Hudud is more than just
Max SterlingPublished: Nov 20, 2000 10:32 PM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 10:21 AM
Many people believe that to implement the Hudud system means we would have to reject or change the existing legal system being practised in this country. This is not quite accurate an assumption.
The existing man-made laws are based on common sense, and Islam is not against using common sense. In fact, common law or man-made laws, and Hudud, agree in many areas.
Instead of concentrating all our energy on arguing about where the two systems differ or conflict, why not focus our attention on looking at where they agree. This would be a more positive approach.
For instance, both systems agree that, apart from seeking justice for the bereaved party, the punishment meted out to the criminal is also meant to act as a deterrent to other would-be offenders. In the case of repeated un-reformed offenders, they need to be isolated from society.
Both the common law as well as Islamic Law also agree that punishment for these serious crimes are by imprisonment, fines, flogging, execution and so on or a combination of these. The only one difference is that Hudud imposes amputation and stoning as a form of punishment while the common laws not.
Apart from these difference, whether considered minor or not, where else does Hudud 'deviate' from the common law?
If we were to look at the various civil laws such as those covering contracts, company law, or partnership, just to mention a few, we will find many similarities between the two systems. So would the law governing the traffic system, construction of building, import-export as well as those governing the various professions such as medical or legal.
In fact, the Islamic Laws concerning Riba' or usury, gambling, prostitution, and other immoral activities are more precise than those under the common law which licenses massage parlours, bars, discos, casinos, lotteries, finance companies, money lenders, banks, etc. or establishments indulging in activities considered haram or illegal under Islam.
The only time common law is used on offenders of these "crimes" is when they operate without a licence or their licence expires and they fail to renew it.
Under Islam, justice is the crux of the whole matter. This is fundamental. Most people, the non-Muslims especially, wonder how the Hudud law would affect them. They are ignorant of its workings and it is this ignorance which makes them reject Hudud as an acceptable system.
A non-Muslim will only be subjected to Islamic Law if he commits a crime against the general welfare of society or the security of the nation. If a non-Muslims steals, rob, rapes, murders, or commits any other crime equally considered a crime under common law, he will be punished under Islam, just as the common law would punish him.
However, if the non-Muslims drinks, gambles, commits adultery, etc. the non-Muslims will not be punished under Hudud law just as he would not be under the common law.
If that particular non-Muslim's religion allows all such acts as mentioned above, then he is a "free" man. Islam will not interfere in someone else's religion if that religion allows it though Islam may not. But if that person's religion regards all these acts, regarded as immoral under Islam, as also criminal acts, then it is up to that person's religion to punish him.
Islam recognises the rights of non-Muslims and will not impose Islamic moral values on non-Muslims. But then, come to think of it, adultery is a "crime" for all religions whether Hinduism, Buddhism or Christianity.
The stoning of adulteresses was a law from the time of the Jews, way before the coming Islam or even Christianity. I take it the Jews too have abolished this law, as Israel does not have such a law.
I believe, according to the Bible, the only time Jesus Christ ever lost his temper was when he chased the money lenders out of the temple of God. This means even Christianity is against usury. If I remember my Shakespeare right, Shellac, the Jewish money lender, was looked down upon as a leech of society ; a blood-sucking scum of the earth. And wasn't Shakespeare Christian?
Anyhow, one good thing under Hudud is that no one may be punished for a crime based on circumstantial evidence, as clear proof of guilt or the testimony of witnesses, of unquestionable character, to the crime are required; no one may be locked away before he commits crime on the excuse of crime prevention as what is done in Malaysia through the ISA.
In this sense the Hudud is more just.
Max Sterling
UK
The existing man-made laws are based on common sense, and Islam is not against using common sense. In fact, common law or man-made laws, and Hudud, agree in many areas.
Instead of concentrating all our energy on arguing about where the two systems differ or conflict, why not focus our attention on looking at where they agree. This would be a more positive approach.
For instance, both systems agree that, apart from seeking justice for the bereaved party, the punishment meted out to the criminal is also meant to act as a deterrent to other would-be offenders. In the case of repeated un-reformed offenders, they need to be isolated from society.
Both the common law as well as Islamic Law also agree that punishment for these serious crimes are by imprisonment, fines, flogging, execution and so on or a combination of these. The only one difference is that Hudud imposes amputation and stoning as a form of punishment while the common laws not.
Apart from these difference, whether considered minor or not, where else does Hudud 'deviate' from the common law?
If we were to look at the various civil laws such as those covering contracts, company law, or partnership, just to mention a few, we will find many similarities between the two systems. So would the law governing the traffic system, construction of building, import-export as well as those governing the various professions such as medical or legal.
In fact, the Islamic Laws concerning Riba' or usury, gambling, prostitution, and other immoral activities are more precise than those under the common law which licenses massage parlours, bars, discos, casinos, lotteries, finance companies, money lenders, banks, etc. or establishments indulging in activities considered haram or illegal under Islam.
The only time common law is used on offenders of these "crimes" is when they operate without a licence or their licence expires and they fail to renew it.
Under Islam, justice is the crux of the whole matter. This is fundamental. Most people, the non-Muslims especially, wonder how the Hudud law would affect them. They are ignorant of its workings and it is this ignorance which makes them reject Hudud as an acceptable system.
A non-Muslim will only be subjected to Islamic Law if he commits a crime against the general welfare of society or the security of the nation. If a non-Muslims steals, rob, rapes, murders, or commits any other crime equally considered a crime under common law, he will be punished under Islam, just as the common law would punish him.
However, if the non-Muslims drinks, gambles, commits adultery, etc. the non-Muslims will not be punished under Hudud law just as he would not be under the common law.
If that particular non-Muslim's religion allows all such acts as mentioned above, then he is a "free" man. Islam will not interfere in someone else's religion if that religion allows it though Islam may not. But if that person's religion regards all these acts, regarded as immoral under Islam, as also criminal acts, then it is up to that person's religion to punish him.
Islam recognises the rights of non-Muslims and will not impose Islamic moral values on non-Muslims. But then, come to think of it, adultery is a "crime" for all religions whether Hinduism, Buddhism or Christianity.
The stoning of adulteresses was a law from the time of the Jews, way before the coming Islam or even Christianity. I take it the Jews too have abolished this law, as Israel does not have such a law.
I believe, according to the Bible, the only time Jesus Christ ever lost his temper was when he chased the money lenders out of the temple of God. This means even Christianity is against usury. If I remember my Shakespeare right, Shellac, the Jewish money lender, was looked down upon as a leech of society ; a blood-sucking scum of the earth. And wasn't Shakespeare Christian?
Anyhow, one good thing under Hudud is that no one may be punished for a crime based on circumstantial evidence, as clear proof of guilt or the testimony of witnesses, of unquestionable character, to the crime are required; no one may be locked away before he commits crime on the excuse of crime prevention as what is done in Malaysia through the ISA.
In this sense the Hudud is more just.
Max Sterling
UK
View Comments0