergence underscores interpretive differences in balancing retribution with , with Sunni traditions historically resulting in fewer hudud applications due to retractable s. Repentance (tawba) influences hudud enforcement variably, primarily affecting cases where sacred texts explicitly link it to waiver, such as highway robbery (hirabah), where 5:34 exempts punishment if perpetrators repent and make amends before capture. Scholarly consensus holds that genuine tawba—entailing remorse, cessation of sin, and resolve against recurrence—mitigates liability in unproven or confession-based scenarios, as exemplified by hadiths where the Prophet Muhammad accepted private for , forgoing public flogging to prioritize spiritual reform over worldly penalty. However, once guilt is irrefutably established via witnesses, most jurists maintain that hudud remains obligatory regardless of subsequent , serving as a divine deterrent rather than personal atonement, though rulers may suspend it for broader societal benefit. For offenses like (ridda), a period (often three days) allows retraction without penalty, reflecting fiqh's integration of to preserve cohesion. Contemporary applications, such as in , occasionally invoke tawba to commute sentences, though this discretion varies by jurisdiction and offends classical mandatory views.

Differences by Offence Type

Evidentiary standards for Hudud offenses incorporate stringent proof thresholds to minimize the risk of unjust application, yet these vary by crime type to align with specific Quranic prescriptions, prophetic traditions, and the offense's gravity. Offenses linked to illicit sexuality, such as and qadhf, demand the testimony of four upright male witnesses who directly observed the act (for , penetration itself), reflecting 24:4-13's emphasis on corroboration to deter unfounded claims. In contrast, crimes like (sariqa), consumption of intoxicants (shurb al-khamr), and highway robbery () typically require only two adult male witnesses or a voluntary , allowing broader evidentiary avenues while still mandating direct observation or unambiguous admission. Confession procedures also differ: for zina, it must be repeated four times in separate sessions without , remaining retractable to invoke doubt (shubha), which universally averts Hudud penalties per prophetic instruction. For sariqa and shurb al-khamr, a single suffices if uncoerced, but judges often prompt denial to ensure voluntariness and introduce potential ambiguity, such as claiming necessity (e.g., for ) or misidentification of substance. permits judicial assessment of evidence including effects like wounds or plunder, with establishing the act's elements (e.g., armed intimidation), though some schools allow circumstantial indicators under . Apostasy (ridda) stands apart, relying primarily on the offender's explicit of —verbal or through public acts—without a fixed witness count, but incorporating a procedural safeguard of a three-day period before execution, emphasizing reform over immediate retribution. Qadhf uniquely hinges on the accuser's failure to produce four es to the alleged , inverting the proof burden to validate the claim before punishing the slander. These variations underscore a calibrated approach: higher barriers for intimate or reputational harms to prevent abuse, versus operational crimes where fewer observers are feasible, all subordinated to the overriding principle that any doubt suspends punishment. The following table summarizes key evidentiary differences across major Hudud types, based on classical Sunni jurisprudence:
OffenseMinimum WitnessesConfession RequirementsKey Safeguards/Procedural Notes
Sariqa (Theft)2 adult malesVoluntary; judge prompts denialMust prove nisab value (≥10 dirhams), from secure place (hirz); excludes famine or public theft; doubt via necessity claim.
Zina4 upright malesRepeated 4 times, retractableDirect observation of penetration; pregnancy alone insufficient; unmarried vs. married distinction.
Hirabah2Voluntary; supports witness testimonyEvidence of terror/plunder; graduated by harm (e.g., killing); judicial discretion on circumstances.
Ridda (Apostasy)None fixedSelf-incriminating statements/acts3-day repentance grace; focuses on public rejection.
Shurb al-Khamr2 adult malesVoluntaryDirect proof of ingestion; excludes smell/vomit as sole evidence; certainty required.
Qadhf4 (for underlying zina claim)N/A (focus on accuser's proof failure)Punishes unsubstantiated accusation; tied to zina's high threshold.

Historical Evolution

Prophetic and Rashidun Eras

During the lifetime of Muhammad (c. 570–632 CE), hudud punishments were implemented in following the revelation of relevant verses and prophetic precedents, serving as fixed penalties for offenses deemed violations of divine limits. For (sariqa), 5:38 prescribed the of the hand for the guilty after establishing strict evidentiary thresholds, such as the theft exceeding a minimum value (, typically one-quarter or equivalent) from a secure place without necessity; the ordered such amputations in documented cases, including one where a thief's hand was cut for stealing a valued at three dirhams. or () carried 100 lashes for the unmarried per 24:2, while (rajm) applied to married offenders based on prophetic practice; notable instances include the stoning of Ma'iz ibn Malik after repeated confessions and the stoning of a Jewish couple under initial application, later aligned with Islamic rulings. Flogging for intoxicants (shurb al-khamr), derived from rather than explicit text, involved 40 or 80 lashes, as in cases where drinkers were punished publicly to deter recidivism. (highway robbery or rebellion) warranted severe measures like or per 5:33, applied against bandits disrupting security. The emphasized procedural safeguards, instructing followers to "avert hudud punishments by means of doubts" (idra'u al-hudud bi'l-shubuhat), prioritizing mercy and requiring four eyewitnesses for or voluntary confession without coercion. In the Rashidun Caliphate (632–661 CE), under Abu Bakr (r. 632–634) and Umar ibn al-Khattab (r. 634–644), hudud enforcement continued as integral to maintaining social order amid expansion, though applications remained rare due to evidentiary rigor. Abu Bakr upheld prophetic precedents during the Ridda Wars (632–633 CE), treating large-scale apostasy (ridda) as hirabah-like rebellion warranting execution for armed insurgents, while distinguishing it from individual doubt; over 600 executions occurred for political rebellion, not mere doctrinal shift. Umar expanded the system systematically, appointing judges (qudat) in provinces and applying hudud for theft, zina, and qadhf (false accusation of zina, punished by 80 lashes per Quran 24:4), but suspended hand amputation for theft during a severe famine (c. 639 CE), reasoning that widespread hunger negated the offense's criminal intent and security precondition, as property protection failed societally. This contextual suspension, rooted in prophetic analogy rather than abrogation, underscored hudud's deterrent purpose over mechanical application, with Umar reportedly stating doubt should avert penalties. Under Uthman (r. 644–656) and Ali (r. 656–661), amid civil strife, hudud persisted for verifiable crimes like theft and intoxicants, though records indicate fewer documented cases due to political instability; Ali, for instance, enforced stoning for confessed zina while rejecting unsubstantiated claims. Overall, early application prioritized public deterrence and moral reform, with low incidence rates reflecting high proof burdens—four witnesses or confession—over punitive excess.

Abbasid and Classical Developments

During the (750–1258 CE), the judicial system expanded with the appointment of (judges) trained in emerging schools of , who were tasked with applying , including hudud punishments, though primarily through theoretical frameworks rather than frequent enforcement. Caliphs like (r. 754–775 CE) and (r. 786–809 CE) centralized judicial authority, drawing on jurists such as (d. 798 CE), a Hanafi scholar who served as chief and authored works emphasizing procedural rigor in criminal cases. This period saw the consolidation of hudud as divinely mandated limits, with empowered to impose them only upon meeting stringent evidentiary thresholds, such as four male witnesses for (unlawful intercourse) or voluntary without . Classical jurisprudence developed through the four Sunni madhabs, which systematized hudud rules amid Abbasid patronage of scholarship in and other centers. The , founded by (d. 767 CE), prioritized analogical reasoning () and juristic preference (), allowing hudud suspension in cases of (shubha) and favoring discretionary ta'zir punishments for evidentiary shortfalls. The , established by (d. 795 CE) via his Muwatta, incorporated Medinan customary practice, permitting to avert hudud in some cases but upholding for sariqa () exceeding a minimum value under ideal conditions. The , formalized by Muhammad al-Shafi'i (d. 820 CE), emphasized authentication and strict construction, rejecting ta'zir as a substitute for proven hudud while reinforcing safeguards like witness reliability. The , led by (d. 855 CE), adopted a literalist approach, mandating hudud execution absent clear but acknowledging practical leniency through or contextual excuses. Empirical evidence indicates hudud application remained exceptional during this era, constrained by procedural hurdles and judicial discretion, with alternatives like prevalent for lower-class offenders. observed prisons overcrowded with convicts who evaded due to insufficient proof or mitigating factors, reflecting a shift toward incarceration in Abbasid and subsequent Seljuq contexts. Historiographical , sparse due to limited , show no widespread hudud ; instead, caliphal policies favored ta'zir, fines, or to maintain without risking erroneous divine sanctions. This classical emphasis on safeguards—rooted in prophetic precedents like ibn al-Khattab's suspension of hudud during —ensured hudud served primarily as deterrents, with jurists prioritizing avoidance of punishment over retribution.

Suspension in Later Empires

In the , hudud punishments were effectively suspended or rarely enforced after the , as the central administration prioritized discretionary ta'zir penalties, fines, and incarceration over fixed scriptural sanctions to maintain social order and administrative efficiency. Rulers drew on precedents like Caliph ibn al-Khattab's suspension of for (sariqa) during a 7th-century famine, extending this to broader contexts where evidentiary hurdles—such as the requirement of four male eyewitnesses for (zina) or corroborated —rendered hudud convictions improbable. This shift aligned with Ottoman legal reforms, including the use of kanun sultanic decrees, which supplanted hudud for crimes like and (hiraba), with or applied instead for repeated offenses. Similar non-enforcement characterized the Safavid Empire in Persia (1501–1722), where Shi'i jurists theoretically upheld under but deferred to urfī (customary) courts under monarchical authority for criminal matters, avoiding fixed punishments to avert judicial rigidity and . Evidentiary standards, including the shubha () allowing judges to nullify hudud via any ambiguity, further minimized applications, as emphasized mercy and contextual suspension over literal enforcement. Capital hudud like were documented in isolated cases but overshadowed by discretionary flogging or execution under royal decree, reflecting a pragmatic balance between religious ideology and state control. In the (1526–1857), hudud featured in legal compilations like the commissioned by in 1664–1672, which codified punishments for offenses such as theft and false accusation (qadhf), yet practical implementation remained limited due to the empire's diverse populace and reliance on ziyat (arbitrary fines) or provincial governors' discretion. Under tolerant rulers like (r. 1556–1605), hudud were de-emphasized in favor of syncretic justice, while even orthodox policies under prioritized ta'zir for non-Muslims and evidentiary leniency to prevent miscarriages, resulting in hudud comprising fewer than 5% of recorded penal cases in archival registers from the . Across these empires, suspension stemmed from causal factors including judicial caution against erroneous application—rooted in prophetic injunctions to "ward off hudud by doubts"—and rulers' (public welfare) assessments, which favored adaptable punishments amid expanding bureaucracies and intercommunal tensions.

20th-Century Revival Efforts

In the mid-20th century, Islamist intellectuals and movements, influenced by and perceived Western cultural dominance, advocated for the reinstatement of Sharia-based , including Hudud punishments, as a means to restore Islamic authenticity and social order. Figures such as of in argued from the 1940s onward that modern Muslim states must enforce Quranic penalties like for and flogging for intoxicants to deter and uphold , viewing colonial legal systems as corrupt impositions. These ideas gained traction amid the broader , fueled by oil wealth and anti-secular sentiments, leading to practical implementation attempts by the late 1970s. A pivotal effort occurred in under General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, who seized power in a 1977 coup and initiated Islamization reforms. On February 9, 1979, Zia promulgated the Offence of (Enforcement of Hudud) Ordinance, which criminalized , , and false accusation with punishments including for married offenders and flogging, requiring strict evidentiary standards like four eyewitnesses. Subsequent ordinances in 1979 addressed (with hand amputation), liquor consumption (80 lashes), and false evidence, replacing British-era codes with Sharia-derived penalties, though executions remained rare due to procedural hurdles. Zia's regime executed these laws selectively, with over 1,000 floggings reported by 1982, aiming to legitimize military rule through religious appeal, but critics noted inconsistencies, such as exemptions for elites. In , President Jaafar Nimeiri, facing political instability, decreed the September Laws on , 1983, imposing full , including Hudud, across the country. These replaced secular penal codes with provisions for hand for (if value exceeded a threshold), 80 lashes for drinking alcohol, and for , enforced by special courts. Implementation was abrupt, with public amputations beginning in late 1983, such as the case of Mahmoud Mohamed Taha's execution in 1985 under expanded apostasy rules, though Hudud applications faced opposition from southern non-Muslims and were suspended after Nimeiri's 1985 overthrow. The laws drew from Hanafi and Maliki but prioritized deterrence, resulting in dozens of corporal punishments annually until reversal. Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution marked another major revival, with Ruhollah Khomeini's forces establishing a theocratic that integrated Hudud into the legal framework. The 1979 Constitution (Article 4) mandated laws conform to Islamic criteria, leading to the 1982-1983 revisions of the Penal Code, which codified Hudud offenses like (stoning or 100 lashes), sariga (armed robbery with or ), and (), alongside ta'zir discretionary penalties. Revolutionary courts applied these swiftly post-revolution, with hundreds of floggings and amputations by 1981, often bypassing classical evidentiary rigor in favor of confessions or revolutionary justice, as seen in public executions broadcast to instill fear. This model influenced Shia-majority contexts but elicited international condemnation for procedural leniency compared to Sunni traditions. These efforts reflected a pattern: authoritarian regimes leveraging Hudud for legitimacy amid economic or political crises, yet facing practical challenges like evidentiary barriers and uneven enforcement, with actual applications numbering in the low thousands across sites despite ideological fervor. Later 20th-century attempts, such as the Taliban's 1996 imposition in , built on this foundation but emphasized stricter, more visible executions.

Modern Implementation and Case Studies

Full Application in Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia maintains a legal system derived exclusively from Sharia, primarily the , wherein Hudud punishments are fully codified and applicable for specified offenses without statutory modification once evidentiary thresholds are met. Hudud crimes encompass (sariqa), or (), of (qadhf), consumption of intoxicants (shurb al-khamr), and or highway robbery (), with prescribed penalties including hand for qualifying , flogging for intoxicants or qadhf, for married adulterers, and or for . These fixed sanctions, ordained in the and , override judicial discretion and require to deter emulation of the offense. Convictions demand rigorous proof, typically four upright adult male eyewitnesses to the act itself—as in , where testimony must describe penile penetration—or voluntary repeated four times without , rendering Hudud impositions infrequent despite the system's comprehensive framework. prior to trial may avert punishment in some interpretations, though post-conviction execution proceeds inexorably if standards hold. courts, overseen by the , adjudicate without codified procedural codes beyond principles, allowing judges leeway in ta'zir (discretionary) alternatives if Hudud proof falters, though purists contend this dilutes divine ordinance. Historical instances affirm application: between 1980 and 1992, Saudi courts sentenced at least four individuals to for under Hudud, carried out publicly after confessions or witness corroboration. Amputations for sariqa have occurred periodically, such as in documented cases from the onward where stolen exceeded the threshold (approximately 3 dirhams of value) and no necessity excused the act, with the right hand severed by sword under medical supervision. Floggings for shurb al-khamr, limited to 80 lashes, have been enforced more routinely when confessions suffice, though a 2020 royal decree substituted imprisonment or fines for ta'zir floggings, leaving Hudud variants intact. penalties, including execution by beheading followed by of the corpse, apply to armed causing terror, as in select 20th-century rulings. Empirical rarity stems not from suspension but evidentiary stringency, which classical jurists designed to favor doubt over severity—e.g., defaults to ta'zir—ensuring Hudud serve as aspirational deterrents rather than routine impositions. Critics from organizations, often aligned with secular frameworks, decry the system's opacity and potential for abuse via confessions extracted under duress, yet proponents cite low in verified cases as evidence of efficacy, attributing sparse data to merciful proof barriers rather than executive reluctance. No formal moratorium exists, and King Salman reaffirmed Sharia's primacy in 2017 judicial reforms, preserving Hudud amid modernization.

Integration in Iran’s Penal Code

Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, 's legal framework was restructured to incorporate elements of law, including hudud punishments, into its penal system as mandated by Article 4 of the , which requires all civil, penal, financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political, and other laws to conform to Islamic criteria. The initial post-revolutionary penal code, enacted in 1361 solar (1982 Gregorian), integrated hudud as fixed punishments for specific offenses derived from Quranic injunctions, distinguishing them from ta'zir (discretionary penalties). This integration aimed to establish divine (adl-e ilahi) over secular legal norms, with hudud reserved for crimes like , , and where evidentiary thresholds—such as four male witnesses or —are met. The comprehensive Islamic Penal Code (IPC), approved on 1 May 1392 solar (22 May 2013 Gregorian) and effective from 24 June 2013, codifies hudud in Book Two (Articles 219–288), categorizing them as mandatory divine sanctions applicable only upon proof beyond doubt, often rendering executions or amputations rare in practice due to stringent conditions like absence of repentance or doubt. Hudud offenses include zina (unlawful sexual intercourse, punished by 100 lashes for non-marital cases or stoning for married offenders under Article 225), qadhf (false accusation of zina, 80 lashes per Article 250), sariqa (theft above a nisab threshold, amputation of the right hand per Article 278), shurb-e khamr (consumption of intoxicants, 80 lashes per Article 264), and hirabah (armed robbery or creating insecurity, varying from amputation to execution per Articles 279–282). Additional provisions extend hudud-like penalties to sodomy (lavāt, death by stoning or throwing from height per Article 234) and lesbianism (mosaheqeh, 100 lashes, escalating to death on fourth offense per Article 238), reflecting Twelver Shia interpretations. Integration of hudud coexists with qisas (retaliatory punishments for intentional crimes like murder) and diya (blood money), but hudud override ta'zir for qualifying acts, with judges required to prioritize Sharia proofs over circumstantial evidence. Repentance can mitigate hudud enforcement pre-judgment (Article 114), but post-conviction, it does not annul the penalty, as clarified in 2024 judicial guidelines emphasizing hudud's retributive and deterrent roles. In application, hudud convictions remain infrequent—fewer than 1% of penal cases per official reports—due to evidentiary rigor, with ta'zir often substituted for similar offenses, allowing flexibility in a system blending fixed Islamic mandates with state discretion. This structure has drawn criticism from human rights observers for incompatibility with international standards, though Iranian authorities defend it as essential to Islamic sovereignty.

Taliban Enforcement in Afghanistan

Following the Taliban's recapture of on August 15, 2021, the group progressively reinstated elements of their interpretation of law, including Hudud punishments prescribed for crimes such as (sarika), (zina), and false accusation of adultery (qazf). These fixed penalties, drawn from classical Islamic , were justified by leadership as essential for upholding divine ordinance and deterring societal vice, with public application intended to maximize communal awareness and compliance. On November 14, 2022, Supreme Leader issued a directive mandating the "full implementation" of Sharia-based punishments across the country, explicitly encompassing Hudud for offenses like (hand ), (stoning or flogging depending on ), and alcohol consumption (flogging). Floggings emerged as the most frequently documented Hudud enforcement, often conducted publicly in stadiums or mosques to audiences of hundreds. In November 2022, Taliban courts ordered the flogging of 14 individuals—three women and 11 men—in northern provinces for and "moral corruption" under zina-related charges, marking an early large-scale application post-2022 directive. By solar year 1403 (March 21, 2024, to March 20, 2025), official Taliban records indicated at least 456 public floggings nationwide, including 60 women, primarily for illicit relations, , and qazf, with lash counts ranging from 30 to 100 per offender. A notable Hudud-specific case occurred on December 20, 2024, in , where a man received 80 lashes for qazf after falsely accusing another of , described by Taliban authorities as their first verified Hadd enforcement under strict evidentiary standards requiring four witnesses or . Amputations for , a core Hudud penalty mandating severing of the right hand for first offenses under qualified conditions (e.g., value stolen exceeding threshold, absence of necessity), were revived but applied less routinely due to stringent proof requirements. On January 17, 2023, in Kandahar's main stadium, enforcers publicly amputated the hands of multiple individuals convicted of , witnessed by crowds and broadcast to reinforce deterrence. While spokespersons affirmed such measures as "necessary for security" and aligned with prophetic precedent, international observers reported no widespread amputations beyond isolated incidents by mid-2025, attributing rarity to evidentiary hurdles rather than restraint. Executions for Hudud crimes like highway () or were threatened but primarily manifested in ta'zir contexts, with UN reports documenting over 20 public hangings or shootings by April 2025, though not all strictly classified as Hudud. Enforcement relied on provincial courts bypassing formal appeals, with confessions often extracted under duress, contravening classical Hudud's emphasis on voluntary admission without . doctrine prioritized ta'zir (discretionary punishments) for evidentiary shortfalls, blurring lines but sustaining Hudud's symbolic role; for instance, August 2025 floggings of 11 in Sar-e-Pol for included four women receiving 35-40 lashes each. Critics from bodies highlighted procedural opacity and disparities, yet officials maintained evidentiary rigor, rejecting external interference as antithetical to Islamic sovereignty.

Partial or Suspended Systems Elsewhere

In , the Hudud Ordinances of 1979 codified punishments for offenses including theft, adultery, and alcohol consumption, yet full enforcement has been curtailed by evidentiary hurdles requiring four eyewitnesses for (unlawful intercourse) and similar strict standards, resulting in no recorded amputations or stonings as of 2023. Floggings for drinking intoxicants have been applied, such as 80 lashes in documented cases, but reforms in 2006 via the Protection of Women Act shifted some cases to , further limiting hudud application. Judicial reluctance and constitutional challenges have effectively suspended severe hudud penalties, with over 7,000 cases prosecuted under hudud by 2003 but few convictions upheld. Twelve northern Nigerian states, including Zamfara and Kano, incorporated hudud into penal codes starting in 1999, prescribing amputations for and for , but no such corporal punishments beyond have been executed due to federal oversight, international pressure, and evidentiary difficulties. Canings for alcohol consumption and false accusation have occurred, with at least 12 floggings reported in Kano by 2004, yet appeals to secular courts and interventions have prevented hudud's harsher elements, rendering the system partial. Sharia courts handle thousands of cases annually, but hudud convictions remain negligible, averaging fewer than five severe sentences overturned per state. Brunei enacted the Syariah Penal Code Order 2013, fully effective from April 2019, which includes provisions for and , but Sultan imposed a moratorium on death penalties in May 2019 amid global condemnation, and no or executions have followed. Lesser ta'zir fines and imprisonments under have been imposed for offenses like indecent behavior, but hudud's fixed punishments remain unenforced, with the dual legal system prioritizing for non-Muslims and limiting to Muslims over 15. This de facto suspension aligns with Brunei's oil-dependent stability, avoiding the social disruptions of full application. In , hudud elements persisted post-2019 revolution under the 1991 Criminal Act, but the transitional government abolished flogging for alcohol and in September 2020, suspending corporal hudud while retaining for retribution. Executions under hudud occurred pre-2019, such as 10 amputations between 1983 and 2001, but none since, with a 2022 stoning sentence for commuted due to lack of ministerial intervention amid instability. The 2019 Constitutional Declaration restricts death penalties to hudud and , yet ongoing has paralyzed enforcement, leaving hudud largely dormant. Malaysian states like and passed hudud enactments in 1993 and 2015, aiming to implement theft amputations and adultery stonings, but federal constitutional supremacy under Article 75 has blocked execution, with the Federal Court invalidating overlapping state criminal laws in February 2024. Public canings under state , such as 6 strokes in in 2018 for khalwat (close proximity), fall under ta'zir rather than hudud, and no hudud punishments have been carried out nationwide due to evidentiary rigor and non-Muslim exemptions. Political debates persist, but implementation remains suspended pending constitutional amendments unattainable in Malaysia's multi-ethnic federation.

Empirical Efficacy and Societal Impact

Deterrence Theory and Mechanisms

In Islamic jurisprudence, hudud punishments are theorized to function primarily as general deterrents, discouraging potential offenders from violating divinely ordained societal limits through the prospect of severe, irrevocable consequences. This aligns with classical fiqh interpretations of Quranic prescriptions, such as the hand amputation for theft in Quran 5:38, explicitly framed as a deterrent to safeguard communal welfare and moral order. The theory posits that hudud restore balance disrupted by crimes against God, with deterrence extending beyond the individual to the broader population via exemplary enforcement. Deterrence mechanisms emphasize three core elements adapted from rational choice frameworks: severity, , and celerity. Severity is inherent in fixed penalties—such as flogging for alcohol consumption (80 lashes per 24:2), amputation for qualified , or execution for (hirabah)—designed to impose permanent physical or existential costs that outweigh criminal gains. is moderated by stringent evidentiary thresholds, requiring multiple eyewitnesses (e.g., four for /) or voluntary without , which limits application to unambiguous, intentional acts but amplifies perceived risk for those contemplating public or provable offenses. Celerity manifests in prompt judicial proceedings upon proof, minimizing delays that could erode fear. Additional mechanisms include of punishments to foster vicarious learning and , reinforcing normative boundaries through communal observation rather than isolation. A prophetic underscores avoidance of hudud in cases of ("Ward off the hudud from the as much as you can if there is any "), prioritizing while preserving the deterrent shadow over marginal cases. From an economic deterrence model, hudud's high severity compensates for evidentiary hurdles, theoretically optimizing expected (probability of detection multiplied by penalty magnitude) in pre-modern contexts with low capabilities. These elements collectively aim to prevent and societal erosion, though implementation requires contextual prerequisites like absence of for applicability.

Crime Statistics in Hudud-Applying Jurisdictions

In jurisdictions applying Hudud punishments, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, comprehensive and verifiable crime statistics are limited, often due to underreporting of sensitive offenses like adultery (zina) stemming from social stigma, fear of punishment, and reliance on strict evidentiary standards that rarely lead to convictions. Official data from these governments, which maintain centralized control over reporting, may also reflect incentives to emphasize low crime rates for political legitimacy, though independent analyses confirm relatively low rates for violent and property crimes compared to global averages. Homicide rates, for example, stand at approximately 1 per 100,000 in Saudi Arabia and 3-4 per 100,000 in Iran, below the global average of 5.61 per 100,000 in 2022 as tracked by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). In , where Hudud are enforced without suspension, property crimes dominate reported offenses, with accounting for 47% of total crimes as of early 2000s data, yet robbery rates remain exceptionally low—50 times below those —potentially linked to the threat of hand for qualified under Hudud criteria. Proponents of Sharia-based systems cite such figures as of deterrence, but critics note that low reporting rates for sexual offenses and the role of socioeconomic prosperity from oil wealth confound attribution solely to punishments. Iran's penal code incorporates Hudud for crimes like and , yet theft incidents have surged, rising 70% from approximately 545,000 registered cases a decade earlier to over 900,000 in 2021, amid economic pressures including inflation and sanctions that exacerbate desperation-driven offenses. remains moderate, with and armed perceived as low by residents, but the increase in property crimes suggests limited deterrent impact from Hudud amid broader instability. Under Taliban rule in Afghanistan since August 2021, systematic crime data is scarce, with no comprehensive UNODC reporting available post-takeover, though the regime has resumed Hudud enforcement via public floggings for offenses like false adultery accusations, claiming resultant security gains. Independent assessments highlight persistent issues like and arbitrary killings rather than quantifiable reductions in Hudud-eligible crimes, complicated by poverty affecting over half the population and restricted access for verifiers. Cross-jurisdictional studies indicate lower overall rates in countries with Sharia-influenced systems versus non-Islamic peers, potentially due to communal frameworks and , though factors like cultural homogeneity and resource distribution are confounding variables not isolated in empirical models.

Practical Outcomes of Punishments

Hudud punishments, when enforced, typically result in immediate and severe physical trauma, with potential for long-term and psychological effects. Flogging, prescribed for offenses like , involves lashes administered publicly or privately, often leading to deep lacerations, , and risk of organ damage. In the 2015 case of Saudi blogger , sentenced to 1,000 lashes for insulting , the initial 50 lashes caused extensive welts, bruising, and temporary immobility, preventing further sessions due to medical concerns over kidney function and muscle damage. Repeated applications exacerbate scarring, , and issues such as post-traumatic stress, as documented in medical analyses of . Amputation for , involving severance of the right hand at the wrist or fingers, produces permanent functional loss, hindering manual labor and daily activities. In northern , where courts apply hudud, amputees convicted of have required hospitalization post-procedure for hemorrhage control and infection prevention, followed by social ostracism that limits reintegration. Iranian cases since 2022 include finger amputations using devices that crush digits before severance, resulting in acute pain, nerve damage, and prosthetic needs, with enforcement often under judicial supervision to ensure survival. These outcomes align with Islamic legal intent for visible deterrence but frequently lead to dependency on welfare or family support, as affected individuals face barriers. Capital hudud sanctions, such as for , culminate in death by blunt trauma and asphyxiation, with amplifying communal shock but rarely detailed postmortem analyses due to procedural opacity. In under Taliban rule from 2021, over 70 sharia punishments including lashings for moral crimes affected 417 individuals by late 2023, yielding compliance through fear but sporadic reports of procedural fatalities from excessive force. Overall, enforcement prioritizes retribution over rehabilitation, with outcomes emphasizing bodily retribution amid strict evidentiary thresholds that limit applications to verified cases.

Debates, Defenses, and Criticisms

Traditionalist Justifications

Traditionalist Islamic scholars maintain that hudud punishments represent divinely prescribed boundaries (hudud Allah) explicitly outlined in the and , serving as fixed penalties for offenses that infringe upon God's and societal order, such as ( 5:38), (zina, 24:2), and of unchastity (qadhf, 24:4). These jurists, including early companions of the Prophet and classical authorities like those from the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali schools, argue that hudud are not human innovations but direct revelations intended to deter heinous acts, preserve communal harmony, and uphold justice by matching retribution to the crime's severity—such as for to restore property and amputation's permanence mirroring the irreplaceable loss inflicted on victims. The theological rationale emphasizes Allah's infinite wisdom in legislating hudud as a means of purification () for the individual soul and prophylaxis for society, where the threat of exemplary punishment—public and irrevocable—instills fear of transgression and fosters moral restraint, as evidenced by hadiths prescribing for married adulterers based on prophetic practice. Traditionalists contend that altering or suspending these penalties equates to rejecting divine sovereignty, potentially leading to moral decay, and cite scholarly consensus () that hudud application, though rare due to stringent evidentiary thresholds (e.g., four eyewitnesses for ), embodies mercy by averting punishment amid doubt (shubha), as instructed in prophetic traditions: "Ward off the hudud by means of doubts." Furthermore, proponents like classical jurists assert that hudud exemplify retributive equity and deterrence rooted in causal principles: severe crimes demand proportionate responses to prevent and signal communal intolerance for violations of sacred limits, with historical precedents from the Prophet's demonstrating reduced incidence of such offenses post-implementation. This framework prioritizes collective welfare over individual leniency, viewing non-enforcement as a to honor God's commands, which could invite divine displeasure and societal breakdown, as inferred from Quranic warnings against exceeding Allah's limits ( 2:229).

Human Rights and Secular Critiques

![Flogging as a hudud punishment in Islamabad, Pakistan][float-right] Human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have condemned hudud punishments as violations of international standards prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. These include amputation for theft, flogging for offenses like adultery or alcohol consumption, and stoning to death for married adulterers, which contravene Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In Saudi Arabia, where hudud are applied, death sentences for hudud crimes such as apostasy and highway robbery persist, often based on confessions extracted under duress, further breaching fair trial rights under ICCPR Article 14. Secular legal scholars argue that hudud's fixed, divinely mandated penalties conflict with principles of proportionality and rehabilitation central to modern penal theory. Unlike discretionary sentencing in secular systems, hudud prescribe unvarying corporal or capital sanctions regardless of mitigating factors, such as socioeconomic context for theft, rendering them incompatible with evolving standards of decency. Evidentiary requirements, like four eyewitnesses for adultery, are theoretically stringent but frequently circumvented in practice through coerced testimony or relaxed standards, undermining due process and the presumption of innocence. Philosophically, the reliance on religious revelation over empirical evidence or rational deliberation for criminal sanctions is seen as antithetical to secular governance, where laws derive legitimacy from human consensus rather than divine command. Critiques extend to gender disparities, as hudud for disproportionately affect women due to evidentiary biases and cultural enforcement, violating equality principles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) Article 7. In jurisdictions like northern under , documented cases show arbitrary application leading to public floggings and amputations without adequate appeal mechanisms. Secular analysts further contend that hudud's retributive focus ignores causal factors like poverty or , prioritizing symbolic retribution over evidence-based . While proponents invoke deterrence, empirical assessments in applying states reveal persistent enforcement gaps and abuses, as reported by UN bodies.

Reform Attempts and Counterarguments

In countries where hudud have been codified, such as , reform initiatives have aimed to reconcile fixed punishments with contemporary legal standards by reclassifying offenses or elevating evidentiary thresholds to discretionary ta'zir penalties. The 2006 Protection of Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Act in amended the 1979 by separating from (unlawful sexual intercourse), treating non-consensual acts as ta'zir rather than hudud, and requiring four witnesses for convictions, which effectively suspended for most cases while preserving nominal hudud frameworks. Similar approaches in during the 1990s and 2000s involved partial suspensions of for amid economic instability, shifting reliance to fines or to avoid . Traditionalist counterarguments emphasize the immutability of hudud as divinely ordained in Quranic verses (e.g., 5:38 for ) and prophetic , rejecting reforms as human usurpation of legislative authority reserved for God. Scholars adhering to classical usul al-fiqh maintain that strict conditions—such as absence of (shubha), an established Islamic , and flawless evidence—already render hudud rarely applicable, functioning more as moral deterrents than routine sentences, with historical records showing executions or amputations occurring fewer than once per decade in pre-modern caliphates. Reformers invoking al-sharia (objectives of Islamic law), such as preserving life and societal order, argue for contextual to suspend hudud in non-ideal modern states lacking unified Muslim governance or reliable witnesses, prioritizing broader welfare over literal enforcement. Critics from orthodox and decolonial perspectives counter that such maqasid rationales import secular relativism, historically unpracticed by jurists who adapted hudud through (analogy) without wholesale suspension, and warn that reforms erode Sharia's authority, potentially leading to full as seen in Turkey's 1920s abolition. Empirical assessments of these reforms, such as Pakistan's post-2006 crime data, show no measurable decline in zina-related offenses or overall deterrence, with reported cases rising from 6,000 in 2005 to over 20,000 by 2020 amid persistent evidentiary and prosecutorial challenges.

References

  1. https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/stoning-and-hand-cutting-understanding-the-hudud-and-the-shariah-in-islam
  2. https://evolutionofsharia.org/islamic-political-theory/
  3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370059574_Hudud_Punishment_under_Islamic_Criminal_Jurisprudence_An_Overview
  4. https://academic.oup.com/book/58208/chapter/481605230
  5. https://www.abuaminaelias.com/application-of-hudud-punishments-in-sharia-law/
  6. https://law.utexas.edu/humanrights/projects/afghanistans-new-penal-code-whether-or-not-to-codify-hudud-and-qisas/
  7. https://rsis.edu.sg/rsis-publication/rsis/2092-shariah-law-and-hudud-underst/
  8. https://yaqeeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/FINAL-Stoning-and-Hand-Cutting-Understanding-the-Hudud-and-Shariah-in-Islam-1.pdf
  9. https://islamicfiqh.net/en/articles/mandatory-punishments-hudud-190
  10. https://www.iium.edu.my/deed/hadith/muslim/017_smt.html
  11. https://www.newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/dr-nazir-ahmad-zargar/islam-classifies-punishments-three-ways-hadd-qisas-tazir-hadd/d/124175
  12. https://www.islamawareness.net/Shariah/sh_article002.html
  13. https://umrahinternational.com/2024/12/15/human-rights-from-an-islamic-worldview-an-examination-of-hudud-tazir-and-qisas/
  14. https://jeddahpcg.dfa.gov.ph/117-hadd-or-huddud-and-tazir-crimes
  15. https://yaqeeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Stoning-and-Hand-Cutting-Understanding-the-Hudud-and-the-Shariah-in-Islam-1.pdf
  16. https://ahysp.com/saudi-arabia-laws-and-punishments/
  17. https://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=5&verse=38&to=40
  18. https://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=24&verse=1&to=2
  19. https://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=24
  20. https://sunnah.com/bukhari/86
  21. https://sunnah.com/abudawud/40
  22. https://sunnah.com/muslim:1695b
  23. https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4442
  24. https://sunnah.com/muslim:1691a
  25. https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:1424
  26. https://www.academia.edu/40113061/Hudud_Ordinances_according_to_the_Four_Sunni_Schools_of_Jurisprudence
  27. https://www.iium.edu.my/deed/lawbase/newmadhhab.html
  28. https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/crimepunishment/chpt/islam
  29. https://www.cflorida.narpm.org/index.jsp/mL8409/6041062/Islamic%2520Jurisprudence%2520According%2520To%2520The%2520Four%2520Sunni%2520Schools.pdf
  30. https://www.academia.edu/85670293/The_Offence_of_Theft_Sariqa_An_Islamic_Law_Perspective
  31. https://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/viewFile/3405/3169
  32. https://islamqa.info/en/answers/9935
  33. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1956&context=clevstlrev
  34. https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol.27-Issue4/Ser-7/F2704074149.pdf
  35. https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1361&context=ijil
  36. https://journal.kyau.edu.bd/uploads/manuscriptPublisher/HududCrimesandtheirprescribedpunishmentsinIslamicShariahbyMamdood_1673633116.pdf
  37. https://islamqa.info/en/answers/20983
  38. https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/25891422.pdf
  39. https://islamqa.info/en/answers/198400
  40. https://al-islam.org/shia-origin-and-faith-muhammad-husayn-kashif-al-ghita/j-punishments-hudud
  41. https://www.pjcriminology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/3-15.pdf
  42. https://islamqa.info/en/answers/2936
  43. https://aljamiah.or.id/index.php/AJIS/article/viewFile/1905/400
  44. https://ejournal.um.edu.my/index.php/JS/article/download/27993/12654/63844
  45. https://qurangallery.app/topics/hirabah-islamic-law-terrorism-quran-5-33-34
  46. https://hasanmahmud.com/index.php/articles/islamic-english/319-madhhab-against-madhhab-and-its-fatal-impact-on-human-life
  47. https://prophetrejectors.wordpress.com/explanation-for-533-of-quran-execute-crucify-or-cutting-off-hands-and-feet/
  48. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351824406_From_Textuality_to_Universality_The_Evolution_of_Hirabah_Crimes_in_Islamic_Jurisprudence
  49. https://cdn.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Sharia-law-and-the-death-penalty.pdf
  50. https://www.newageislam.com/islamic-ideology/roshan-new-age-islam/islamically-appropriate-punishment-terrorism/d/103659
  51. https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/the-issue-of-apostasy-in-islam
  52. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/hudud-crimes-islamic-criminal-justice-system-p-195-201-1982-m
  53. https://islamqa.info/en/answers/14231
  54. https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6922
  55. https://www.reviewofreligions.org/26572/no-capital-punishment-for-apostasy-in-islam/
  56. https://melbourneasiareview.edu.au/death-penalty-for-apostasy-selected-sunni-and-shia-scholars-views-in-favour-of-abolition/
  57. https://quran.com/en/5:90/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir
  58. https://al-kindipublisher.com/index.php/ijcrs/article/view/5974
  59. https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/323479/punishment-of-consumer-of-alcohol
  60. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339792877_Al-Qadhf_and_Its_Punishment_in_Islamic_Criminal_Law
  61. https://www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-0220/ijsrp-p98111.pdf
  62. https://quran.com/en/an-nur/4-5
  63. https://quran.com/en/24:4/tafsirs/en-tafsir-maarif-ul-quran
  64. https://ask.ghamidi.org/forums/discussion/27236/
  65. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318731833_Crimes_Against_Honour_in_IslamicOttoman_Law_A_Study_Of_QadhfSlander_in_Comparative_Perspective
  66. https://ajis.com.au/index.php/ajis/article/download/303/147/1413
  67. http://journalarticle.ukm.my/7632/1/4035-9303-1-SM.pdf
  68. https://peguamsyariefas.com.my/confession-and-retraction/
  69. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316922338_ADMISSIONCONFESSION_A_COMPARATIVE_STUDY_OF_ISLAMIC_AND_PAKISTANI_LAWS_OF_EVIDENCE
  70. https://journals.tulane.edu/teclf/article/view/1680/1527
  71. https://www.abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2014/02/21/hudud-private-repent/
  72. https://academic.oup.com/ijtj/article/15/2/407/6310345
  73. https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/507457/repentance-and-punishment-for-adultery-in-islam
  74. https://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/3405/3169
  75. https://www.dar-alifta.org/en/article/details/611/the-execution-of-islamic-penalties-hudud-myths-facts
  76. https://www.abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2012/09/18/umar-hudud-suspended-famine/
  77. https://seekersguidance.org/answers/general-answers-feeds/why-did-caliph-umar-suspend-the-theft-punishment-during-his-caliphate/
  78. https://messageinternational.org/hudud-penalties-in-comtemporary-fiqh/
  79. https://www.cornell.edu/video/islamic-law-3-quran-and-the-law
  80. https://africame.factsanddetails.com/article/entry-856.html
  81. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-8171.2010.00246.x
  82. https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/crime-and-punishment-the-ottoman-legal-system-68371
  83. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341193089_Delivering_Justice_The_Monarch%27s_Courts_and_the_in_Safavid_Iran_of_a_single_chapter_of_a_title_in_Oxford_Handbooks_Online_for_personal_use_for_details_see_Privacy_Policy
  84. https://banotes.org/admin-system-union-level/judicial-practices-legal-framework-mughal-empire/
  85. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01955956/document
  86. https://www.hudson.org/national-security-defense/dawa-and-the-islamist-revival-in-the-west
  87. https://pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/zia_po_1979/ord7_1979.html
  88. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?httpsredir=1&article=1207&context=wlulr
  89. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol64/iss4/2/
  90. https://countrystudies.us/sudan/65.htm
  91. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4328194
  92. https://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/s/sudan/sudan914.pdf
  93. https://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/iran1.html
  94. https://iranhr.net/en/articles/7406/
  95. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Iran_1989
  96. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1252&context=cjil
  97. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/sharia-penalties-and-ways-their-implementation-kingdom-saudi-0
  98. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1132&context=wmjowl
  99. https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/mde230152001en.pdf
  100. https://www.refworld.org/docid/518a19404.html
  101. https://sherloc.unodc.org/cld/uploads/res/islamic-penal-code_html/Islamic_Penal_Code.pdf
  102. https://www.hrw.org/report/2012/08/28/codifying-repression/assessment-irans-new-penal-code
  103. https://iranhr.net/en/articles/4725/
  104. https://www.hra-iran.org/irans-new-guidelines-for-establishing-repentance-incompatible-with-the-states-human-rights-obligations/
  105. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/14/afghanistan-supreme-leader-orders-full-implementation-of-sharia-law-taliban
  106. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-63624400
  107. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/11/afghanistan-talibans-cruel-return-to-hardline-practices-with-public-floggings-need-to-be-halted-immediately/
  108. https://amu.tv/164237/
  109. https://www.info-res.org/afghan-witness/reports/taliban-enforce-first-hadd-punishment-with-public-flogging-in-parwan/
  110. https://www.agenzianova.com/en/news/a-kandahar-tornano-le-amputazioni-in-pubblico-i-talebani-tagliano-le-mani-ai-ladri-nello-stadio-della-citta/
  111. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/24/afghanistan-taliban-enforcer-says-amputations-will-resume
  112. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/04/afghanistan-must-immediately-stop-public-executions-and-corporal-punishment
  113. https://kabulnow.com/2025/08/taliban-flogs-11-in-northern-afghanistan-amid-rising-use-of-corporal-punishment/
  114. https://ctc.westpoint.edu/the-significance-of-taliban-sharia-courts-in-afghanistan/
  115. https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/14/pakistan-reform-hudood-laws-now
  116. https://pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/hudood.html
  117. https://www.hrw.org/report/2004/09/21/political-sharia/human-rights-and-islamic-law-northern-nigeria
  118. https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-report-on-international-religious-freedom/nigeria
  119. https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/sharia-in-brunei-much-ado-about-nothing/
  120. https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-report-on-international-religious-freedom/sudan
  121. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-63383361
  122. https://www.voanews.com/a/malaysia-s-top-court-invalidates-state-s-islam-based-criminal-laws-/7482072.html
  123. https://fulcrum.sg/public-caning-in-terengganu-full-implementation-of-shariah-law-in-malaysia/
  124. https://extranet.sioe.org/uploads/isnie2012/gouda.pdf
  125. https://dataunodc.un.org/content/data/homicide/homicide-rate
  126. https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Crime-statistics/International_Statistics_on_Crime_and_Justice.pdf
  127. https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1886&context=hastings_international_comparative_law_review
  128. https://iranwire.com/en/news/115937-number-of-thefts-increased-by-70-percent-over-a-decade/
  129. https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Iran/theft/
  130. https://www.state.gov/reports/2024-trafficking-in-persons-report/afghanistan
  131. https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/jais/volume/docs/vol4/4_111-131serajzade1.pdf
  132. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267935982_Islam_and_Crime_The_Moral_Community_of_Muslims
  133. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/01/medical-expert-repeated-floggings-saudi-arabian-blogger-may-cause-long-term-damage/
  134. https://www.freedomfromtorture.org/news/raif-badawis-1000-lashes-the-medical-implications-of-flogging
  135. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1127048/
  136. https://www.iranrights.org/newsletter/issue/125
  137. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0047235294900213
  138. https://www.info-res.org/afghan-witness/reports/one-year-of-sharia-punishments/
  139. https://thethinkingmuslim.com/2018/02/03/wisdom-behind-the-%25E1%25B8%25A5udud-laws-in-islam/
  140. https://www.dar-alifta.org/en/article/details/1748/the-islamic-hudud-is-it-meant-for-application
  141. https://open.uct.ac.za/bitstream/11427/23724/1/thesis_law_2016_gabriel_mark_a.pdf
  142. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/15/saudi-arabia-mass-execution-81-men
  143. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/understanding-sharia-intersection-islam-and-law
  144. https://islamiclaw.blog/2025/01/28/can-the-severity-of-%25E1%25B8%25A5udud-punishments-be-adjusted-to-align-with-modern-liberal-values/
  145. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325946046_The_Dilemma_of_Hudud_and_International_Human_Rights_Proposing_a_Benevolent_Mechanism
  146. https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/58/74
  147. https://journalofislamiclaw.com/current/article/view/mahil
  148. https://journalofislamiclaw.com/current/article/view/mitiche
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.