The debate on hudud, once again

comments     Published     Updated

your say 'Can the Muslims sit down and agree to a non-Islamic judicial system for all matters involving non-Muslims in Malaysia?'

Bishop takes nuanced stance on hudud

Gerard Samuel Vijayan: I agree entirely with Bishop Dr Paul Tan Chee Ing. Hudud is part and parcel of the syariah and as such Muslims cannot pick and choose which parts of the syariah they like and discard what they do not like.

As long as the hudud does not apply to the non-Muslims, let the Muslims decide among themselves as to what they want.

Secularism is a dirty word in Islam and I doubt that the federal constitution is purely secular in reality, but perhaps in spirit when it was first promulgated in 1957, but since then the secular attributes have diminished and the role of Islam as the state religion has become more pronounced.

Given the fundamentalist nature of Islam as practised in Malaysia, no Muslim would be prepared to say that the federal constitution is higher than the syariah or that the state must be avowedly secular and separate from Islam.

Islam is political and a way of life, so Muslims have little choice here but to comply and conform.

Proarte: Will there be cast iron guarantees that any Malay who does not wish to be under the jurisdiction of hudud can be granted an 'opt out' clause? This would ensure that there is freedom of conscience.

After all, the majority of younger generation Malays are like their fellow brethren in the Arab world who are fighting for democracy and freedom. They are not fighting for hudud. They are not going to replace one dictatorship for another form of dictatorship which Islamic states are.

This whole issue should have been sorted out long time ago and Pakatan Rakyat promised us about the compact they had regarding declaring any sensitive issues which would call for constitutional changes saying that it could only be instituted if all component parties of Pakatan subscribed to idea.

It looks as though the rakyat were lied to and we now have a 'hudud sandiwara' which is just distracting us from real issues. This is the evil consequence of the hudud debate - just hot air which has given Umno breathing space.

GovPayMaster: Hmm, does that mean we also need to state our religion in our identity card so that when we are caught, we can choose which law to follow? Malaysians look almost the same at times. Islam is not limited to one single race.

How about visitors/tourist who are Islam, do they need to confine to hudud law too? Also, children tend to steal/lie quite often, we don't want our society end up to be legsless, armless in the future too. Maybe we need to understand more about hudud rather than just at the surface.

Anonymous1: There are many comments who have no objection to hudud law being implemented in Kelantan. We must recognise that this matter cannot be limited to Kelantan only.

Today, the jurisdiction is for Kelantan, however recognise that tomorrow it will be for the entire country. Take note that other states have stated they will not discuss implementing hudud law because their environments are not ready yet.

We also must ask, is the implementation of hudud law what the clear majority of Muslims want? PAS has been doing well until this declaration.

It seems the indications that PAS is losing ground to Umno in certain segments may have an element of truth to it, as it is strange why such statements need to be raised again if there is no real need to do so.

Most people don't really understand what hudud law today means. Nevertheless, a lot of people will not wait around to find out either.

David Dass: I think that Bishop Paul Tan should steer clear away from this debate. The whole question of hudud law is not without difficulty even for Muslims.

Non-Muslims should not take what may appear a convenient position by saying to the Muslims - have your hudud law but exclude us from its implementation.

I am a Catholic and I am passionately committed to the position that state and religion should be kept separate and that God, not man, is the only judge for breaches of spiritual law which is not part of the criminal and civil law of the land.

The criminal law should only regulate the actions of man that actually injure others and forms of punishment should not include the chopping off of hands and the stoning of women. We should be cautious of introducing something that can alter us in a way not intended.

Beware of unforeseen, unintended and unwanted consequences.

Laughing: I can go along with the bishop's view provided the grey areas can be resolved within a well-constructed justice system. For example, a non-Muslim robs a Muslim or vice-versa. Whose jurisdiction?

One party of a family converts. Must the other convert? And if the convert dies, whose ruling when properties are joint ownership? And there will be many such cases to worry about.

Can the Muslims sit down and agree to a non-Islamic judicial system for all matters involving non-Muslims? Otherwise, my answer will be an unequivocal ‘No'.

Onyourtoes: I look at all these as a pendulum moving left and right depending on political expediency. I think both BN and Pakatan are playing games without fixed positions on many of the issues at hand.

Right now, Pakatan sees that Umno's move toward racism is beginning to bear fruit. So up comes Pakatan's response with hudud. Not to be outdone, our ‘Malay first' DPM immediately acquiesced to it.

Now Pakatan may have to seek the help of non-Malays and non-Muslims to support the hudud so long as it is not applicable to non-Muslim. My hunch is the DAP and PKR may just agree.

MCA chief Chua Soi Lek, I think you have not done your maths; you may end up eating your own words again.

Anonymous_418e: A fundamental precept of democracy is the contract between the citizen and society in that crimes committed by two citizens of equal severity and with the same circumstances will be punished equally (equality before the law).

Hudud is fundamentally opposed to this as it creates a dual system for capital offences against other individuals. It is antithetical to fairness in every way to suggest that an individual should be punished according to their religion and not their crime.

What if the following hypothetical situation were to occur - a Muslim and a non-Muslim were together arrested for armed robbery however the Muslim was charged under syariah law and the non-Muslim gets charged with civil law.

The sentence for the former will surely be more severe than the latter? How is that fair to society? In an age were the death penalty and whipping have been abolished by all civilised nations, this is simply taking us back to the 6th century.

Anonymous: Anonymous_418e, this discussion on hudud in the context that you pointed out will forever be there.

But justice ala zero-sum game where all parties that are found guilty are punished with the same sentence is ‘correct' if, and only if, all parties involved are not subjected to a ‘higher' authority.

For a Muslim who is part of the ‘team' that is found guilty of the crimes, repent to Allah is the ultimate goal. Hence, the severity of the punishment on earth would ‘cleanse' him in the eyes of Allah (according to Islamic theology - please don't argue with this, cause it would be bordering intrusion on a religion that you do not subscribe to).

Thus, a Muslim regardless whether he/she understands the above concept of being cleansed in the eye of Allah during punishment is besides the point (since a judge is just unable to determine what is inside one's heart) has to undergo the punishment.

Politically, the Muslims in Kelantan have supported PAS on this matter since 1990. Let them implement it.

Joker: Anonymous_418e, I don't think the argument of fairness would apply here. Just as we have we have separate laws for juveniles versus adults, we can have separate laws for different religious beliefs if they so ask for it.

In your hypothetical situation, I can similarly suggest a situation where two criminals, one aged 17 years and 11 months while the other is 18 years and one month. Both would be charged and treated differently (if 18 is the cut-off point as an adult under law).

Is it fair then for one to be put in a correctional facility while the other is jailed simply because he is two months older? What if the younger was the mastermind?

Kgen: I have no objection to hudud laws for snatch thieves of whatever race.

 


The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .



Malaysiakini
news and views that matter


Sign In