YES, JOSH WU, LET’S DEBATE THE ‘HUDUD BILL’

That is the trouble when we have people like Josh Wu and many more of his ilk trying to teach Muslims about Islam. And then when we tell them that Jesus actually never existed and that the Trinity is the biggest con-job ever they will scream that non-Christians have no right to talk about Christianity.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

These are just some of the many articles and news items published today regarding the ‘Hudud Bill’.

1. Abim wants non-Muslims to debate hudud bill (READ HERE).

2. Hudud bill deserves its day in the Dewan (READ HERE)

3. Is hudud bill PAS’ gift to Umno? (READ HERE)

4. There is no place in Malaysia for Hudud (READ HERE)

5. Lines clearly drawn over hudud bill (READ HERE)

6. Liow: I will resign if hudud Bill passed (READ MORE HERE)

Now read what the proposed Bill says and tell me where does the word ‘HUDUD’ appear.

The word ‘Hudud’ is being used because DAP has managed to convince Malaysians that ‘Hudud’ is a dirty word. It is like using the word ‘Taliban’ in the west. In the west, ‘Taliban’ is a dirty word. So DAP (and now MCA) are playing up the word ‘Hudud’ because they know that this will make many Malaysians (Muslims included) go berserk and foam at the mouth.

Of course, DAP has no choice but to play up this ‘Hudud Bill’ issue. And they are playing it up by calling it the ‘Hudud Bill’ when actually it is not. If they do not call it the ‘Hudud Bill’ then it would be hard to explain why they closed down Pakatan Rakyat and set up Pakatan Harapan without PAS.

DAP actually closed down Pakatan Rakyat so that they can kick PAS out. And DAP wanted to kick PAS out because PAS supported Azmin Ali as the Selangor Menteri Besar. But they cannot admit that this is the reason. So they raise the issue of the ‘Hudud Bill’ and use that as the excuse to close down Pakatan Rakyat.

In short, DAP is pulling off one big con-job. They are angry at PAS for not supporting Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail as the Selangor Menteri Besar and instead PAS supported Azmin Ali. But DAP is pretending they are angry at PAS because of a non-existent ‘Hudud Bill’.

And it now looks like MCA has also joined DAP’s Islamophobia campaign. Not only that, even ABIM and many other so-called Muslims are jumping onto the Islamophobia and anti-Hudud bandwagon.

I can understand the non-Muslims having Islamophobia tendencies. But then we have Muslims having Islamophobia tendencies as well. And then when we propose certain things they get angry and say that Islam does not allow that or as Muslims we must do this and so on.

These Muslims have to really make up their mind and decide what they want. On the one hand they jump onto the anti-Hudud bandwagon just because it is the ‘fashionable’ and ‘modern’ thing to do — they appear chic. But when we propose that Muslims be allowed to leave Islam or live together out of wedlock and enter into gay marriages, and so on, they disagree.

If we want to be ‘modern’ then let’s be ‘modern’. ‘Modern’ does not just mean merely joining the liberals in opposing Hudud. We have to be modern all the way. We must allow Muslims to leave Islam (or drink liquor, live out of wedlock, enter in gay marriages, etc.). Muslims must be allowed to say that Prophet Muhammad was not really a Prophet but was just one clever conman who stole certain ideas from Judaism and Christianity and claimed that these ‘verses’ came from God. Muslims must be allowed to say that the Qur’an, which did not come from God, was compiled into a book that you now see many years after Muhammad’s death to eliminate the many different versions of Qur’ans that existed at that time.

Yes, being ‘modern’ means you must allow dissent and opposition and allow people to express their views that both Muhammad and the Qur’an are bogus. If you cannot accept this then you are not ready to be ‘modern’. And is ABIM ready to be ‘modern’ like they pretend to be or will they get upset if we say that Muhammad and the Qur’an are bogus?

Anyway, Josh Wu has posted a few comments in Malaysia Today, which you can read below. From his comments, although he pretends to be knowledgeable about the issue, he just shows he is one more Chinaman who likes to talk as if he is clever.

For example, Josh Wu talks about Article 8 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and about equal protection before the law. What Josh Wu is saying is there should be no laws where only Muslims are punished while non-Muslims escape punishment.

This is why I say Josh Wu is a Chinaman who likes to talk as if he is clever but really knows nothing about the subject he is talking about. Since before Merdeka there has been one law for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. So what is Josh Wu talking about?

Josh Wu says he opposes Hudud because it is unfair for a law to be implemented that only punishes Muslims while non-Muslims do not get punished. But has this not always been the case since before Merdeka?

Muslims cannot drink. Non-Muslims can. Muslims cannot have sex outside marriage. Non-Muslims can. Muslims cannot gamble. Non-Muslims can. Muslims cannot leave their religion and convert to another religion. Non-Muslims can. Muslims cannot eat during Ramadhan. Non-Muslims can. Muslims cannot enter beauty contests. Non-Muslims can.

There are so many things non-Muslims can do while Muslims cannot and if they do it they get arrested and punished. So tell me, what is Josh Wu talking about?

Josh Wu then talks about infringement of the Constitution. Does the Federal Constitution of Malaysia not say that religion is a state matter? So is it not the state’s right to decide what happens to Islam or the Syariah? And if you take away the right of the state to decide would that not be infringement of the Constitution?

Josh Wu tries to argue that the state only has rights regarding civil or family law and not criminal law. Well, in that case how can the state religious department arrest and punish you for not fasting, for not paying fitrah, for drinking, for gambling, for being in a hotel room with someone not your spouse, for rejecting Islam, for rejecting Prophet Muhammad, for rejecting the Hadith, for rejecting the Qur’an, and many more ‘crimes’?

That is the trouble when we have people like Josh Wu and many more of his ilk trying to teach Muslims about Islam. And then when we tell them that Jesus actually never existed and that the Trinity is the biggest con-job ever they will scream that non-Christians have no right to talk about Christianity.

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

RPK, I think you overlooked Article 8 of the Federal Constitution.

Below is an excerpt from an article which contains statements from the current President of the Malaysian Bar. (Source: http://www.therakyatpost.com/news/2015/03/20/hudud-inconsistent-with-federal-constitution-says-malaysian-bar/)

Article 8(1), which guaranteed equality before the law and equal protection of the law, would also be breached, in that hudud would only be applicable to Muslims.

“It would result in divergent procedures, separate evidentiary rules and differing punishment being applicable to Muslims as compared to non-Muslims, in respect of criminal offences.

“A Muslim offender would also face heavier punishment under hudud laws for the same offence, compared to a non-Muslim offender who is not subject to hudud laws. Further, the hudud laws entrench, and result in, injustice and discrimination against women and this would be contrary to Article 8(2),” he said.

—————————————————————————–

This argument seems to have merit. If so, would it be not be right for DAP to say they are defending and upholding the Federal Constitution by opposing the Bill?

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

Will Tee, are you suggesting that a religious issue (particularly involving Islam) could supersede the Federal Constitution and its provisions?

Perhaps you are unaware of the constitutional implications if the Bill were to be passed (If so, may I direct you to the following article http://www.therakyatpost.com/…/hudud-inconsistent-with…/). The way I see it, you can’t just ignore the elephant in the room (i.e. infringement of the Constitution) on the basis that it’s a religious matter.

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

Marina Lee , as you rightly pointed out, religion is under the purview of the state. However, what you are failing to see is that the Bill concerns extending the state’s power in relation to CRIMINAL LAW, hence it is no longer a state issue but a federal issue (might I refer you to the fourth provision under List 1 of the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution).

And since it’s a federal issue, democratically elected MPs have every right to speak out and support or oppose it.

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

You don’t see why they are so concerned? Have you read up about the constutional implications? If you have, I would love to hear your justification for each potential infringement.

If not, I recommend you read the following article which contains Steven Thiru (current President of the Malaysian Bar)’s take on the matter.