Don’t jump to conclusions, Hadi tells critics
‘Listen first to what will be presented,’ he says in reference to private member’s bill he intends to table.
(Free Malaysia Today) – PAS President Abdul Hadi Awang has made an impassioned defence of the Kelantan Government’s move to enforce recent amendments to its syariah laws and his own move to table a private member’s bill in Parliament aimed at enabling such enforcement.
In an open letter addressed to the Muslim community, he says the bill he intends to table has been wrongly referred to as “the hudud bill”, pointing out that it seeks instead to amend the Shariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act. He stresses that the purpose is to “open up a little space to allow for the enforcement of one or two aspects of the syariah affecting Muslims only”.
He urges critics of the bill not to jump to conclusions without knowing the contents of the bill. “Listen first to what will be presented,” he says.
The title of the letter is “Isu hudud yang dikelirukan”, indicating his belief that the issue has been subjected to confusion, perhaps deliberately by some quarters.
Hadi attacks Muslims who, in opposing the bill, appeal to such concepts as “Siyasah Syari’yyah”, “Maqasid Syari’ah”, “Fiqh Aulawiyyat” and “Maslahah” without a full understanding of what the terms mean.
“In discussing such a heavy subject, it is unbecoming of us to behave like a parrot who can repeat words taught by its master but still remain an animal without the intellectual capacity to understand the meaning and implications of those words,” he says.
He then proceeds to give a scholarly explanation of the terms.
In his discussion of Maqasid Syariah (the purpose of the syariah), he makes a reference to the suspension of the hudud punishment of limb amputation for theft during the reign of the second caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab.
He says this was during a time of economic difficulties. The punishment could not be imposed on people who committed theft out of genuine desperation. “In such a circumstance, it would be sinful to amputate the offender’s limb,” he says, but added that this did not mean that the person would escape punishment altogether . A judge could still impose a lesser punishment based on ta’zir (discretion).
“A hudud punishment cannot be imposed (in this case) because it would not fulfil the purposes of achieving justice and educating the public. The impact of economic difficulty on the offender was a greater evil. But if, despite the economic situation, the offender was a person of means, the hudud punishment would apply to him.
“Maqasid Syari’ah does not mean the abandoning of hudud laws.”
