Re: changes in the hudood ordinance
Yes, there was a clause of four witnesses. Mufti Taqi Uthmani is wrong on that count.
*8. Proof of zina or zina-bil-jabr liable to hadd. *
*Proof of zina-bil-jabr 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.
Also, DNA was not widely used until the late 1980’s, and Zia’s Hudood ordinance was passed a decade earlier. Uthmani is again wrong.