# Sharia rape law **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 15, 2006, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sharia-rape-law/380562 "2006-11-15T18:23:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sharia-rape-law/380562/41 "2010-11-14T20:50:39Z")
**AK84** , I appreciate that you have a much better perspective on the law in Pakistan than anyone else here. Can you explain why [Zafran Bibi](http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/03_06_02/thursday/info1.shtml) ended up being sentenced to death by stoning for adultery when she went to report a rape? ([She was eventually released on appeal](http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/08/world/sentenced-to-death-rape-victim-is-freed-by-pakistani-court.html).) Do adultery cases get tried in a different court to rape cases? What the hell was going on there? ---
**Author:** ![vivalostwages](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d07c76/32.png) [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2010, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sharia-rape-law/380562/42 "2010-11-14T21:25:00Z")
Soraya M. was stoned to death after being falsely accused of adultery by her husband: [The Stoning of Soraya M. - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stoning_of_Soraya_M). What the hell? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sharia-rape-law/380562/43 "2010-11-14T21:29:59Z")
> [@SeldomSeen](#): > > I have heard, but do not know, that under French law the opposite is true. Guilt is assumed, and the accused has to prove his or her innocence. > SS No, that’s a myth (indeed frequently mentioned in the anglo-saxon world, apparently). The presumption of innocence is based in France on the 1789 “declaration of man and citizen rights” which has a constitutionnal value (despite not being part of the constitution itself, only refered to), more specifically the article IX : “Tout homme étant présumé innocent jusqu’à ce qu’il ait été déclaré coupable” (“Any man being assumed innocent until found guilty”). The basis for this myth, I think, is that the prosecutor doesn’t have to prove guilt. He’s present to represent the interests of society at large, not to prove anything (even though, typically, he will try to demonstrate guilt). In fact, the prosecution not being in charge of the inquiries, doesn’t have the means to try to prove anything. He can only rely on : -The elements/evidences gathered by an independant judge (“investigative judge”), whose job is specifically to find all evidences he can, whether they favor the accusation or the defense, and doesn’t normally appear during the trial (except sometimes as a witness, which typically means that he seriously blundered during the enquiry). -Elements undiscovered during the trial (where the scope of the elements presented to the court is much larger than in the anglo-saxon system. For instance hearsays are generally admissible, letting the court/jurors decide on their value, the accused is frequently questionned about previous testimonies or even can decide to answer them, direct exchanges between the witnesses and the accused aren’t unheard of, etc…) In fact, the prosecutor can perfectly ask the jurors to declare the accused not guilty. The trial will still go on. It’s uncommon, but it happens, generally when witnesses statements collapse during the trial or when it’s discovered that the inquiry was awfully bad (I remember for instance a case where it appeared during the trial that the police had disregarded and not reported testimonies that didn’t fit in their pet peeve theory, or another where one accused eventually admitted to having lied about the involvment of numerous co-accused) . There has been some (obviously extremely rare) cases where the accused was found guilty against the opinion of both the defense (obviously) _and_ the prosecutor. Note by the way that the french word “procureur” is translated as “prosecutor” because for the most part it’s a similar job, especially outside the “cour d’assises” that tries only the most grievous crimes (murder, rape,etc…). For instance, if you’re merely accused of, say, burglary, the enquiries will be actually led by the “procureur” doing mostly the same job as an american prosecutor. However, etymologically it means “representant” (implied : of the society/king/whatever he was originally representing), not prosecutor. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2010, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sharia-rape-law/380562/44 "2010-11-14T21:42:06Z")
> [@vivalostwages](#): > > Soraya M. was stoned to death after being falsely accused of adultery by her husband: [The Stoning of Soraya M. - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stoning_of_Soraya_M). > > What the hell? Regrettably you don’t have to scratch the surface of countries in which Sharia is practised to uncover dozens of cases like this. [Gang-raped 13-year-old stoned to death for “adultery”](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7708169.stm) - Somalia. ---
**Author:** ![code\_grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f4b2a3/32.png) [@code\_grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/code_grey)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2010, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sharia-rape-law/380562/45 "2010-11-14T21:45:12Z")
perhaps another thing to consider is that the Shariah might not be the **only** law or legal practice that would apply to the situation in real practice. E.g. a tribal society would have additional rules for dealing with rape that might be a lot more strict than the Shariah standard. Come to think of it, if you have a tribal society that is in a state of continual low level war, the most important kind of legal rule would be not so much the Shariah but rather the latest “peace treaty” (which might stipulate, inter alia, that rape is bad and that perpetrators such-and-such should be fined, or made to marry victims, or similar). And the main reason for not raping women from other tribe would be the threat of resumption of war or vendetta or similar. Meanwhile, allegations of rape of a woman of your own tribe is asking for loss of status and conflict with the elders regardless of how “proven” by Shariah standard the action is. On the other hand, there were non-tribal urbanized Muslim societies as well in the past, e.g. medieval Cairo, Baghdad or Istanbul. It would be interesting to study how their authorities and religious scholars dealt with these issues in the context of a more atomized, modern-like society. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sharia-rape-law/380562/46 "2010-11-15T00:59:01Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I appreciate your effort to setting the record straight, but a bit less hostility would be welcome. > > **aruvqan** ’s question is more likely related to Sharia than to Pakistan, so reading your posts would do nothing to answer the question. Exactly. Sharia exists all over, not just Pakistan. > [@AK84](#): > > The requirements to prove rape under the various schools of Islamic laws (Fiqh) are left to the concerned authorities. > Adultery is what requires 4 witness to have actually witnesses penetration. Not rape. And what defines rape? If they just forced her to give blow jobs is that not rape? I was _assuming_ that the camera got good video of some guy or guys holding said female down ripping off her clothing to resounding cries of no don’t please stop help rape, and the guy/s fucking her. How much plainer can I put it? I can’t think of being fucked NOT being rape under those conditions. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sharia-rape-law/380562/47 "2010-11-15T03:06:38Z")
> [@jjimm](#): > > **AK84** , I appreciate that you have a much better perspective on the law in Pakistan than anyone else here. Can you explain why [Zafran Bibi](http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/03_06_02/thursday/info1.shtml) ended up being sentenced to death by stoning for adultery when she went to report a rape? ([She was eventually released on appeal](http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/08/world/sentenced-to-death-rape-victim-is-freed-by-pakistani-court.html).) Do adultery cases get tried in a different court to rape cases? What the hell was going on there? All major criminal cases are tried in the Court of Sessions. Lesser ones in the Magistrates Court. Adultery would go to the Court of Sessions. In this particular case the it appears udge found her guilty of adultery. She appealed. Appeal was allowed and conviction set aside. Nothing out of the ordinary there. In any case death sentence in Pakistan is vide [hanging](http://www.mpil.de/shared/data/pdf/pakistan_code_of_criminal_procedure.pdf) not stoning (see section 368 Criminal Procedure Code) ---
**Author:** ![mutantmoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a87d85/32.png) [@mutantmoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mutantmoose)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sharia-rape-law/380562/48 "2010-11-15T03:06:49Z")
I don’t understand your point **aruvqan**. If there was video of the act then, yes, that would be acceptable evidence, obviously. Four witnesses aren’t required for a rape just an adultery. And, anyway, if it’s a video then everyone who sees it is a witness. So getting four would not be a problem. I think the bigger and more relevant question is: Should adultery be a crime? There’s lots of problems with making adultery a crime: - do we really want the police interfering in our sex lives to that extent? - leaves the field open to lots of vexatious litigants trying to exact vengeance on former partners. Would take a lot of court time for what is ultimately a very minor criminal offence - impossible to enforce. Just in practical terms, adulteries tend to be conducted in secret. Saying you need four witnesses to an adultery is akin to saying the crime doesn’t exist at all because you will never get four witnesses. I think on balance I’m against the idea but I’m not sure where **AK84** stands on the issue? ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sharia-rape-law/380562/49 "2010-11-15T03:10:53Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > Exactly. Sharia exists all over, not just Pakistan. > And what defines rape? If they just forced her to give blow jobs is that not rape? > > I was _assuming_ that the camera got good video of some guy or guys holding said female down ripping off her clothing to resounding cries of no don’t please stop help rape, and the guy/s fucking her. How much plainer can I put it? I can’t think of being fucked NOT being rape under those conditions. Defines rape, where in Pakistan > [@](#): > > 1. Rape:- > A man is said to commit rape who has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the five following descriptions, > (i) against her will. > > (ii) without her consent > > (iii) with her consent, when the consent has been obtained by putting her in fear of death or of hurt, > > (iv) with her consent, when the man knows that he is not married to her and that the consent is given because she believes that the man is another person to whom she is or believes herself to be married; or > > (v) With or without her consent when she is under sixteen years of age. > > Explanation: Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sharia-rape-law/380562/50 "2010-11-15T03:13:08Z")
> [@mutantmoose](#): > > - impossible to enforce. Just in practical terms, adulteries tend to be conducted in secret. Saying you need four witnesses to an adultery i **s akin to saying the crime doesn’t exist at all because you will never get four witnesses**. That is the whole point. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sharia-rape-law/380562/51 "2010-11-15T03:16:53Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > That is the whole point. If the whole point is that the law is unenforceable then can you explain the point of the law itself? ---
**Author:** ![mutantmoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a87d85/32.png) [@mutantmoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mutantmoose)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sharia-rape-law/380562/52 "2010-11-15T03:38:20Z")
Well, if you videoed your wife being unfaithful then you could get 3 friends to watch it later and get the required witnesses after the fact. So you’d have to install a secret video camera in the hotel room or wherever it is that your wife is doing the dirty to catch her _in flagrante delicto_. Although that brings up the whole problem of photoshop and doctored images. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sharia-rape-law/380562/53 "2010-11-15T08:09:08Z")
> [@jjimm](#): > > Regrettably you don’t have to scratch the surface of countries in which Sharia is practised to uncover dozens of cases like this. [Gang-raped 13-year-old stoned to death for “adultery”](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7708169.stm) - Somalia. Though I note the article itself says that under that same law, the conviction should not have happened. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sharia-rape-law/380562/54 "2010-11-15T08:17:05Z")
Yeah, I as a matter of policy am always skeptical of claims made by Amnesty International, having found most of them to be bogus, based upon hearsay or assertions by interested parties and in one case taken directly from the disciplinary report of the police service who they were attacking. Amnesty is more reliable than Col Saunders, just about. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sharia-rape-law/380562/55 "2010-11-15T08:18:15Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > If the whole point is that the law is unenforceable then can you explain the point of the law itself? To prevent public displays of indecency. As it is when four people can see the act of penetration, then you have far bigger problems. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sharia-rape-law/380562/56 "2010-11-15T11:21:42Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > In any case death sentence in Pakistan is vide [hanging](http://www.mpil.de/shared/data/pdf/pakistan_code_of_criminal_procedure.pdf) not stoning (see section 368 Criminal Procedure Code) [ > [@](#): > > A couple have been sentenced to be stoned to death for alleged adultery by a tribal court in north-west Pakistan, with the woman’s life now considered in grave danger. > > The man involved, Zarkat Khan, has run away while the woman is in the custody of the court, according to residents in Kala Dhaka, a remote area of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province. > > The death sentence, handed down in Manjakot village last month, will be carried out once the man is found, a member of the tribal court said. ]([Pakistani couple face death by stoning threat after conviction for adultery | Pakistan | The Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/18/couple-sentenced-pakistan)) [ > [@](#): > > In Pakistan stoning is in the law code for adultery, but rare sentences in recent years have either been overruled or not acted upon. ]([http://www.france24.com/en/20100910-islamic-countries-under-pressure-over-stoning](http://www.france24.com/en/20100910-islamic-countries-under-pressure-over-stoning)) You also cited a criminal code from the 1898. The relevant laws, however, would seem to be the Hudood Ordinance from 1979 and then later its revision under the Women’s Protection Bill of 2006. The [latter clearly states](http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/2006/wpb.html) that the penalty for Zina is "Stoning to death in case of Muhsan and if not Muhsan whipping not exceeding one hundred stripes " The [former clearly states](http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/zia_po_1979/ord7_1979.html): “(2) Whoever is guilty of Zina liable to hadd shall, subject to the provisions of this Ordinance, - (a) if he or she is a muhsan, be stoned to death at a public place” Oh, and: > [@](#): > > "8. Proof of zina 8 8 liable to hadd. > Proof of zina 9 9 liable to hadd shall be in one of the following forms, namely:- > (a) the accused makes before a Court of competent jurisdiction a confession of the commission of the offence; or > (b) at least four Muslim adult male witnesses, about whom the Court is satisfied, having regard to the requirements of tazkiyah al-shuhood, that they are truthful persons and abstain from major sins (kabair), give evidence as eye-widnesses of the act of penetration necessary to the offence: > > ``` > Provided that, if the accused is a non-Muslim, the eye-witnesses may be non-Muslims. " > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sharia-rape-law/380562/57 "2010-11-15T11:47:53Z")
Sorry for the double post, session timed out on me. Anyways, from the 2006 bill: [ > [@](#): > > The Zina and Qazf Ordinances have been a subject of trenchant criticism by citizens in general and scholars of Islam and women in particular. The criticisms are many. These include the lumping of the offence of zina with zina-bil-jabr (rape) and subjecting both to the same kind of proof and punishment. This has facilitated abuse. A woman who fails to prove rape is often prosecuted for zina. The requirement of proof for the maximum punishment of zina-bil-jabr (rape) being the same as that for zina, it has made absolutely impossible to prove the former. > > Where a prosecution for rape against a man fails but sexual activity is confirmed by medical examination or on account of pregnancy or otherwise the woman is punished for zina not as Hadd - four eye witnesses not being available - but as Ta’zir. Her complaint is, at times, deemed a confession. > > A penal statute must be clear and unambiguous. It must mark the boundaries between the permitted and the prohibited with clarity. The citizens are, thus, put to notice. They can order their life and conduct by following these bright guidelines and steer clear of trouble. The vague definitions in thane and related laws are, therefore, either being clarified and wherever that is not possible, omitted. The object is to protect the unwary and unsuspecting citizens from unwittingly falling foul of penal laws. > > The Zina Ordinance also defines “marriage” as a valid marriage. In rural areas, in particular, nikahs generally and divorces particularly are not registered. It becomes difficult for a person charged with zina to establish “valid marriage” as a defence. Non-registration has its civil consequences. These are sufficient. failure to register a nikah or have a divorce confirmed should not entail penal consequences. This is in consonance with the Islamic norm that Hadd should not be imposed whenever there is any doubt about the commission of the offence. The misuse of the law in such cases has made it an instrument of oppression in the hands of vengeful former husbands and other members of society. > […] > Zina is a heinous crime that corrupts public morals and destroys the sense of modesty. The Qur’an regards zina an offence against public morality. The requirement of four eyewitnesses is not solely an evidentiary burden of extra-ordinary weight. It is also an assertion that if contrary to the hadith, “Allah loves those who hide their sins”, one commits an act in so blatant a fashion that four people see it, the harm to society must be serious indeed. At the same time, the Qur’an protects privacy, prohibits baseless assumptions and inquisition and forbids interference in the life of others. It is for this reason that a failure to prove zina entails punishment for qazf (false accusation of zina). The Qur’an requires the complainant to bring four eye-witnesses to prove the accusation of zina. The complainant and the witnesses must be conscious of the seriousness of this offence and must know that if they make a false accusation or cannot prove the charge beyond doubt they will be punished for qazf. The conviction will follow the failure of the zina prosecution and will not be contingent on the initiation of fresh legal proceedings. > > The Zina Ordinance has been abused to persecute women, to settle vendettas and to deny basic human rights and fundamental freedoms. To check such abuse both in the case of zina and qazf the Cr. P.C. is being amended to provide that only the Court of Sessions, on a complaint, may take cognizance of such cases. ]([Protection of Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Act, 2006](http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/2006/wpb.html)) It seems that the issue is not as cut and dried as might be suggested, and various factions/individuals/what-have-you have abused the laws for their own ends and "Where a prosecution for rape against a man fails but sexual activity is confirmed by medical examination or on account of pregnancy or otherwise the woman is punished for zina not as Hadd - four eye witnesses not being available - but as Ta’zir. Her complaint is, at times, deemed a confession. Even the recent case, confirmed by the local government, involves death by stoning for the crime of adultery. There seems to be quite a bit of daylight between the actions of Jirgas and the standards set forth for the rest of the nation. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sharia-rape-law/380562/58 "2010-11-15T12:09:25Z")
**sigh** Lets go back shall we. The Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (Act V of 1898) aka "CrPC’ is what is still inforce in Pakistan as of 2010 (albeit in a much amended form). It applies to all Criminal Trials and related matters. While the Ordinance of 1979, did envisage stoning to death, the punishment (and other provisions of the Ordinance) was declared to be unconstitutional by the Federal Court in the case of _Hazoor Bakhsh v Federation of Pakistan PLD 1981 FSC 145_. Secondly as the name suggests the Hudood Ordinance is just that; an Ordinance. In your little attempt at research of Pakistani law you might have been interested in t[his little provision of law](http://pakistanconstitution-law.org/article-89-power-of-president-to-promulgate-ordinances/). All Ordinances lapse or cease to have effect within 120 days of being promulgated, unless extended or converted by the Parliament into an Act. This Ordinance was never so converted and thus lapsed after the expiry of four months. In 1985, its provisions were retrospective given protection by the Eight Amendment, but by that time as it already had been declared unconstitutional (except for sections 10-16, which were later incorporated wholesale into law) it thus zero, zilch, nada legal effect. As for the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 2006, it was an amending act which amended existing law, including the CrPC. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sharia-rape-law/380562/59 "2010-11-15T12:26:53Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Sorry for the double post, session timed out on me. Anyways, from the 2006 bill: > > [url=[Protection of Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Act, 2006](http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/2006/wpb.html)] > > It seems that the issue is not as cut and dried as might be suggested, and various factions/individuals/what-have-you have abused the laws for their own ends and "Where a prosecution for rape against a man fails but sexual activity is confirmed by medical examination or on account of pregnancy or otherwise the woman is punished for zina not as Hadd - four eye witnesses not being available - but as Ta’zir. Her complaint is, at times, deemed a confession. > > Even the recent case, confirmed by the local government, involves death by stoning for the crime of adultery. There seems to be quite a bit of daylight between the actions of Jirgas and the standards set forth for the rest of the nation. Actual research on cases of Adultery from 1980 till 1990 done by Charles Kennedy and reproduced in his book "The Status of Women in Pakistan in Islamization of Laws"found that there was absolutely not a single case in which a a complaint had been converted into a charge of Adultery. This is confirmed by former Supreme Court Justice Taqi Usmani, and indeed by the Court in \* Mst. Safia Bibi vs. The State (PLD 1985 FSC 120)\* \*"if a girl makes a statement as made in the present case, she cannot be convicted of _Zina_.” - at pg 129. This was indeed one of the critisms of the 2006 Act, that it was attempting to fix what was not broken. There are many other reasons to attack the 1979 Ordinance, and ither Criminal Laws in general, but this is not one of them. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sharia-rape-law/380562/60 "2010-11-15T13:45:14Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > While the Ordinance of 1979, did envisage stoning to death, the punishment (and other provisions of the Ordinance) was declared to be unconstitutional by the Federal Court in the case of _Hazoor Bakhsh v Federation of Pakistan PLD 1981 FSC 145_. And as cited, is still being used in 2010. Also as cited, stoning to death is still part of the bill which amended the criminal law in 2006 also calls for death by stoning for the crime of zina. And, of course, the Ordinance is still being used by some in its unmodified form. [In 2010 (from about two weeks ago).](http://news.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/local/peshawar/fsc-to-decide-application-of-hudood-ordinance-in-pata-210) > [@AK84](#): > > it thus zero, zilch, nada legal effect. Except in the cited examples where it is used as the law in question, or where its provisions like death by stoning for zina are incorporated in the criminal code by the 2006 bill, or where its parts (other than those that you mention) [were still in effect in 2006.](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/muslims-demand-rape-law-reverse/story-e6frg6so-1111112620491) > [@AK84](#): > > This is confirmed by former Supreme Court Justice Taqi Usmani, and indeed by the Court in Mst. Safia Bibi vs. The State (PLD 1985 FSC 120) "if a girl makes a statement as made in the present case, she cannot be convicted of Zina.” Likewise, this is a confirmation of nothing. On one hand there are reports of something happening, on the other you have a legal ruling that it should not. Reality trumps “ought”. > [@AK84](#): > > Actual research on cases of Adultery from 1980 till 1990 done by Charles Kennedy and reproduced in his book "The Status of Women in Pakistan in Islamization of Laws"found that there was absolutely not a single case in which a a complaint had been converted into a charge of Adultery. Oh, actual research? Well that’s different. Of course, there was [Safia Bibi](http://books.google.com/books?id=ALtwjnyK2KkC&pg=PA311&lpg=PA311&dq=safia+bibi+rape+bhutto&source=bl&ots=B7b337rShB&sig=HesFaB0G9yB2-qyUXcpaUQKEVtU&hl=en&ei=Ni7hTO37EMTflger2YHEAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=bibi&f=false) a girl who alleged rape and couldn’t prove it, so was charged with adultery. Rather famous case, actually. And wait one darn minute, that was in 1983. Of course, you already addressed this and said “In this particular case the it appears udge found her guilty of adultery. She appealed. Appeal was allowed and conviction set aside. Nothing out of the ordinary there.” Except, you’ve also just claimed that no such thing ever happened and that actual research backs up such a claim. Curiouser and curiouser. Or, of course, the case of Jehan Mina, also in 1983 (a year in which _actual_ research confirms that this didn’t happen), was already cited [but can be cited again](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qWKxrrSXL0kJ:www.dawn.com/2002/06/05/fea.htm+jehan+mina&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a). Filed a charge of rape, had it converted to a charge of adultery against her and was convicted on those grounds. [Or in the 1987 paper Pakistan: Human Rights After Martial Law, (Geneva: International Commission of Jurists](http://www.wwda.org.au/hrwgolbalrept1.pdf)): “there have been many reported cases where a complaint of rape has been made and the court has convicted and punished both parties for adultery or fornication.” Or _The Hudood Ordinances: A Divine Sanction?_ which found several such cases. But that probably wasn’t _actual and/or big_ research, either. Since, after all, _actual_ research found that there was not one single instance of such a thing happening from 1980 to 1990. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sharia-rape-law/380562.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sharia-rape-law/380562.md?page=4)