Debating the dog collar

Let me make one thing very clear. Democracy and religion are NOT compatible. You have to choose one or the other. You cannot choose both. Democracy is about freedom of choice. Religion does not allow you any freedom of choice.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Every general election without fail the ruling party and the opposition will start arguing and debating the Islamic Sharia law of Hudud. Every general election without fail!

And they debate this issue in the same spirit that they would debate child prostitution, gay marriages, legalising prostitution, and whatnot. Basically, Hudud has been given the same ‘status’ as the other scourges of society. Hence Hudud, too, is a ‘plague’ just like all the others.

Don’t these proponents of Hudud as well as the opponents see this? Can’t they see what they are doing to Hudud? Hudud is being treated as something jijik (offensive or defile), as the Malays would say.

And notice one more thing. Hudud is being argued or debated in the context of whether it is an outdated law and behind time and therefore no longer relevant to the modern world. Whether Hudud is God’s command and therefore mandatory so no discussion on the matter is allowed. Whether it is too early to implement this law and should be something we discuss later down the road. Whether we need to educate Malaysians and explain this law to them first before we start proposing its implementation. Whether there would ever be a ‘Muslim-majority’ in Parliament to get Hudud passed as law. Whether the Muslims from both sides of the political divide -- Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat -- will unite and ‘gang up’ to get the required majority in Parliament to implement Hudud.

And so on and so forth.

Why are we debating the dog collar? In the first place do we even need or want a dog and if not then why are we even talking about buying a dog? When we have established that then we can discuss the colour of the dog collar. Sigh…

Let us rewind the debate. Let us first discuss the concept of laws. How did we inherit all these laws? Why were laws even passed in the first place? Can we live comfortably and safely without any laws? What types of laws do we need to ensure we remain a civil and peaceful society? How do we apply and implement these laws?

Laws are invented for a purpose. Laws are meant to ensure that order is maintained. Without any laws we would be living in a state of anarchy. We will all have to carry handguns and look after our own life, limb and property. It will be survival of the strongest. The weakest would be victims of the strongest. We would be living in a state of what we could call ‘the law of the jungle’. Hence we need laws and we need a legal system to implement these laws.

And these laws are given a name. It could be called the Penal Code. It could be called Common Laws. It could be called English Laws. It could be called French Laws. It could be called American Common Laws. It could be called Contract Laws. It could be called Family Laws. It could be called Divorce Laws. It could be called Inheritance Laws. It could be called Law of Torts. It could be called Criminal Laws. It could be called Traffic Laws. It could be called Emergency Laws. It could be called Martial Laws. And it could also be called the Sharia or Hudud.

Basically, laws are given a name and Hudud is just one more name for the many laws that exist all over the world. The only difference between Hudud and all the others is that some people believe that Hudud came from God while all the rest are man-made laws. Hence what comes from God must be implemented while it is not mandatory (just prudent) to implement the rest.

In that case, if this is the argument, then we are no longer talking about the legal system but about theology. And the issue of a majority in parliament and all those other arguments become irrelevant. Do we need a majority in Parliament to pray, fast, etc., or even to believe in God? That is a matter of faith and a matter of personal choice, not a matter of a majority in Parliament.

In short, we are no longer discussing Hudud in the context of democracy but in the context of there is no democracy when it comes to God’s commands. God does not allow us to take a vote to decide whether the majority are in favour of believing in Him and that if the majority votes to not believe in God then we do not need to believe in Him and therefore do not also need to perform our religious obligations.

Let me make one thing very clear. Democracy and religion are NOT compatible. You have to choose one or the other. You cannot choose both. Democracy is about freedom of choice. Religion does not allow you any freedom of choice.

Why is sodomy (even anal sex between man and woman) a crime? Because God says so. Why is drinking and gambling (for Muslims) a crime? Because God says so. Why is illicit or extra-marital sex (for Muslims) a crime? Because God says so. Why is homosexuality a crime? Because God says so.

Under a democracy do you not have freedom of choice? You do but just as long as you do not violate God’s commands. Hence you DO NOT have a democratic right to violate God’s commands. And this means you only have partial democracy, not full democracy.

So what we are actually debating here is whether Malaysia is a full democracy or a partial democracy. And remember, even the Umno people voted in favour of Hudud and Qisas when the Terengganu State Assembly passed it into law 11 years ago back in 2002. Hence both the opposition as well as the ruling party are saying that Malaysia does not have full democracy, only partial democracy.

So, are we discussing Hudud in the context of the legal system? Are we discussing it in the context of theology? Or are we discussing it in the context of democracy, or the lack of it?

In short, are we discussing the dog or the dog collar?

******************************************

Islamic state ‘impossible’ in multiracial Malaysia, says MCA man

(The Malaysian Insider) - Veteran MCA politician Datuk Lee Hwa Beng hosed down today his party’s claims that a vote for DAP could lead vicariously to the implementation of hudud law, pointing out that it was “impossible” for any winner of Election 2013 to set up an Islamic theocratic state.

Without naming any party, he noted that there were politicians who relied on fear-mongering tactics among the Chinese community by warning them that an Islamic state will result if the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) coalition comes into power or, alternatively, if there is a coalition of Umno and PAS.

MCA, hit by widespread unpopularity among the Chinese electorate, has made the possibility of an Islamic state a central plank of its campaign in Election 2013.

The party has placed a number of newspaper advertisements suggesting that a vote for DAP is a vote for hudud, the Islamic penal law, especially after the PR party said it had considered using the logo of PAS in the general election following now-dispelled doubts about its ability to apply its own symbol.

Lee, the former Port Klang Authority (PKA) chairman who gained public acknowledgement for his role in investigating the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal, pointed out that any change to the Federal Constitution required a two-thirds majority in Parliament.

He said in a letter to The Malaysian Insider today that the number of seats contested by the various political parties, including the main Muslim parties of Umno and PAS, suggest that it was impossible to amend the constitution as needed for an Islamic state.

Lee based this on the assumption that all non-Muslim MPs would not vote for any amendment to introduce an Islamic theocratic state.

“For example in the Terengganu state assembly some years ago when PAS introduced hudud law, the lone MCA member abstained from voting for it whereas, in contrast, all the Umno members voted for it,” he said.

He pointed out that even if Umno won all 105 parliamentary seats it was contesting in the peninsula and the 15 in Sabah, and if Sarawak’s PBB took 14 seats there, these would still total only 134.

This, he pointed out, remains short of the two-thirds majority ― 148 seats ― needed to amend the constitution.

He added that while it may appear possible if Umno, PAS and PBB formed a coalition, it should be noted that PAS and Umno were competing for many of the same seats.

“My conclusion is that an Islamic theocratic state is impossible in our multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural country, safeguarded by our societal constitution and the Federal Constitution itself.”

******************************************

Time not right for hudud, says Khalid Ibrahim

(The Malaysian Insider) - Hudud law cannot be implemented in multi-racial Malaysia currently because the Federal Constitution bars it, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim said today.

The caretaker Selangor mentri besar said that although the controversial Islamic penal code was accepted as a principle of Islamic administration, its execution was precluded by the constitutional safeguards afforded to Malaysia’s various ethnic groups.

“We must accept the fact that in Islam, hudud is accepted as part of Islamic administration,” Khalid told reporters at the Selangor exco housing here today.

“But I feel that it cannot be implemented in the current circumstances,” he added.

Khalid stressed that the consensus of the people must be obtained before hudud could be implemented, saying: “The implementation of hudud, which goes beyond what is determined in the constitution, needs to get the approval of all Malaysians.”

PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang said last November at the party’s 58th annual conference that it may never entirely abandon its plans to impose hudud for Muslims, but had only softened its approach as the Islamist party knew it could not rule without its non-Muslim allies in Pakatan Rakyat (PR).

MCA-owned English daily The Star ran full-page advertisements recently ahead of Election 2013, warning Malaysians that a vote for the DAP was a vote for PAS.