Thursday, September 29, 2011

HUDUD:To Be Or Not To Be ?

Hantu Laut

No laws are perfect including secular laws but there are vast differences between humanistic and God's law.While God's laws are purportedly to be perfect and set in stone, secular laws are always evolving.

The world has progressed under humanistic laws and would continue to do so as long as humans care about their future and preservation of the human race.

Much as I hate to say, religious laws are archaic, retrogressive and not suitable in this modern world.

I was compounded in astonishment and shocking disbelief when I read Anwar Ibrahim's statement supporting hudud law to be implemented in Kelantan, short of him saying, on condition they would make him prime minister should Pakatan win the 13th General Elections.

There is now a general consensus among the general population, except in PKR's camp, that Anwar would not be prime minister even if Pakatan takes the Federal government in the coming elections.PKR is expected to be the worst performer among the 3 partners.The party with the most seats would choose one of theirs to be prime minister with appointment of two deputies, one Malay and one Chinese.Would Anwar settles for a deputy?

The support for hudud is to boost his supports from right-wing Muslims without which he would see his dream of helming the nation vapourising into thin air.

This is a man who portrayed himself as the "Asian Renaissance Man". Like the chameleon he has the versatility of changing colours.His supporters in the West, particularly, the obnoxious and arrogant John Malott , are probably having sleepless nights trying to decipher his most unexpected statement which sounds as unpleasant and displeasing as when he went on his anti-Semitic overdrive trying to disparage the Najib's government of being Jew-lover for engaging APCO, a purportedly Jewish controlled consulting firm, hoping that the anti-Semitic diatribes would bring him a resurgence of right-wing Muslim supports.

What is a "renaissance man"?

In a nutshell, it is the intellectual transformation of an individual.

Those who went to school during the colonial days would have studied European history and learned about the "European Renaissance", the intellectual transformation of European societies that started in Italy and spread to other parts of Europe between the 14th and 17th century and with it the rise of humanism and secularism.Christendom was still a violent religion then carrying out inquisition of heretics, using torture and death, and anti-Jewish pogroms.During this period the Catholic Church was at the peak of its influence, exerting its power to create a religiously uniform community.Although, most rulers were secular the church virtually controlled state's politics.The period also saw the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the renaissance and Protestant movement, the breakaways from Catholicism.

The West have learned that religion in whatever form have not been and will never be compatible partner in the running of a nation, that church and state are like oil and water, they are not miscible, one would have to subjugate the other and the church has, for hundreds of years, ruled most European states.

The Western nations have grown wiser and separated the two. There are no more theological influence in Western democracies.There may be religious humanists in government but they do not bring elements of religion into the administration.

What is Anwar trying to do? Is he leading the nation in the right direction? He is trying to turn the clock back? More shocking is his affirmation that hudud would be fair and would not be applicable to non Muslims.How exactly is he going to implement two different sets of law for a nation that is multiracial, multi religious and have existed under secular laws for yonks.

We are not Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Pakistan where the populations are homogenenously Muslims.One law for all.In most cases they are not even Islamic law but law of the jungle, tribal law under the guise of Islamic law.Honour killings of wayward daughters for saving of one's family honour and rapes of women as form of revenge are rampant in these God's forsaken countries.The ignorant person would think those are Islamic practices when they are not.

In a hudud system, say in Malaysia, what would happen if a Muslim girl fornicated with a non-Muslim man? Would the justice system stone her to death and let the man go free or get away with only a small fine?

Since Anwar has affirmed that non-Muslims would not be affected, he and Nik Aziz, the two strong proponents of hudud should give their views on this issue.

Take Pakistan, Afghanistan and Somalia as examples. These are predominantly Muslim countries that have become despicable "failed states" and the most dangerous places on earth to be in at the moment.

Just a few weeks ago a Malaysian journalist was shot death in Somalia.The country has a stooge central government that is hardly functioning.The country is run by criminals, warlords and high seas pirates, who, probably, have collected more money out of hijacking and kidnapping than the government collecting revenues for administration of the states. These criminals and warlords have their own mini governments dispensing their own form of sharia .The country had become a beggar's state surviving on foreign aids.

I can understand if an ignorant non-Muslim writer here blindly trying to justify PAS brand of hudud, because he knew no better, but coming from people like Anwar "The Renaissance Man" is undoubtedly for his own political expediency and a political trap he set for Najib, which, unfortunately, was taken hook, line and sinker by Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin before Najib could respond.

For whatever reasons, Muhyiddin was quick to the draw when it was Najib that Anwar asked to make a stand on the issue, is a mystery. Najib has responded that there would not be hudud law in Malaysia, certainly not under his leadership.East Malaysians showed a sign of relief when Najib said there would never be hudud in Malaysia.Sabah and Sarawak have very significant Christian population.

Can you trust governments in underdeveloped and developing countries that say democracy and human rights exist in their countries but behave otherwise, blatantly running autocratic or totalitarian regimes with total disregard for human rights.

The Arab nations are the worst offenders when it comes to protection of basic human rights.The countries are run by maniacal despots and tyrants who have no considerations whatsoever for human rights and human dignity.The only interest they have are to fill up the family coffers as much as possible by robbing the state treasuries.Some used Islam to control the people. Making comment against the government could end you up in prison and in worse case scenario, imprisonment and torture, and if you are unlucky, death.

For decades the Arab people prayed and looked forward to wake up in the morning for deliverance from the evil regimes and the dawn of a new era of true democracy and freedom, they never came, every succeeding government produced even bigger monster, until the day the straw that broke the camel's back arrived and the people snapped that led to conflagration of uprisings sweeping the Arab nations that is now popularly known as the "Arab Spring". The region was known as the land of jahiliyyh in pre-Islamic era, unfortunately, it still is.

I will not elaborate further on the Arab Spring as it is still ongoing in Libya and Yemen and is common knowledge everywhere but would like to highlight the hypocritical nature of Arab nations.

When the UN laid down its Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) for its members, some of the OIC (Organisation Of Islamic Countries) members accepted and signed the declaration but some rejected the UDHR saying it has not taken into account the cultural and religious context of non-Western nations and a serious divergence from Islamic Sharia. They can only accept a declaration that used Sharia as its sole source.

On 5 August 1990, 45 OIC members met in Cairo and presented, as an alternative to UDHR, a guidance to human rights named the "Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam"(CDHRI) based on the shariah which was accepted and adopted by all the 45 countries including those that have signed the UDHR. You can read the full text of the declaration here and form your own opinion whether any of the Arab countries complied with what they have jointly declared.

Though, I don't support them politically I have high regards for people like Lim Guan Eng, Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh who have stayed unwavering in their beliefs and stood by their principles on issues close to their hearts.They don't have the versatility of a chameleon that can blend with the colours of its surrounding to protect itself for predators.

We are only about 60 % Muslims and huge minority of non-Muslims, which, incidentally, is the bigger economic engine of this country.The big businesses may even move their capitals outside the country, foreign investors and foreign tourists may also give us a miss in the event Malaysia, which I hope not, join the league of Islamic nations that went down the chute because of politicians greed for power.It is also against the Federal constitution to implement any other law other than the existing ones allowed under the constitution, unless Pakatan Rakyat can get two-thirds majority in Parliament to change the constitution which is most unlikely.

Did Karpal Singh not say "over my dead body" if PAS tried to implement hudud in this country?

One thing I know for sure Anwar had done a great favour to BN........after his great revelation Pakatan will never get Sabah and Sarawak.

The hudud issue will sit on the back burner for a while but it will keep coming back till PAS get the clout to implement it...........which will forever be a pipe dream.

1 comment:

Freddie Kevin said...

Salam HL,
As a norm I do not comment on matters pertaining to Islam as it would best be left to those more knowledgeable in the religion.
That being said, I.have read material on Hudud.
Your take on Tan Sri Muhyddin thus prompts me to comment. Almost all material read, one condition is necessary for Hudud.
That the population is overwlemingly Muslim dominated and in instances like ours, its implementation is not compulsory. Also it must be accepted by all and until the populace is ready therefore Tan Sri is right.
Another is Hudud must be applied to ALL. In this respect Datuk Zaid is right.
Thank you and best regards,
Freddie