Hadi’s Syariah Amendment Bill is not a Hudud Bill, says DAP

By MT Webmaster Last updated Jun 14, 2016

Now, as much as the non-Muslims object to this dual-system or ‘no equality before the law’ system, this system has prevailed for hundreds of years and was the system long before the non-Malays migrated to Malaya in large numbers in 1850-1920 and long before Merdeka in 1957.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Shamsher Singh Thind, the publicity secretary of DAP Chai Leng Park and the Legal Adviser to P. Ramasamy, the Deputy Chief Minister II of Penang, wrote an interesting piece today (Hadi’s bill is not hudud bill).

What this DAP leader said is precisely what I have been trying to tell you for some time. However, since I am NOT a DAP leader, no one wants to hear what I have to say — even if I may be telling the truth. You have to be a DAP leader before they will want to listen to what you say — even if you are not telling the truth.

This is called ‘the singer not the song syndrome’. It is who is talking that matters and not what he is saying. Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim was hailed as a prophet of God when he joined DAP — but when he resigned from the party they called him all sorts of very nasty names that I am not at liberty to repeat lest Malaysia Today gets X-rated.

What Shamsher Singh said is basically that Abdul Hadi Awang’s private member’s bill is not a move to criminalise certain acts. Under the Syariah there are already certain acts that are considered crimes if committed by Muslims. And Muslims will get punished for committing these crimes, although the punishment differs from state to state.

So Hadi is not seeking to get certain acts declared a crime. He is not even seeking to get certain acts that are already crimes under federal law to get included under state Syariah laws.

Murder, kidnapping, robbery, housebreaking, handbag-snatching, pick-pocketing, fraud, rape, assault, statutory rape (or consensual sex with a minor), sodomy, same-sex relationships, drunk-driving, reckless driving, terrorism, pimping, loan-sharking, extortion, drug trafficking, money-laundering, and much more, are already crimes under the ‘common law’.

So the Syariah does not involve itself with those crimes. You commit those crimes and you will get punished in a ‘common law’ court.

Adultery, drinking (of intoxicants), false allegations of adultery, eating/drinking in public during the fasting month, apostasy, etc., are not crimes under ‘common law’. You can bonk away, drink till you pass out, allege that this person’s or that person’s wife is bonking the whole football team, eat/drink any time you want, change religions or become an atheist, etc. They are, however, crimes if you are a Muslim.

So those are what the Syariah deals with.

It is a system that affects only Muslims. Non-Muslims are exempted from Syariah laws. And the Muslims themselves are not objecting to Syariah laws. For example, why should non-Muslims get upset when Muslims who eat and drink in public (note that I said ‘in public’ and not ‘in private’) when they should instead be fasting get punished?

So let me repeat that.

1. Hadi is not trying to criminalise anything or is trying to introduce any new crimes.

2. Whatever are crimes are already crimes and have been for a long time.

3. These are crimes only for Muslims and do not affect non-Muslims.

4. Muslims have no problems with this and do not ask for this system to be changed.

5. Non-Muslims cannot face punishment under the Syariah unless they first become Muslims and utter the Kalima Shahadat in front of an imam or religious department official.

And that is why Muslims are puzzled by the onslaught from non-Muslims. Are non-Muslims saying that Muslims must be allowed to eat pork, drink beer/liquor, commit adultery, leave Islam, eat/drink in public instead of fasting, etc? Who do these non-Muslims think they are to tell Muslims how Islam should be practiced?

And stop screaming about how Hadi’s private member’s bill goes against the Constitution. The Constitution allows private members’ bills. So Hadi is not violating the Constitution. Even if you complain that a Bill that was at the bottom of the list was brought to the top of the list that still does not violate the Constitution.

Okay, let us now discuss a hypothetical scenario. Let’s say a Muslim is arrested and is brought before a Syariah court and is charged for a criminal offense (a criminal offense that only Muslims will be punished for while non-Muslims are not). This Muslim then tells the court that he or she has actually left Islam and is no longer a Muslim.

Can the Syariah court proceed with the case? The Syariah court can only deal with Muslims and has no jurisdiction over non-Muslims. And the Syariah court cannot implement Hudud laws to punish that person who has declared he or she has left Islam because Parliament has not approved Hudud laws (apostasy is NOT a crime according to Parliament).

And note that Hadi or PAS cannot introduce Hudud laws. Only Parliament can but they must first amend the Constitution to allow State laws to override Federal laws with a vote by 147 Members of Parliament. Umno, PAS and Amanah combined have less than 110 seats in Parliament, not even 50% let alone two-thirds. And we are assuming that 100% of the Umno-PAS-Amanah MPs would vote in favour of Hudud. If not they might not even get 50 votes.

So tell me, what is the issue here and why are so many people barking and foaming at the mouth?

Another objection to the Syariah Amendment Bill is the allegation that the punishment is more severe than common law punishment. Is that so? Have you seen how rapists are caned under common law punishment? It cuts deep and the flesh tears and you faint. Under the Syariah, the caning is not so brutal. Yet no one protests the caning for, say, rapists under common law punishment.

Under Syariah law they do not hang those who ‘wage war against the king’ or those caught with guns or those caught smuggling drugs and so on. Yet you all scream about how barbaric Syariah laws are while you accept death by hanging under common law punishment.

The bottom line is many of you object to anything that has the name ‘Islam’ attached to it. You can even accept castration (in fact, you would welcome it) for those who rape under-aged girls or minors just as long as we do not call it Hudud or Syariah/Islamic law but call it common law.

And this is something Muslims needs to realise before they jump onto the anti-Syariah bandwagon being conducted by the non-Muslims. Islam is a four-letter word and anything that smacks of Islam is, too. No wonder the world thinks that Muslims are stupid — because it is actually true.

Raja Petra Kamarudin RPK