Someone asked me about why Umno Kelantan supported the Hudud enactment in Kelantan and why I have not posted something about it, everyone else did.
I was like, eh?
First and foremost, how would I know about the motivations of Umno Kelantan? I am not even Umno whatever ...
Secondly, I am not everyone else.
My position on Hudud, or laws of any kind, is simply to leave the matter to experts in that particular field.
However, since I am already on the subject, might as well put down my thoughts here - just my own personal thoughts as someone who is totally unlettered and quite ignorant about the laws.
To me, as a Muslim, of course I accept being subjected to Islamic laws.
However, I can also see why non-Muslims may not like being subjected to Islamic laws.
Why should they be subjected to something that is not of their faith?
But the thing is, we need laws in order to maintain peace and order, so why not Islamic laws?
Why are we willing to be governed by the present laws, but not Islamic laws?
Maybe the punishment is deemed harsh by non-Muslim standards, but wouldn't that make greater deterrent for would-be offenders?
If the threat of punishment do not deter them from the deed, then the offenders deserve the punishment if caught and convicted.
If the Islamic values that define what is considered an offence differs from that of non-Muslims, then that's where they should only apply to Muslims.
However, I don't see that offences such as murder would be an issue as even now the death penalty applies.
Here's a thought, if only Muslims are subjected to the Hudud implementation, Malaysia will eventually reach a stage where criminals will only be non-Muslims as Muslim criminals would either be deterred by the harsh punishments, or decommissioned early from the crime career path once caught and punished with either death, amputation or bankruptcy.
Muslim criminals will not decide to become apostates to avoid the laws because that would be certain death under Hudud.
Criminal profiling would become much easier for the police, and we can address the question of crowding in prisons as incarceration of Muslim offenders would be less likely, either they are dead or handicapped or bankrupt.
Wouldn't that be a positive thing?
One more thing, can we just do away with incarceration as punishment - just prohibitive fines, amputations and death?
Our cost of maintaining law and order as well as the upkeep of criminals in prisons would be lower.
Ponder these,
ReplyDelete1. I do not steal from anybody nor do I wish my belongings to be stolen
2. I would only have sex with my lawful wife
3. I would not die due to the absence of alcoholic drinks.
4. I know that a bull would not bang another bull.
5. I know that if any of my non muslim friends disagree with all or any of the four above, they will not be prosecuted under hudud.
So what's the fuss is all about?
My take on this are:
ReplyDelete1. Muslims in Malaysia are pathetic.
2. Muslims in Malaysia need to read more so that they are not conned by the religionists.
3. Malaysia will go downhill if this law is implemented, Allah will not allow injustice and wickedness to bermaharaja lela. There will be bala in the horizon.
Tinsel, it is sad when smart educated girl like you also outsourced your brain to others (most likely less smart) when it comes to religion. Malay Dilemma. I recommend you read more and seek knowledge so you know the difference between hudud Allah and hudud Kelantan (and also other sectarian hudud).
See, that's the reason I'd rather not get involved ... First you insult Malaysian Muslims, then you insult me, then you insinuate that I don't read enough about my own faith. You think that would endear you or your opinions to the likes of me whom you have already declared as not using my own brains when it comes to religion?
DeleteNo need hudud la.
ReplyDeleteProof must be solid.
Judgement and punishment must be just and do not cause hardship later to the that person and family.
Othwrwise sembang jer kata Islam is just, beautiful, merciful, etc.