Is hudud meant to deceive the people?
Darren Nah, The Malaysian Insider
“Can a people be allowed to rule themselves according to their own customs?” This fundamental question strikes at the heart of how Kelantan defends its move to implement the Islamic penal code called hudud by the end of 2015.
Hudud, they argue, is a religious penal code that is in line with the religious customs and preferences of the majority of the state’s citizens.
Because of this, hudud is defensible since a people should be allowed to rule itself howsoever it pleases.
To this defence then, we must now see if a people can rule themselves howsoever they see fit.
We must first state that no one willingly seeks a condition in which he will be worse off.
Every human desires to be better off. They may make mistakes, but it is only because they mistake the apparent good for the actual one.
As such, that human beings always want to be better off is a truth that cannot be disputed. This desire is natural and universal.
With this in mind, we have to make conjectures. We have to assume that people are first in the world defenceless and alone. They meet other people, and they either befriend or make enemies.
Soon, they realise that if they organie themselves with others, they can better defend their lives. And, as much as they acquire property (e.g., land), they need to institute some kind of organisation to defend themselves against outside invades.
Also, when they come into these agreements, they all desire to preserve as much freedom and individual autonomy as possible without which they would be like sheep (a definite downgrade from being a human!). Thus, governments are born with the intention of securing the individual’s Life, Liberty and Property.
This move from the “State of Nature” to a “Civilised State” is only the desire for human beings to live better.
Together with others, secure from outside invaders and with the internal peace that comes from equitable relations among the community’s members, trade flourishes and commerce increases.
Instead of living in jungles, men now have roofs over their heads and food in abundance. All this has been made available by the people’s willingness to institute government.
It can be seen that from the above two points that are interlinked (1) that people always desire to be better off, and (2) that this desire leads to the institution of government which protects each person’s Life, Liberty and Property – that insofar as government contributes to men’s better condition, it is natural; but when government deviates from its original purpose, it becomes tyrannical, despotic and unnatural.
