On Hudud

How will an Islamic state governed by Islamic laws be established under Pakatan? Comments have been made about there being one rule for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. So will we be living in a country where we will not be equal in the eyes of the law?

How will this work in practice? If Islamic law is to be implemented properly, then it will have to be done so in its entirety at all levels, from politics to the economy to the rule of the law. Will there be a different cabinet then for Muslims, as the current Parliamentary system is not based on Muslim law? Will there be a Majlis, with a leader who is ‘first amongst equals’ and a separate Prime Minister for the non-Muslims?

Will Acts be debated in Parliament? Or will they be decided by a council of men, who will make such decisions based on their interpretations of the scripture? And if so, does that mean that the rakyat, most of who will probably be told that they are not qualified enough to question, let alone debate, matters re religion be left out of the loop?

What about business transactions? If there is a disagreement between a Muslim and a non-Muslim that needs arbitration, which law will he/she have to follow? And criminal law? Can two individuals of different religious backgrounds who were involved in a rape be tried differently and be punished differently? How will the two sets of law cater for instances such as these?

Who will keep the peace? The police force? Comments have been made about the corruptibility of the police force, a force that is predominantly Muslim. How will this be different under Pakatan? Will they vet the police force with more stringent religious qualifications?

I think that if Islamic law is to be implemented, it has to be by the ‘all or none’ law. And more importantly, the rakyat will need to be made aware of what exactly 'Islamic law' entails. The law that prevails in our country is sufficient to meet the needs of the people at this point in time. It is not the legislation that is at fault, it is the implementation. This needs to be improved first, before any attempts at wholesale reconstruction.

At this stage however, the various components have agreed to sit down and discuss the issue at hand.

Bear in mind that Pakatan’s idea of all the different ethnicities coming together at a table to discuss their differences is not that novel an idea; it was the same concept that brought together the various components of BN in the 1950s. But if you do not have the specifics of a potential government in place (from a shadow cabinet to a consensus of the appropriate form of governance), how long do you think this unity will last?

Let’s take Iran for example.

Back in the 1970s, various factions that were opposed to the Shah decided to act together in unison to topple the Shah. There was no doubt that the ruling Shah led a corrupt regime; in fact the only thing that united the various opposing factions was the fact that they despised the (then) current government for its incompetence in protecting the people’s interest and the level of corruption that was pervasive within its ranks. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, after all.

Sound familiar?

As we all know, the Shah was toppled and Ayatollah Khomeini came into power. The initial rhetoric was all about freedom of speech, greater transparency and governance based on the precepts of Islam.

Not too long after, the Islamists (unsurprisingly) fell out with the communists. In fact, the revolution continued until every opposing faction of the Ayatollah was eliminated. And by eliminated, I mean executed. Thousands were killed in sham trials, there was clampdown of the media, women lost a fair number of rights and one man’s word became law. And it didn't end there. Later on, thousands of Bahaí adherents were executed for blasphemy.

Just? A price worth paying? Who are we to decide on the lives of the thousands of people who have died because they thought in a different way?

And this was in a country where the majority comprised a single ethnicity, but with differing ideologies. What about our country, where there isn’t only a variety of ideologies, but also of ethnicities and religions? On what basis can one guarantee that things will be different, if we cannot even agree on a method of governance?

If things are not thought through at present, if we seek change for the sake of change without thoroughly thinking through the alternative, then we are merely cooking a recipe for disaster.

As a Muslim, I do believe that we should work towards creating a government that is guided by Islamic principles. But the time is not ripe and the people are not ready for an Islamic state. Idealism must be tampered with pragmatism, and as George Santayana said, ‘those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it’.