ISLAMABAD, Nov 7: The Special Committee of the National Commission on the Status of Women (NCSW) on Hudood Ordinance is divided on whether Rajam (stoning to death) punishment comes under Hadd or Tazeer.

However, members of the committee have agreed that the issue needs detailed study and should be further discussed.

The special committee, which has recommended repealing of Hudood laws in its final recommendations during its deliberation, could not decide about Rajam, as to whether it is Hadd or Tazeer punishment.

The committee reviewed and discussed the punishment of ‘Rajam’ as prescribed in the Offence of Zina Ordinance.

This punishment is mentioned in Sections 5(2)(a) and 6(3)(a) of the Ordinance that defines and prescribes Zina liable to Hadd for Mohsin and Mohsina, and Zina-bil-Jabr along with the prescribed punishments for both.

The discussion was held in the context of inclusion of Rajam as a punishment under Hadd in the offence of Zina. The subject of debate on this issue was raised over the fact that the punishment of Rajam is not derived from the Quran, but is in fact a punishment implemented through Sunnat as a customary punishment of those times for such offences.

It was agreed that for the Offence of Zina the prescribed punishment in the Quran is 100 stripes as given in Surah Noor verse 2.

In addition to the Quranic prescribed punishment of 100 lashes/stripes, Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) also inflicted the punishment of stoning, though selectively, in a case where a married person committed the offence of adultery.

Nevertheless, there were instances where even a married person was not awarded Rajam. Hence, the punishment of Rajam was awarded in some cases and waived in others.

Noor Mohammad Shahtaj and Dr S.M. Zaman were of the view that Sunnat was an equally significant source of legal interpretation of laws and, hence, its value must not be undermined even in cases of Hadd.

Dr Farida Ahmed supported this view and stated that since the holy prophet had awarded punishment of Rajam in case of Zina (Hadd), Rajam should be considered as a Hadd punishment.

Rahila Durrani also supported the view that Sunnat could not be differentiated from the Quran for the purposes of interpretation for the offence of Zina.

The arguments raised in this context was that Rajam; (a) could not be considered as Hadd within the accepted meaning of that term because Hadd is a fixed penalty for a fixed crime under fixed conditions, and therefore, cannot be remitted or dropped, and (b) it is not a prescribed punishment in the Quran.

The verse of Surah Noor mentioning the punishment for the offence of Zina is general and does not even distinguish between married and unmarried adulterers. Rajam was carried out as an additional extra-Quranic punishment in view of the aggravated situation arising from the marital status of the adulterer, and was therefore Tazeer.

However, Syed Afzal Haider, another committee member, suggested that this issue needed further research and study in which; (a) the timing of the revelation of Surah Noor and the carrying out of Rajam be determined in order to find out the underlying principle applied in this punishment, and (b) the number and exact circumstances in which the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) had awarded Rajam be determined to verify whether it was inflicted as an exception or as a rule.

Therefore, the committee agreed that these points required detailed study and needed to be discussed further.