| Part ofa series on |
| Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) |
|---|
 |
|
| Islamic studies |
In traditional Islamic jurisprudence,Hudud (alsoHadood, Hadud, Hudood,Arabic:حدود,romanized: ḥudūd pl.,HaddArabic: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 ofQuran orhadith.
Hudud is one of three categories of crime and punishment in classical Islamic literature, the other two beingQisas ("eye for an eye")–Diya (paying victims compensation), andTa'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 fromhadith.[8][9] (Qisas,Diya, andTa'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 ahudud punishment could still receive ata'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 theIslamic revival and calls byIslamists for full implementation of Sharia.[13][15]In the 21st century,hudud, includingamputation of limbs, is part of the legal systems ofAfghanistan,[16]Brunei,[17]Iran,Mauritania,[18]Saudi Arabia, theUnited Arab Emirates,[19]Yemen,[20] andnorthern part ofNigeria.
Hudud offenses with prescribed punishments are mentioned in theQuran. The punishments for these offenses are drawn from both theQuran and theSunnah. TheQuran does not define the offenses precisely: their definitions were elaborated infiqh (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]
The Qur'an describes several crimes determined by scholars ashududand in some cases sets out punishments.[8]
Thehudud 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.
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 itis, 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.
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.
The crime of "accusation of illicit sex against chaste women without four witnesses" (qadhf) has ahudud punishment based on several Quranic verses,[8] including24:4,24:6.
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—
The crime of drinking alcohol is referred to in Quranic verse5:90, (thehudud punishment however, is described inhadiths):[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.
In some cases Islamic scholars have usedhadiths to establishhudud punishments, which are not mentioned in the Quran.[8] Thus, stoning as punishment forzina is based on hadiths that narrate episodes where Muhammad and his successors prescribed it.[24]
Sahihhadith are "sound" hadith. Hadith are the sayings, practices and traditions ofMuhammad as observed byhis companions, and compiled by scholars.Sahihhadith are considered bySunni Muslims to be the most trusted source of Islamic law after theQuran. They extensively describehudud crimes and punishments.[25][26] The tendency to use existence of ashubha (lit. doubt, uncertainty) to avoidhudud punishments is based on a hadith that states "averthadd punishment in case ofshubha".[27]
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 theCompanions of Muhammad.[28] Article One of the Penal Code of the state ofQatar lists six hudud punishments, addingapostasy to those of Muhammad Shafi.[29] Hajed A. Alotaibi in his book onMinor Crimes in Saudi Arabia, states that Hudud "generally" covers seven crimes, adding "rebellion" to the Qatar list of crimes.[30]
The offences subject tohudud punishment:
There are a number of differences in views between the differentmadhhabs 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 thanqadhf (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' followingShia jurisprudence generally believe thathudud punishments can be changed by appropriately qualified jurists.[47][48]
Murder, injury and property damage are nothudud crimes inIslamic criminal jurisprudence,[49][50] and are subsumed under other categories of Islamic penal law in Iran which are:
Because the stringent traditional restrictions on application ofhudud punishments, they were rarely applied historically.[12] Criminals who escapedhudud punishments could still be sanctioned under the system oftazir, which gave judges and high officials discretionary sentencing powers to punish crimes that did not fall under the categories ofhudud andqisas.[12] In practice, since early on inIslamic 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]
TheIslamic revival of the late 20th century brought along calls byIslamist movements for full implementation of Sharia.[13][15] Reinstatement ofhudud punishments has had particular symbolic importance for these groups because of their Quranic origin,[13] but in countries wherehudud 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 madehudud applicable,[53] with many countries disregarding traditional strict requirements.[13] In 1979Pakistan instituted theHudood Ordinances. In July 1980Iran stoned to death four offenders inKerman. By the late 1980s,Mauritania andSudan had "enacted laws to grant courts the power to hand down hadd penalties". During the 1990sSomalia,Yemen,Afghanistan, and northernNigeria followed suit. In 1994 theIraqi presidentSaddam 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 ofhudud punishments has varied from country to country. In Pakistan andLibya,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), ahudud 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.
Thehudud punishment forzinā 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 ofzināʾ" 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 200,000zina 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 forzina-related charges, rape victims in Pakistan have been reluctant to report rape because they feared being charged withzina.[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]
According toAmnesty 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 fivecross-amputations (hand and foot on opposite sides amputated) for judicial punishment.[67] Amputation as punishment is also practiced in Muslim countries likeBrunei, theUnited Arab Emirates,[68]Iran,[69][70]Saudi Arabia,[71]Yemen,[72] and 11 of the 36 states withinNigeria.[73][74]
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 inSaudi 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]
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 thathudud punishments should be averted by the slightest doubts or ambiguities.[a][80][9] Meetinghudud requirements forzina and theft was virtually impossible without a confession in court, which could then be invalidated by a retraction.[80][9]
Certain standards for proof must be met inIslamic law forzina punishment to apply. In the Shafii, Hanbali, and Hanafi schools offiqh,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 SunniMaliki school of law consider pregnancy in an unmarried woman as sufficient evidence ofzina, 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 ofzina and to protect children from the stigma of illegitimacy.[4] These requirements made zina virtually impossible to prove in practice.[24]
If a person allegeszina 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 ahadd crime."[23] Rape was traditionally prosecuted under legal categories requiring less stringent evidentiary rules.[82] In Pakistan, theHudood 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]
Malik ibn Anas, the originator of theMaliki judicial school offiqh, recorded in his workAl-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, scholarYusuf 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 oneTaqī 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)
- it had not been procured as spoils of war (mughannam)
- nor from the public treasury
- and it was taken by his own hand
- not by some tool or mechanism (āla)
- on his own
- while he was of sound mind
- and of age
- and a Muslim
- and free
- not in theHaram
- in Mecca
- and not in theAbode of War
- and he is not one who is granted access to it from time to time
- and he stole from someone other than his wife
- and not from a uterine relative
- and not from her husband if it is a woman
- when he was not drunk
- and not compelled by hunger
- or under duress
- and he stole some property that was owned
- and would be permissible to sell to Muslims
- and he stole it from someone who had not wrongfully appropriated it
- and the value of what he stole reached three dirhams of pure silver by the Meccan weight
- and it was not meat
- or any slaughtered animal
- nor anything edible or potable
- or some fowl or game
- or a dog
- or a cat
- or animal dung
- or feces (ʿadhira)
- or dirt
- or red ochre (maghara)
- or arsenic (zirnīkh)
- or pebbles or stones
- or glass
- or coals
- or firewood
- or reeds (qaṣab)
- or wood
- or fruit
- or a donkey or a grazing animal
- or a copy of the Quran
- or a plant pulled up from its roots (min badā'ihi)
- or produce from a walled garden
- or a tree
- or a free person
- or a slave
- if they are able to speak and are of sound mind
- and he had committed no offense against him
- before he removed him from a place where he had not been permitted to enter
- from his secure location
- by his own hand
- and witness is born
- to all of the above
- by two witnesses
- who are men
- according to [the requirements and procedure] that we already presented in the chapter on testimony
- and they did not disagree
- or retract their testimony
- and the thief did not claim that he was the rightful owner of what he stole
- and his left hand is healthy
- and his foot is healthy
- and neither body part is missing anything
- and the person he stole from does not give him what he had stolen as a gift
- and he did not become the owner of what he stole after he stole it
- and the thief did not return the stolen item to the person he stole it from
- and the thief did not claim it
- and the thief was not owed a debt by the person he stole from equal to the value of what he stole
- and the person stolen from is present [in court]
- and he made a claim for the stolen property
- and requested that amputation occur
- before the thief could repent
- and the witnesses to the theft are present
- 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]
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 includeAbdel-Halim Mahmoud, theGrand 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 byIbn Saud in Saudi Arabia — though amputation was carried out only seven times.[88] In his popular bookIslam 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 ofMosul the Muslim jurists found the punishment less than effective. Faced with a crime wave of theft, theulama "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 ortazir) that Shariah courts were limited to byhadith.[88][90]
A number of scholars/reformers[91][92] have suggested that traditionalhudud 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 ofhudud laws until greater scholarly consensus can be reached.[93]
Many contemporary Muslim scholars think that thehudud punishments are not absolute obligations as they are acts ofmu'amalah (non-worship),[failed verification] thus, they think thathudud 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 oftwo 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), theMuslim Brotherhood has taken "a distinctly ambivalent approach" towardhudud penalties with "practical plans to put them into effect ... given a very low priority". In Pakistan,Munawar Hasan, thenAmeer (leader) of theJamaat-e-Islami, has stated that "unless and until we get a just society, the question of punishment is just a footnote."[76]
Supportinghudud punishments are Islamic revivalists such asAbul 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 theModernist approach calling forhudud 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 (particularlyQuranists) 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 andsahih 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.
There are only five "Hudud" in the Shari' ah of Islam. These are the punishments for (1) Robbery, (2) Theft, (3) Adultery, (4) False Accusation of Adultery. These punishments have been mentioned in the Holy Qur'an clearly and categorically (Mansus). The fifth Hadd is that of drinking wine which stands proved on the basis of a consensus (Ijma`) of the noble Companions of the Holy Prophet"
adultery, defamation, drinking wine, theft, rebellion, banditry (armed highway robbery) and apostasy.
In field of governmental chapters of Islamic Jurisprudence, the prophet and the infallible Imams and the perfect and just jurists are allowed to alter those [hudud] provisions, based on the general rules of Islamic jurisprudence and according to the general interests of Islamic Umma.
The absolute guardianship of jurist (al-wilayat al-mutlaqah lil-faqih) is the same as the guardianship that God gave the Prophet [of Islam] and [Shi'ite] Imams. It is one of the most prominent shari'a ordinances (al-ahkam al-ilahiyya), that has priority over ALL shari'a ordinances.
Amnesty International recorded 90 judicial amputations between 1981 and December 1999 in Saudi Arabia, including at least five cases of cross amputation, but the true number is probably much higher.
{{cite book}}:|website= ignored (help)