Why I will never support hudud in Malaysia

By admin-s On Mar 19, 2015

(MMO) – To criticise them is to question Islam.

The tabling of the Shariah Criminal Code Enactment II 1993 (Amendment 2015) in the Kelantan State Assembly and any move to amend the Federal Constitution to allow for the implementation of hudud at the State and Federal levels needs to be opposed by all right thinking Malaysians.

Personally, I will never support the imposition of hudud in this country. These are my four reasons:

Hudud is not needed in Malaysia. The law should be and is more than just about punishing others. It is about the deliverance of justice.

The penal laws at the centre of hudud were written during a time when harsh measures were necessary to impose peace, order and stability amidst a period of lawlessness, conflict and turmoil. They were guidelines for civilised behaviour formulated when and where there were few laws and men. Hudud was necessary there and at that time. Today, in our country, hudud law is neither necessary nor required.

We already have civil and criminal laws which provide for separate sets of laws and punishments. One of the primary tenets of Islam is about the deliverance of justice. The discourse surrounding the adoption and implementation of hudud in this country has barely made justice a mention, much less a priority. It has, however been very much about politics, punishing other people and posturing to “out-Islam” each other.

The adoption of hudud into practice, to me, would represent a failure of our existing legal systems to deliver justice. It would also represent a repulsive need to show others how Islamic we are and how holy we can be at the cost of signing away the liberties and freedoms of others.

Instead of delivering justice, hudud would compromise our existing systems and result in situations which cannot be easily explained away by holy verses and theological arguments.

Lack of accountability, transparency and standard of care. Our religious department officials have hardly been paragons of these virtues. Whenever these issues are brought up, they have bristled with outrage, indignation and accused others of undermining or questioning their authority.

Jakim’s Director General Datuk Othman Mustapha recently denounced the questioning of religious authorities as being part of a liberalism movement. As if you needed to be part of an ideology, belief system or movement, to be able to ask questions and demand accountability and transparency from civil servants who are paid with our (Muslim and non-Muslim) tax money.

In 2012, an amendment was made to the Mufti and Fatwa (Kedah Darul Aman) Enactment 2008 by the Kedah state government and passed unanimously by the State Legislative Assembly. The amendment made any fatwa of the state Mufti or Fatwa Committee, whether gazetted or not, unable to be challenged, appealed, reviewed, denied or questioned in any civil or Shariah court. In short, approving a measure which would effectively put a fatwa above the law and above the Federal Constitution.

Consider the case of Nik Raina who has been pursued relentlessly by the Wilayah Persekutuan Religious Department (JAWI) despite a defective charge. JAWI’s actions were determined by three courts of law (civil and Shariah) to be illegal, of bad faith and unconstitutional. Yet they still are pursuing her after three years. This case has been the very definition of injustice and a neglect of the standard of care required of a legal criminal case. Instead they have been dependent on the tactics of bullying, intimidation, fear and oppression in the hope that they can beat Nik Raina into submission and defeat.

Islam requires the utmost prudence, caution and compassion in the enforcement of the law and prosecution of cases. The enforcement of hudud will be dependent on the religious departments to demonstrate a clear understanding of the basic legal principles of justice, fairness and compassion. They must also be open to dialogue, criticism and debate. They must be accountable, transparent and exercise prudence and care in enforcement of the law.

Based on recent examples and their behaviour, the parties involved in the discussion of hudud which include religious authorities, thus far have been anything but transparent and open with their intentions. They feel that they are above criticism. That they can do no wrong and are infallible. They feel themselves accountable to no one and need not explain themselves. That to criticise them is to question Islam.