The Kelantan government’s move to table amendments to the Syariah Criminal Code II 1993 Amendment 2015) or hudud bill, in an attempt to obtain the legal status of its implementation in the state has stirred various reactions, ranging from positive to undecided and outright negative.
However, what is clear is that the majority of Malaysian non-Muslims are concerned over the impact of such a move on their rights as citizens of this country, despite the amendments that make it clear hudud willnot apply to them.
How practical that would reflect justice, once enforced, remains uncertain.
Coincidently, I have met a good friend who is a staunch supporter of Pas and whose support of the political party’s move on hudud is perhaps overzealous, to the point that any doubt raised would strike an emotional reaction and create unnecessary tension in the discussion.
As much as I admire and appreciate the spirit in him as a strong supporter of a political party, I felt, at the same time, concerned that most Muslims in the nation do not seek to really grasp the proper understanding and principles of Islamic syariah, so as to view it in the context intended by Islam.
Instead, most view it more from a political and blindly confirmative approach which, needless to say, does not reflect Islam’s standing as a religion and way of life.
Like most Muslims, I am not against the principles and actions of hudud per se, if it is implemented with judicious care and well-rounded considerations, with an unbiased intention to ensure that an effective and just delivery of the intended purpose of the law is achieved — for the good of all citizens and not just Muslims.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of the New York-based Cordoba Initiative, in his book, Moving The Mountain, postulated five principles in observing Islamic jurisprudence (which includes hudud).
In brief, he listed the five principles as follows:
THE purpose of the law always trumps the letter of the law.
WHATEVER that is not explicitly prohibited in the Quran or Hadith is de facto permitted.
NECESSITY can make the forbid den permitted, but only for the amount and duration the necessity is permitted.
THE importance of context.
NOT all sins are equal and neither are all good deeds equal.
In the same book, he discussed, with a balanced perspective and intonation, the misconceptions and skewed visions of Islam and the way it is interpreted and practised around the world by nations of different cultures and historical backgrounds.
He sought to propagate the fundamentals of moderate Islamic views and applications, which are balanced and encompasses Islam as truly a way of life for all mankind, versus the skewed and narrow perceptions, which originated not from Islam itself, but from the thinking of Muslims over the centuries.
I would encourage Muslims and non-Muslims to read the book to have a clear and balanced view of Islamic jurisprudence with regards to the substance and various forms in which it has been applied since the Prophet Muhammad’s time and to this day.
Looking at the Kelantan example, despite the intention and adamant attitude of the state government to pursue the implementation of hudud, it is clear that the law still has loopholes, not to mention that it needs to go through Parliament and related provisions of the Federal Constitution need to be amended, to make the hudud law legally enforceable in Kelantan.
This probably will be subject to legislative debate and one can guess that in the heat of such debates later on, as in the past, it could spill over to be a war of words of how one Muslim is “more Islamic” than the other.
Some Muslims argue from the perspective that once the burden of implementation is passed on to Parliament, then state administrators are absolved of their burden and responsibility to answer to God.
This is a narrow point of view and a lazy thought process, to put it mildly.
The Pas government carries the responsibility to understand and respect the law of the nation, among many other basic matters which have yet to be pursued diligently, for the people of Kelantan.
Its responsibility is not just to uphold hudud. I believe that much should be clear to any Muslim administrator if they want to hold the responsibility of governing.
As it is, any law to be legislated will inevitably have direct and indirect repercussions to the people, regardless of their race or faith, not just in Kelantan, but for the whole nation.
Is that not a responsibility that needs to be carefully thought through?
Imam Feisal also wrote a five article series last year, discussing hudud and this question which he posed, in summary, is perhaps the best unemotional and unbiased question worth pondering.
He asked: which Kelantan would be more Islamic — a Kelantan where more crimes are committed and hudud punishments are imposed or a Kelantan where fewer crimes are committed and hudud punishments are not imposed?
Sugiman Sabri,
Alor Star, Kedah