I'd like to refute Aziz's letter Negative views of hudud unfounded . His conclusions are totally unfounded and unsubstantiated.

He mentions that the heavy penalties of the hudud (Islamic penal code) ensure that "the blatant disregard to the process of law ... can be totally stopped." May I ask how this conclusion came to be derived? I'd like an example of a country which implements Islamic law that is free of criminals and abuses.

"Islamic law will not and cannot be abused by any party". There is absolutely nothing in this mortal world of ours that cannot be abused. The name of Islam itself is already being abused in Palestine, where suicide bombers use that name to murder innocents.

Even in our country, Islam is being bandied about by Umno and PAS as a political tool. And one more thing to note is that heavy penalties are effective, yes, but they are effective because they rule by fear. A truly effective law is one where people respect it, not fear it.

"Those who oppose Islamic law should check how many people were unjustly persecuted". Where did he get the statistics for that? And does he not realise that "not reported" does not mean "did not happen"? How can this be a justification to support the hudud and qisas ?

This is obviously biased in that he is indirectly claiming that in Islamic law, unjust persecution will not occur. Perhaps that is true, but does that also not imply that cases of failed persecutions will increase?

The Islamic laws were dictated by the prophet. I could agree to that, but I'd just like to point out that the prophet is not here today. So we can't ever know the true meaning of the laws. What we have now is his interpretation. It is these interpretations that are being opposed to.

Some of us are not saying that we should totally reject it, we are saying there are a whole lot of technical and social issues that must be considered before pushing for an implementation.

As he said, "Reasons and arguments are aplenty as they can be craftily created and diverted by the transgressors", can the same not be said of those who support it? Can they not have their own agendas? He claims we should not fear the truth, I wonder who is more afraid of the truth.