Hornbill Unleashed

April 24, 2014

On the impracticalities of hudud in Malaysia

Filed under: Politics — Hornbill Unleashed @ 7:00 AM
Tags: , , , ,


Islamic leaders have been saying that non-Muslims will accept hudud if they can understand the beauty of hudud, and so efforts should be made to explain hudud properly to non-Muslims.

I have no problem with religious laws per se. For example zakat for the poor is noble. So I respectfully invite Muslim scholars and ordinary Muslims alike to explain the following and explain how my perceptions of the hudud laws are wrong. Please note I am not attacking Islamic laws per se, but respectfully ask for their “dakwah” explanation.

Under hudud laws, murder is a capital punishment, yet if the victim’s family is agreeable for the murderer to pay “diyah”, or blood money, to compensate the family, the murderer can escape the mandatory death sentence.

My first question is why is it then that apostates and adulterers are not allowed to escape the mandatory death sentence for apostasy and adultery by paying compensation to the aggrieved family or spouse? Why is it unmarried people cannot pay compensation to any aggrieved family to escape the mandatory whipping for sex before marriage?

The victim of the murderer is dead as a result of the crime committed by the murderer, while there are no dead victims from the apostasy and adultery.

How do these vast differences show that the hudud is just and reflect a just God, since it is claimed that the hudud are Allah’s just laws? It would be good if Muslims can help me understand the “justice” or lack of it, as my perception from these anomalies in justices is that Islam considers apostasy and adultery to be far worse crimes than murder.

The anomalies can create a situation when a person can pay for somebody to kill his or her spouse, and both the person who hired the hit man and the hired hit man can get away with murder.

In hudud, amputation of one limb is the mandatory sentence for theft.

My question is why isn’t a thief allowed to escape the mandatory amputation by returning the stolen object and pay additional compensation to the victim of theft? A murderer cannot bring back to life the person he or she killed, but he or she is allowed to pay blood money to escape the mandatory execution. Yet a thief who stole could return the original stolen goods and pay addition compensation, but is not allowed to do so to escape the mandatory amputation.

So respectfully I ask any Muslim scholars out there to help me understand the beauty of this hudud that escapes me as my perception from this injustice is that Islam considers stolen goods to be of more value than human life.

On the assurances that hudud will not affect non-Muslims, I respectfully disagree. Under hudud, the testimonies of four Muslim males of good character are required to convict a rapist. The testimonies of non-Muslims are not valid; besides the hudud court does not cover non-Muslims. In all of Islamic judicial history since Mohammed’s time till today, there has not been any conviction of rape based on four Muslim males.

My question: In what way will it not affect the non-Muslim girl who is raped in front of her family by a Muslim? Her family members’ testimonies cannot be considered according to the letter of the law. How is she going to get the four Muslim males witnesses, who if they were men of good character, would have prevented the rape in the first place?

If crimes were committed by non-Muslims against Muslims, will Muslims be happy if they are not charged under hudud?

If crimes were committed by Muslims against non-Muslims, how can the non-Muslims get justice from the civil court that has no jurisdiction over Muslims? Eventually non-Muslims will be forced to accept that they may only get “justice” if only they submit themselves to the shariah court. The implementation of hudud may signal an open season for Muslim criminals against non-Muslims.

If a non-Muslim and a Muslim are caught for having adultery, will the Muslim community be contented that the non-Muslim party cannot be convicted since adultery is not a crime in civil law and the Muslim party gets stoned to death or whipped?

I am not against the hudud because I am against Islam per se. I am against hudud because no Muslim has been able to satisfactorily refute the injustices and problems that I have explained above.


1 Comment »

  1. Praise be to Allah! Finally, a writer who goes beyond the mindless superficial assertion of “Hudud is for Muslims only” and actually points out why that cannot work in practice. Maybe he should educate that dumb fool Ng Kee Seng:

    If you still cannot get Islamic law implemented “correctly” after 1400 freaking years, then maybe you should consider your sanity in expecting different results from repeating the same thing over and over again? Or maybe you should start questioning the flaws in the basis of your law? But that will be…GASP!… blasphemy, because that will be questioning the fundamental tenets of Islam and you can never question Islam because Islam is perfect and flawless. So around and around we go, circling the heart of the problem in perpetuity like insane monkeys.

    Comment by Hornbill Leashed and Gagged — April 24, 2014 @ 12:04 PM | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: