Hudud, my OPINION.

Recently there has been a lot of hue and cry regarding the issue of implementing Hudud & Qisas in Malaysia by the Pakatan Government should Pakatan form the Federal Government. It all started from the recent forum where the infamous KJ (SIL) provoked the unprepared Husam Musa on issues of Hudud, of which Husam Musa replied that should Pakatan formed the Federal government, Hudud will be implemented.

That statement proved to be a time bomb within Pakatan members. Of course, my Party stand is "NO to Hudud or Islamic State". Kit gave a press conference on it explaining the Party stand on the matter and it is not Pakatan's policy. PKR de facto is still (as at to date) silence about it. A lot of other members of Pakatan trying to explain one way or another. Subsequent of course, Husam Musa back-tracted his statement albeit making some people not be too happy about it and worst still it will be a gala time for Beeend to politicise it during the Kuala Terengganu by-election. Read here for Husam's about turn.

MCA and MIC is definitely in a political fiesta mood about it. It is undeniable a time bomb for Pakatan.

So what is Hudud? Now on a quick search in wikipedia. Hudud offenses are defined as "claims of God," and therefore the sovereign was held to have a responsibility to punish them. All other offenses were defined as "claims of [His] servants," and responsibility for prosecution rested on the victim. This includes murder, which was treated as a private dispute between the murderer and the victim's heirs. The heirs had the right to compensation and to demand execution of the murderer like Qisas (retaliation), but they could also choose to forgive.

It is known that Hudud offenses include: drinking alcohol, highway robbery, illegal sexual intercourse, false accusation of zina, Rebellion and Apostasy (Unlike the five offenses listed above, not all jurists consider apostasy to be a hudud offense). Accordingly, in traditional Islamic legal systems, there were very exacting standards of proof that had to be met if hudud punishments were to be implemented.

The punishments vary according to the status of the offender - Muslims generally receive harsher punishments than non-Muslims, free people receive harsher punishments than slaves, and in the case of zina', married people receive harsher punishments than unmarried.

In brief, the punishments include:

• Capital punishments - by sword/crucifixion (for highway robbery with homicide), by stoning (for zina' when the offenders are mature, married Muslims)
• Amputation of hands or feet (for theft and highway robbery without homicide)
• Flogging with a varying number of strokes (for drinking, zina' when the offenders are unmarried or not Muslims, and false accusations of zina')

That is in short what Hudud would mean.

My opinion is simply this, should there be implementation in the future, I think there must be long term and constant discussion and debate on the matter. Non Muslim (the majority) are relatively ignorant of it including myself. It is like implementing a piece of legislation which forcing non Muslims to NOT do like the consumption of alcoholic drinks.

I think Biblical laws through the mosaic laws in the Bible especially in Leviticus is much harsher and comparably the same. So as for me, Hudud or not, it's all about the best marketing skill PAS needed to convince their friends and foes. And it all subject to whether Non Muslim especially is comfortable with such implementation. And should the Non Muslim feel comfortable with it then who knows Hudud and Qisas will be accepted by Malaysians.

On a lighter note, maybe I would like to suggest an amputation of the hand for those guilty of corruption and just imagine when you walk in the streets in KL and found those with limbs amputated, hmmmm, then we probably know that he is either a Division Head or higher in a political party that practices 'politik wang'. Haha.

The Minority Speaks on the Bar Forum

I am impressed with my learned friend and a committee member of PAS National body thought through his writing MUSLIM SCHOLARS MUST ENGAGE INTELECTUALLY WITH NON MUSLIMS. You can read his blog here.

The Bar Council's intention is noble. I personally agree to have such discussion on matters relating to the development of the LAW. However due to the sensitivity and the immature minds of some people namely the Deputy Prime Minister, Prime Minister and some UMNO guys, misrepresented the purpose of the forum which led to the other Muslim NGOs and our friends in PAS for mistakenly confuse the motive of the Bar Council, a closed door forum would be a better deal and maybe at the same time to invite Islamic scholars, Tok Imams, Islamic NGOs and probably PAS to understand the far reaching effects on some of the decisions.

It is worth to note that the organisers i.e. the Bar Council together with the Family Law Committee and Human Rights Committee have stated that this forum is not undermining Islam in any matter whatsoever.

The motive of the Bar Council is simple i.e. to tackle the law at hand so that justice for all parties are served equally. There are many areas of uncertainty and misjudgement and the lack of understanding of it disrupts family unit when one convert into the religion. This gives unfair treatment and undue pressure to one spouse who is affected by the decision of the Court.

I further echoed the view by Saudara Mohamed Hanipa, of which I quote "...when the muslims vehemently protested such forum, I have, with the greatest respect, a difficulty to understand the reasons of such protest. While we, the muslims, are entitled to protect and defend our religion , we must also in the same vein be just and tolerant in our stand. Whatever stand we opted it must be based on the principle of fairness....". That view is much needed in progressive Muslims in Malaysia for greater tolerance in achieving greater understanding between Muslims and Non-Muslims.

It is further note that nothing in the Bar's mind questioning Islam as the official religion of the Federation.

So it is high time for such dialogue by both Muslims and Non-Muslim for the total benefit of the future of Malaysia.

-----------

MUSLIMS SCHOLARS MUST ENGAGE INTELECTUALLY WITH THE NON MUSLIMS

By : MOHAMED HANIPA MAIDIN

Frankly speaking I am a bit puzzled by the anger expressed by some muslims in this country over the Bar Council’s forum on "Conversion to Islam: Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution, Subashini & Shamala Revisited". After all it was only a forum where the chosen speakers were supposed to air their views in respect of the chosen topic.

May be , the angered muslims are right . The topic of the forum was quite sensitive and provocative. It should have been changed to make is less provocative. But it does not change the fact that it was still a forum – an avenue for the respective speakers to market their ideas which would be followed by fruitful discussions by the members of the floor.

A forum is closely connected with a freedom of speech and expression which is guaranteed by Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. Needless to say Islam values such right and jealously protects it.

Be that as it may, when the muslims vehemently protested such forum, I have , with the greatest respect, a difficulty to understand the reasons of such protest. While we, the muslims, are entitled to protect and defend our religion , we must also in the same vein be just and tolerant in our stand. Whatever stand we opted it must be based on the principle of fairness. Just because we may have unsettled prejudice against certain group does not mean we have to oppose whatever program organized by such group.

The forum , I am of the view, was not on a conversion of Islam per se as understood by certain quarters. In other words , the organizer, I believe, did not intend to question the right of non muslim to convert to Islam. On the other hand what the forum sought to achieve was the repercussion of the non muslim ‘s ancillary rights such as on the issue of custody of children and the maintainance over such conversion as reflected in the Federal Court’s judgment in Subashini a/p Rajasingam v Saravanan a/l Thangatoray.

I sincerely believe many muslims ( and non muslims alike ) are not aware of and don’t have the full knowledge of the said case i.e Subashini a/p Rajasingam v Saravanan a/l Thangatoray. Unfortunately even without such knowledge , some have protested for the sake of protest . The statement by certain irresponsible UMNO Ministers aggravated the situation. It is rather puzzling the protesters did not condemn a mediocre leader of UMNO ,Mohd Ali Rustam, when he suggested to use ISA to detain the organizer of the forum. I dare to say ISA is more dangerous and wicked than the said forum.

Reading the judgment of the Federal Court in Subashini shows that the issue of the clash of jurisdictions ( civil and shariah ) has not been satisfactorily resolved. Thus it is fit and proper to organize a forum to discuss the said case and all the issues raised in the said case.

Do our muslim brothers and sisters know that until now the muslim has not not been allowed to file a divorce petition in the civil court when he or she converted to Islam. This is because under section 51 of the Law Reform ( Marriage & Divorce ) Act, only the non muslim spouse is entitled to file a divorce petition in the civil court if the other spouse embraced Islam. This has caused a lot of problems to the muslim spouse. He or she has no other option but to go to the Shariah Court to get his earlier marriage dissolved . But the decision of the Shariah court does not bind the other spouse who refused to embrace Islam. Thus as far as the non muslim spouse is concerned , he or she is still legally considered a lawful husband or wife of the muslim convert.

With this kind of forum , the muslim speakers may inter alia be able to highlight to the non muslim that even the muslims are discriminated against when they chose to embrace Islam.

The main reason why such forum should be allowed to be held is that it did not only invite the non muslims as speakers. There were muslim speakers who were invited to air their views in the said forum. These three speakers, I believe , were competent to defend the muslims’ interest in that forum. When two out of the said three speakers pulled out from the forum at the eleventh hour , the inescapable conclusion was that the muslim scholars were not ready to engage intellectually with other non muslim speakers in that forum. The pull out, with respect, was not the good option.

I believe that the topic of the forum was not detrimental to Islam unless it was unduly sensationalized and blown out of proportion. . The forum was the right avenue for the muslim scholars to defend Islam and its legal system. It was also the best opportunity for the muslim to engage intellectually with the non muslims. The muslim don’t have to be apologetic in such forum.

This forum, is not akin to Article 11’s campaign. For me , the group of Article 11 was a kind of movement. It had launched a roadshow all over the country in order to attain certain hidden agenda. As such Article 11 was rightly protested by the muslims as it sought to drive home a message that the muslim in this country has the right to “murtad” and such right is protected by Article 11 of the Federal Constitution. Many muslims rightly believed that Article 11 was created to pursue the IFC’s unsuccessful agenda.

It is high time for the muslims to engage intellectually with the non muslims. We must show to our non muslims brothers and sisters that Islam promotes dialogue and intellectual discourse. Islam is the religion of truth and because of this truth the muslim are always ready and willing to engage with anybodies or any parties whatever their backgrounds.

It is relevant to quote this valuable advice by Allamah Yusuf Alqardhawi in this kind of issue

“ Lasna fi hajah liman yahmilu as-saifa liyablugha hadzihi alrisalat bil ‘aksi nahnu fi hajah liman yahmilu al fikra wa yahmilu al’ilma wal qalama liyablugha hadzihi alrisalati ilal assyarki wa ilal gharbi”

( Translation : At present , we ( the muslims ) are not in need those who can bring the sword on the other hand we are in greater need those who can bring knowledge and pen in order to propagate the message of Islam to the East and to the West )