The following
view was sent to me by Ms Elviza Michelle who is a lawyer, writer and
Blogger. Here is a picture of Elviza. This article is about the hudud.
These views are solely Elviza's and not mine. My comments follow.
Let’s just
be honest. Time is nigh to spread the cards of truth on the table and
call the conundrum what it really is: a recurring nightmare for secular
Muslims and non-Muslims in the country.
Born a
Muslim, I risk being labeled ‘infidel’ by PAS and Taliban-mirrored
Islamists of Malaysia for writing on hudud. But that’s a risk I’ll
gladly run in the name of democracy and the truth.
“But why now?” you might ask.
My annoyance
emerged in the face of Nasharuddin and Karpal’s continuous exchange of
poisonous barbs over hudud in both the traditional media and online
portals. But it was the recent war of words between Mat Sabu and the
widely read Sin Chew Daily that was the final nail in the coffin. Enough
is just enough.
Can you
really blame me for believing Sin Chew Daily’s journalist more than I do
Mat Sabu? If you were given a choice to believe between a journalist
and politician, which one would you pick? I thought so.
The furor
escalated to an unprecedented height when Mat Sabu was quoted by Sin
Chew’s journalist as saying that PAS would seek constitutional
amendments in Parliament to implement Islamic law if it forms the
Federal Government. His subsequent denial the day after sounds hollow
and ill-prepared, a mere afterthought he coughed up when he found
himself trapped by his own words.
Sin Chew’s Tay Tian Yan has the sequence of event in earnest:
Mat Sabu
explained, "PAS has decided that it will seek constitutional amendments
in Parliament to implement the hudud law once Pakatan takes the helm of
the federal administration."
Our reporter
called him after the evening edition of Sin Chew Daily hit the street,
to reconfirm with him the content of his speech. Mat Sabu offered to
change the tone from "decided" to "had the intention" (berhasrat) which
our reporter agreed.
As a result,
some minor changes appeared on the morning edition of the newspaper:
"PAS has the intention of seeking constitutional amendment in the
Parliament in order to implement hudud laws once Pakatan takes the helm
of the federal administration."
In the
meantime, we also interviewed PAS information chief, Tuan Ibrahim Tuan
Man, to get him to clarify the party's stand on this issue. His response
was consistent with that of Mat Sabu’s and the same was published on
the day's edition of Sin Chew Daily.
We have
later acquired the official statement of PAS president, Hadi Awang, on
August 13, as well as his August 25 statement published on the party's
mouthpiece Harakah on the implementation of the hudud law.
We later clarified with PAS Secretary-General Mustafa Ali on the same issue.
Unfortunately,
after the report went into print, Mat Sabu denied the following day
what he had said, and claimed that Sin Chew Daily had distorted his
speech.
It irks me
immensely every time politicians say the less-than-intelligent things –
ranging from saying UMNO hudud is better than PAS hudud to claiming that
non-Muslims should accept hudud, too – in so far as this controversial
law still forms the nucleus of political argument in Malaysia.
Droves of politicians from PAS’s side have been making statements in pushing hudud agenda to the fore.
The latest
was from Kelantan PAS deputy commissioner, Datuk Mohd Nik Amar,
“Although only applicable to Muslims, it will be ideal if non-Muslims
one day accept hudud and Islamic jurisprudence towards the creation of a
just society.”
Of course,
PAS national unity bureau chairman, Datuk Dr Mujahid Yusof Rawa, too,
refuses to be left out from hudud debate by saying, “Not all Muslims may
agree with hudud but I believe the majority of Muslims in the country
want to see it implemented after seeing the failure of secular laws in
dealing with crime.”
What Mujahid
meant by ‘majority of Muslim in the country’ sounds simply too nebulous
to my ears. Will the said majority please stand up and state your stand
please?
The
statements from PAS leaders came in defense of Mat Sabu after he was
being quoted that PAS would propose constitutional amendments in
Parliament to implement Islamic law if it forms the Federal Government.
In
retrospect, I am quite relieved that PAS does realise that implementing
hudud would be unconstitutional and would be against the spirit of the
Federal Constitution. But it ends there as PAS has no intention to let
go of its agenda to push for the implementation of hudud.
Well, dear
politicians, do you mind terribly if I shift the light of attention –
albeit briefly – away from you and state what the rakyat like me really
think?
The following paragraphs will sound like a broken record. But for the sake of clarity, allow me to put hudud into perspective:
Hudud or Had
(singular) in Arabic means limit or prohibition. The term is phrased to
refer to the punishments for six crimes against the right of God, the
penalties of which are described in the holy Qur’an and hadith:
Theft -
amputation of the hand; illicit sexual relations - death by stoning or
one hundred lashes (depending on marital status); accusations of illicit
sex - eighty lashes; drinking alcohol - eighty lashes; apostasy - death
or banishment; and highway robbery - death.
These
punishments are rarely applied in the Muslim world except in Saudi
Arabia and under the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Some Muslim
groups in, for example, Nigeria, Sudan, Iran and parts of Pakistan have
also attempted to impose mandatory hudud punishments in local courts
against Muslim defendants.
Are any of these countries progressive in your book?
Even ruling
parties in Islamic countries like Egypt and Morroco are not too eager in
implementing hudud law. As to why PAS is still propagating this
draconian criminal system is anyone’s guess.
I apologize
to you, the imaginative few, as it will be a mighty long time before you
can see a convicted thief walking around the neighborhood with missing
limbs.
Let me
explain to you, PAS, why Hudud will not work in a secular and moderate
Islamic country. Rest assured that I shall bear in mind your argument
that hudud will serve as preventive measure and deterrence for
perpetrators of crime.
Enforcing hudud is unconstitutional (this reason alone should be deterrent enough for PAS. But, alas… )
Hudud –
let’s not sugarcoat anything here – is draconian in nature and has no
place in modern society. Its implementation and execution would prove to
be difficult if not downright impossible in multicultural countries and
societies.
Even if you
argued that all Muslims should accept hudud, look around you for you
will see a plenty of transgression, manipulation and abuse of the same
law in nations like Afghasnitan, Pakistan, Sudan and Nigeria. These
countries sank deeper in terms of economic and social development. 'A
Thousand Splendid Suns' gives a give a good description of Afghanistan’s
social landscape under extreme Islamic law – that is if you want to
consider my reading list.
Hudud law if
left unattended in the hand of the extremists would oppress women. In
Pakistan, one Zafran Bibi was raped, but a Pakistan judge decided it was
adultery – the young mother who was nursing her baby behind bars was
sentenced to death by stoning. Bowing to public uproar and wide
international media coverage, the sentence was subsequently reversed by
the appellate court. Now is this what you have in mind, PAS?
Hudud has
never been included in the Pakatan’s Buku Jingga, nor it is it stated in
their 2008’s manifesto. PAS unrealistic dream in implementing hudud is
what the Malay proverbs says, ‘Seperti anjing menyalak bukit.’ You know
what that means.
The element
of deterrence that PAS is looking for by enforcing hudud against
criminals can be achieved via other effective forms such as counseling,
positive support from the community and government institutions.
Besides, haven’t you heard that instilling fear is rarely effective in
solving any problem at all?
Pakatan’s
marriage of convenience has proved impotent in finding a consensus to
come up with decision on the recent Merdeka theme, let alone on weighty
issues like hudud.
So why do I say that hudud will be the death knell for Pakatan’s coalition? The answer is simple: history.
PAS has never faltered: it has always been steadfast - adamant to the point of being annoying - in wanting to make hudud law a reality if Pakatan ever takes over Putrajaya.
DAP, on the
other hand, has been equally steadfast, consistent and adamant in
rejecting the ideology. I have never heard Karpal contradict himself
when talking about or issuing statements relating to hudud.
You know what will happen to a coalition without a common and uniform political agenda? They will file for divorce.
History has
proven that DAP and PAS suffer from irreconcilable differences. The
previous attempt of DAP and PAS to form an alliance fell asunder ahead
of 1999 general election. Barisan Alternatif died an untimely death
solely on failure to achieve agreement on hudud.
Is it a
wonder if DAP and PAS calls it quits again this time around? When
history repeats itself and you think your vote for them still matters,
you need to look at the broader picture once again: it has always been
about them, NOT you, dear voters.
My comments :
Firstly there is no such thing as the Law of Hudud or Hudud Law in the
Quran. Somehow Allah Almighty forgot to mention it so in the Quran.
Therefore for PAS to say that their ideas on hudud represent 'Allah's
Laws' has to be established by them.
Secondly Elviza lists six elements of PAS' hudud. They are :
1. Theft - amputation of the hand;
2. illicit sexual relations - death by stoning or one hundred lashes (depending on marital status);
3. accusations of illicit sex - eighty lashes;
4. drinking alcohol - eighty lashes;
5. apostasy - death or banishment; and
6. highway robbery - death.
Let us make it clear straight away that
i. death by stoning for anything
ii. punishment for drinking alchohol
iii. death or banishment for apostasy
iv. death for highway robbery
are just not mentioned in the Quran at all. Hence for a certainty this is not the Hudud Of Allah. I say this because the words 'these are the Hudud of Allah' or 'Tilka hududullah' are found mentioned many times in the Quran.
But again,
somehow, Allah forgot to mention in the Quran the four punishments above
that are found in the PAS' version of hudud as the 'Hudud of Allah'.
Isnt this strange?
The so called
"amputation" of the hand for stealing can be argued. And to be precise,
in the Quran the whipping of 80 lashes is reserved specifically for
accusations against women only. Men are not covered. And the accusation
against women is NOT limited to illicit sex only. It is wide ranging,
accusing any chaste woman of indecency can be punished by 80 lashes. For
the lack of a better word, the Quran is therefore very sexist here -
the women's rights are protected more.
The hudud of
PAS of course differs from State to State. The hudud of PAS in
Terengganu was different from the hudud of PAS in Kelantan. The hudud of
the Taliban may be different also. In the Taliban version, homosexuals
are killed by dropping a wall over them. In Iran, homosexuals are killed
by dropping them from a high place. When there were no mountain cliffs,
they have used a helicopter before. This cannot be 'God's Law'. How can
'one God' have so many versions of "God's laws"?
Even to catch a
thief. the hudud differs in its details. Some sects among the Sunnis
differ in what amount of theft is punishable by hudud. If someone steals
a pisang goreng is it punishable by cutting the hands? What is the
value of an item before the judge can order the hands to be cut off?
Again the hudud differs among the different sects.
The Shias say that only some fingers of the right hand should be cut and not the hands at the wrist.
This is further
evidence that it cannot be "God's Law". We would expect that something
known as "God's Law" would be perfect and consistent. The hudud of PAS
is not perfect and neither is it consistent.
In cases where
the hudud has no provisos, the court can opt for takzir punishments.
Takzir punishments are not from Allah either. They are the court's own
punishment. Takzir is man made punishment.