by Saleh Mohammed
The reactions of Malaysians to recent developments in the news seem to show that we tend to be emotional thinkers. One day we condemn the idea of hudud as inhuman, and the next day we call for hudud-like penalties to be imposed on child molester Richard Huckle.
“Hudud” is Arabic for “limits”. In Islamic jurisprudence, it refers to punishments specified in the Quran and Hadith for certain crimes. One could argue that the idea is to prevent tyranny, for a tyrant might be tempted to impose forms of punishment that exceed these limits. One could also argue that enforcement authorities could, if they wanted to, exercise leniency and decide not to go to the full limits of the prescribed punishments. But we’ll leave this issue to qualified scholars to discuss.
It’s typical of the Quran, when it speaks of punishment, to conclude the passage with a reminder of God’s grace and mercy. For example, here’s a translation of Verses 33 and 34 of the fifth surah, Surah al-Ma’idah:
“The punishment for those who fight God and His Messenger, and strive to spread corruption on earth, is that they be killed, or crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides, or be banished from the land. That is to disgrace them in this life; and in the Hereafter they will have a terrible punishment.
“Except for those who repent before you apprehend them. So know that God is Forgiving and Merciful.”
In some other passages, punishments are mentioned in the context of the right of the aggrieved to have justice. These passages often end with sobering declarations, such as, “But it is better to forgive.”
The purpose of this article is not to discuss hudud, but to stimulate discussions on how Malaysians think. Do we base our thinking on knowledge or on how we feel? We do not need divergent thinkers. What we probably need are lateral and inspirational thinkers.
We have this hue and cry about hudud being ancient and cruel. Many have said that it does not have any place in our modern, moderate, multiracial and multi-religious society.
And then we have the issue surrounding Richard Huckle. A London court sentenced him to 22 life terms after he pleaded guilty to 71 child abuse charges. A woman in the public gallery shouted: “1,000 deaths is too good for you.”
Malaysians also reacted. Some said he deserved 100 lashes. Others called for his castration. There were even calls for him to be burned alive.
Reacting to the London court’s decision, the Chair of Malaysia’s Voice of the Children asked a question and answered it herself: “Is this justice? No.”
Suddenly, we are told about the absence of a national sex offenders’ registry and the need to make child pornography and child sexual abuse severe crimes with heavy penalties.
Are these calls not ancient, cruel and outdated? Do they have any place in our modern, moderate, multiracial and multi-religious society?
So how do we Malaysians think? One day, we dislike harsh punishments and the next day we desire them.
What would a person’s reaction be if the criminal happens to be his relative? For that matter, what would a person’s reaction be if one of the criminal’s victims is his relative?
Another point to look at is the authorities’ delay in taking action, although it is granted that not much information was forthcoming from British officials on the Huckle case. According to a leader of an Indian community that Huckle frequented, it was only recently that Malaysian police visited the community for the first time.
There are many other examples of our hearing a lot of noise only after things get out of hand. And then, after some time, the noise dies down and we move on to another issue. Remember the Cameron Highlands landslides? Remember the hue and cry over bauxite mining? Have we heard about the perpetrators being brought to justice?
On hindsight, the most glaring issue in the Huckle case is the failure of our authorities to detect his activities over nine years.
Say we have a national sex offenders’ registry. Would it be put to good use? There are many instances of our departments and agencies working in their separate silos and not taking responsibility for one another.
Our various departments and agencies need lateral and inspirational thinkers who are proactive, and not emotional thinkers who are reactive.
Most members of our society, including politicians, appear to be intellectually deficient. As such it is hoped that the few experts among us would engage in intellectual discourse on this subject and produce something that would benefit the nation.
Saleh Mohammed is an FMT reader.
With a firm belief in freedom of expression and without prejudice, FMT tries its best to share reliable content from third parties. Such articles are strictly the writer’s personal opinion. FMT does not necessarily endorse the views or opinions given by any third party content provider.