Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this
mk-logo
News
Hudud: Compromise imperative for Pakatan
Published:  Sep 30, 2011 8:42 AM
Updated: 2:51 AM

your say 'The Malaysian constitution is this country's highest and ultimate authority that should be upheld and respected by all with no exception.'

Pakatan: No consensus for K'tan to implement hudud

Ben Hor: I believe it is absolutely normal for a democratic party to not agree on everything. The end game is ,however, important and somehow a compromise of some sort needs to be forged between the two component parties for Pakatan Rakyat to survive.

Unlike in BN, where it is obvious that Umno is the decision maker and all other component parties have little or no say at all, hence the joke that Umno stands for ‘U Must Not Object'.

Proarte: This hudud controversy certainly has reinforced the fact that Pakatan is a marriage of convenience.

Such is PAS and Anwar Ibrahim's commitment to hudud, which they claim is 'Allah's law', that they are willing to sacrifice this and join forces with a staunchly secular party DAP, which has dictated to them that hudud will not be tolerated.

It's nice to know that these Islamists only pay lip service to their supposed adherence to 'undang suci Allah' (God's holy laws). Rational Malaysians can now breath a sigh of relief.

I think it is shameful that the hudud law enactment by PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang in Terengganu includes the death penalty for apostates. In 2011, this is utterly ridiculous and goes against the federal constitution as well, which guarantees freedom of worship.

But then since when did Islamists respect the rule of law? Perhaps Anwar's cowardly capitulation is because he is terrified that hudud implementation might mean that he faces the death penalty under a hail of stones and rocks for his alleged 'zina' activities.

'Personal' Islamic law can be enacted and implemented at a state level but not hudud. I refer to the parliamentary democratic process and by 'majority' - a two-thirds' majority in Parliament assuming such a vote can even take place.

There are some constitutional guarantees which cannot be abrogated even by vote. Clearly if the constitution allows for a vote on hudud, then we will have to abide by the outcome.

Personally, I do not see how freedom of worship as guaranteed in the constitution can be consonant with death for apostates which Hadi Awang has enacted but cannot implement due to outright rejection by  the DAP and the BN.

Karpal Singh is of the opinion, as you know, that hudud can never be implemented in Malaysia because you cannot have a penal code which is dichotomous. For instance, if a Muslim man rapes a non-Muslim, how will justice be dispensed when you have dual and separate jurisdictions?

Anonimous Z: No matter the excuse, reason or pretext, the Malaysian constitution is this country's highest and ultimate authority that should be upheld and respected by all with no exception and should never be abused in this country.

Anybody is entitled and can always perform any respective right, rule or religious ritual, according to his belief, speech or worship in this democratic country but when such practice contradicts or contravenes the constitution, the constitution shall supersede or overrule and prevail.

Gg: Excuse me, but the Internal Security Act (ISA) and Emergency Ordinance (EO) were enacted before the formation of Pakatan and the Buku Jingga, so going by your own logic you respect them as well as the Kelantan and Terengganu syariah enactments?

I fully support PAS for hudud. It is their democratic right to do what they want. And it is hypocritical to pretend that PAS fits into Pakatan's agenda.

The question in the non-Muslim mind is how sure are we  that we would not see another Hasan Ali when Pakatan comes into power. Time to make a stand, Pakatan.

Matt: PAS is very short-sighted to  turn 'hudud'  into a contentious issue. These so-called laws ought to be re-examined: why is highway armed robbery more heinous than armed robbery in a bank?

Obviously, banditry was more common in era as there were no banks then. Similarly, why is consensual extramarital sex more heinous than say, child marriages which seemed permissible in Islam.

The fundamentalists' obsession with 'hudud' and the woman's hair (requiring them to cover up) makes a mockery of the religion and repugnant to many people. Time for them to develop more rationality in their thoughts and emerge from the time warp of the 15th century.

Matt: Syariah law would actually favour Anwar in the sodomy's case. Islam teaches that "no bearer of a burden shall bear the burden of another" (Surah Al-Anam:164), it guarantees the accused immunity from `malicious prosecution' due to strict rules of evidence.

Due to the evidence heard so far, the case would not have reached the courts. It also strongly advocates the equality of all before the law and in the realm of qisas (equitable retribution) it teaches that "let him not exceed in the matter of taking life for he is aided." (Surah Al-Isra:33)

Anak Malaysia: Umno/BN will feel very sad that their ploy and trap is not working. Bravo to Pakatan. Yes, common sense prevails. Respect each other's opinions, agree to disagree, continue to discuss, no problem. That is the right approach.

Buku Jingga, and the Federal Constitution must be the focus and critical consideration, while not closing the door for hudud, which need further deliberation and discussion by the experts. Let them do it.

We are happy if the country and the people interest are placed highest priority in their consideration. Not like the present crop of BN leaders, who are good only to fill their own pockets and that of their cronies'.

Party policies take backseat when in coalition

 


The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .

ADS