What’s the beef?

Now, the Christians condemn Islam for being barbaric (in particular reference to Hudud). But these are the same laws in the Bible. And the fact that Christians and Christian countries no longer follow these laws does not mean that the Bible has abolished these laws. These laws are still in the Bible. In fact, it says very clearly in the Bible that you are to kill your own children if they become apostates.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I remember back in the 1980s (if I’m not mistaken) when Malaysia introduced the RM1,000 fine for littering. We joked that if you smoke a cigarette during the fasting month of Ramadhan and you see a policeman, keep smoking. If you were to throw the cigarette onto the road you would get fined RM1,000 for littering. If you keep smoking you would get arrested for smoking in public when you are supposed to be fasting. The fine is only RM300 -- so it is cheaper.

What has that joke got to do with what I am going to say today? Nothing, really, I just wanted to get your attention. Well, actually it is linked in some small way. I wanted to demonstrate that Islamic laws or Shariah laws have existed for a long time in Malaysia. It is not something new or something that is just about to be implemented. And there are many laws under the Shariah, the only one that is yet to be implemented would, of course, be that very controversial law called Hudud, which deals with ‘serious crimes’ (at least from the Islamic perspective).

However, Shariah laws have always been imposed only on Muslims (or those perceived to be Muslims or suspected to have converted to Islam: hence the body snatching cases). Non-Muslims are exempted or immune from these laws.

We once discussed a hypothetical situation. What if a man (or woman) was arrested for khalwat (close proximity: which means being in a secluded place with someone you are not married to) and he (or she) was dragged before the Shariah court to face charges? The charges are read to him/her and he/she responds by asking the court to prove that he/she is a Muslim.

You see; close proximity is only a crime if you (or both of you) are a Muslim. If you are not a Muslim then no crime has been committed. So this man (or woman) asks the court, “How do you know that I am a Muslim?”

That is a valid question. He/she may have been born from Muslim parents and may even have a Muslim name on his/her birth certificate and identity card. So, ‘constitutional speaking’, he/she is a Muslim.

But what are the criteria for one to be regarded as a Muslim? Aren’t there certain doctrines you have to believe in (beyond any shadow of doubt) to be a Muslim? And aren’t there certain fundamentals you have to believe in plus certain rituals you have to perform to be a Muslim?

What if you doubted that Prophet Muhammad was really a Prophet? What if you suspected (but are quite not sure) that he learned ‘Islam’ from Khadijah’s cousin Warakah Nawfal, who was a Christian Ebionite priest -- considering that there is a lot of overlapping between Islam and the Old and New Testaments? (Khadijah was Prophet Muhammad’s first wife). What if you suspected (but are quite not sure) that the Koran may not have come from God but was actually drafted by Prophet Muhammad from what he had learned from Warakah?

If you start thinking like this then never mind if you were born from Muslim parents and have a Muslim name in your birth certificate and identity card. You are NOT a Muslim. You doubt the prophethood of Muhammad and you doubt that the Koran is God’s word. That means you are not a Muslim.

So, if you were to tell the Shariah court this -- about your doubts and that you do not think what Islam says about Prophet Muhammad and the Koran are correct and maybe are just myths -- then the court cannot try you as a Muslim. And since the Shariah court can only try Muslims, then it would have to stand down.

Of course, then the religious department can arrange to send you for ‘religious rehabilitation’. But that is another matter. The point is, they can’t try you for khalwat since you have professed to not believing in the doctrine of Islam and that you doubt its veracity and suspect that these stories are mere myths and old wives’ tales.

Say, after many months in the detention camp and they still can’t ‘rehabilitate’ you. You still insist that you do not believe in what you consider myths. Well, they can’t put you to death because Hudud laws have not been implemented yet in Malaysia. So they will eventually have to let you go (which is what happened to one of my friends after two years of detention).

Now, if they had implemented Hudud, and if the Hudud law for apostasy is death, then they can cut off your head.

Actually, if you were to analyse the Hudud laws carefully, you can see that they are actually similar to the old Judeo-Christian laws. So one would not be faulted if one were to say that Islam was ‘hijacked’ from earlier religions (although Muslims would get very upset with you for saying this).

Now, the Christians condemn Islam for being barbaric (in particular reference to Hudud). But these are the same laws in the Bible. And the fact that Christians and Christian countries no longer follow these laws does not mean that the Bible has abolished these laws. These laws are still in the Bible. In fact, it says very clearly in the Bible that you are to kill your own children if they become apostates.

This is still in the Bible and has never been amended. And the fact that Christians and Christian countries today no longer implement these laws is for no other reason other than that Christians are bad Christians. The Christians have defied God and have rejected the Bible. There are very few Christians who still listen to God and follow God’s word as laid out in the Bible. If they were true Christians, they too would kill apostates -- people who leave Christianity to become Muslims.

Anyway, some Muslims want Islamic laws to be implemented. I am of the opinion that we let the Muslims work this out amongst themselves. Today, hardly any Christian would agree to be subjected to ‘barbaric’ Bible laws although this would mean they are violating the Bible. I suspect that the majority of Muslims would also decide to do the same. But it is up to the Muslims to decide this matter, not for non-Muslims to decide on behalf of the Muslims.

The only thing the non-Muslims should be concerned about is that these Islamic laws would only be imposed on Muslims and not on non-Muslims, like what has been the case thus far. How these guarantees would be put in place is a matter that can be discussed and agreed upon. And once the non-Muslims are satisfied that they would be immune or exempted from ALL forms of Islamic laws, then let the Muslims do what they want. After all, in a democracy, everyone has a right to his/her religious beliefs and practices as long as it does not affect other people.