WHEN NON-MUSLIMS DECIDE THE FATE OF ISLAM

In others words, it is not unjust to implement Hudud on Muslims, as some argue. It is unjust to NOT implement Hudud on Muslims. Hence the injustice comes into play not when you implement Hudud but when you do not implement Hudud. Therefore, when you apply the injustice argument you need to look at it from the Muslim perspective and not for your perspective. Injustice is when you do not have it and not when you have it (the Hudud law, that is).

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

(The Malaysian Insider) – PAS will remain undeterred in their move to enforce hudud in Kelantan, despite the latest survey by an independent pollster showing Malaysians were not in favour of it, the party’s vice-president said today.

“No matter how many surveys are conducted, hudud is still compulsory for Muslims. PAS wants to implement hudud not because of any surveys or research, but because it is God’s orders,” Datuk Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man told The Malaysian Insider.

He was responding to Merdeka Center’s survey results yesterday that showed 59% of Malaysians, and 58% of Malays, felt Malaysia was not ready to implement hudud.

The PAS leader said that the party may consider postponing hudud to educate the people first, but the survey would not derail their ultimate plan to enforce the law in Kelantan. “However, the survey was carried out in all of Malaysia. That is not fair. It should have been done in Kelantan only because that is where we want to implement it.”

“We have been trying to enforce hudud in Kelantan because that is where we received out mandate, and the Kelantanese understand that our objective is to carry out Allah’s orders.”

He added that there were problems in carrying out surveys on issues compulsory to Muslims. “When it comes to Muslims’ obligations, we can’t just carry out surveys asking them whether they agree with it or not. Something that is compulsory remains compulsory.”

READ MORE HERE

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

Actually, what Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man said is quite true, both from a theological and justice point of view. But then whether you agree with Tuan Ibrahim’s argument would depend a lot on your theological belief plus on your interpretation of justice (or injustice).

So, Tuan Ibrahim is correct from the point of view of his belief system but he would be incorrect if you do not share Tuan Ibrahim’s belief system. And that is why I have always argued that right and wrong are relative (plus are dynamic and not static) and would depend on who you are, where you are, and what point of time you happen to be where you are.

In other words, it can change across borders and across time. For example, child-brides (say, 11-year olds) in France and England, say, 500 years ago, was completely acceptable and today it no longer is while, say, in Pakistan, today, it still is, 500 years later.

So who are you to say what is right and what is wrong? If you were English you will say it is wrong but if you were Pakistani (even those in England) you would say it is right. And if you were English 500 years ago you would say it is right but the English of today will say it is wrong.

Okay, now to the issue of justice. This will be the main argument for those who oppose Hudud — Hudud is a cruel law and a cruel form of punishment. Hence Hudud is unjust.

But then unjust to whom, to the criminal or to the victim — say of armed robbery where the person is badly injured? Islam does not look at injustice or cruelty that way. The way Islam looks at it is Hudud is God’s command, so it is compulsory, and to deny Muslims God’s law is cruel and an act of injustice.

In others words, it is not unjust to implement Hudud on Muslims, as some argue. It is unjust to NOT implement Hudud on Muslims. Hence the injustice comes into play not when you implement Hudud but when you do not implement Hudud. Therefore, when you apply the injustice argument you need to look at it from the Muslim perspective and not for your perspective. Injustice is when you do not have it and not when you have it (the Hudud law, that is).

I mean look at it from another angle. The New Economic Policy is discriminatory to some people. Thus it is said to be unjust. However, to those who benefit from the New Economic Policy, it would be unjust not to have such a policy when the Chinese boast that they are paying 90% of the personal income tax — which means the Chinese are wealthy while the non-Chinese are poor and thus need an affirmative action policy.

Another example would be: do a poll in Moscow and then do the same poll in Kiev as to what is happening in Ukraine. Will the two poll results be the same?

And that is Tuan Ibrahim’s argument. Since Hudud is being proposed for Kelantan then poll the Kelantanese Malays and see what you get. If you were to poll the Chinese in Penang you will get the opposite result from that in Kelantan. And if you were to poll the citizens in the Kelang Valley you will, yet again, get a different result. But Hudud is not being proposed for the Kelang Valley or for Penang so why should we care what those people say?

At the end of the day, what yardstick are we going to apply to settle his matter? Will we use what Kelantanese Malays want? Will we use what Penang Chinese want? Will we use what Malaysians nationwide want (including those in Sabah and Sarawak)? Or will we use what God wants (at least from the Muslim perspective)?

Oh, and some will quote the Constitution and will argue that Hudud goes against the Constitution because laws must come under the Federal Government and not be decided by the States. Which Article of the Constitution says that Hudud is illegal? What it does say is that Islam comes under the state. And is Hudud about Islam or about the law?

If you say that Hudud is about the law and not about Islam then why are Muslims banned from selling food before 3.00pm during the month of Ramadan (they did a raid in Kedah yesterday) when the Constitution says the government may not interfere with the right of Malaysians to earn a living? This means Islam and not the Constitution decides what can and cannot be done.

What if we do a referendum in Kelantan since Hudud will be applied only in Kelantan? And can we agree that if at least 50.01% of Kelantanese vote yes then we will allow Hudud in Kelantan? Is this not the proper democratic way to decide this matter?

And if you say no, why do you say no? Is not democracy based on the will of the majority, or, as I always say, the tyranny of the majority? So what is your problem here? Just accept it because that is what democracy is all about? And is that not what you want, democracy?

As I always say: be careful what you wish for because sometimes democracy is not always the best system when the vote goes against you.