Opposing hudud does not mean opposing Islam


Why should we get caught up by people who want to fight to be the Muslimest-Muslim they can possibly be

Nadira Ilana, MMO

I’m just not sure what’s a ‘nice’ way to have a conversation about a set of laws that legitimises amputations, slavery and public stoning in God’s name. There are many reasons why I think that hudud has no place in the modern world.

Hudud neglects what we know today about economics and social science. We know that robbers don’t all rob because they’re bad, it’s because they’re often poor, sick or desperate. We know that sociopathy and psychopathy are personality disorders and that people are a product of their environment therefore evil acts are not Satanic manifestations in men. In that respect, not all women and men can be judged the same.

We know that just because four men didn’t witness a rape, it doesn’t mean that a woman has committed adultery. A woman is not the proverbial tree fallen in the forest so a rape kit will do just nicely to prevent her from getting stoned. Consider that if accusations of adultery are punishable too then Mahathir should get a huge walloping for what he’s dragged Anwar through.

Another inconsistency with hudud is that in Islam you can’t amputate livestock if you want to consume their flesh because it’s inhumane but then if a man steals you can amputate his hands. I don’t see the justice here. Taking away the hands of a man who steals because he is hungry is a low blow.

We know that people are capable of reform and that humanity is largely good before it is bad. We know that people can change when they are treated with kindness and given an education or opportunities, not stoned by various sizes of rock. People can’t be ‘scared away’ from crime. Dead men don’t learn. Deterrents are what you tell children to make them finish their dinner. The human conscience should be guided by reason, not fear if you want meaningful change hence the importance of education and independent thought.

Another thing about hudud is that it deals with petty misdemeanours excessively. Theft and adultery are the things of tabloids. There are worse crimes out there with extremely lenient sentences like wildlife trafficking and animal abuse. The monstrosity of it all is that child marriage is legal in Malaysia under Islamic law. Politicians and developers get away with building dams and deforestation, capitalism and corruption. How does hudud address these bigger issues? Hudud has no place in a society whose priorities have changed. It’s perfectly medieval.

If we thought that ISA abuse was bad, hudud will be far worse because our religious authorities are government funded. Ultimately the people whose lives will be endangered the most will be Muslims themselves yet – none of us live in a bubble. We all have Muslim family members and friends. Because of certain Islamic laws in place, the number of Muslims in the country is growing artificially. No one will be unaffected by hudud. Not even non-Muslims. Hudud is not going to frighten people from committing crime. It’s just going to make people afraid of Islam. Religious freedom in Malaysia is on its death bed as it is. Should we be entertaining a debate on something that is only going to make things worse?

Even Mahathir has pointed out that the poor are the most likely to commit crime and that the majority of Malaysians living in poverty themselves are Malays, the very people whom ISMA, PAS and Perkasa are trying to defend in the first place – when they’re not fighting to implement hudud.

Read more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/opposing-hudud-does-not-mean-opposing-islam-nadira-ilana