Pak Sako, Free Malaysia Today
PAS and DAP’s decision to ‘agree to disagree’ on hudud must be taken for what it really is: a politically-motivated temporary ceasefire. It does not resolve the hudud controversy.
The controversy can never be resolved as long as the fundamental questions of the hudud debate continue to be avoided. The questions are:
• What goals are hudud meant to achieve?
• What are the pluses and minuses of hudud?
• Do all Malaysian Muslims as well as non-Muslims want hudud?
A national dialogue on implementing hudud must exhaustively probe these questions before anything else.
An open and critical exploration of these questions will help the public learn and decide about whether hudud is necessary, worthwhile, appropriate or out-of-date. It will enable policymakers to discover whether the informed public desires hudud or not.
Without full public discussion and public consent, it is immoral for policymakers to presuppose the value of hudud and speak about its implementation.
It is also wrong to assume that a simple parliamentary majority (which is all that is needed) is an automatic mandate to incrementally amend the federal constitution to accommodate hudud.
The public on their part should not leave it the politicians, the religious scholars or the royalty to decide matters for them.
The politicians, mullahs and kings do not know all the answers or what’s best for society; they have a personal or biased interest in the matter; and it is undemocratic to allow the preferences of these vested interest groups to influence a decision that should be in the hands of the people.
Special obligation to explain
The politician’s role should be confined to satisfying the independently determined wish of the people.
If after careful deliberation the people choose to reject hudud, this decision must be respectfully accepted.
The Islamic theologians are useful insofar as they can provide the evaluating public with technical input, such as the scope, workings and other details of hudud. Likewise with the political scientists and other relevant experts.
All members of the public including interest groups and civil society organisations should thrash out the questions about the purposes and worth of hudud.
The Muslims must be able to evaluate and decide on hudud free from social pressures and political or religious brainwashing. This includes the notorious ‘bad Muslim’ stigma that could prevent them from saying ‘no’ to hudud when ‘no’ is what they truly desire.
As for the non-Muslims, they are not free to wash their hands of the issue; they are responsible parties to any law that the politicians they had elected might enact and administer upon their fellow citizens.
PAS and all other proponents of hudud have a special obligation to explain the explicit and implicit aims they believe hudud is to serve and the rationales for these.
They must engage in discussions about the value of hudud and the problems and concerns associated with it. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of the proposers of the law.
Comments (13)
...
written by Eskay345, October 14, 2011 20:34:53
To prevent this "Hudud thing" from being brought up periodically, the best solution would be to have a referendum among the Malay-Muslim population in the country to decide once and for all whether they are for it or against it,
And thereby to put this topic at rest, forever so that Umnputras don't get the chance to raise this topic again to haunt everyone, the Muslims as well as others. ...
written by Hi Fi Rambo, October 14, 2011 17:47:36
Hudud is only suitable for Muslim societies in the Middle Ages, not now. Hudud's intentions may be pure, but its implementation is impractical in modern society where the punishment exceeds the crime to horrendous proportions. Why should you cut off a thief's hand when maybe he is forced to steal by compelling circumstances. It is impossible for a woman to call 4 male witnesses to charge her rape accusors and she ends up as a vulnerable victim of adultery for which she is stoned to death. And why cane someone, even a woman, for drinking alcohol in public? The more you want to impose hudud, the greater the impression you create of a barbaric Middle Ages society out of sync with the humanity of modern times. ...
written by Saint, October 14, 2011 16:57:56
"Agreeing to Disagree" is the core and the best democratic path for all of us.
If PAS. DAP and PKR can continue like this for all matters, we are in "safe and right" hands. ...
written by dalilabu, October 14, 2011 16:44:00
with hudud issue...ammenos/mca have a chance to win GE13.
who wants a desert law of the past to be implemented...hell, some of these people belives man landing on the moon is fake ..
written by Pro arte, October 14, 2011 16:34:17
Wonderful piece!
If Pak Sako is a Malay then I am hopeful for the future of Malaysia.
For so long I have felt UMNO PAS and Anwar have been so successful in dumbing down Malay thought that Pak Sakos in their community would never emerge or be afraid to articulate their views.
This article is the start of a long process of self discovery as well as intellectual and spiritual emancipation for Malays. ...
written by Ocassey, October 14, 2011 16:20:34
The ordinary rakyat of the nation do not need to exist under the" Hudud" jurisdiction especially so if they are specifically "Muslims" . The very sectors of the people of the nation who must be subjected to be fully under "Hudud" jurisdiction MUST be from all the royal houses , Members of the Upper House, Members of the Lower House ( all elected Poliicians and Nominated Politicians ,including Governors) , All Ministeries and Civil Servants , Every employee of Government Linked Companies , Wisma Putera and all its extended arms world wide , The Judiciary , The MACC, The PDRM, The Customs & Excise, and all Uniformed Civil & National Defence personnel last but not least , upon all the Religious authorities, too..
written by Hariharan, October 14, 2011 15:55:04
Compare hudud law with convention law for same type of crime. ...
written by Pak Yeh, October 14, 2011 15:20:28
Pak Sako said :
The Muslims must be able to evaluate and decide on hudud free from social pressures and political or religious brainwashing. This includes the notorious ‘bad Muslim’ stigma that could prevent them from saying ‘no’ to hudud when ‘no’ is what they truly desire.
Pak Sako, Pak Yeh has done that.!!!
Read my article."Hudud PAS Tidak Islamik."....at...
http://warongpakyeh.blogspot.c...lamic.html ...
written by Nawi Bin Abdullah, October 14, 2011 15:15:45
Dear Pak Sako,
The Muslims in this country cannot think rationally. They have very little brains and cannot evaluate religious matters on an intellectual level. Religions were fabricated by stone age men for stone age men. Just think that our solar system can survive another five billion years based on current estimates; can the Quran last that long without change? Relion is a form of slavery, i.e. slavery of the minds. Period.
Regards,
NBA ...
written by TSB, October 14, 2011 15:15:39
If Hudud controversy dies, democracy in Malaysia also dies.
Democracy system was invented by the Greek few hundred years ago. Today there are still many controversy in Greece, Europe or Americas that have no 100% answers. But, their real answers is the matured democratic society like "Agree to Disagree". The political leaders treat each other like friends n fellows not like enemies.
So, if PAS n DAP can practise 'Agree to Disagree" this is really a poltical MATURITY" in Malaysia.
Then, Long Live PAKATAN". ...
written by Hopeless, October 14, 2011 15:10:00
This law is non concern to non-muslim. But if having tis law ,you weill see Mlysia going to become handicap country, those being punished unable to work !! Gov will help them ??? if no they have to become beggar. A country have a lot of beggar, u think tourist will choose to visit here ??? ...
written by Jamal, October 14, 2011 14:46:15
Public discussion on the viability of implementing hudud in the country must be allowed. Of course this is impossible because
i) those who voice their opposition or reservation towards hudud will immediately be labelled as anti-Islam (for non-Muslims) and murtads/deviants (for Muslims).
ii) the Malay so-called ulamaks will object to public discussion because they have always claimed that anything about Islam is exclusively under their preview since they also claimed that the general public is not knowledgeable enough to discuss about Islam.
So in reality, the hudud will finally be decided by UMNO/PAS which controlled the Malay minds and the ulamaks which controlled the Muslim minds (with much overlap between them).
There will never be a public discussion and don't dream about holding a referendum on hudud. ...
written by Pak Yeh, October 14, 2011 14:40:22
Pak Sako said :
The Muslims must be able to evaluate and decide on hudud free from social pressures and political or religious brainwashing. This includes the notorious ‘bad Muslim’ stigma that could prevent them from saying ‘no’ to hudud when ‘no’ is what they truly desire.
Pak Sako, Pak Yeh has done that.!!!
Read my article."Hudud PAS Tidak Islamik."....at...
http://warongpakyeh.blogspot.c...lamic.html
No comments:
Post a Comment