Comparisons With Saudi Arabia’S Hudud Laws
1. 🔹 Understanding Hudud Laws
Hudud (plural of hadd) are fixed punishments in Islamic law for certain serious crimes, considered offenses against God. Crimes commonly subject to Hudud punishments include:
Theft (Sariqa)
Adultery (Zina)
Apostasy (Riddah)
Drinking alcohol (Khamr)
False accusation of adultery (Qadhf)
Highway robbery (Hirabah)
2. 🔹 Hudud Laws in Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia follows a strict interpretation of Sharia, largely based on Hanbali jurisprudence and the teachings of the Wahhabi movement.
Hudud punishments are applied rigidly and publicly, including amputation, flogging, stoning, and execution.
Trials often lack procedural safeguards by international standards.
Courts rarely publish detailed judgments, making case law scarce but certain cases are known through reports.
3. 🔹 Hudud Laws in Afghanistan
Afghanistan’s hudud punishments have fluctuated depending on regime:
Under the Taliban (1996–2001, 2021-present), strict hudud punishments are implemented based on their interpretation of Hanafi fiqh with Wahhabi influences.
During the Republican era (2001–2021), hudud laws were codified but rarely applied; criminal justice leaned toward codified penal laws with Islamic elements.
Procedural safeguards vary widely and depend on the political context.
Public executions and corporal punishments have been reported, especially under Taliban rule.
4. ⚖️ Case Law and Application: Comparative Analysis
📍 Case 1: Theft and Amputation
Saudi Arabia:
A widely reported case involved a man convicted of theft in Riyadh in 2019.
After multiple warnings and trial, the court ordered amputation of the right hand.
The punishment was carried out publicly to deter theft.
Afghanistan:
Under Taliban rule, theft cases have resulted in amputations, though less frequently and often with unclear judicial transparency.
In a 2022 case, a man convicted of repeated theft had his hand amputated in Kandahar.
There are reports of public or semi-public punishments, but media coverage is restricted.
Comparison:
Saudi Arabia has a more formalized public procedure.
Afghanistan’s implementation is less transparent and more localized, sometimes influenced by tribal customs.
📍 Case 2: Adultery (Zina) and Stoning
Saudi Arabia:
Adultery is punishable by stoning to death if the accused is married; 100 lashes if unmarried.
In 2013, a woman was publicly flogged for adultery in Jeddah.
Stoning is rare but remains on the books.
Afghanistan:
Under Taliban, several cases of adultery have been punished by stoning or execution, especially under the first Taliban regime and since 2021.
In 2021, two women were reportedly stoned in Kandahar after public trials.
Comparison:
Both apply harsh punishments for zina, but Saudi Arabia’s enforcement is more codified and institutionalized, whereas Afghanistan’s enforcement is more sporadic and tied to local Taliban commanders’ discretion.
Both lack extensive appeals or due process safeguards.
📍 Case 3: Drinking Alcohol
Saudi Arabia:
Alcohol consumption is banned.
Punishments range from lashes (up to 80) to fines and imprisonment.
In 2017, a man was flogged for drinking alcohol in Riyadh.
Afghanistan:
Under Taliban, alcohol is strictly forbidden.
Punishments have included flogging and imprisonment.
Cases are less publicized but documented through human rights reports.
Comparison:
Both strictly prohibit alcohol with corporal punishments.
Saudi Arabia’s courts maintain more consistent documentation.
📍 Case 4: False Accusation of Adultery (Qadhf)
Saudi Arabia:
Accusing someone of adultery without four witnesses is punished by 80 lashes.
Cases are reported in state-controlled courts but details are limited.
Afghanistan:
Under Taliban, similar punishments exist for false accusations, but enforcement varies.
In 2020, a Taliban court sentenced a man to flogging for qadhf in Helmand province.
Comparison:
Similar punishments exist, but Afghanistan’s enforcement depends heavily on local commanders.
📍 Case 5: Apostasy
Saudi Arabia:
Apostasy (renouncing Islam) is punishable by death.
There are rare, documented cases where courts have sentenced apostates to death.
Afghanistan:
Taliban law punishes apostasy by death.
Several extrajudicial killings of alleged apostates or blasphemers have been reported.
Comparison:
Both countries enforce death penalty for apostasy.
Saudi Arabia’s approach is more court-ordered executions, Afghanistan’s more often extrajudicial.
📍 Case 6: Highway Robbery (Hirabah)
Saudi Arabia:
Hirabah includes armed robbery and banditry.
Punishments include execution, crucifixion, amputation.
In 2015, several bandits were executed after trials.
Afghanistan:
Taliban courts similarly punish hirabah harshly, including executions.
Public executions have been reported for robbers.
Comparison:
Both countries impose severe punishments for banditry, though Saudi Arabia’s legal framework is more codified.
5. 🔑 Summary Table of Hudud Law Comparisons
| Crime | Saudi Arabia Application | Afghanistan Application (Taliban) | Key Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Theft | Public amputation under formal courts | Amputation, less transparency, local level | Saudi more codified, Afghanistan more discretionary |
| Adultery (Zina) | Stoning/flogging; institutionalized | Stoning/execution; sporadic, less transparency | Saudi’s system more formal |
| Alcohol | Lashes, fines; consistent enforcement | Flogging/imprisonment; less documented | Saudi maintains more consistent records |
| False Accusation (Qadhf) | 80 lashes, court ordered | Flogging, local Taliban courts | Enforcement varies in Afghanistan |
| Apostasy | Death penalty by courts | Death penalty, often extrajudicial | Saudi more judicial process |
| Highway Robbery | Execution, amputation | Execution, public punishments | Saudi codified framework |
6. ⚖️ Conclusion
Saudi Arabia’s Hudud system is characterized by formal courts, strict adherence to Hanbali fiqh, and public but codified punishments.
Afghanistan’s Hudud under the Taliban is more fragmented, with enforcement varying by region and local commanders’ discretion.
Both systems lack procedural safeguards by international human rights standards but differ in institutionalization and transparency.
The political context greatly affects application in Afghanistan, while Saudi Arabia’s system is stable but extremely strict.
Both countries use Hudud punishments as tools of religious authority, social control, and deterrence, but differ in legal culture and enforcement mechanisms.
RELATED Blog
0 comments