I have been following Brian's letters Keadilan's biggest blunders in the making and Hudud bodes ill for Malaysia's future .

He set forth a couple of questions, one pertaining to the evidence requirement to produce several Muslim male witnesses, failing which the rape survivor could be convicted for adultery.

I am perplexed by Brian's failure to understand Islamic criminal laws. To give a wide-ranging opinion on a certain subject, one should have ample knowledge on the subject although appreciation of the subject is another matter altogether. I believe these questions/statements stem from Brian's misinterpretation or false impression of Islamic criminal laws.

There are three divisions in Islamic criminal laws (Kanun Jenayah Syariah): hudud, qisas, and takzir. Standards of evidence needed in each division are also distinct. The injunctions, punishments and law of evidence for hudud and qisas originate from the Quran and the Traditions of the Prophet (Sunnah), whereas provisions for takzir are under the purview of contemporary judges or lawmakers.

Why do I think Brian misunderstood the Islamic criminal laws? He implied that hudud stands on its own, and has no relations to takzir. I take for example his questions on four Muslim witnesses for rape cases. He was right to say that under hudud, four male witnesses are needed to convict a rapist and sentence him to death by stoning or 100 lashes.

If the victim cannot bring in four witnesses, then the case would be sent to takzir provisions, where punishment is different from hudud. The point here is that hudud is an integral part of Islamic criminal laws. Brian looked at the rape case (where the four male witnesses cannot be produced) under hudud in isolation, whereas the Islamic criminal law would have tried such a case under takzir provisions.

In Brian's mind, if a rape victim cannot bring in four witnesses, then the rapist will walk free and "great injustice" will befall the victim.

Ok, let me try to enlighten Brian further with a hypothetical case. The rape victim reports the incident to the police but cannot produce four witnesses. Ensuing investigation and medical examination support the victim's claim of rape. Semen, lesion on the body, witnesses, DNA and/or other circumstantial evidence can be drawn on to indict the rapist under takzir. The prosecutor, in this case, will not indict the rapist under hudud because the strict evidence required under hudud is not available.

Punishment under takzir for rapist may not be as harsh as hudud, and it's up to the judges or lawmakers to code this aspect of Islamic criminal law.

However minor the evidence is, the rapist will not walk free. A rape victim can just eliminate zina (extramarital sex) indictment by using circumstantial evidence to corroborate the police report. But if there are four male witnesses, you know now what would happen to the rapist. The law actually provides robust protection and justice to rape victims and various avenues to clear them from zina .