Averting Death by Doubt: Reconciling Shubhat in Islamic Law with Article 6 of the ICCPR

Abstract

This paper studies how Shubhat (doubt) in Islamic law can help bring Pakistan’s use of the death penalty closer to Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The classical rule al-hudud tudraʾ bi’l-shubuhāt states that fixed punishments should not be given if there is any doubt. This principle gives a local basis for limiting capital punishment in a way that fits international human rights standards.

Three types of doubt are discussed. The first is evidentiary doubt, where weak proof, like forced confessions, poor forensic methods, or weak legal defence, makes a conviction open to challenge. The second is doubt about capacity, shown in the Supreme Court’s Safia Bano case (2021), which ruled it unfair to execute prisoners with severe mental illness because their responsibility is reduced. The third is doubt about offence classification. Islamic law includes a wide group of hudud crimes, while the ICCPR allows the death penalty only for “most serious crimes,” usually meaning intentional killing.

By explaining Shubhat in terms of proof, capacity, and classification, the paper builds a framework for reform. The framework involves making statutory rules that avoid executions when there is doubt, raising evidentiary standards, and giving stronger judicial oversight. Looking at Malaysia’s eradication of mandatory death sentences, Morocco’s practices of moratorium, and Saudi Arabia’s strict evidentiary rules shows that Islamic frameworks can work together with human rights. If Shubhat is written clearly as a statutory bar to execution, it will lower wrongful convictions and bring Pakistan’s system closer to both its Islamic roots and global promises.