First of all, kudos to YB Speaker Hannah Yeoh for showing compassion and act as a beacon of change for the ever-hardline DAP. It takes HUGE bravery to do that, and I do believe that the little YB has pondered long and hard before making known her decision.
Yes you heard me. DAP is a HARDLINER, a hardliner against what it solely perceives as constitutionally wrong, even though the exact arbiter of constitutionality are the Courts. Which makes DAP's stand as flawed constitutionally...
Anyway,
It is normal nowadays to see people from all walks and caste attacking PAS and its stand on Hudud, which PAS consistently and steadfastly fought for throughout these years. DAP especially, wishes - nay! - DEMANDS that PAS gives up its fight for Hudud using the same line of thought as the Muslim UMNO, saying that it is not applicable in this day and age, multicultural society etc.
However has anyone considered what concessions have DAP (and renowned lawyer Tommy Thomas) offered in its co-operation with Pakatan Rakyat?
Have they allayed themselves and allow themselves to at least try to learn what Hudud is actually all about? How Muslims could not, as a matter of principle, deny its application? and that it is a religious duty to try for its legislation or Taqnin?
My personal opinion is that Hudud is not a critical aspect to be canonised. There are hordes more important issues to be addressed such as poverty, minimum wage, family welfare, children's education etc which are coincidentally issues which command a bulk of Allah's commandments in the Qur'an rather than Hudud which are only mentioned 10 times out of 6200 verses in the Holy Book.
My point here is that DAP, MCA, Gerakan and other Islamophobe bigots should spend some time to read and understand why is it that the religion of 62% of Malaysia's populace, and a former lex loci of the peninsula, are so intent on its legislation?
Is it trite that Hudud, being but one small aspect of the Islamic Criminal Law, is barred from its applicability in Malaysia's legal biosphere? The answer is a resounding NO. Other aspects of the Islamic Criminal Law already exist, examples include but is not limited to Hirabah (Waging war against the State/YDPA), Ta'zir (Judicial decisions); and Qisas (Murder).
There are also useful aspects to be considered if we can regard Hudud as an attempt at Criminal Law reform. Concepts such as Sadd az-Dzarai (arresting crime at its source) and Al-'Afwa (Pardon by the deceased's heirs) are two concepts which deserve serious thought.
People should find the middle path. Neither could claim superiority and neither should coerce the other to stand down without offering an olive branch. That is what is literally meant by the term 'Give and Take', it is not merely 'Give' right?
Obviously the current Criminal Law is insufficient to act as a deterrent and it would serve as a logical legal reform to review the existing stable of penalties and consider whether these should be revised or alternatives to be proposed. Would it be the end of the world if Hudud is seen as a legal reform initiative?
Stigma stating Hudud as being 'backward' or 'stone-aged' is no excuse if the law is actually effective. Having a most modern, consulted by hundreds of jurists with all the bells and whistles man ingenuity could offer would be rendered meaningless if the main mischief is not addressed - that is EFFECTIVENESS.
Sure Hudud may itself prove to be ineffective, but that requires application before decision. Talk about pre-judging persons, the same should apply to Hudud. We cannot and must not judge before we actually know what or who we are judging against. As Malays say, "Tak kenal maka tak cinta!"
Yes you heard me. DAP is a HARDLINER, a hardliner against what it solely perceives as constitutionally wrong, even though the exact arbiter of constitutionality are the Courts. Which makes DAP's stand as flawed constitutionally...
Anyway,
It is normal nowadays to see people from all walks and caste attacking PAS and its stand on Hudud, which PAS consistently and steadfastly fought for throughout these years. DAP especially, wishes - nay! - DEMANDS that PAS gives up its fight for Hudud using the same line of thought as the Muslim UMNO, saying that it is not applicable in this day and age, multicultural society etc.
However has anyone considered what concessions have DAP (and renowned lawyer Tommy Thomas) offered in its co-operation with Pakatan Rakyat?
Have they allayed themselves and allow themselves to at least try to learn what Hudud is actually all about? How Muslims could not, as a matter of principle, deny its application? and that it is a religious duty to try for its legislation or Taqnin?
My personal opinion is that Hudud is not a critical aspect to be canonised. There are hordes more important issues to be addressed such as poverty, minimum wage, family welfare, children's education etc which are coincidentally issues which command a bulk of Allah's commandments in the Qur'an rather than Hudud which are only mentioned 10 times out of 6200 verses in the Holy Book.
My point here is that DAP, MCA, Gerakan and other Islamophobe bigots should spend some time to read and understand why is it that the religion of 62% of Malaysia's populace, and a former lex loci of the peninsula, are so intent on its legislation?
Is it trite that Hudud, being but one small aspect of the Islamic Criminal Law, is barred from its applicability in Malaysia's legal biosphere? The answer is a resounding NO. Other aspects of the Islamic Criminal Law already exist, examples include but is not limited to Hirabah (Waging war against the State/YDPA), Ta'zir (Judicial decisions); and Qisas (Murder).
There are also useful aspects to be considered if we can regard Hudud as an attempt at Criminal Law reform. Concepts such as Sadd az-Dzarai (arresting crime at its source) and Al-'Afwa (Pardon by the deceased's heirs) are two concepts which deserve serious thought.
People should find the middle path. Neither could claim superiority and neither should coerce the other to stand down without offering an olive branch. That is what is literally meant by the term 'Give and Take', it is not merely 'Give' right?
Obviously the current Criminal Law is insufficient to act as a deterrent and it would serve as a logical legal reform to review the existing stable of penalties and consider whether these should be revised or alternatives to be proposed. Would it be the end of the world if Hudud is seen as a legal reform initiative?
Stigma stating Hudud as being 'backward' or 'stone-aged' is no excuse if the law is actually effective. Having a most modern, consulted by hundreds of jurists with all the bells and whistles man ingenuity could offer would be rendered meaningless if the main mischief is not addressed - that is EFFECTIVENESS.
Sure Hudud may itself prove to be ineffective, but that requires application before decision. Talk about pre-judging persons, the same should apply to Hudud. We cannot and must not judge before we actually know what or who we are judging against. As Malays say, "Tak kenal maka tak cinta!"
No comments:
Post a Comment