The Hudud issue has been making it's rounds online and in the MSM recently, from supporters and detractors alike. You know what they say about opinions, that everyone has one. But most of them are really making noises without saying anything. It's the same with other issues raised by them, the politicians mostly, where they will debate and make noise for some time and in the end, nothing much comes out of it.
Anyway, since everyone's so hung up on this issue, I thought that I would add my 2 cents' worth...
Firstly, although I'm not a Muslim and do not wish to be subjected to religious law, I will still accept it if Hudud is implemented in Malaysia, or in certain states for that matter. It doesn't mean I agree to it. If Parliament passes it and changes allows it, then we will have to accept it. We were the ones who voted for the MPs didn't we? So, live with it.
History has shown that the needs of the Malays and Muslims must reign supreme to preserve the peace in the country.
Some may argue that Islamic laws are fair. Well, it is only fair to those who subscribe to that particular religion. Take Islam & Christianity for example - how do they view those who do not profess their faiths? To Muslims & Christians, all non-belivers are condemned to suffer in hell for eternity. So, would non-belivers be able to get a fair trial? Do the words of a non-Muslim carry the same weightage as a Muslim in an Islamic Court system?
Let's look at the number of Muslim majority countries. The common factor is that none of these countries belong to the category of developed nations.
http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/places/top_50.htm
Next, let's compare the level of Sharia application in these countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_law_by_country
I'm not certain of the accuracy, but from a cursory look, we can see that in the Muslim countries, Sharia is implement although the scope varies. That is a fact. Malaysia is no exception.
Malaysia without non-Malays/Muslims...
Before colonialism & the arrival of immigrants, the Malay Muslims were the absolute majority. Malaya would most probably have become an Islamic country if not for the influx of non-Muslim immigrants (from China & India) which greatly changed the demographics of Malaya then. Later, with the formation of Malaysia, we changed into a multi-racial secular country. Since then, the other races are seen as a stumbling block on the implementation of an Islamic State. I think, if not for the British and the other races, Malaysia would already be an Islamic State, or a republic... of Indonesia that is...
If we were to take Brunei as an example, I think what we see there is quite an accurate picture of how the Malay states in Malaysia will become. Independent Islamic states ruled by Sultans.
Under the British, a segment of Malaysians, Malays included, underwent a cultural shift and were somewhat westernised. Even the romanisation of the Jawi script faced strong resistance in Malay society back in the days. For the last 50 years, the Malays were pushed, or forced to modernise.
Since independence, we have seen Islamisation taking place. Islamic culture and values assimilated into malay culture. Those who say otherwise is clearly in denial. Today, we have arrived at the crossroad. Staying put will not be an option anymore. We have to decide.
There is no such thing as "moderates" or "liberals" when it comes to religion. One might think of oneself as a liberal, but considered as fundamental or even fanatical in the eyes of others. Sometimes, the behaviour of these so-called "liberals" or "moderates" are even more radical than the others.
Some Malay Muslims want Hudud, Some don't. The non-Muslims certainly don't, understandably so.
Muslims vs Non-Muslims
But as usual, if it fails to be implemented, you can bet that it will be the non-Muslims who will be blamed and made the scapegoat. Well, the Chinese will definitely get the blame aka "Apa Lagi Cina Mahu?". And the Christians as well, "Christian State of Malaysia?". Maybe Indians too, "Maakal Sakti?". Except for a handful vocal ones from supporters and non-supporters, the majority of Malays will not have the gumption to publicly voice their stand on this issue.
When a religion is institutionalised, Islam in Malaysia's case, there is only one way to go... which is all the way. There's no such thing as half way or the moderate way, or liberal way.
If we observe the arguments and opinions from both groups of Muslims, those who support Hudud, tend to take the moral highground, labelling the non-supporters as "deviants" and kafirs! While those who do not support the implementation of Hudud tries to argue their case "
intellectually based on evidence and facts". I think both are hypocrites and a waste of time.
For example:
Present day Hudud and Mary in the Quran: One BIG Question
According to present day Hudud laws as proposed by PAS,
1. Zina is punishable upon conviction by stoning to death for a married person.
2. Whipping of 100 lashes plus one year imprisonment for the unmarried.
3. Four eye-witnesses will be required to prove the act. Each witness must be an adult (akil baligh) Muslim male of just character.
4. Pregnancy on the part of an unmarried woman or when she delivers a child shall be evidence of zina
of which would make her liable to the prescribed punishment unless she
can proof the contrary – i.e. to bring 4 male Muslim witnesses of just
character if she was raped.
Traditional Islam interprets Quranic verses about Mary, mother of
Jesus as a woman who had a virgin birth (refer for example Quran 19:20
-22, 66:12). When Mary brought baby Jesus to the temple, she was
insulted and mocked by all the men (except Zechariah) questioning how
she came to be with a child as she was still single. According to the
Quran, Jesus began to speak in the cradle to defend her mother (Refer
Quran 19: 27-33)
The question.
How would modern day Hudud deal with Mary (the most exalted woman in the Quran, Quran 3:42) as she could not show 4 akil baligh male Muslim witnesses of just character?
Note: as an infant, Jesus was not akil baligh.
- http://letusaddvalue.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/present-day-hudud-and-mary-in-quran-one.html
We see this very often online. A passage is used to support their arguments. In the example above, the writer, at the end of his article, postulates why Hudud will not be suitable in modern society. I don't claim to speak for others, but I would be more than curious about the talking baby in the cradle!
It is impossible to debate on matters of faith, such as religion.
Anyway, there are only 2 questions that the Malay Muslims need to ask themselves:
1. Will the country be better off with Hudud?
2. Is it what the Malay Muslims want?
If the answer is yes, then it can and will be implemented in just 3 steps, regardless of objections from minorities.
1. Get the support of the Sultans.
2. Get the support of the Muslim lawmakers.
3. Implement it into the existing Syariah Laws.
or
4. Finally, get 2/3 votes in Parliament, change the constitution, and you have an Islamic State.
If the majority Malay Muslims want an Islamic State, do you seriously think that the others will have the power or clout to stop it? Let's be realistic. To me, I think it is not a question of "if". It's a question of "when".
1. Constitutionally, Islam is the religion of the country.
2. The Sultans are the head of Islam in their respective states.
3. Almost all Malays are Muslims.
4. Except for Penang, all the states in Semenanjung Malaysia are Malay Muslim majority.
5. Shariah is already implemented, although it only applies to Muslims.
6. Hudud is part of Syariah.
7. Then, Syariah can be adopted as the supreme law of Malaysia, hence an Islamic State (refer to Brunei).
So, for example, if a Muslim person is caught stealing, he will be tried in the Syariah courts. If found guilty, his hands might be amputated. For a non-Muslim, he will be tried in the common courts, and sentenced accordingly, usually with a jail term or fine. The crime is the same, but the punishment and process of law is different.
Even now, if a Muslim is caught for
Khalwat which is an offence for Muslims but not for non-Muslims, they are charged and sentenced in the Shariah courts.
So, to those who are in support of Hudud, they are of the opinion that Hudud is part of Syariah and by including Hudud, they are completing the set of Syariah laws.
If based on the existing practice, that only Muslims are subjected to Syariah Laws including Hudud, the non-Muslims indeed do not have the right to voice their objection. That is why you do not hear any objections from non-Muslims regarding the current Syariah Laws.
But if we take into account the non-Muslims' worry that Malaysia might eventually become an Islamic State, then they do have a right to be concerned.
Reality check
The most important factor that determines the success or failure of a country is the economy. Without a healthy economy and an equitable distribution of wealth among its citizens, the country will bound to fail, regardless of the type of government or laws. Instability and conflict will occur, especially in democratic countries.
Many Malaysians, and foreigners as well, are silently observing the various developments happening in this country. The future does not look very promising. And many, especially the minorities, are not going to stick around to find out when the SHTF. Businesses will still continue as long as there is money to be made, but whether they will expand and flourish is another thing. The minorities will be able to adapt to their surroundings, but the future prospects of their future generations lies elsewhere.
The minorities will face backlash whenever they try to stake a claim in the country or if the majority are envious of the real (or perceived) wealth of the minorities. Minorities will be portrayed as trying to "take over" the country. Non-Muslims will be viewed as anti-Islam when they criticise or oppose Islamic Laws.
The truth is, this will not change anytime soon.
Hudud impossible without Islamic revolution, civil rights group tells PAS
April 23, 2014
PAS will face too many legal and societal obstacles before it can bring hudud to Malaysia, civil rights group Lawyers for Liberty said, adding that without an Islamic revolution, the Islamist party’s plan would remain impossible.
Lawyers for Liberty Eric Paulsen pointed out that in order for the controversial Islamic law to be implemented, the Constitution, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, as well as all other structures and institutions that make up Malaysia would have to be reconstituted in accordance with Islam and the Quran.
“Needless to say, hudud is not a magic, cure-all panacea to all the wrongs in society; see for example the implementation of hudud in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and northern Nigeria that has not resolved anything.
“The total absence of the necessary context and conditions for the implementation of hudud, all raises doubt and therefore hudud ought not be implemented,” he said.
- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/hudud-impossible-without-islamic-revolution-civil-rights-group-tells-pas#sthash.YM8lEqgL.dpuf
Hudud without Karpal — Zaid Ibrahim
April 23, 2014
APRIL 23 — Karpal Singh’s untimely death has robbed Malaysia of a vocal politician who consistently opposed the implementation of hudud law in the country. He will be rightly remembered as a top politician who was unafraid to openly defend the nation’s secular and democratic principles.
I know there are many defenders of our democratic system (who are not political leaders) who will continue to champion the basics of the Federal Constitution. They will be equally vociferous and strong in organising the democratic forces against the neo-fascists groups disguised as religious NGOs. When I first instituted my opposition to the hudud proposal by making a legal challenge in our courts 15 years ago, I was pleasantly surprised that so many lawyers and social activists supported this move. They were Malays too, and they knew that they would suffer the most if the politicians are left to do as they please.
I’m sure that lawyers like Malik Imtiaz, and the younger ones like Syahrezan Johan and Nizam Bashir, are brave Muslims who are prepared to continue speaking out against implementing hudud. They know that Muslims and other Malaysians are simply better off living under the present legal system.
At a time when the days of gentle democrats and religious neutrality are slowly disappearing, Malaysians will face a similarly tough choice in the next General Election. Perkasa will certainly emerge to become a dominant force here if we do not care enough about what’s happening in our country.
- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/hudud-without-karpal-zaid-ibrahim#sthash.RNnpkM6e.dpuf
