Had Zina VS HAM: Kontekstualisasi Ayat Had Zina oleh Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd

Abstract

Purpose – This study aims to analyze the implementation of had zina in the context of modern states that are not based on Islamic law, particularly Indonesia. The main issue addressed is the tension between the application of corporal punishment such as flogging or stoning, as prescribed in the Qur’an, and the principles of Human Rights (HR) upheld within a democratic legal system. The urgency of this research lies in the effort to maintain the relevance of Qur’anic teachings while ensuring compatibility with universal humanitarian values.

Design/methodology/approach – This research employs a qualitative library-based method. The analysis applies Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd’s hermeneutical approach, which emphasizes two stages: first, identifying the original meaning (dalalah ashliyyah) of the text within its socio-historical context; second, contextualizing the meaning into the contemporary socio-cultural framework, particularly within Indonesia’s human rights protection system.

Findings – The study reveals that had zina in the form of stoning or flogging is not absolute or eternal, but rather tied to its historical context. In the contemporary setting, zina punishment can be shifted to more humane alternatives such as rehabilitation, with stricter sanctions applied only if rehabilitation fails. This approach enables a balance between sacred texts and the principles of social justice and human rights.

Originality/value – The originality of this study lies in its direct application of Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd’s hermeneutics to the interpretation of had zina, an approach rarely explored in previous research. It offers an alternative framework for understanding Islamic law that remains relevant in modern democratic societies while being faithful to the spirit of maqashid al-shari’ah.