Which countries retain hudud punishments in law and how often are they carried out?
Executive summary
Several Muslim-majority jurisdictions formally retain hudud punishments in statute or penal codes — including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar, Indonesia’s Aceh province, and some Malaysian states such as Kelantan — but the actual application ranges from routine corporal sentences in isolated local contexts to near-non‑existence elsewhere because of procedural hurdles and political choices [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. The dominant pattern across the sources is legal retention combined with highly uneven enforcement: rare in states that cite strict evidentiary rules, sporadic and localized where conservative provincial laws apply, and more visible where authorities choose to make an example of moral offences [6] [7] [8].
1. Which countries still have hudud on the books
Several contemporary national and subnational legal systems explicitly incorporate hudud-style offences: Saudi Arabia’s legal framework groups crimes into hudud, qisas and ta’zir and therefore recognizes hudud punishments in law [1]; Pakistan’s Hudood Ordinances of 1979 inserted hudud offences and penalties into Pakistani criminal law [2]; Qatar’s penal code formally invokes Islamic-law provisions for hudud offences when the accused or victim is Muslim [3]; Indonesia does not apply hudud nationally but Aceh province has regional Sharia ordinances that authorize hudud-like punishments such as public caning [4]; and in Malaysia some states (for example Kelantan) have pursued hudud-style regulations at the state level [5].
2. How often those laws are carried out — the spectrum from rare to regular
Enforcement is highly uneven: in a number of countries hudud punishments are rarely if ever executed because jurists require exceptionally strict proof (for example four eyewitnesses in adultery) and those standards make convictions difficult [1] [6] [7]. Pakistan’s laws remain on the statute book after the 1979 ordinances, but application has been contested, reformed in part, and prosecutions under hadd standards are constrained by evidentiary hurdles and political controversy [2] [6]. By contrast Aceh has repeatedly carried out public canings for moral offences in recent years, showing that where local authorities commit to hudud enforcement it can be regular and visible [4]. Qatar and Saudi Arabia retain hudud provisions and special judicial procedures; sources emphasize that while the penalties are codified, practical implementation is conditioned by evidentiary rules and courtroom processes, producing infrequent but legally possible application [3] [1]. Kelantan’s attempts at implementation illustrate a model where regional political will drives local enforcement, though national legal and pluralism constraints limit uniform application [5].
3. Why the gap between law and practice exists
Classical jurisprudence imposes high burdens of proof and procedural safeguards for hudud crimes — for example multiple credible witnesses or repeated confessions — and modern commentators and jurists note that those rules were historically meant to make hadd punishments difficult to prove, producing de‑facto restraint on enforcement [7] [8]. Political considerations also shape application: some regimes have introduced hudud measures to signal Islamisation or consolidate authority, while others retain the language of hudud on paper but avoid executions or amputations because of domestic pluralism, minority populations, international pressure, or anticipated social backlash [5] [7].
4. Competing narratives and hidden agendas
Human‑rights and reformist commentators stress the brutality and incompatibility of corporal hudud punishments with international norms, while conservative jurists and political actors frame hudud as divinely mandated justice that must be preserved; these opposing frames drive selective enforcement and legislative tinkering [4] [9]. In some states, the move to legislate hudud has been linked to elite politics — using religious law to legitimize rulers or curry favour with conservative constituencies — which can explain why laws exist on paper but are variably applied in practice [5].
5. Bottom line
A small set of states and subnational jurisdictions explicitly retain hudud punishments in law — notably Saudi Arabia, Pakistan (via its 1979 ordinances), Qatar, Aceh province in Indonesia, and some Malaysian states such as Kelantan — yet the frequency of actual hudud sentences ranges from rare or legally constrained to regular in localized contexts like Aceh, with the principal limiting factors being strict evidentiary rules, judicial discretion, and political choice [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].