FAITH VERSUS REASON: THE ALLAH-HUDUD DEBATE

When Muslims talk about Hudud they are speaking on the basis that this is a command from God — to implement God’s laws. Do you think the Muslims care about what a man-made Constitution says? After all, the Constitution was not only written by man but by the kafir British on top of that.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The Allah word and Hudud issues are still being hotly debated in Malaysia. Now Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng has announced that there is no ban on the use of Allah and more than three dozen other words in the state.

The Penang Mufti has said that he will be meeting Guan Eng to ‘explain’ or discuss this matter while Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim stated that Guan Eng is correct.

Last weekend, DAP unanimously voted to oppose Hudud while PAS asked DAP to stay out and to not interfere with the proposed implementation of Hudud in Kelantan, which the Menteri Besar announced would be decided at the end of this month.

It appears like Pakatan Rakyat is in a mess with DAP voting one side and PAS voting the opposite — and PKR sometimes agreeing with DAP and sometimes agreeing with PAS (or saying that in principle they agree, but….).

The problem is actually very easy to analyse. The ‘mess’ is because they have not clearly defined the parameters of the debate. Hence it ends up as a sort of shouting match.

You also need to define the meaning of the various terminologies. For example, like in the issue of Article 153 and the New Economic Policy, some debate the issue based on the understanding that they are debating Malay and native rights. But it is not about Malay and native rights. It is about the special position of the Malays and natives.

Hence when you are not clear about what you are debating — whether it is about rights or special position — you end up in a mess like the issue of the Allah word and Hudud.

The Allah word and Hudud issues are a perfect example of two groups of people — one for and the other against — speaking on different wavelengths. And that is why this can never be resolved.

While one side talks about faith and akidah, the other talks about the law and the Constitution. And both sides wonder why the other side is so stubborn and refuses to listen.

You first need to agree whether we are debating faith and akidah or debating the law and the Constitution. If I talk about akidah and you talk about the law, meaning secular law, then we are never going to be able to meet in the middle.

You cannot use reasoning to debate faith, or vice versa, because faith defies logic. Hence, never mind how logical your arguments may be, you cannot defeat faith with your logical arguments.

When Muslims talk about Hudud they are speaking on the basis that this is a command from God — to implement God’s laws. Do you think the Muslims care about what a man-made Constitution says? After all, the Constitution was not only written by man but by the kafir British on top of that.

And the more you argue that Malaysia is a Secular State and Malaysia’s Federal Constitution is a Secular Constitution, the more Muslims will not accept it as the alternative to God’s Constitution, the Qur’an.

In fact, just like the confusion between Malay and native rights and the special position of the Malays and natives, there is also a lot of confusion between whether Malaysia is an Islamic country or merely that Islam is the religion of the Federation.

Yes, that is what the Constitution says, that Islam is the religion of the Federation. So what does that mean? Does that mean Malaysia is a Secular State or does that mean Malaysia is an Islamic country (I do not want to use the term ‘Islamic State’ to avoid confusion with what is going on in some parts of the world).

Even this is not clearly defined, although I always say that Malaysia is half a Secular State since it also stipulates that Islam is the religion of the Federation (just like Malaysia is half a democracy since it is a ‘guided’ democracy, as Lee Kuan Yew said about Singapore).

The problem is, Malaysia’s made-in-England Constitution is full of ‘buts’. And herein lies the problem.

Malaysia is a Constitutional Monarchy but…

Malaysia allows freedom of association and assembly but…

Malaysia allows freedom of speech, expression and opinion but…

Malaysia allows freedom of religion but…

Malaysia allows freedom of choice but…

Everything is allowed, as in a democracy they should be allowed, but…

And the obstacle to solving our religious conflicts and disagreements: Malaysia is a Secular State but…

So you see, for everything that you are allowed to do and say there is another sub-clause that forbids you from doing or saying it.

I remember back in school when I put up my hand and asked the teacher, “Sir, can I go to the toilet?”

The teacher replied, “Yes you can but you may not.”

I stood there puzzled, not knowing whether that was a yes or a no. My teacher saw that I was perplexed and he said, “You asked me whether you can go to the toilet. You can. But you need permission to go to the toilet. So I have not given you permission since you did not ask me for permission to go to the toilet but only enquired whether you can go to the toilet.”

So I rephrased the question. “Sir, may I go to the toilet,” and the teacher replied, “Yes you may.”

So, in Malaysia, you can do many things but whether you may do it is another thing altogether. You are allowed to do and say this, that and the other but…

Hence, if you want to discuss or debate matters pertaining to Islam, let us first be clear about what platform we are standing on to discuss or debate the matter. If you stand on the platform of the law and the Constitution while I stand on the platform of faith and akidah, then, as Rudyard Kipling said:

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,

Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;

But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,

When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!