Jaafar Ali asks how I would feel if the person who stole my property had his or her hands chopped off? In response I ask: What could I possibly gain from such pointless retribution?

Either intentionally or not, Jaafar's proposed dual civil/hudud law system discriminates against non-Muslims since it affords lesser punishments if the perpetrators and victims are both non-Muslims. Is the property of non-Muslims less important than that of Muslims?

Jaafar must have constructed a rather wide understanding of "thievery" when he stated that only thieves stand to fear anything from hudud laws. Perhaps Jaafar chooses to regard alcohol consumption as stealing one's wits, apostasy as stealing Muslims, murder as stealing a life and adultery as stealing a wife.

Last time I checked these are but a few acts covered by hudud law. I daresay however, that most of us probably don't share Jaafar's generous interpretation of the word "thievery".

The question of what actions collectively constitute hudud offences is itself a contentious issue with, for example, some scholars not regarding the consumption of alcohol a hudud offence. Revered classical jurists, too, differ on the procedural requirements and punishments pertaining to some hudud offences, reflected today in the variances between 'madhabs'. While clearly stating his preference for hudud law, Jafaar does not bother acknowledging this diversity.

Jaafar's assumption that stiffer punishments will result in fewer crimes is questionable when we consider that there remains a significant drug problem in Malaysia despite the enforcement of capital punishment for drug trafficking. Stiff punishments don't necessarily result in an absence of crime.

The devilish politicians and corrupt civil servants that Jaafar refers to will not be perturbed by any punishment (hudud or otherwise) as long as there is a lack of accountability, transparency and poor enforcement. A system lacking in these elements invites abuse and corrupt practices.

Before contemplating stiffer punishments in an effort to reduce crime in Malaysia, a serious attempt must be made at improving the enforcement of existing laws whilst increasing public accountability and transparency.

Hudud laws alone will not move Malaysia towards a more just, equitable society.

On a closing note, Jaafar chooses to use the contentious term "Islamic state". If we were to ask 10 random Malaysians to define "Islamic state" we would get 10 different answers, with an emphasis on different values or understandings of Islam.

It's time we moved beyond such rhetoric and started defining our ideal society more clearly with descriptions such as "just, compassionate and progressive".