Hudud is really a non-issue
It has been blown out of proportion to frighten Malaysians into believing that its implementation would return the country to the Middle Ages.
Iskandar Dzulkarnain, Free Malaysia Today
The hudud controversy has returned to haunt us once again. Each time it never fails to cause revulsion, while diehard opposition supporters will again foam at the mouth and go berserk.
Every general election it is repeatedly played like a worn-out vinyl record by the mainstream media to remind Malaysians what a radical and religious fanatical party PAS is.
Lately, Bernama came out with the news that PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang has vowed to implement hudud if Pakatan Rakyat ever comes to power, while NST reported DAP Karpal Singh’s vehement objection.
Later, the Star commented on PAS Ulama Council chief Harun Taib’s insistence to implement hudud, even if it has to collaborate with other political parties. These are the mainstream media that churn out news to a mass audience, and which the electronic media cannot hope to match.
Pakatan will then trip head over heels to try and contain the boiling cauldron of anger while Malaysians will start to curse and shout at the indignance of it all.
But what is it about hudud that sounds so revolting and why must PAS keep repeating its aim to implement hudud?
So let us delve a little into the lighter side of hudud, should it by any remote chance be implemented.
Scenario one: A diehard criminal commits a crime of stealing and robbing. He is caught and witnessed by four credible witnesses. His right limb is chopped off. As a Muslim, he is forced to eat with his left hand, the same hand that is used to clean his waste. His whole life is shamed as fellow Muslims frown upon him. He is left to repent for his sins and re-embrace his Faith.
But remaining unrepentant, he robs again albeit minus his right limb. He is caught and the judge grudgingly orders his left hand to be amputated. Undeterred and true to his old ways, he repeats the offence, was caught and had his right leg dismembered. Left with only one limb, most offenders would have long given up their wayward ways, but no he still wanted to pursue his past time.
So on a cold dark and stormy night, he hopped on his only remaining leg to stalk his unlucky prey. He is caught and his only limb is chopped off and he becomes a conscious vegetable, constantly had to be hand-fed and carried to a toilet to ease himself. Being immobile, he knew that if he repented, he may still attain eternal life.
Cruel punishment?
Scenario two: A man and a woman commit adultery and are caught and stoned to death. Horror of horrors, how cruel is that and how can such monstrosity be practised in the 21st century?
Being hung in a cold dark prison until you are dead is more humane. As you fall from the trapdoor, your body weight snaps your head from your spine, and as your relatives claim your lifeless body, they have to take sufficient care as the head will wag like a dog’s tail as you move the carcass.
A firing squad is more humane even though the body is riddled with bullet holes, even though your back has been punched out with bloody human flesh torn from the body as the bullets pass through and spins to the back, leaving a bloody mess.
Even the electric chair is more humane, even though the corpse will smell of burnt flesh and sizzled hair.
The guillotine is more humane even though you have to collect the body by putting the dismembered head on the body. Burning at the stake during Joan of Arc’s days sounds more humane as victims turn into ashes while screaming in horrific pain.
A chemical injection with a cocktail of lethal chemicals sounds more humane even though the body goes through a rude shock.
But no, death by stoning is still horrifying compared to all this, more so as the execution will be at the public square.
Yes, because it sounds a little more terrifying, most Muslims would shudder and give up their old ways, while the hardcore criminals will try to tempt fate.
Overnight, there would be a reduction of crimes among the Muslims, while the continuation of such crimes may have to be sub-contracted to the non-Malays who are not subjected to such harsh laws.
Good Muslims have no reason to fear it, and it only strikes fear into the seedy, opportunistic characters out to make a fast buck.
Malaysia has the death sentence for murder and kidnapping. Even a few grammes of ganja or heroin and you will face the hangman’s noose. If you are caught with a firearm without a licence, you will also be dead. Yet crimes continue to be committed without anyone batting an eyelid or fearing the death sentence. So why is everyone so fearful of hudud?
The fact that four credible witnesses are required proves that the law is humane and would not be easily abused. Corruption will come to a halt, and the crime rate will drop, while peace and prosperity will prevail. It will be safer to walk the streets of KL at night.
