Hudud: when the law and faith collide

By MT Webmaster Last updated Jan 18, 2016

Take note of one thing, though. Those Muslims in PKR as well as Amanah also oppose the implementation of Hudud. And this includes Anwar Ibrahim, Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, Mat Sabu, etc. But they are very careful in how they oppose it. They have never denied that Hudud is God’s law or said that manmade laws should override God’s laws. They just say that Malaysians are not yet ready for Hudud so they first need to be educated about the matter and only when Malaysians are ready to accept Hudud should it be implemented.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Some of you may have noticed that I have written about this matter before. And that matter is: are we discussing or debating Hudud from the position of faith or from the position of the law?

The parameters must first be defined before any discussion or debate can succeed.

For example, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad keeps changing the ground rules or the parameters of the debate regarding 1MDB and that is why he can never get satisfaction from whatever response is given. First he talks about RM42 billion disappearing into thin air and then when 1MDB proves that RM42 billion has not disappeared into thin air he moves the goalposts and shifts to another issue.

The problem is Muhyiddin Yassin sent his people to convince Dr Mahathir that RM42 billion had indeed disappeared into thin air and since Muhyiddin was then the Deputy Prime Minister cum Cabinet member surely he would know what he is talking about.

When it was finally proven that RM42 billion had not disappeared into thin air they moved the debate to another issue — such as whether giving 1MDB government assets at a cheap price is the correct thing to do (whereas they have been doing this since the 1970s), or whether selling these assets at market value is the correct thing to do and should they have not been sold at a higher price instead (whereas earlier they said the assets were over-valued and should be lower) and so on.

When the goalposts keep shifting, understandably you can never resolve the issue. You first need to agree what the debate is all about. If not it is futile to keep arguing about a matter that is never going to see the end of it.

The Hudud issue is one such matter. The supporters of Hudud are talking about it from the point of faith — this is what Islam says you must do. The opponents to Hudud are talking about it from the point of law — this is what the Constitution says you must not do.

How are you going to resolve this debate when one is talking Greek and the other is talking Dutch? You must first both be speaking English before you can come to any understanding.

Those Muslims who support the implementation of Hudud are looking at the issue purely from the point of faith. It is no use discussing with them the issue of the law because faith overrides the law and not the other way around.

Let me repeat that. Hudud is about faith and not about the law.

The law also says that Christians must not publish Bibles in Bahasa Malaysia and use the term ‘Jesus is the son of Allah’. This is against the law because Islam is the religion of the Federation and Islam does not subscribe to this doctrine.

The Christians or non-Muslims, however, argue that this is not about the law (and that that law should not even have been passed in the first place) but is a matter of faith and the right or freedom of Christians to practice their religion as how they believe it should be practiced.

To deny Christians their right to call Jesus the son of Allah is interfering in the Christian belief and faith. Christians should not be told what they can and cannot believe and how they should practice their faith.

Well, Muslims feel exactly the same way regarding their beliefs and faith. Why should non-Muslims tell Muslims what they can and cannot believe? Christians are free to believe that Jesus is the Son of God if they want to believe that while Muslims should also be free to believe that Hudud is God’s law if they want to believe that.

So, do you still want to debate Hudud? If you want to debate Hudud then let us discuss it on the platform of theology. It is not use discussing it on the platform of the law. God’s laws take precedence over manmade laws as far as Muslims are concerned.

The irony of the whole thing is that no non-Muslim has come forward to argue that Hudud is not God’s law and that it is not in the Qur’an, Hadith, Sunnah or Sharia. They sidestep this issue entirely. Instead, they argue that Malaysia is not an Islamic State but a Secular State and the Secular or manmade Constitution must take precedence over God’s Constitution, the Qur’an.

Such an argument is self-defeating. You just add more weight to the Muslim argument as to why Hudud should be implemented. If Hudud must not be implemented because the Secular Constitution says so, then the Muslims will say this is even more reason why it should be implemented.

Take the issue of vaping as one example. Muslims say it should be banned because it is a health hazard and according to Islam anything that is a health hazard is haram. So Muslims look at it from the Islamic perspective.

Non-Muslims say vaping should be banned because it is a health hazard, nothing to do with Islam.

However, there is no argument between Muslims and non-Muslims as to the banning of vaping because both sides see it as a health issue. And theologians and non-theologians both agree that anything that is a health hazard should be banned.

So there you have it. The opponents to vaping are united because they share a common platform. Never mind that Muslims argue from the position of Islam as to the reason while non-Muslims do not. Ultimately, both agree that the matter is a health issue, although Muslims use the position of Islam to argue the matter.

In the Hudud issue, the opponents cite justice and human rights as the reason to oppose its implementation. Well, you may not realise it, but Muslims also cite justice as the main reason why Hudud should be implemented.

Muslims believe that if you commit a crime and you pay for this crime in this world then you would be saved in the next life. If not you would be punished even worse in the next life. So better you take your punishment now on earth. That is justice.

And on the matter of human rights, that argument does not apply as far as Muslims are concerned. We are all creations of God, so we have no rights when it comes to God’s commands. What matters are God’s rights, and God has every right over His creations. God has a right to create us and God has a right to take our life. God decides. We have no right to decide.

And this is the crux of the whole matter. We have one side arguing about human rights and the other side arguing about God’s rights. How are we ever going to come to an agreement when the parameters of the discussion have not been clearly defined?

Raja Petra Kamarudin RPK