PAS is not likely to force hudud down the people’s throats and is likely to allow the people to make the ultimate decision on the matter, says law professor Abdul Aziz Bari.

“It (the hudud issue) is essentially a question of political will, that eventually matters.

“It is for the people to decide and I think PAS has taken this approach too. That is, whatever they have to say about hudud, at the end of the day they are mindful that they are not going to force this down the people's throat.

NONE “This has been the stand since Fadzil Noor's time,” he said

The International Islamic University Malaysia professor ( right ) was commenting in an email to Malaysiakini on the hudud row being played out again in the mainstream media.

Pointing out that much of the body of Islamic laws are already in place such as banking and family laws, Abdul Aziz added that provisions in the constitution itself are already “partly Islamic” such as the constitutional provisions on the qualification of heirs to succeed.

“In other words, despite the hoohah, the fact remains that Islamic law is already in the system. It is part of our law. Islam has permeated the system.

“Just go and look at the legal provisions in both federal acts of parliament and state enactments. Above all, look at Article 3(1) carefully,” he said.

Laws already partly Islamic

Elaborating on Article 4(1) of the constitution, the professor said it does not say that Islamic law cannot be put in place but merely stipulates that the constitution is the supreme law and the benchmark, and that any Islamic laws must be done within the constitution’s constraints.

islam religion muslim 1 Therefore, he surmised, the call for implementation of hudud and qisas is merely a move to “upgrade” existing laws.

For example, with regards to criminal law, “...at present only the punishment is un-Islamic.”

The problem, he said, was that people were not aware of the issues and through time and with education they may be more accepting of it, citing the case of the issue of Islamic banking which has become widely accepted today.

“I believe the same will eventually happen to the controversial and emotive hudud and qisas laws. For one thing the philosophy of these provisions are not entirely different from that of conventional criminal laws.

“Perhaps it is better for all Malaysians, rather than taking a hostile attitude towards hudud and qisas, to sit down and learn about it,” said Abdul Aziz.

MCA and Gerakan’s ignorance

Abdul Aziz said the ruckus that MCA and Gerakan has raised over the issue emerges out of their lack of knowledge on the issue.

“MCA and Gerakan do not realise what they are doing...is really obstructing efforts that will allow Muslims to live under Islamic laws.

mca protest pas hq on hudud 241208 01 “What Kelantan wants to do is implement hudud and qisa laws among the Muslim community. So what is MCA and Gerakan all flustered about?” he said.

“Hudud and qisas laws are part of Islamic syariat . They do not understand this principle.

“It is hilarious that Chua Soi Lek has admitted that he does not understand hudud,” said Abdul Aziz.

He said it was even funnier that the Umno Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein refuses to comment on the issue and how Umno was conspiring with the two BN component parties on the issue.

“Umno dares not reprimand MCA and Gerakan,” he said.

Blaming Umno for sitting on the issue even though they had already once professed to accepting hudud, the professor noted that it was the ruling party that had placed obstacles to implementing hudud in the Syariah Court through the Syariah Court Act 1965.

hudud “I think the Syariah Court Act 1965 is unconstitutional given our federal-state division of powers. That law was created by the Umno-led government.

“So if Umno is really sincere and believes in hudud as part of Islam then it should repeal that legislation as it is part of the obstacles for hudud implementation.

“If Umno can do that then it can say it does not obstruct hudud law.

“Umno does not need the support from MCA and Gerakan on this, as it merely an ordinary majority, not two-thirds, to repeal that law,” added the professor.