Haqeeqat.Org

previous article     |     topic index     |     next article

7. Misconceptions about Qazf

Geo TV, inter alia, is spreading a lot of misconceptions about Qazf i.e. false accusation of zina. Let us deal with them serially.

First of all, I would like to answer off a common misconception about the Offence of Qazf (E.O.H.) Ordinance (VIII of 1979) that it does not allow women to file a complaint of Qazf.

The Christian Post (Pakistan) objects:[29]

The application for Qazf proceedings could be filed only by men even if the wronged person was a woman.

Section 8 of the relevant ordinance may be quoted here:

8. Who can file a complaint:

No proceedings under this Ordinance shall be initiated except on a report made to the police or a complaint lodged in a Court by the following, namely:-

            (a) if the person in respect of whom the ‘qazf’ has been committed be alive, that person, or any person authorized by him; or

            (b) if the person in respect of whom the ‘qazf’ has been committed be dead, any of the ascendants or descendants of that person.

Justice (R) Shaiq Usmani, a member of the Special Committee, established by the NCSW, also argued on the above section:

Justice (R) Shaiq Usmani observed that the exclusion of the term “her” [in the above section] means that it is only a man against whom Qazf is committed is eligible to file a compliant.

Ms. Kashmala Tariq, an MNA, had also proposed:[30]

In Section 8, it was proposed that the word ‘him’ should be changed with “that person.”

Before answering off this argument, I would like to quote Section 2 of the respective ordinance:

2. Definitions
In the Ordinance, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context-

            (a) ‘adult’, ‘hadd’, ‘tazir’, ‘zina’ and ‘zina-bil-jabr’ have the same meaning as in the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979; and

            (b) all other terms and expressions not defined in this Ordinance shall have the same meaning as in the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898).

This means that all expressions, terms and explanations given in the PPC are equally applicable in the Qazf Ordinance too. With this important thing in mind, we quote here, Section 8 of the Pakistan Penal Code:

8. Gender
The pronoun ‘he’ and its derivates are used of any person, whether male or female.

The argument is dead already!

Another widespread misconception is that a woman, who reports rape but cannot prove it, is convicted for qazf. Dr. Tufail Hashmi, in his statement to Zara Sochieye, said: [31]

If a woman has been raped, and she cannot produce four pious, male eye witnesses, then not only is she punished for accepting that she has been involved in the act of zina, she also become guilty of Qazf (false accusation) because she has wrongly accused someone. She, therefore, becomes charged with two crimes. On the one hand, she is a victim and has turned to a court to seek justice, while on the other she is charged with two crimes and is subjected to double punishment.

This argument is completely meaningless to say the least; quoting Section 3 of the original ordinance will suffice:

3. Qazf

Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes an imputation of ‘zina’ [not zina-bil-jabr] concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation, or hurt the feelings, of such person, is said except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to commit ‘qazf’.

Explanation 1: It may amount to ‘qazf’ to impute ‘zina’ [not zina-bil-jabr] to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation, or hurt the feelings, of that person if living, and is harmful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2: An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to ‘qazf’.

First exception (imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published): It is not ‘qazf’ to impute ‘zina’ [not zina-bil-jabr] to any person if the imputation be true and made or published for the public good. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.

Second exception (accusation preferred in good faith to authorized person): Save in the cases hereinafter mentioned, it is not ‘qazf’ to refer in good faith an accusation of ‘zina’ [not zina-bil-jabr] against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation:-

            (a) a complainant makes an accusation of ‘zina’ [not zina-bil-jabr] against another person in a Court, but fails to produce four witnesses in support thereof before the Court;

            (b) according to the finding of the Court, a witness has given false evidence of the commission of ‘zina’ or ‘zina-bil-jabr’;

            (c) according to the finding of the Court, a complainant has made a false accusation of ‘zina-bil-jabr’.

From the above section, it is crystal-clear that the only situation, in which, a complainant of zina-bil-jabr, will receive the punishment of qazf, is when he or she, as the case maybe, falsely accuses someone; in other words, that person (the complainant) tells a lie.

In some cases, an imputation of zina-bil-jabr is neither proved, nor disproved; in such cases, there is a lack of evidence, or there has been a loss of evidence. In such cases, only complainants of zina are said to have committed qazf; complainants of zina-bil-jabr, have not committed qazf, if they fail to prove. They can only be convicted for qazf if their accusation is a lie, e.g. if the hymen (of vagina) is intact & no intercourse took place.

The above discussion proves that Dr. Tufail Hashmi’s statement is a white lie!

The last argument forwarded against the respective ordinance is that if complainants fail to prove their accusation of zina against someone else, the accused will have to file a separate case against the complainant. It is usually said that such a thing is un-Islamic and unjust.

To refute this argument, I would request the reader to read my FAQ about the Qazf Ordinance[32], paralleled by another writing[33] which contains the Qazf Ordinance alongwith a small commentary & relevant sections of the PPC.