Hudud and the call to submission – Rama Ramanathan

Isma, Mais and PAS have been much in the public eye in recent days.

Isma, an association of Muslim organisations in Malaysia, is actively stirring up tensions. Isma says ethnic Chinese and Indians are intruders or trespassers in Malaysia.

Mais (Majlis Agama Islam Selangor), a body funded by the state-government of Selangor to promote the well-being of Muslims and to advise the Sultan, has made baseless allegations that Christians have an agenda to convert Muslims. Mais apparently doesn’t care if Christian beliefs are misrepresented and/or ridiculed.

PAS, the Islamic Party of Malaysia, says it wants to empower Islamic courts to amputate, stone or whip perpetrators of certain offences – and to waive some punishments if the perpetrators can make financial restitution. PAS says it’s un-Islamic to hinder them from implementing such Hudud laws. PAS says the Federal Constitution could be interpreted as anticipating the implementation of Hudud laws.

Isma and Mais appear to be different from PAS in one respect: they believe non-elite Malays are easily confused. Based on this article of faith, they say the elites must prevent the circulation of truth, or limit access to truth. Based on the same article of faith, they say the long-established rights of others must be withdrawn, e.g. using the Arabic name “Allah” for God.

Isma appears to support the urge PAS has to implement Hudud laws for Muslims in Kelantan. Mais is silent.

All of the above are going on in public. A few Muslims have expressed disappointment with Isma, Mais and PAS. Persons of other faiths have expressed exasperation. Many have called upon the government to take steps to rein in Isma and Mais.

I wonder what to make of it all. Since I am not a Muslim, should I be sad that Isma, Mais and PAS appear to be tarnishing the name of Islam? Or should I be glad? Should I be worried that Malaysia, by resorting to amputation and stoning, will soon become another failed Muslim-majority country? Frankly, I don’t know.

I’ve chosen to think instead about the word “submission.” I’ve noticed how Hudud oriented Muslims never fail to remind listeners that “Islam” means “submission,” and therefore they are required to abide by rules which others may consider medieval, since God knows best. I’ve heard Muslims say they are “hamba Allah,” slaves of God.

Muslims who think Islam is unique in requiring them to think of themselves as slaves of God are in for a surprise.

Christians also consider all people to be slaves. According to Christians, we are either slaves of “our own appetites” (sin) or slaves of “our Lord Christ” (Romans16:18, NASB).

However, there is a new dimension to the idea of “slave of our Lord Christ.” This new dimension removes “fear” from the equation which we associate with being a slave.

The new dimension is son-ship: For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” (Romans 8:15, NASB)

Christians are called to submit to God rather than to their “own appetites,” which are often summarized in the classic list of the seven deadly sins: wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy and gluttony, all of which are examples of NOT putting God first.

The mark of the Christian is a slavish desire to honour God, the Father.

Isma, Mais and PAS have caused me to recall and rejoice that I am called to faithful, voluntary submission to a Christ-pleasing, God-honouring way of living. But should I rejoice over the kind of Islam they are portraying?

Since I am not a Muslim, I cannot say who represents Islam. Is it Isma? Is it PAS? Is it Mais? Is it Muslims who oppose Kelantan’s Hudud implementation? I don't know. I can only say that I cannot rejoice over misrepresentation.

I can add that this conclusion is unavoidable: Muslims, like those of other faiths, do not all have identical beliefs. This impacts me because when one group decides to subjugate other groups in matters where there is room for diversity, I cannot merely standby and watch, because God to whom I submit, demands that I stand up for justice.

So, when people say “Hudud laws are a matter for Muslims, non-Muslims should stay out of it,” I ask: "If in the Muslim household next door two brothers are arguing violently and seem likely to come to blows, should I close my ears and my windows?"

That’s what I’m seeing in Malaysia today. The people who are at loggerheads are Muslims. The people who have closed their ears and their windows are the Prime Minister and the Cabinet of Malaysia.

I believe they have closed their ears and their windows because they just don’t know what to do. They know the solution lies in generous interpretation of the Koran and the Hadith (“the traditions”).

They know they are not qualified to undertake the interpretation, and they know those who are qualified by virtue of the offices they hold, e.g. mufti, are unlikely ever to decide.

They know the only solution is to recognise the value of being “a secular state.” The solution lies in submission to the Federal Constitution, not in trying to creatively interpret it to say we are an Islamic state or can become an Islamic state. – write2rest.blogspot.com,

* Rama Ramanathan blogs at write2rest.blogspot.com.