Copyright Notice

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the author, at the address below.

Sakmongkol ak 47

Saturday 26 April 2014

The Muslim DAP MP and Hudud

In the earlier article I have set out my views. Since then I have thought of nothing but ask deep questions as to why PAS wants to table this bill knowing that it will jeopardise its relationship with other PR partners? So the really important question is why?
Why is PAS willing to risk it? 
It’s not a simple case as this set of laws only applies to Muslims. Are there sufficient safeguards to contain excesses of the theocratic class? We don’t want an Islamic inquisition on Muslims themselves who will definitely disagree on some policies. Will Muslims countenance activities of the moral police intruding into the privacy of individuals? A theocratic state can turn into a spiritual dictatorship too. If that comes into being, it will be no different from any other dictatorships.
We have made mere promises that don’t have constraints written on them. Recent events undertaken by Islamic authorities have not shown that application of Islamic laws have not affected non-Muslims adversely.
I have asked my PAS friends- they are saying they are doing what is expected of them to do. It has never abandoned its agenda to set up an Islamic state and adopt shariah laws where hudud is one of them.  This isn’t an agenda by the hardliners and the conservatives only- but is also a shared and common agenda by PAS as a whole. There is only one common agenda.
Now, I don’t think a party based on principle such as DAP will find that stand, difficult to understand. We may disagree with the agenda but must respect the principles that motivate PAS.
So how do we reconcile two opposing set of principles and agenda? PAS will have to go on this alone and cannot expect and demand its partners who operate on different principles to support them. Let us agree to disagree without making judgement on each other.
I said it in the earlier article- PAS ought not to table the bill. Who can stop them? I believe it will go ahead- with or without support from Pakatan. It has to do that because it had said so and carrying out what it said it wanted to do will earn PAS adherents. Perhaps these are the side benefits it will gain- it consolidates support from its own power base and will earn itself new adherents. I am certain PAS will go ahead.
It has to ready itself from lack of support from its Pakatan partners. The other Pakatan partners must also restrain themselves from accusing PAS of backtracking on the terms of cooperation between them. If this is acceptable, then there is no need to leave Pakatan.
Having said that PAS ought not to table a private member’s bill, I do not mean to say that hudud is inherently bad. We don’t have a clear understanding on it as a concept yet.
So far, as I understand it, hudud under Islamic law refers to the class of punishments that are fixed for certain crimes that are considered to be "claims of God."  The crimes are mentioned in the Quran. They include theft, fornication (zina) and adultery (extramarital sex), consumption of alcohol or other intoxicants, and apostasy, and gambling (game of chance). Punishment on some of these crimes are mentioned in the Quran and some are not. For example, the punishment on drinking of alcohol and on gambling are not prescribed in the Quran.
Analysis on the merits of hudud is not amenable to ordinary academic discourses without resorting to complex spiritual principles. That is beyond the ability of this writer. But consider the following:-
3 events that took place illustrate some difficulties.
·        The abduction by a Muslim convict of his son from the mother who is not a Muslim.
·        The refusal by Malaysian Medical Association to allow any of its members to carry out amputation.( so hudud is understood as cutting off hands and stoning).
·        The directive from Majlis Agama Islam Pahang to Hotels to stop placing bibles and other non-Muslim holy books in hotel rooms. Are these hotels built by MAIP or any Islamic groups?
I am reminded by the verse in Quran 3:110. The commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali in the footnote is worth our attention.
At note 434, Abdullah Yusuf Ali wrote: the logical conclusion to the evolution of religious history is a non-sectarian, non-racial, non-doctrinal, universal religion which Islam claims to be. For Islam is just submission to the will of Allah.  This implies (1) faith, (2) doing right and being an example to others to do right, and having the power to see that the right prevails. (3) Eschewing wrong and being an example to others to eschew wrong and having the power to see that wrong and injustice are defeated. Islam therefore lives not for itself, but for mankind.
The objection by MMA , I am not sure is legally enforceable. Will Muslim doctors agreeing to amputate a person when convicted under hudud be struck off as medical practitioners? I think MMA underestimates Muslim doctors’ religiosity. They will do if their beliefs urge them to, written articles of membership of MMA notwithstanding
The objection by MMA however reveals lack of conceptual understanding. MMA understands hudud as being represented by amputation only. I regret to say the statement by the president offends the sensibilities of Muslims as whole; for we do not associate the amputation of limbs in the execution of God’s laws with butchers. That is condescending in fact.
On the other hand, the lack of sensitivity on the part of MMA even before hudud is implemented reveals the great rift in understanding of hudud and can only imply the failure of Islamic authorities to enlighten the general public on hudud. Therefore, who can we blame for the strong objection to the proposal to establish hudud when the law are not even understood as a concept?
This means that PAS or any Islamist groups have not raised the understanding of others on what hudud is all about. Understanding what hudud is all about is both a necessary and sufficient requirement. Without which, there will be opposition on hudud not only from non-Muslim but Muslim themselves.
PAS and other Islamists have not vindicated themselves by keeping silent on the abduction by the Muslim convert father of the son. The civil court has granted custody of the son to the mother. In Islam, the mother has first claim on the children. By keeping silent, the Islamists whose agenda is hudud, has raised concern that if they come to power, those in power will be morbidly intolerant. We all know what the father did was in defiance and out of spite and there wasn’t anything to suggest that the father will be capable of turning the son into good Muslim later. By keeping silent and acquiescing in the abduction, that non-feasance raises concern about a real danger that religious authorities will turn into theocratic depots.
Muslim authorities have not taken the opportunity to show that Islam speaks not for itself but for mankind.
In that case, whom does Islam speak for? It spoke for the Muslims fanatics and the Islamic intolerant bullies. Have the authorities and interested parties wishing to implement hudud done anything to show they stand for a right and done anything to defeat injustice and a wrong? The Islamists have forfeited an opportunity to show non-Muslims they have nothing to be afraid of Islamic justice.  
As Muslims we need to ask- on what basis can we blame non-Muslims from objecting to not only hudud but the entire shariah.


Bryan,  26 April 2014 at 22:03  

I am support! That's what the non-Muslim worrying. Pls inform the rest that non-muslim is not afraid of hudud, but at the end there maybe possibility of bias when it come to execution.

Anonymous,  26 April 2014 at 23:07  

If the regular muslim on the street himself do not understand his religion in general and hudud in particular, nobody can blame non muslims for being apprehensive or even oppositional to the implementation of hudud.
Malay muslims in general are bad ambassadors of islam.the teaching of the holy quran is not reflected in a large majority of the malays. There is no real effort to reach out to the non muslims with love and compassion as what was taught by our Prophet.

The prophet did not implement hudud before first building an islamic society.

I belief hudud can n will succeed in our multicultural society as it has been proven to succeed during the time of the Prophet and his predecessors who also lived in a multicultural society. But we need to follow his methods n his teaching for us to succeed.

Build the society first.

Muslim malay

the mean machine,  27 April 2014 at 00:21  

If Hudud is being implemented,it should be nationally and not only in Kelantan.

The Hudud law is for all Malaysians.Nobody should be above the law,that is the Hudud law.Are all lawmakers for this law.Because corrupt lawmakers will face the wrath of this law,the Hudud law.No one breaking the Hudud law will be spared.

Ministers and lawmakers who broke the law will be punished to the fullest extent of the Hudud law, whipped or even worse punishments without any fear or favor.Are the executors of this law,the Hudud law willing to go after the politicians and their cronies without fear or favor.

Or is this law called the Hudud law only for the ordinary guys or the helpless who cannot fight back,while those in power or have connections carry on their dilly dangling as if the Hudud law never existed for them,the privileged and politically connected.If the backers or practitioners of this Hudud law have real balls to go after the corrupted and privileged in power,then by all means have the Hudud laws.Bring it on if Pas have real balls.I am pretty sure all law abiding Malaysians will support this Hudud law if it will cleaned the parasites and criminals off our society.

Anonymous,  27 April 2014 at 06:10 are not the person who able to speak out about the Hudud law...

the gaffe guy who know's,  27 April 2014 at 06:13  

Zaid Ibrahim talks a lot,but actually he is an empty barrel.First he is in Umno,then later against Umno.Now he is for Umno again as he is seen as an useless opportunist by the supporters of the PR.With Hudud,he cannot be any longer a thirsty horse.

Anonymous,  27 April 2014 at 06:41  

I totally agree with you.
According to hudud, the poor guy stealing becoz he is hungry cannot be punished so the people who should fear their hands being cut off are really the corrupt leaders...royalties included.
Examples should be made from the very top so that the message of hudud will be loud and clear..every1 will be safe under Hudud except the hardcore evil and unrepentent..

Corrupted leaders stealing from the nation's coffers will have their hands chopped off..still not repentent? Then your feet will b chopped off too..x care ur muslim or not.
U steal from the people therefore you must feel the wrath of God.We are after all God's creation n He is protecting our rights via His laws.
Im sure fellow malaysians esp the 52% of us will be very happy to see birkin-bearing thieves, scorpene-swindlers and mongol-murdering maniacs meet their punisment.
There will also be less mud slinging as people who accuse others of fornification but unable to produce the proof will also be punished.

Another example -Married muslim leaders involved in extra marital sex? If 4 eyewitness who saw the actual penetration can b produced (eyewitness must b vetted), then they will be stoned to death in a public place.if the culprit is unmarried, then flogging is prescribed.
killing people who left islam? This is open for discussion as even the scholars have varying interpretation regarding this.some scholars feel tht the ones that should be punished by death are the ones who is violently oppositional to Islam.not the average joe who goes about his own way not disturbing the peace in the society.

I think more discussions about hudud is needed to help the society understand that hudud is primarily 'protective' and 'preventive' as opposed to being solely punitive.

but what mechanism is in place to ensure that the metting out of hudud will be fair and include 'all' layers of the society, man on the street or monarchs on their thrones alike?
This is where the leaders must be absolutely transparent and crystal clear otherwise it is just another gorm of tyranny. Remember, it is Allah's hudud we want not another man made garbage.

malaysian non malay muslim

Anonymous,  27 April 2014 at 07:36  

Dato" Hidayah itu milik it is better not to write or say anything unless we go and study the whole issue and try to understand it rather than your too simplistic example and lacking depth...
No solution and your logic is superficial an indicator reflect at your on writing...I may be wrong...

blogsmith,  27 April 2014 at 10:14  

One more you missed - a female raped by Muslim rapist/rapists. Has DNA proof but not the mandatory 4 Muslim witnesses of good standing. Not withstanding the DNA evidences, rapist go free (and would the female victim be stoned to death for fornification?). Worst if female got pregnant and it has been reported elsewhere that she was stoned to death for adultery.

Peter 27 April 2014 at 10:16  

And about assurances that Hudud would be wisely implemented. Even if this is given by current people in authority, there is no guarantee a different set of more militant authorities will come into power later.

Anonymous,  27 April 2014 at 10:23  

From a pragmatic political point of view, PAS is making the same mistake as the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt.

PAS is on the verge of holding political power at the federal level (as part of Pakatan Rakyat), why shoot yourself in the foot or try to commit political hara-kiri?

The Muslim brotherhood, in its zeal to Islamise Egypt, ended up losing support from moderates and secular people and paved the way for counter-revolution by the military and the supporters of Mubarak.

Win power at the federal level first. Then negotiate with the other Pakatan Rakyat political parties on how to Islamise Malaysian society (while respecting the rights of non-Muslims)

Phua Kai Lit

Anonymous,  27 April 2014 at 10:50  

Dato you dont have to elaborate on only make thing worse...why dont you shut up. I agreed with anonymous 07:36

Anonymous,  27 April 2014 at 11:43  

I am a muslim doctor and the mma does not speak on my behalf.

Anonymous,  27 April 2014 at 11:58  

I may not n the person to disect hudud or structure the infrastructure needed to set hudud in motion but I can and I must speak about it.
That's the problem with most muslims here.. Not doing 'dakwah'...not starting intelectual conversation about islam with non muslims, thinks that matters regarding islam is the responsibility of 'ustads' who unfortunately have a very shallow world view n understanding of a multicultural, cosmopolitan world as well as narrow minded view of islam, keep the beautiful teachings of islam to themselves, not reading enough (although the first revealed word from God was 'READ!')and follow blindly whatever 'ulama' says ie taqlid the end of days, the prophet has warned us about 'ulama -as-su'..bad scholars who spew fatwa insincerely for wordly gains..we MUST do our own thinking as well after we do our own reading..n pray that Allah guides us n bless us with sincere scholars.
Please do not let non muslims judge our religion by the ugly ways of some corrupted immoral public figures.thid is a grave injustice to Allah's words.

So I will speak out as there are very few of those who can and should are.

three trees,  27 April 2014 at 12:35  

Art Harun has a very good point,
The Constitution is Supreme,even parliment cannot change it. You must go for a referendum.

walla 27 April 2014 at 12:37  

It's good to get some clarity first before implementing otherwise it will be difficult to backpedal later on when problems become insurmountable:

1. If the faith is universal for mankind, then it is non-doctrinal for all men which means the essence of the faith must be acceptable to all men regardless of their own beliefs at the point of clarification.

2. But the faith is specifically monotheistic and has been deemed to be so by Name.

3. So it has to be first reduced to common and universal concepts in order to be universal.

4. But these concepts have not been articulated to all; they may have been made clear to some or they are just clear in the minds of those who want to start an islamic state.

5. Therefore the rest who do not know what is going on must be informed first exactly what is implied in the proposal.

6. If the proposal is to actuate what was promised earlier, then the reasons for the proposal must be clearly stated out first.

7. If one reason is to drum up more adherents or party members, then that reason is secular and not theocratic for that matter universal.

8. If another reason is to propagate the faith for the good of all men of all miens, then the way the faith is to be propagated must also give license to other faiths to propagate otherwise it becomes a regime of exclusion which then defies and defiles its own concept of universality.

9. If it becomes a regime of exclusion by administrative rulings such as the banning of other religious books in hotel side drawers, then it becomes a federated or state enforcement.

10. Enforcements may still be necessary but they have to be always conditional otherwise the acts of enforcement may end in miscarriage of justice.

11. If justice is miscarried, adherents gained may leave. If they are forced by law not to leave, there will be tension followed by dissent ending in defilement of the faith causing the very opposite of the original objectives.

walla 27 April 2014 at 12:37  


12. If hudud is more preventive than punitive, it means fear is the chief instrument of prevention.

But fear as an emotive prevention will only work if the person who is in fear has something first to be in fear of.

That will be moral policing.

But who decides on the specific conditions under which the breach of faith is committed? Who will be drawing the line?

The censorship board which deleted Michelle Yeoh's image in the sky at the ending in last night's Mummy flick on tv because leaving it there would connote her deification which would be anathema to sensitivity even if it was just creative license for a global audience?

It has come to a stage where everyone is told to be sensitive to feelings of a race until things can no longer be said even when everyone knows they have to be discoursed in order to derive the very clarity needed for all to go forward.

How does this sync with the universality of the race's official faith?

If the concepts of the faith have not been articulated, and there is a minefield of sensitivity and emosi laid to be traversed before even articulating them, how can anyone be faulted for harboring the very suspicion that must be put to rest first in order to avoid the insurmountable problems later?

Especially after seeing zealotry in moral enforcement add on the theatrics of the DCA director and the DPP in the TSH case, let alone the one ringgit ayam promoter? All redolent of quality taken flight if not fright.

And if a faith is to save someone, chopping off parts of him may make it faster to save him but then again there will be less parts of him to be saved.

However, that's possibly just a secular viewpoint subscribed only by butchers, bakers and candlestick makers.

Anonymous,  27 April 2014 at 14:15  

There are still debates going on with regard to hudud punishments. For instance, the Shariah prescribes stoning to death for the adulterer/adulteress but the Holy Quran (Surah 24:2) prescribes flogging 100 times of the guilty parties.

Until this is cleared up, hudud should not be implemented in its current form as this would be against Allah's commandment.

Going forward, DAP and PKR should not object to the tabling of the bill but should not support the bill to be passed.

It would be interesting to see whether UMNO and their slaves support the bill...which I doubt as thieves do not want to have their hands cut off.

At this point in time, UMNO is talking like an angel but stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Anonymous,  27 April 2014 at 16:07  

I have lived in Japan and Saudi Arabia. One is a 'kafir' country and the other a muslim country practicing hudud. What a contrast. In Japan you can leave your stuff out in the open and nobody will touch it. In S.A if you don't pay attention to your property, you will lose it. I have lost stuff of all places in Makkah and Madinah. These are the two most holy cities for the muslim. Forget about traffic rules, it's free for all.
In Japan people are polite, honest and orderly but in S.A it completely the opposite.

Hudud has never and will never be a cure all for crime. Education does, honest political leaders does and so does social justice.

What I see happening in S.A is that the ones that gets the head and hands lopped off are usually the Bangladeshi, Pakistani,Indians and Filipinos. These are the people at the bottom of the food chain.

If there are any disputes between the foreigners and locals, inevitably the local is always right. When a road accident happens, the foreigner is always in the wrong as their logic goes, the accident would not have happen if the foreigner is not in their country.


Anonymous,  27 April 2014 at 17:27  

If hudud law will have strict enforcement, i'm all for it provided it won 't be double standard & apply to every Muslim regardless of they are politicians & royal people.

Anonymous,  27 April 2014 at 20:33  

There sins described by Allah in Quran and the punishments of these sins are by Allah and Allah only. Why are men so keen to judge other men sins when he has no ability to do so. Please let the sins against Allah be handled by Allah. Allah does not need your help to punish Allah creation as Allah is almighty and all-knowing. Dato you should not vote for something because it has an Arabic label and man made. Worst still it is not base on Quran but hearsay from Hadith.

Anonymous,  27 April 2014 at 20:56  

Its not a matter of PAS believing its their right to fight for Hudud. The problem is do they believe they must fall the rule of law and the Constitution. Moving a private member bill - when that bill clearly is not legal constitutionally - it does not say they will stick to rule of law and the constitution and hence not respecting their partners and others.

PAS has the right to fight for Hudud but not anyway to justify it. They must do it with highest possible standards including first ensuring full Malayia Agreement and real Sabahan rights restored and Hudud may mean them having rights to secede..

bruno 27 April 2014 at 20:56  

Malaya's and later Malaysia's judiciary laws and the dreaded ISA was passed on or rather inherited from the British.

Our judiciary systems were good and well respected in our region once upon a time and the intentions of the ISA was used for internal security,that is keeping communist and subversive elements under lock and key.With the options of the gomen to throw the keys away for as long as needed until these elements poses no threat to the country anymore.

The inheritants of these laws practiced them to the best of their abilities.But those that inherited the inheritance later on used it for their personal and political benefits.

That is the reason we have billionaire robber barons,"kangaroo courts" and a one sided political system tilted to the advantage of the ruling elites with political opponents thrown into detention camps with keys thrown away.

All laws are made and passed with good intentions.It is the people who upheld the law and those who came into the picture later on to carry and implement the law to the best of their ability.But when those choosen to implement the laws succumbed to hunger of power,financial greed and lust of women,all things fall apart.

If the Hudud law is being implemented,can PAS implement the Hudud law to the best of their ability.That is to be fair to every races and genders.Hudud like every laws on this land cannot be a one way street law or rather like the two sets of laws as been practiced by Umno/BN.One set favoring the ruling elites and one set tilting heavily against the public or minnows.

What makes PAS think that it can succeed when the powerful political house called Umno/BN have failed so miserably?If they think that they can play the game without fear or favor,then by all means go ahead and deal the cards.

nasir,  27 April 2014 at 23:47  

Everybody seems to be ignoring the fact that the enactment was passed legally, at the Kelantan DUN. Why are people, especially the non-Kelantanese, making so much noise? Our system allows individual states to pass enactments and the Federal MPs to decide whether to accept or not the enactment. Just let them MPs do their jobs, agreeing or disagreeing as they see fit, to the voting. The MPs and other politicians too should stop wasting their time talking about it. Let the laws of the country run.

nasir,  28 April 2014 at 00:04  

Salam, Tuan.
Have you considered the fact that, not supporting the bill means that you are keeping to the existing laws, many of which are not Islamic and therefore as a lawmaker, you have to personally account to the Maker later on, for the discrepancy?

Sumpitan Emas,  28 April 2014 at 08:27  

- Why are men so keen to judge other men sins when he has no ability to do so -

Simple, humble and reaffirming our status at the very bottom of the heap with God at the very top, especially this part keen to judge...

Anonymous,  28 April 2014 at 09:52  

Huduh SHOULD be OPENLY discussed until a Truth consensus is reached.

There MUST not be an attitude of might is right, whether in number or in power!

Bcoz doing so WOULD go against the very principle of Islam - equality with fairness, which happens to be the core of ALL other religious faith.

The argument about faith concept cant be debate is tryglodytic & enigma to the seeking of TRUTH in all religions.

How could a process evolves & advances to suit the TIME of its occurrence?

The glaring truth lies with debating the concepts laid down in their respective good books, with forward looking scholars.

This is how Catholicism evolves with time & subsequently with the radical outcome of Protestantism.

Similar cases had happened in other faiths too, lest Islam itself with her many sub-branches of thoughts & interpretations.

For those which r not willing to change with time & modern human needs, classic enforcement of the god given commands would eventually lead to its downfall as the followers/believers lose the grip of that bond that hold them to that faith - apostasy to death nevertheless!

Know what Zoroastrianism? It was at one time the greatest religion of the ancient world. It lost it appealed simply bcoz it couldnt kept itself up with the human development, both mentally & physically.

So, Quran could be perfect in her content, BUT is the contents interpreters intelligent/advance-looking enough to propagate the Quranic perfection to suit modern time & need?

Insistent of the fact that what God dictated CANT be change just prove that the shallowness of those interpreters!

Lastly - I have to repeat what Dato has succinctly mentioned - on what basis can we blame non-Muslims from objecting to not only hudud but the entire shariah.

flyer168 29 April 2014 at 04:43  

Correct version...

"The Muslim DAP MP and Hudud"


Just to share this...


Islam & Sharia is inseparable...
Democracy is the opposite...

Belgistan? Sharia Showdown Looms in Brussels - -

Sharia Law: Battlefield London -

You be the judge.


OneMalaysian,  29 April 2014 at 22:28  

Dear Sakmongkol

Of the 48 countries in the world that have a Muslim majority population only 12 have the full Sharia that includes hudud; whether or not they implement it in full is besides the point. What do we make of the 36 other countries? Are they then not Muslim? Or is being Muslim capable of only one meaning?

There are in fact good reasons why the majority of Muslim countries have not implemented hudud, although they have implemented some aspects of the Sharia affecting family matters and finance. Specifically, the ideas and concepts of punishment for crimes have changed with the times. Punishment now mainly means the deprivation of the offender’s freedom (sometimes a monetary fine), but the principal idea is to reform the offender through incarceration. If we kill him/her who is there to redeem or reform? If we maim the offender the damage is permanent, but the reformed offender will now be unable to fend for himself and will be a burden to society. How pitiful this would be especially for young offenders. Have we not heard of cases where some years after a person was sentenced new evidence surfaced that eventually absolved him? So a punishment that is irreversible would do not do justice in such cases. If the intention is to instill fear in society in general through the existence of such draconian laws, society will always live in an environment of permanent, exaggerated fear. Yet there is little evidence that hudud is more effective in reducing crime compared to secular laws. But there is much evidence that education is more effective in crime reduction.

Over the past centuries, especially in the past few decades, investigative methods and evidence gathering have improved. There are now video cameras, DNA evidence and a whole suite of forensic sciences and methodologies that can identify a criminal. But these methods and techniques were not available centuries ago. The reliance on witnesses alone is not enough because witnesses can lie and perjure themselves in court. Confessions can be adduced through torture; even the USA is not above it by their use of water boarding and other illegal methods. So to base punishment on flawed methods could wrongly convict or through insufficient evidence from a prescribed number of witnesses would let offenders off.

The introduction of the full Sharia and the penal code would mean also a greater role for the clergy. In ancient times before education was widespread, religion had a greater grip on societies. Democracy is now the dominant political ideology. It has empowered people, and they have a collective say as to who would rule and how. Elected representatives now make the laws. They may be imperfect, but they can be amended or repealed to suit the needs of society. Not so ecclesiastical laws, or at least that is how the clergy interprets it. And so a conflict arises. Do we want democracy or theocracy? What would suit a modern, progressive, free society that is also multi-racial and multi-religious? These are the questions that we must address.

  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by 2008

Back to TOP