Ḥudud and Islamic Morality. Overview of Ḥudud and its Controversy

Abstract

This article examines the controversy surrounding ḥudud laws within Islamic jurisprudence and their perceived incompatibility with international human rights standards. It explores how punishments associated with ḥudud, such as amputation, flogging, and stoning, are widely criticised for violating global norms that prohibit cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The paper further analyses tensions between Islamic moral codes and Western conceptions of individual freedoms, particularly in areas such as religious conversion, privacy, and sexual autonomy. The study also engages with the reformist perspective of Tariq Ramadan, who advocates for a contextual reinterpretation of Islamic texts and calls for a moratorium on the application of ḥudud punishments. While acknowledging the scriptural basis of these laws, Ramadan emphasises the importance of historical context, strict conditions of application, and contemporary socio-political realities. The article concludes by highlighting the ongoing debate between traditionalist and reformist approaches, demonstrating the complexity of reconciling Islamic legal traditions with modern human rights frameworks.