Soalan: Kenapa usul pindaan yang dibentangkan oleh TG Hadi Awang di bawah payung RUU Hudud telah diluluskan untuk perbahasan di Dewan Rakyat?
Jawapan: Sebab umat Islam di Malaysia sudah sedar bahawa parti evangelis anti-Islam yang rakus kuasa itu sebenarnya dajjal dan mesti dimusuhi sampai ke liang lahat.
Kebangkitan ini hasil perpaduan ummah.
61 thoughts on “Rang undang-undang hudud”
Helen, do you really believe that hudud will kick off in Malaysia?? Are you that naive or are you simply fooling the gullible?
re: “Helen, do you really believe that hudud will kick off in Malaysia??”
I believe hudud is the nuclear option and Najib has his finger on the button (just like Potus has the option to press ‘Nuke’).
Do I think Najib will pull the trigger?
Yes. I believe he will allow it to be implemented in Kelantan like how Indonesia allows hudud to be implemented in Aceh.
re: “Are you that naive or are you simply fooling the gullible?”
It is the DAP evangelistas who fooled the gullible by telling Chinese voters, prior to the election in 2013, to vote PAS and accept hudud.
DAP was telling the Chinese that we do not have anything to fear from hudud if we were not criminals and do not intend to commit any crime.
For the consumption of the Malay electorate, the DAP also proclaimed that it would defend Islam.
And when DAP risked de-registration by ROS due to the Excel “mistake” during its party CEC election, the evangelical party toyed contesting under PAS’s moon symbol in the worst case scenario.
That was then. Today DAP is painting PAS as the Taliban incarnate. Is it any wonder that PAS presently despises the DAP.
Norman Fernandez, who was DAP Johor deputy chairman, resigned on principle because he objected to DAP hoodwinking the voters on hudud. All this was reported by the media in May 2013 (and his subsequent resignation shortly after).
Another reason for Norman quitting was because he did not condone the DAP evangelistas fooling the gullible with their faux puasa on social media, #sahur and wearing tudung and traipsing into the mosques.
He has already explained how the DAP nouveau carpetbaggers post-2008 are a different breed altogether from his own compatriots in the DAP more than 20 years ago such as Karpal Singh, Fan Yew Teng and Ahmad Nor.
“It is the DAP evangelistas who fooled the gullible by telling Chinese voters, prior to the election in 2013, to vote PAS and accept hudud. DAP was telling the Chinese that we do not have anything to fear from hudud if we were not criminals and do not intend to commit any crime.”
That was one bloody hell of a lie! No doubt an alliance cemented by Anwaristas. The radical road to hell is lined with roses of empty promises.
y u fear of hudud? hudud very bad kah?
i fear u do not know the difference between good and bad. can’t differentiate between good, better, and best; between bad, worse, and worst.
dun talk abt me, reply my question, y u fear of hudud, hudud very bad kah? tis is second time, hope I dun have to ask the same a third time.
for the last time what is hudud? stop hounding me. share your wits.
Just answer the question.
Y you fear hudud?
At least people can understand your side..
Empty barking tells us other things. So to be fair lets hear it from the other side.
And do it with peace please! You know how it always turns out when ppl talk from their asses.
stop barking about hudud. empty vessels make the most noise. what is hudud from your side?
DAP has always detested hudud.
BUt what you are getting at is there is no need to fear hudud. What you don’t get is people don’t fear hudud, but the administrators of hudud.
A fine recent example would be 2 indian fathers who converted their kids to Islam without consenting the other partner. This is clear cut wrong. BUT, the Islam administrators used their so called authority to see that fathers gets their ways, in the process the mothers had to go through a lot of stress and agony for years.This is injustice in the name of Islam. And you want to implement hudud. And hudud practicing nations usually don’t progress – thus why it may be implemented in Kelantan. It’s part of umno’s agenda – to gain PAS support and keep the people regressive.
re: A fine recent example would be 2 indian fathers who converted their kids to Islam without consenting the other partner. This is clear cut wrong. BUT, the Islam administrators used their so called authority to see that fathers gets their ways, in the process the mothers had to go through a lot of stress and agony for years.This is injustice in the name of Islam.
You have rightly pointed out. Despite the assurances by Hadi and Umno that the bill will not affect non-Muslims, empirical evidence based on the 2 cases above prove otherwise. Not to mention many more unreported cases.
Another elephant in the room that people failed to see is Malaysia having two judicial systems.
The fear expressed by non-Umno parties in BN is real.
Hudud is arabic culture. Tak sesuai untuk kita masyarakat orang Melayu yang hidup bebas dan liberal.
We muslims must reject such superficial thinking by malay so call alim men.
In their eagerness to enhance the Syariah Courts they seems to forget that they are talking about whipping somebody’s daughters, wives, single mothers, janda.
Najib is so blase about protecting womens right and violence against women. He is in fact promoting violence against women just because they drink carlsberg.
I’m a moderate, that is why I’am increasing whipping women for drinking carlsberg to 100 times…
What G25 and liberals Malays should do is expose the cruel and perverted minds behinds the so called UMNO hudud.
Our society is an open and free society. Women are free to move and mix around. Our daughters go out to Mc Donald at any time of the day. They work 24 hour shift in 7 eleven, factories, mcdonald with other young men.
So is it right to penalise and whip our daughters if they spend time with men? What is the social situation that UMNO Syariah is purported to prevent? IF we allow our daughters and women to go out of the house freely should they be punished for doing what we allow them to do?
UMNO should limit the working hours, the type of jobs that women can do like in Saudi where even underwear are sold by men because women are not allow to entertain men as retailers. IT so easy to meet women as they are everywhere unguarded.
Secondly, why should women be whipped 100 times if they get pregnant out of wedlock? Where is the men? Would women be unmarried if there are men who want to marry them?
Thirdly, these Syariah Act will not be enforceable without spying on the lives of individuals. Since women are allowed to work in office, we have cases like Memey and Norman being accused of sexual conduct. This caused Norman’s family to break down.
Who profit from this? Does Selangor State profit from the breakdown of families by accusing the father or mother of adultery?
It is different if its spousal accusation. But for Selangor State government as a third party to accuse the head of the family and cause divorces shows that UMNO Syariah is not a society builder but a family destroyer.
Fourthly, the focus on men women relationships means that UMNO Syariah is encouraging lesbianism and homesexuality.
Two woman can sleep together in a hotel room. A man can sleep with another man
A father can sleep with his daughter in a hotel room. What kind of message is Najib trying to send?
Fifth. How do JAWI knows who is drinking alcohol? Why they bought breathalysers of course. Is this specified in the quran? No. ITs their own man made SOP muahaha..
Sixth . How does JAWI knows who is a chinese muslim who is a chinese non muslims? A dayak muslim and a dayak non muslim?
They dont. So UMNO Syariah DOES affect Chinese,Indians, Dayak or Ibans.
When UMNO moral police knock on hotel doors at midnight, they knocked on all doors to catch the unregistered muslim.
So they create they own SOP like taking pictures of naked women, taking their underwear as evidence. Checking what women are wearing under towels.
A whole lot of unsavory and uncivilised SOP not the quran are being implemented by State Government just to enhance their perverted version of Syariah Court.
What the focus should be.
Malay Syariah Courts can be enhanced by focusing on Family Issus like divorce and inheritence.
The family is very important to society and Magistrate Courts or High Court dont deal with Malay marriages. So to say that Syariah Court is lower than Magistrate Courts is incorrect as they serve different functions. Higher grades can be given to Syariah Courts because they deal with the very important family issues not because they give low whipping.
To give criminal power to the Syariah Courts by creating new crimes for the malay men and women is wrong. Najib said they making more crimes for the Malays..what for?
Just because the Arabs say so?
Najib is so stupid but he is not alone. So is Jamil, Ahmad Zahid..
They seems to forget they are talking about whipping malay women, somebody’s daughters or wives…
“Chinese that we do not have anything to fear from hudud if we were not criminals and do not intend to commit any crime.”
It is not a lie. That is the simplistic arguments by PAS or UMNO religious fanatics. You dont have to fear hudud if you dont drink or socialise with women.
But Chinese and Indians do drink. And some Malays too because they don’t think its wrong.
And when they check on the night club for drinking muslims who are the muslims? Do they have labels on their foreheads?
So this invasions of privacy affects each one of us. We must unite against such uncivilised acts.
re: And when they check on the night club for drinking muslims who are the muslims? Do they have labels on their foreheads?
Good point. Very practical question. The authority failed to address such issues. If I may ask further:-
1. What is the remedy for the aggrieved non-Muslim whose privacy was invaded by Islamic enforcers?
2. What is the authority for Islamic enforcers to intrude into the privacy of non-Muslim night club goers?
3. What is the authority for Islamic enforcers to enter into private premise, i.e. the night club for spot check purpose?
Hadi must answer all the above.
re: “What is the remedy for the aggrieved non-Muslim whose privacy was invaded by Islamic enforcers?”
Night clubs (since they serve alcohol) might be asked to ban Muslim patrons from entering their premises.
re: “What is the authority for Islamic enforcers to intrude into the privacy of non-Muslim night club goers?”
Generally the religious enforcement officers raid after they have obtained a warrant and they are accompanied by police.
re: “What is the authority for Islamic enforcers to enter into private premise, i.e. the night club for spot check purpose?”
A night club is not a “private” premise like your home. It is a business premise and hence a public premise.
Trying to act as Hadi huh? Anyway, thanks for responding.
re: Night clubs (since they serve alcohol) might be asked to ban Muslim patrons from entering their premises.
Whose authority to enforce such ban? Islamic enforcers or the civil? If Islamic enforcers, do they have such authority to impose such ban on non-Islamic business? If civil enforcers like local authorities (which I think is the case as business licenses are issued with terms), then it should be them that can raid the premises.
re: Generally the religious enforcement officers raid after they have obtained a warrant and they are accompanied by police.
The authority of religious enforcement officers is imposed on the Muslims. However, in the quest of doing so they will intrude the rights of non Muslims. Consider this. You are a religious enforcement officer. You went to a night club to conduct a raid. How are you going to identify the Muslim patrons? Surely you need to check the IC of every patron. In the process, you have intruder the privacy of non-Muslims.
The role of police is to enforce civil laws. Not Islamic laws. You raided the club to check for drinking Muslims. Police can’t enforce such laws on Muslims. Police should check for prostitution, drug etc. Not drinking.
re: It is a business premise and hence a public premise.
You sure? Can a premise owner deny anyone from the public from patronising their premise?
While owner cannot deny entrance of civil enforcers like police, MACC, KPDNKK, Customs, LHDN etc for legitimate reasons under the law, are you sure the owner cannot deny entrance by religious enforcers? Even if warrant is obtained, under what law such warrant is issued? Islamic law or civil law?
Let us not talk about implementation of hudud. Even on current dual system, already such much complications. Solve them first before implementing more Islamic laws. The much cited logic of “Islamic laws is only for Muslims and will not affect non-Muslims” is a fallacy.
re: “Trying to act as Hadi huh? Anyway, thanks for responding.”
I’m giving you the logical scenarios.
re: “Whose authority to enforce such ban? Islamic enforcers or the civil?”
(Limiting my replies to my home state Selangor.) They usually act in concert.
re: “If Islamic enforcers, do they have such authority to impose such ban on non-Islamic business?”
I’m not sure. Read the fine print of syariah law (in Selangor).
Take for example the enactment barring the use of certain words such as kalimah ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims in a religious context. Its jurisdiction would seem to extend to the Christians.
re: “If civil enforcers like local authorities (which I think is the case as business licenses are issued with terms), then it should be them that can raid the premises.”
I believe so. The local council enforcement would be included in the coordinated raid. Kerjasama penguatkuasa Melayu yang sepadu-padunya,
re: “How are you going to identify the Muslim patrons? Surely you need to check the IC of every patron. In the process, you have intruded the privacy of non-Muslims.”
When we’re stopped at roadblocks, we might need to show our ICs to the traffic police too even though we’re not doing anything wrong except passing through.
I don’t think they would check everybody’s IC at the night club.
Those who look obviously Chinese would be let off while those who look obviously Malay would be processed. Those whose looks fall in the ‘uncertain’ would probably be asked for their ID.
re: “The role of police is to enforce civil laws. Not Islamic laws.”
Does it say so in the Police Act?
re: “You raided the club to check for drinking Muslims. Police can’t enforce such laws on Muslims. Police should check for prostitution, drug etc. Not drinking.”
Drinking is an offence under hudud. Going by the Pahang example – the case of Kartika drinking beer – it is apparently a syariah offence too as Pahang does not have hudud.
re: “You sure? Can a premise owner deny anyone from the public from patronising their premise?”
I’m not sure about the legalities. Since you brought up this topic thread, why don’t you find out and enlighten us all.
re: “While owner cannot deny entrance of civil enforcers like police, MACC, KPDNKK, Customs, LHDN etc for legitimate reasons under the law, are you sure the owner cannot deny entrance by religious enforcers?”
re: “Even if warrant is obtained, under what law such warrant is issued? Islamic law or civil law?”
re: “The much cited logic of “Islamic laws is only for Muslims and will not affect non-Muslims” is a fallacy.”
I do not disagree.
I think implementing hudud on the malays is a good idea. This will stop them lying and stealing and hopefully become better human beings
Hudud for all.
Implementing hudud on the Dapster-evangelistas is an even better idea. This will stop them lying and cheating and slandering. And hopefully they become human beings from the dajjal that they are.
Nope, doesn’t apply to non-muslims
In Saudi Arabia it does.
Saudi Arabia is a stupid country
The holy cities of Mecca and Madinah are in Mecca.
Cities for barbaric laws.
How can you compare application of hudud in Saudi vis-a-vis Msia? So many differentiating factors.
The only good thing about bringing in this caveman law from a caveman religion is the fact that we won’t have to see your face again. That’s the only positive I can think of.
Your evangelista mosque occupier should be the first to don the niqab.
Helen is the unofficial advocate of female abuse. How sickening.
Quran (4:34) – “Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.”
Bukhari (72:715) – A woman came to Muhammad and begged her to stop her husband from beating her. Her skin was bruised so badly that it is described as being “greener” than the green veil she was wearing. Muhammad did not admonish her husband, but instead ordered her to return to him and submit to his sexual desires.
It is not advisable for the unlearned layman to derive legal pronouncements from the hadith literature. Often, amateurs who do so take contradictory surface evidence in piecemeal fashion, and so arrive at a simplification of the Prophet’s message. Worse still, they may quote whole passages wrongly. This is the full story about the quoted hadith narration from Sahih Bukhari, Book 7, Vol. 72, No. 715. Female abuse is never condoned, even if there are abusive muslims who act against the prophetic compassion.
Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘Abdur Rahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Messenger came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” When ‘Abdur Rahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She (the lady) said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment. ‘Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Messenger of Allah! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa’a (her ex-husband).” So the Messenger of Allah said to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa’a unless Abdur-Rahman first has sexual intercourse with you.” Then the Prophet saw two boys with ‘Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), “Are these your sons?” ‘Abdur Rahman replied, “Yes.” The Prophet said, “You (o lady) make your claim (i.e. he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow (ie. he fathered them).”
I’m sorry bro, and I do respect the fact that you seem to be very genuine about your beliefs, but I cannot for the life of me see how the longer narration that you posted above in anyway can justify the Prophet’s response. I am actually pretty sickened with what I have just read to be honest. Nothing justifies the beating of women (as much as we feel they deserve it at times) and for the Prophet to let the abuser off is plain wrong imo.
It is clear you are unlearned about our religion but you do have the right to question our ethics, because true Islam is universal in nature. Again here are some more exhortations from the Holy Quran that relationships between husband and wife should be based on mutual love and respect:
“And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect.” (Quran: Ar-Rum, 21)
In the event of family disagreements, the husband is exhorted to not to overlook her positive aspects.
“Live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them it may be that you dislike a thing, yet Allah brings about through it a great deal of good.” (Quran: An-Nisaa, 19)
However, in some cases a husband may use some discretionary action to correct the moral infraction of his wife, but this is only applicable in severe cases and should be resorted to only if one is confident it would improve the situation. If however, there is a fear that it might worsen the relationship or wreak havoc on him or the family, then he should avoid it completely.
The Quran is very clear on this issue. Almighty Allah says:
“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more strength than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore, the righteous women are devoutly obedient and guard in the husband’s absence what Allah would have them to guard. As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (or then), refuse to share their beds, (and only lastly) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (to annoy them); for Allah is most High and Great (above you all). If you fear a breach between them two, appoint arbiters, one from his family and the other from hers. If they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation; for Allah has full knowledge and is acquainted with all things.” (Quran: chap. 4, The Women, 34-35)
NB: Brother, note how the message is modified negatively if you just quote verse 34 of chap. 4 as you did above, and leave out verse 35, like we have included above here.
It is important to read the section fully. One should not take part of the verse and use it to justify one’s own misconduct. This verse neither permits violence nor condones it. It guides us to ways to handle delicate family situations with wisdom. The word “beating” is used in the verse, but it does not mean “physical abuse”. * * * The Prophet (p.b.u.h.) explained the phrase “dharban ghaira mubarrih” to mean “a light tap that leaves no marks”. He further said that the face must be avoided. Some other scholars are of the view that it is no more than light taps of the siwak – a traditional toothbrush cut out from the branch of a certain species of medicinal tree.
So, coming back to the hadith with which you took offence, Yes, the blessed Prophet s.a.w. may have decided that the woman’s charge about her new husband Abdur Rahman being impotent and “useless” for her, was untrue. But that does not mean he condoned Abdur Rahman’s inflicting pain on her. I do not know what caution or reprimand the Prophet applied to Abdur Rahman for his heavy-handedness (because we are unlearned and cannot access other hadith narrations concerning this incident). However, as far as I in my limited capacity can understand, this hadith concerns the legality of separation from a spouse in a non-consummated marriage. Was the woman unimpressed with her new husband’s private physique? So much so that she desires to return to Rifa’a her previous husband? Is this moral behaviour for a marriage partner? Therefore, I think, the blessed Prophet s.a.w. deemed it necessary in such peculiar cases for the marriage to be consummated at least for one occasion. To this day, this remains the legal position in almost all Islamic societies concerning the consummation of the marriage covenant.
Again brother, abuse of women is never condoned in Islam, even if there are abusive muslims who act against the prophetic wisdom and compassion.
Who cares? It can have 1million holy cities, it is still a stupid country
Women there are not allowed to drive, they have to be subservient to their husbands, disobey and they get whipped… like cows? And the House of Saud are treated like Gods.
Saudi Arabia is a stupid country
re: “disobey and they get whipped… like cows?”
Same lah. If you’re a Chinese who deviates from the DAP doctrine, you get lynched by the mob. In animal terms, like a meal for a pack of hyenas.
re: “And the House of Saud are treated like Gods.”
The House of Lim is treated like Chinese deities.
What bullshit are you talking about?
Why so jumpy? Your boss cannot take a dig?
You mean my manager in the MNC I’m working for? You crazy
Does your MNC manager know that he’s got such a jumpy staff?
Hannah’s a lot prettier than you, Helen. FYI.
Hannah might look prettier if she either (a) wears her tudung litup properly pinned or (b) don’t bother wearing one at all rather than make such a half-hearted attempt at tutup aurat.
Btw, as the leader of DAP’s Occupy Masjid campaign, I’m sure the Madame Speaker would be supportive of hudud, ya?
So you are keturunan cina or baba nyonya?
Since when has Baba Nyonya been a standalone or separate ‘race’?
Hahaha, Teh Tarik, I mean like if you claim to be a Cina Peranakan but follow MCP Chin Peng and his red commies, then know you’re a “baba nyonya reject”!
Maybe some of our friends need an update …….
thanks for enlightenment. Coz sometimes you act against Chinese, saying you are baba nyonya chinese. Sometimes you claim to be Chinese only.
But Chinese don’t behave like you. they don’t backstab their own race.
Bastards do backstab their own race. Which category you belong to?
Who defines a ‘Chinese’?
There are 1.2 billion Han Chinese in China, and another few hundred million belonging to the diaspora. In comparison, there are only seven million Chinese in Malaysia, as per IC/birth cert registration.
Do remember that Firsters living in Jerusubang refuse to acknowledge themselves as Chinese. They proclaim their bangsa to be “Anak Malaysia”. They claim there are “zero Chinese” in Malaysia — see Hannah Yeoh’s tweet below.
The Han race is not bangsat like Cina DAP who have been ostracized by the majority population of Malaysia after making enemies of PAS, Umno and increasingly PKR.
DAP is pied piping the Chinese community off the edge of the cliff.
And of course it is Beijing that defines Chineseness. Not Subang Jaya.
The immigrants who came to Malaya were not nobblemen or Mandarins/scholars or intellectuals/philosophers or artists or the literati or the cultured elite. Lim Kit Siang’s father came here to work in a pig farm.
It was not too long ago either that Christians were refused official recognition as China nationals (i.e. Chinese nationality). This happenstance refers to the turn-of-century revolution period where the natives China openly attacked in the street Chinese Christian converts on top of burning churches and evicting Western missionaries.
Today – if you read the latest news reports – the Chinese authorities are apparently trying to erase the rooftop cross from the urban landscape. Up to 1,700 crosses have been torn down from China churches in the past two years alone.
The ‘real’ Chinese in China are freaked out by evangelistas.
Beijing’s campaign to “decapitate” churches will intenbsify because of the existential threat that evangelistas pose to the Middle Kingdom. See, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/world/asia/china-christians-zhejiang.html?_r=0
DAP is a party led by evangelistas. They’re about as representative of the Chinese race as singer Madonna is of virgins.
As you’re unable to realise that DAP is nudging you (Chinese community) off the precipice in their crazed pursuit of power and self-glory, it’s quite clear that you belong to the category of Delusional Idiot.
HA, you can makan dedak and be more malay than the melayus. But the blood flowing in your body is from the cina babi bastards that you condemn daily.
Your jiu hu char has babi too, right, cina babi?
Bahasa jiwa bangsa. Your comment speaks for itself.
you like to comment about Lim Kit Siang’s father, that he worked in pig farm. What is wrong with working in pig farm? at least they make honest living not cheating 2.6b of the people’s money.
What about your father and grand father? did they work as human waste collector? and hence have a waste by product like you?
You did not understand her message on purpose. She did not humiliate the job. She subjugated one’ ego. But it’s you who push your questions to appear as such. Did you learn this from Helen’s blog ermm? Good. At least you know it’s not a waste.
Now, you dont think you are from your daddy’s waste yes?
actually many non-muslims including muslims do not know what hudud really is (including myself). when it comes to the word ‘hudud’, all of these ppl can think of are cut off the hands, stone the adulterers to death and so on-whatever that are negative they can think of.
i will say that there is mercifulness in the implementation of hudud law…because of these authentic evidence…
prophet muhammad, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him said :
1) Avoid applying legal punishment upon the Muslims if you are capable. If the criminal has a way out, then leave him to his way. Verily, it is better for the leader to make a mistake forgiving the criminal than it is for him to make a mistake punishing the innocent.
Sunan al-Tirmidhī 1424
2) Avoid applying legal punishments as long as you find an excuse to avoid them
Umar ibn Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, said:
“That I relax the legal punishments is more beloved to me than applying them with doubts”
Source: Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah 27926
Ibn Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him said:
“Avoid flogging and applying the death penalty upon Muslims as much as you can.”
“It was the practice of the two righteous Caliphs Abu Bakr and Umar to order someone accused of theft to not confess to the crime, in the hope that there would be an acceptable excuse to avoid applying legal punishment and that the criminal would privately repent.
Those who came before would be presented with someone accused of theft and they would say, “Have you stolen? Say no.” I do not know who did so except Abu Bakr and Umar.
Source: Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah 28014
I CAME ACROSS OF A HADITH IN THE QURAN INTREPRETATION BOOK ABT A MAN WHO NARRATED THAT DURING A FAMINE HE ENTERED SOMEONE’S OCHARD. HE PLUCKED DATES FROM THE TREE AND ATE UNTIL HE WAS FULL. HE ALSO TOOK SOME AND FILLED HIS SHIRT POCKETS. WHEN THE ORCHARD OWNER SAW THIS, HE BEATS THE MAN UP (THE NARRATOR). THE MAN WENT TO THE PROPHET AND INFORMED HIM OF THE INCIDENT. THE ORCHARD OWNER WAS SUMMONED. AFTER BOTH PARTIES HAD BROUGHT FORWARD THEIR DEFENCE, THE PROPHET ORDERED THE ORCHARD OWNER TO GIVE THE MAN HE HAD BEATEN AROUND 150KILOS OF DATES (this is base on my rough calculation after i converted the traditional weighing scale. i am using upper case bcoz i do not want to confuse you ppl with my own writing base on my memory as i could not/hard for me to find again the hadith from the tafseer i.e. 9 volumes. don’t you ppl think the narrator had committed theft and he shld be punished by cutting off his hands ??? islamic law is not rigid like the man-made law. the man condition of being poor and starving during famine was put into consideration.
there was also an authentic hadith abt a man who had committed adultery and came to the prophet to turn himself in. the prophet turned his face away from him, then the man went to the other side and confess again. the prophet turned his face away and until the forth time, he asked the man ‘are you insane ?’. the prophet was trying to give him a clue for him to go away, but the man continously and adamantly admitting to his sin. after several questions by the prophet, the man still refused to budge therefore hudud law is inevitable upon him.
Anas ibn Malik reported:
I never saw a case involving legal retaliation being referred to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, except that he would command pardoning the criminal.
Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 4497
Anas ibn Malik reported: A man came to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, with the killer of his relative.
The Prophet said: “Pardon him.”
But the man refused. The Prophet said:
“Take the blood money.”
But the man refused. The Prophet said:
“Go and kill him, for you are like him.”
“So the man let him go.
Source: Sunan al-Nasā’ī 4730
(my note : leaders or whoever wanted to implement hudud law must educate ppl on this and i blame PAS for not educating ppl thouroughly to make sure we know what hudud really is)
Ibn Taymiyyah wrote:
“Allah will support the just state even if it is led by unbelievers, but He will not support the oppressive state even if it is led by believers.”
Source: Majmū’ Fatāwá 28/63
my note : true enough
there are lots lots lots lots of sources abt implementation of hudud. it is not a law that anyone can implement it just like that.
don’t base pakistan, acheh and your own hatred and ignorance to attack islam. it is unfair.
as for myself I SUPPORT HUDUD 100% !!!!! YEAH!!!!!!!
“don’t base pakistan, acheh and your own hatred and ignorance to attack islam. it is unfair. as for myself I SUPPORT HUDUD 100% !!!!! YEAH!!!!!!!”
then based on what you support hudud 100% in today’s world?
i don’t understand why you don’t understand because it is very easy to understand, of course base on islam. understand ?
tweedle dee tweedle dumb
Dr. Tariq Ramadan: “An International call for Moratorium on corporal punishment, stoning and the death penalty in the Islamic World.”
“The Islamic world is experiencing a very deep crisis the causes of which are multiple and sometimes contradictory. The political system of the Arab world is becoming more and more entrenched, references to Islam frequently instrumentalized, and public opinion is often muzzled or blindly passionate (to such a point as to accept, indeed even to call for, the most repressive interpretations and least just application of the “Islamic sharî’a” and hudûd).
In terms of the more circumscribed religious question, we can observe a crisis of authority accompanied by an ABSENCE of internal debate among the ulamâ’ in the diverse schools of thought and within Muslim societies. It becomes apparent that a variety of opinions, accepted in Islam, are whirling today within a chaotic framework leading to the coexistence of disparate and contradictory Islamic legal opinions each claiming to have more “Islamic character” than the other.
Faced with this legal chaos, the ordinary Muslim public is more appeased by “an appearance of fidelity” (ie. societal implementation of hudud), rather than being persuaded by viewpoints based on real knowledge, and understanding of the governing Islamic principles and rules (ahkâm).”
I believe we should first look into the glaring weaknesses of the current system first before we venture into hudud.
What weakness? Its very Google-able, esp dari segi Makhamah Syariah dan hal kekeluargaan.
My few points in relation to Hadi’s private members bill on hudud (RUU Hadi):-
1. Very rare for a private members bill to be inserted as agenda and tabled during parliament proceeding? Hadi has attempted few times. Now that he got it, he requested it to be postponed to next sitting. This is very contradictory.
2. If Umno is sincere to implement hudud in whole or in parts of Msia, why do it by way of RUU Hadi? It should have done it on government official bill. That way it can be put as the first agenda in any parliament sitting.
3. How can the government allowed a bill to be tabled last minute without giving the MPs sufficient info and time to analyse the same? When it was tabled, Hadi requested for deferment. It really look foolish on the government to allow its reading at the first place.
Comments are closed.