Execution of Converts Under Islamic Law

In the UAE, an adulterer faces 80 lashes, imprisonment and a huge fine, unless s/he chooses to marry their partner in crime.

The reason stoning is not carried out in most places is because there's no Qur'anic evidence supporting it.  Even the ahadeeth quoted to support that punishment are arguably weak.

It is also worth mentioning that Islam is not the only religion that condemns adulterers to a punishment.  The Bible (Old Testament) calls for that, too:

"If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die." [Deuteronomy 22: 22]

"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife of his neighbor-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." [Leviticus 20: 10]

Good postings Sparten! Your right that Zia didnt get the laws passed through parliament, though I always assumed they were laws, just not applied.

Yeah, basically. Rape crimes dont use the laws Maju was talking about. There's not many rape cases prosecuted and rape convictions obtained in conservative Pakistan - women's rights groups and western media see this as a sign that the judicial system is failing rape victims and that it's because of these non existent laws. Rather they're unaware that, at least in the NWFP, raping a woman would mean tribal warfare and a lot of use of the AK-47 and RPG which serves as a good deterrent in some respects.

I think your basic point is correct that these arent laws, since there is the preamble you talk about that curtails the jurisdiction of the Shariah benches, and also they've never been used to secure a rape conviction so that all rape prosecutions and convictions in Pakistan would have been made under the Sexual Offences Acts under the Pakistan Penal Code.

They definitely werent passed through Parliament/National Assembly from what I've read.

Ay, and dont forget now airforce pilots . I think the image has more to do with Western media portrayal, for exampe, the Mukhtar Mai case which received worldwide attention despite being only one (gang) rape case. The outrage by the Western media on this case was that why werent the men arrested terminated - yet they were charged (in an anti-terror court), and an appeal found their guilty convictions to be unsafe. This all sounds very normal to me in any law case, yet foreign media are crying out for blood, which creates a very biased atmosphere for a retrial. Negative reps in the eyes of the such ignorant foreign media is predictable but not of much consequence.

No. Your newspaper is wrong, and the Pakistani judicial system isnt very well explained in most of the websites I've seen. I'll explain it for you.

"The popular perception of the Zina Ordinance, largely based on the image carried in the press, is that a raped woman must produce four male witnesses against the accused for a conviction. The legal position that a conviction leading to a tazir punishment can be maintained on the basis of other evidence, including that of the woman herself, is generally absent in the popular understanding of the Zina Ordinance."

That is to say that your press might say that all these women pressed for rape convictions but were denied convictions for lack of producing 4 witnesses. The truth is that these women were permitted "tazir" evidence which means that any witnesses, DNA, forensics are all acceptable in such cases. 

After the Tazir case is completed, the accused is either imprisoned for rape (usually life), or the accuser that fails to prove that she was raped using tazir evidence gets accused of zina (adultery is a crime for both men and women in Pakistan - section 497, Pakistan Penal Code or from the Ordinances - whichever is law). An adultery trial ensues, but in 95% of cases the woman is freed.

As Sparten points out the Hudood Ordinance was just a white paper that probably enacted as a law (see end). It describes the punishment of Zina from Tazir as public flogging Public flogging has been banned in Pakistan since 1996.

Article 3 of the Abolition of Whipping Act, 1996 states that "Except in cases where the punishment of whipping is provided for as hadd, the sentence of whipping provided under any law, rule, or regulation for the time being in force shall stand abolished". Hadd punishments have never been handed out in Pakistan, so any public flogging offences given under the Zina through Tazir punishment will be illegal. This in effect is evidence that the white paper or whatever of the Hudood Ordinace is nullified in Pakistan, since the punishment for Zina under Tazir is public flogging. 

Section 10 of the Hudood Ordinance states that the Zina under Tazir is punished by a prison sentence and with flogging of 30 stripes - How can the law for the Hudood Ordinance be in existence, when the punishment stated in it has been banned?

Originally posted by Maju This law has no other purpose that to scare women and allow indiscriminate rape under the law. It is a terrorist law - you just can't defend it unless you don't mind to be the most hatable machoist of this forum!

What's there to defend when you cannot quote the law properly? 

The first part of your statement that it allows indiscriminate rape under the law, it doesnt and for the reasons explained above - it is theoretically as possible to obtain a rape conviction in Pakistan as it is in the West using forensics which are equally valid in Pakistan as part of a prosecution case for rape there. 

Consensual sex, underage or even adulterous, is a crime in many countries.

Originally posted by Maju This is a lwa to promote rape and violence against women. Nothing else.

If it's a law. What's clear is that it's not applied in its original form.

• The laws of Pakistan must be in agreement with the constitution of Pakistan that under Article 25

          25.

(1) All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal  protection of law.

(2) There shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex alone.

(3) Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the protection of women and children.

 

The laws (real or not) you talk about clearly do discriminate based on sex in the evidence required. Therefore they are unconstitutional.

• Article 97 of the Pakistani Constitution says

  97.

Subject to the Constitution, the executive authority of the Federation shall extend to the matters with respect to which [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] has power to make laws, including exercise of rights, authority and jurisdiction in and in relation to areas outside Pakistan:

Provided that the said authority shall not, save as expressly provided in the Constitution or in any law made by [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)], extend in any Province to a matter with respect to which the Provincial Assembly has also power to make laws.

The laws you talk about were never passed by Parliament/Assembly.

• Finally, as Sparten mentioned the most obvious point is that the Shariat Courts are not allowed to make rulings on Muslim personal law (or Sharia law). 

"(Any) law does not include the constitution, Muslim personal law, any law relating to the procedure of any court or tribunal or, until the expiration of three years, any fiscal law, or any law relating to the collection of taxes and fees or insurance practice and procedure." - Article 203. 

This means that the the laws you describe concerning rape and adultery are outside of the purview of the Sharia benches or the Sharia courts. Therefore it's only legally possible for rape convictions in Pakistan to be tried in criminal courts. The criminal courts do not use the laws you describe. The criminal courts use constitutional laws as well as the Enforcement of Sharia Act (1991) (- which the Pakistan Penal Code must be in compliance of), shown here:

http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/1991/actXof199 1.html 

20.

Rights of women not to be affected.
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the rights of women as guaranteed by the Constitution shall not be affected

The constitution guarantees

25.

(1) All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law.