The bane of the opposition coalition raises its head again. Hudud law, which triggers opposing reaction from DAP, PKR and PAS since they first started to cooperate (refer selected cases in 2008, 2009, and 2010)is back again. Looks like an yearly affair. And more bonus for BN to take a hit at the opposition coalition.

This time,  PAS says wants to implement Hudud in Kelantan. And the PR head, Anwar Ibrahim says the following in support of PAS:

“For now, in general, in principle, I believe this can be implemented. Looking at the specific areas, and there is clear guarantee that there is administration of justice.

“It does not in any way infringe on the rights of non-Muslims,” Anwar told reporters outside the Jalan Duta courthouse here.

He explained that Kelantan’s hudud law plans were “specific” and it covered two important aspects — a fair administration according to Islamic law and ensuring that the rights of non-Muslims are protected.

“It is a specific area that affects Muslims and does not impeach rights of non-Muslims. The proceeding makes sure that administration of justice is guaranteed,” he said.

Coming from politicians, I don’t believe statements that say “doesn’t impeach” or “rights are protected” kind of messages. Always need to read the fine print.

Cue the Tiger of Jelutong:

DAP chairman Karpal Singh, who was taken aback by Anwar’s stand to support hudud law said: “The punishments for these offences are flogging 100 times for intercourse between an unmarried couple, stoning to death for adultery, amputation of hand for theft, death for apostasy, flogging 40 times for alcohol consumption, flogging 80 times for false accusation of adultery and death by sword or crucifixion for highway robbery.”

Karpal also said the fear among non-Muslims that the implementation of hudud law was a step forward in the creation of an Islamic state was justified.

He said the implementation of hudud law would also contravene the Federal Constitution.

Karpal also said the rekindling of the hudud issue ran contrary to PAS’ resolve during the recent muktamar to push for a welfare state.

source: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/9/23/nation/9559730&sec=nation

The DPM says agree with Hudud but now is not the time to implement as need to spread lot of information to get the public’s support. Comments from MCA, MIC, Gerakan, PPP, MMSP and other non-UMNO members/affiliates seems be missing at the moment.

I think the religous aspect should only affect the followers of that religion, and not infringe on others, which in case of this particular religion does seem to be so. The regulators of religion in Malaysia, through their actions, doesn’t give me much faith that this Hudud law will be implemented correctly or fairly. I mean, if you go around body snatching, snooping in the middle of the night, barging into hotel rooms, converting students, banning yoga and certain dance, and so on, then definitely, this Hudud law will spell more trouble for the non-Muslims.

We seem to have lame duck parliamentarians and assemblymen (like in Selangor previously)  who simply sign away our rights, so based on this, I think Hudud law is a potential danger.

I’m also curious about the options available under Hudud laws. If indeed its only for Muslims, then what is the outcome of the following scenarios?

1. Robber is non-Muslim while victim is Muslim.

• Can the robber decline to be tried under Syariah/Hudud (which should not rise in the first place since he’s non-Muslim)
• Can the victim demand to the case to be tried under Syariah/Hudud?
• Who has the final say when there’s a conflict of demands?

2. Robber is Muslim while victim is non-Muslim.

• Can the robber insist/decline to be tried under Syariah/Hudud ?
• Can the victim decline the case to be tried under Syariah/Hudud?
• Who has the final say when there’s a conflict of demands?

3.  Muslim and non-Muslim involved in Zina.

• Can the couple insist on being tried under civil laws?
• Can they be tried separately under different set of laws?
• Who has the final say when there’s a conflict of demands?

4. Can a non-Muslim lawyer represent a accuser or the defendant?

If such laws are to implemented, then it must be clearly stated that it is only for the Muslims. Secondly, the non-Muslim bodies must take this opportunities to revisit existing Islamic laws and insist on correcting those that infringe or are unfair to the non-Muslims, for example conversion cases. But in my opinion, I think the non-Muslim organisations won’t be consulted and the decisions will be implemented arbitrarily.

Yes, the laws are quite detailed, there’s the need for burden of proof, proper and qualified witnesses and so on. BUT, remembering our enforcement and way of doing things, all these will look nice on paper only.

Do read a bit on Hudud. Check out Wiki (English and Malay) for a start.