This is the second part of the Q & A interview with former Lord President Salleh Abas, who is also Jertih state assemblyperson and chairperson of the Terengganu hisbah and special tasks committee, on June 12. The first part appeared yesterday.

Malaysiakini : Can you comment on the objections against the hudud laws from many non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as Sisters in Islam.

Salleh : I think they are largely influenced by what had happened in the Syariah courts in Pakistan and Nigeria. Their objections are mainly on the case of zina (adultery) simply because they are so obsessed with the of equality between men and women. They are largely concerned about one provision relating to rape victims. They claim that it is bias against women as pregnant women or women who delivered a child out of wedlock (the state of pregnancy and delivery) can be used as evidence for a zina offence. They also claim that if a woman fails to produce witnesses to support her rape claim, she can be punished for qazaf (slanderous accusation).

From an Islamic point of view, the issues related to sex is treated as something secretive. For anyone to accuse another person of zina , he must have four reliable witnesses to take an oath admitting that they saw the actual act being committed by the accused. Of course that is sometimes impossible. From that, we can say that allegations of zina cannot be made public unless they have proof. If none, it ought to be kept a secret.

If there are no witnesses, no one would know about the sexual act unless there is a confession from either party. Because it is such a humiliating accusation, no one is allowed to make accusations against women for zina without proof. If they cannot prove their allegations, the table will be turned and the accused will be punished for qazaf or slanderous accusation. In Islam, due to the strong belief in the hereafter, many women confessed to committing zina as an act of repent. And Prophet Muhammad himself would not listen to confessions of zina unless the woman persisted.

In one incident, the Prophet told a pregnant woman who confessed to zina to come back to him after she had given birth. After she delivered, she went to the Prophet who asked her if she was willing to receive punishment for zina and she said yes. They volunteered to be punished in accordance with Islamic laws for fear of God.

So what is the state government doing about this complaint?

What the Terengganu government has done now is that if a woman claimed that she was raped, investigations will be carried out. If the investigations proved that she was really raped, no action will be taken against her. If there is enough evidence, the rapist will be charged under the Penal Code which will be regarded as takzir laws under the Syariah law.

What is takzir laws?

What many people don't understand is that the Islamic criminal law consists of three arms: Hudud (offences of which the punishment had been prescribed by God) You can't change it but whether it can be applied or not depends on a number of circumstances, particularly evidence. The second is called qisas which is sometimes interpreted as the law of equality.

For example, if you killed someone the punishment is that you will also be killed. If you punched someone, then you can be punched as punishment. For murder, there is a provision that the victim's family members can forgive the accused who can escape the death sentence by paying some compensation.

The third one is takzir which are man-made laws (not stated in the Quran) enacted at the government's discretion for the betterment of society. So existing laws like the Penal Code, custom laws and corruption laws will not be wiped out if the hudud and qisas laws are implemented. Most people think that when hudud law comes, every other law is gone. You must remember that the hudud is not a replacement of the existing law but an additional law which is only applicable to Muslims.

Back to the objections by the NGOs, how will the authorities deal with rape victims and their complaints?

As an Islamic government, we cannot victimise rape victims. It's clear in Prophet Muhammad's tradition that women who had sex under compulsion or rape cannot be punished with zina . We are guided by the tradition that a woman who was forced to commit zina (raped) will escape punishment. This will be included in the hudud bill.

Why is it then that people tend to object to the implementation of Islamic law?

Maybe because of what they have seen in other countries. In Pakistan, the problem is that apart from the Islamic laws, they also apply the traditional laws. Problems in the implementation of Syariah laws in Pakistan and Nigeria arise because they use only one mazhab (school of thought) the mazhab Hanafi which is very strict.

Here we follow mazhab Shafie but not solely. If there is nothing in Shafie to guide us, we will go through the other three sects Hanafi, Hambali and Maliki to get the best decision. I recently watched a National Geographic documentary titled 'Honour Killing' which showed the punishments carried out in Pakistan ..they are terrible. I refuse to watch some parts of the programme. It's definitely not based on the correct practice of Islam. The documentary claimed that honour killing is conducted by the husband who suspects his wife of having an extramarital affair merely because she spoke to a stranger. The punishments are terrible...eyes gorged out, noses cut, tongues and ears. Terrible...such acts had created fear against hudud.

You are saying that such acts in those countries are not Islamic laws?

Yes, what they have done is definitely not the law of Islam. Also in Nigeria, I know that judges tend to be corrupt as their conduct are always interfered either by the accused or the authorities or both.

What about the allegations that PAS is only tabling the bill for political mileage?

Well everything can be politicised in any issue when it concerns PAS. Last month, when PAS postponed the tabling of its hudud and qisas bill, the Barisan Nasional said we were not confident of the bill. Then when PAS annouced that it will be tabled, they accused us of being political.

So you say that whatever decisions made by the PAS government will be viewed negatively by the Barisan Nasional?

Yes, either way we will be criticised. But truthfully, PAS is a political party which strives to uphold the teachings of Allah and the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad and this includes the enactment and implementation of the Islamic laws, one of which is the hudud law. They believe that if they become leaders and are entrusted with power and authority, they have the responsibility to enact the laws of God. They will be committing a great sin if they do not do so.

Are you saying that their obligation is more to God than anything else?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. As leaders, we are answerable on Judgment Day. We don't want to be held liable for not implementing God's law when we actually have the power to do so.

So the political mileage you gained out of tabling the hudud law is just a bonus for doing an obligation to God?

Yes, that is correct. It's not our intention to make such gains. I don't understand why the Barisan Nasional people do not support the hudud laws when most of them are Muslims and they have ulama (Islamic scholars) among them. They have the power and therefore are responsible to enact and implement God's laws.

What do you think of Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad' s annoucement that Malaysia is an Islamic country?

I think this statement actually trapped the BN and Umno. If they think that Malaysia is an Islamic country then why object to PAS' attempt to implement hudud laws? If they think that this is an Islamic state they should support it instead of opposing it. I think they got caught when giving the statement to counter DAP 's claim that this is a secular country.

What do you think, is Malaysia an Islamic country or a secular country?

At the moment, Malaysia is a secular country. From the Federal Constitution and the laws it's very clear that we are living in a secular state. We can say that Malaysia is an Islamic country, population wise, as the majority of her citizens are Muslims. But it is wrong to say that we are an Islamic state with an Islamic government. Just like Egypt and Syria; they are not Islamic states but merely states with a Muslim majority.

On the issue of the implementation of Islamic laws, there seems to be a conflict between the rule of majority and freedom of speech. The majority in Terengganu and Kelantan support the implementation of Islamic law and yet freedom of speech allows those outside the state to object against it. What do you think?

I think it's very undemocratic for people outside the states to object it when the people within the states are mostly for it . If a state government wants to implement the laws, they should be allowed to do so. Further, it does not affect those outside the states. We may have different laws in different states. But what's wrong with having different laws for different states? United States and France have such a system and many other countries too.

So what do you say to these objections coming from outside the state?

Well they can say what they want. Sometimes their objections and protests only serve to confuse the people on Islamic law. What makes me even more sad is that even the non-Muslims are also questioning the (credibility of) hudud laws. Why? The laws are not applicable to them. This is our religion. We are answerable to our conducts and will be judged on the Judgment Day and the Hereafter. We have our beliefs just as they have theirs and we respect them. But I feel they (non-Muslims) should not interfere in this matter.

Why did you decide to join politics?

It was only by chance that I got involved. In 1995, I contested the Pantai Dalam parlaimentary seat under the now-defunct party, Semangat 46. This was after being persuaded by Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (S46 president) who was looking for a candidate with calibre to contest the seat. He approached three people, including myself, a law lecturer the late Nik Abdul Rashid and one Tan Sri whom I will not name.

The other two were very critical of the government then but were not ready to stand for election and agreed that I was the best candidate. I wasn't really interested but..Tengku Razaleigh had sought my help and I was in the position to help him. If I did not help him and S46 loses, I would be blamed. How can I face him again if I were to refuse? So I did not want to disappoint him, and so decided to help him. We went campaigning, held ceramah (political talks) and met the people. But I lost to the BN's Shahrizat Abdull Jalil (now the women and family development minister).

I do not know how I could have lost considering the support the people gave us. So I thought that was the end. I have no interest to join politics. A few years down the line, just a few weeks before the 1999 general election, I met Wan (Abdul) Mutalib (Embong state assemblyperson) who was looking fo a candidate to run in Jertih.

He told me that PAS was facing problems with its members there as their leader, one Ustaz Latiff, was sacked from the party. And there were indications that the support for PAS there was thinning. So Wan Mutalib persuaded me (to run for election) to help PAS. I tried to resist him. My wife was not very happy and I was not interested. But because of (Mutalib's) persistence and of course, my weakness in not wanting to disappoint friends so in the end I relented. And to make the story short, I am now the state assemblyperson for Jertih.

What did you think of S46's decision to dissolve and allow its members to rejoin Umno?

I think it was a great mistake. Before the decision was made, I told them that although they were former Unmo members, the Umno they were re-joining is not the same Umno they left. It had a different and new constitution. Everyone from S46, including the very senior leaders, have to start from below at divisional levels before they can go up. Some people shed tears when the decision to dissolve S46 was made. I know many S46 people who refused to rejoin Umno. As for me, I was not effected because I was never a S46 member.

You are also the state's Hisbah committee chairman. Have you received any complaints on alleged corrupt practices among PAS officials relating to logging tenders?

No, I have not received any official complaint.

Do you know if there is any police report lodged on the matter?

No there is none. You see the issue of logging tenders is very sensitive to certain people. There is a ready income for a successful applicant. As soon as he gets a logging licence, he can sell it and get instant money. The approval is solely at the menteri besar's (MB) discretion.

When PAS became the state government, the procedures were changed. The applications are no longer solely approved by the MB. We have a committee comprising several people including officials from the state forestry department and other relevant bodies. There is open tender and the highest bidder will get it. So those people who normally got awarded in the past now failed to receive it and so they started to make a lot of noise and hurled allegations at the PAS state government.

What is the latest development concerning the suit filed by the state against Petronas and the federal government on the issue of oil royalty?

The case is moving very slowly. After case management, we applied for the case to go for trial. But Petronas and the federal government made an application to have the case heard without oral evidence. They want the case to be tried purely on the interpretation of a few documents only.

And basically the question that they want the court to ask is whether Terengganu has got the right to the petroleum discovered outside the three-mile radius limit. That has been there all the time. We say no. We don't want that. We want to go through the whole thing. Because if that is the case, we are going to ignore the 1974 Petroleum Development Act. The act says otherwise. So we say we objected to that application. Our lawyers put in written submissions and they did the same. The judge adjourned for decision. That was in February. Now it's been four months. Why does it take him so long to make a decision. What is so difficult? The judge can't be so busy until he cannot even make a decision which would normally take a week or so. I hope the decision will be out soon.

Are you confident that the state government can win the case?

If we have no confidence, we would not have taken the matter to court.

There were reservations by certain quarters that the state will not win although it has a strong case. What do you think about that?

Yes, such reservations exist. I don't dispute that. In fact it still exists today. But we believe that we have a good case and it depends on the judge himself. Basically the question is how far are the judges going to be honest with themselves and the law. Whatever it is, if we are not satisfied, we can go to the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court. It's going to be a long, long process. But what are the other alternatives if we don't go to court. They have taken away the money. They promised to give it to all the people but why PAS members never receive the money. They say they give to Umno. But not all the Umno people seemed to be getting it. It goes to a certain group of people or the JKKs (rural village development committees, run by Umno people) but others do not get it.

What is your opinion of Suhakam?

I don't know to what extent has Suhakam effected human rights changes in the country so far. But I do admire its efforts while it was under the leadership of its former chairperson Musa Hitam.

What do you think of the recent appointment of former Attorney-General Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman as the new Suhakam chairman?

I don't think I should say anything about him. He (Abu Talib) is the man responsible for getting me out of the judiciary (as Abu Talib headed the prosecution in the tribunal which sacked Salleh). And he is also the man whom I had more or less groomed to be the attorney-general. He was one of my senior officers while I was at the AG's chambers. I don't think I should make any comments about him.

What do you think of former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim's trials? The conduct of judges and the prosecution in both cases?

I must say it is shameful.

Shameful in regard to the prosecuting teams or the judges?

Both really. Although I have not been following the cases very closely, from what I have read about the Anwar Ibrahim trials, it clearly shows that both the prosecution and the court did not comply with the principles of law that had been properly laid down. Some conducts are really irregular. But I also feel that the sodomy case should have been tried at the Syariah Court. It's provided under the Syariah law and the constitution allows Muslims to be tried under the Syariah law.