I am amused by all the arguments in favour or defence of hudud (Islamic penal code) law, especially those written in good English but using bad logic. One example is A Muslim Brother's letter . Let us look at the five points he raised, and see what sense if any at all can be made of them.

He said the Terengganu Syariah Criminal Offences (Hudud and Qisas) law neither promotes nor allows eavesdropping and door-to-door checks. If that is the case, it would be even harder for rape victims to get the "four Muslim male adults of good character" as required witnesses to secure a conviction.

He then quoted Terengganu Menteri Besar Hadi Awang that repentance for an offender is better than a confession. So now we know — not only can criminals confess, it is even better if they say they repent so they can get away with it.

Even if victims can find the "four Muslim male adults of good character" in seeking justice, hey — the accused has already repented, so there! What is the difference between saying "I confess" and "I repent"? One more alphabet?

On pregnancy being proof of zina (extramarital sex), A Muslim Brother said this evidence is considered conclusive and not circumstantial. Really? Many people would think pregnancy is proof of sex, marital or extramarital. Actually, both logically and scientifically, pregnancy is just proof of conception, sex or no sex, marital or not marital.

A Muslim Brother also seems to read only the letter of the law and not any spirit of justice in it when he cited Section 9 (1) and (2) which differentiates between rape and zina to claim that "the possibility of a rape victim to be wrongly accused and sentenced is slim."

But this cannot be so when the authorities and not the woman herself decide whether she had experienced rape or extramarital sex. And when the authorities are conservative and moralistic men who frown on (or get into a fit over) sex and pregnancy outside marriage, the woman's hopes for justice are doomed.

Finally, in just as misleading a way, he said that in this modern age "we have yet to come across a woman who had been raped but still subjected to hudud punishment in countries implementing hudud ".

But of course! Once the religious authorities decide a woman had not been raped but had extramarital sex instead (even if she was actually raped), and she is punished accordingly under hudud , thus we will never have women who were actually raped being punished for it!

Hudud law is not perfect or foolproof. The fact that at every stage (drafted, amended, passed and about to be implemented) by humans makes it a product of human efforts. Even if it does not convict people for one crime and then punishes them for another (who will say that hudud do that anyway?) does not make it fair, just or acceptable to a modern multi-religious country like Malaysia.

The supporters of hudud are not honest about its realities and are misleading the people. I wonder how many people out there are being fooled by them?