I am absolutely intrigued by the implications of PAS' Hudud and Qisas Bill as reported in pages 1 and 4 of the New Straits Times, July 8.

Under the new section, a woman cannot be punished for zina (illicit sex) if she is tricked by black magic. How does she prove that? Does the syariah court accept bomoh and charlatans' testimonies that the woman offender has been charmed? If it is so, then there is a growth industry here: bomoh and charlatans can make much money by becoming expert witnesses.

The other exceptions constituting defence include "penetration not reaching up to the neck of the penis" and the "hymen of a virgin remains intact". These are even more mystifying.

What is a "neck of a penis"? Is it the part that joins the body or head of the penis? What is required of the alleged offender to prove this defence? A camera to film and zoom in on the sexual act?

If not reaching "up to the neck of the penis" (neck meaning the part that joins the body) is a defence to zina, then it is advantageous for women to look for men with a long apparatus that in penetration reaches half-way and not up to its neck!

The other defence of intact hymen is similarly mystifying. It implies that unmarried women with intact hymen can indulge in illicit sex as long as it is foreplay including petting and oral sex that does not rupture the hymen.

Even anal sex may not be illicit sex as it does not implicate the hymen. Besides, the section of liwat does not cover a man who sodomises the wife. This may lead to the sexually active to indulge in safer unnatural and unconventional sex as a defence.

The part about amputation for foot and hand for theft — will it be by saw or chopper, and can the offender ask for surgery under anesthesia?

Murder is punishable by death unless the victim's family pardons the offender. Does this mean a wealthy offender who pays compensation to the victim's family to purchase pardon will be let off the hook?

The punishment for zina is 100 lashes for those not married and stoning for those who are.

Does this imply that if an unmarried man is caught in illicit sex with a married woman, the man gets off with 100 lashes and the woman stoned to death?

With the severer punishment for married offenders, will this encourage people not to get married?

It is also provided that while hudud and qisas are mandatory for Muslims, non-Muslims have a choice to opt for it.

Would this not encourage non-Muslims to commit more offences since they could take the advantage of opting for either hudud and qisas or secular penal punishment depending on which system of law makes it more difficult to prove the crime or imposes less severe punishment? Would this not cause a disjunction between the nature of the offence and the punishment when the latter may be elected by the offender from whichever the system most advantageous?

Could our learned ex-lord president Salleh Abas, who was involved in the drafting of Syariah Criminal Laws (hudud and qisas) Bill, clarify some of their anomalies raised above and show how they are reconcilable with the notion of a modern, progressive Malaysia?