I wonder if faith and God are meant to be monopolies. Only those who can claim to impose Islam on well-meaning, hard-working people get a pass to Heaven? The hudud debacle in Malaysia has consumed our national unity.

And I wonder, what gives a group of Muslims bent on applying hudud the right to supersede the preference of a democratic majority? The emphasis on imposition of hudud on Muslims and often at real cost to non-Muslims is symptomatic of our misplaced priorities.

Hudud is a contentious topic in Islamic circles. Opinions range from categorical imposition on all people in all countries to declaring hudud as irrelevant. The problem of extremism therefore arises. However, once you look at opinions from scholars across the world about implementing hudud, they agree on two things - firstly, it is only a fraction of Islamic Shariah; secondly, It is impossible to implement in the absence of certain conditions.

There are four obvious reasons hudud and contemporary Malaysia is not a marriage to be had. Firstly, hudud is only a part of a wider state mechanism that upholds principles of Islam. Hudud is only one manifestation of our love for Allah (SWT) and one that happens in a truly Islamic society.

Shariah encompasses a wide range of prescriptions. They nudge us towards a world where leaders don’t pilfer public funds, leaders like that do not get elected to begin with. One where our youth need not be caned to the masjid but where youth congregate in prayer halls because the beauty of Islam becomes patently obvious to anyone with eyes open.

Secondly, the discussion of hudud is a discussion of a new covenant. Even before we get to the hows, there needs to be a consensus on doing it in principle. Malaysia does not belong to Malays or the Indians or the Chinese or the other ethnicities. Malaysia belongs to Malaysians and the Malaysian identity must not be confined to certain ethnicities. More importantly, the constitution was a covenant that promised participation from all races and all citizens.

The idea of a hudud state in the backdrop of widespread discontent is a violation of that covenant. Thirdly, hudud proponents have clearly failed to fulfill it's very aim. When well-meaning citizens of a country are repelled by imposition of rules they do not believe in or understand, they haven’t done anything to fulfill the rakyat’s fundamental priorities.

You can choose to go out and have a conversation with the average Malaysian. The average Malaysian feels exhaustion, robbed of opportunities. They despair the impunity with which our leaders exploit public wealth, they despise the growing disparity. In a Malaysia so rife with pain, I cannot fathom an Islamic case for hudud. I see a case for hate-mongering and division at best.

Finally, in a 21st century community, revival of hudud must accompany an inclusive discussion of the hows. The provisions of Act 355 as they stand are far from ideal. It has the ability to prescribe punishments such as RM100,000 fine, 100 canings and 30 years of imprisonment. All this while committing invasion of private spaces, public shaming.

From a fiqh perspective the practices are often horrifying. In response to concerns raised about the absolute lack of preconditions that must be fulfilled in terms of maqasid shariah preservation, environment for learning shariah, acceptance of shariah precepts, presence of just leaders; polemical assaults against conscientious objectors is how the hudud lobby has dealt with efforts at conversation.

How, is a question far from settled. But the road so far is definitely not how we implement hudud in a country that promised safety and agency to all of its citizens.