Hadi wrong on freedom of religion

Ravinder Singh, Malay Mail Online

In calling on all 136 Muslim MPs to support his Hudud Bill, PAS president Datuk Seri Haji Abdul Hadi Awang is reported to have said that “it was not appropriate for the Constitution not to allow Muslims to have Syariah law when other communities were free to practise their own religion”.

This tongue-in-cheek statement is mischievous for he should know that the “freedom to practise their own religions” has not extended to any of them promulgating Bills in State Assemblies and tabling Private Member’s Bills to enforce their religious criminal laws on their members. For instance, the Christians have not tabled a “Ten Commandments Bill”, nor have any other religious group done anything like that. They have not even thought of doing such a thing.

Thus it is wrong for Hadi to insinuate that Muslims do not enjoy the same freedom to practise their religion as the others do. The Syariah Courts have existed for a long time to handle family-matter and succession issues among the Muslims. In Penang a new, imposing Syariah court complex is being built. Other religions in Malaysia do not have anything similar to the Syariah court.

By now Hadi should be aware that not 100 per cent of Muslims support Hudud, and not even 100 per cent of the Muslim MPs support it. In fact one of them said only stupid people talk about Hudud. He should conduct a secret-vote, state-wide referendum to determine the support he has for his Hudud Bill.

Hudud is touted as God’s law, but what we see is that it is a man-made law. It is drafted by man, tabled in the State Legislative Assembly by man for approval by man. The very next day after its unanimous approval, the Deputy Menteri Besar of Kelantan admitted that there was something wrong with it, that something had been “overlooked”. So, how can it be God’s law if humans are responsible for drafting it and getting other humans (be they called Assemblymen or Parliamentarians) to approve it, and then to be enforced by yet other humans, none of whom can claim to be as infallible as God himself?

Legal systems evolve like nature evolves over time. When Hudud came into being, there was no other criminal law system. With criminal law having evolved into what we have today, Hudud should have been allowed to die a natural death long ago.

The Federal Constitution does not allow each religion to have its own criminal law system up and above the secular criminal law enacted by Parliament. Crime is against the state, not against religion. So when the state already has a criminal law system, it cannot at the same time allow any religion to have its own criminal law system, let alone one that imposes punishments such as amputations and stoning to death. I wonder whether the Prophet had ordered any such punishment to be meted out during His lifetime?

That Hudud will not affect the non-Muslims is also not true. If a Muslim rapes a non-Muslim, and for want of witnesses and evidence as required by the Hudud law the rapist escapes punishment, the non-Muslim does not get justice as might have been obtained if the rapist had been charged under the Penal Code. So “mahu tidak mahu” non-Muslims will be affected by Hudud indirectly, if not also directly. By the way, why is a rapist not stoned to death, if an adult lady committing illicit sex, which might be consensual, is?

Does Hadi realise that claiming Hudud will succeed in lowering crime he is in effect putting the PDRM in very bad light. It amounts to saying that the PDRM has failed to use the Penal Code and other laws to keep crime in check in Kelantan. Why has the PDRM failed to keep crime in check in Kelantan, while in other states, e.g. Penang, the crime figures are said to be going down? Yet, according to the police, it is more difficult to manage crime in highly urbanised places than in less urbanised ones.

Well, Hudud might “succeed in lowering crime” as its proponents claim, by making it more difficult to file charges and secure convictions due to the evidence and witness requirements. This way, numbers will show less criminal charges and convictions though the opposite may be true. How many rape and theft cases may not enter the statistics due to the strange requirements of getting evidence to press charges and secure convictions? Hudud surely is a novel way of reducing crime statistics, of creating the perception that crime has reduced. It thus becomes a political tool.

If crime is the concern, then Hudud is not the answer, but enforcement of the existing criminal laws without fear or favour. If crime in Penang can be brought down by the PDRM as claimed, why can’t the PDRM, using the same laws, bring crime in Kelantan down? It should be easier to do so in Kelantan as it is less urbanised than Penang. Hudud to bring crime down in Kelantan therefore does not hold water.

I don’t see how God’s laws can be made in State Assemblies and Parliament and enforced by human beings who are not infallible creatures. Did God exempt any human from His laws, as for example the Hudud in Brunei does not apply to the Royal family?

It is left to be seen if all the 136 Muslims MPs, including those who have expressed opposition to and reservations about Hudud, will get converted by Hadi into thinking more of the afterlife than of 2020 and go along with him.