Hudud laws and Islamic state are not Pakatan Rakyat policies

Questions have again been raised about the DAP and Pakatan Rakyat policies on hudud laws and Malaysia as an Islamic State.
DAP’s stand on Malaysia as a secular state has always been constant and consistent.

Hudud laws and Islamic state are not Pakatan Rakyat policies. This is why there is no mention of these issues in the Pakatan Rakyat common platform unveiled at the Pakatan Rakyat Convention in Shah Alam on 19th December last year.

In the section on “Transparent and Genuine Democracy”, Pakatan Rakyat made the pledge to:

“Defend the Federal Constitution, Islam as the religion of the Federation while other religions can be practiced peacefully anywhere in the country and protecting the special position of the Malays and the indigenous peoples anywhere including Sabah and Sarawak, and the legitimate interests of other races in accordance to Article 153.”

In the section on “Religion”, Pakatan Rakyat made the following commitment:


Religion and other beliefs practiced by Malaysians should form the basis of unity that is founded on good universal values. Malaysians have almost fallen into the boiling pot of discord and tension that was caused by manipulation of religious differences. This should not happen in a genuinely democratic Malaysia, with Islam occupying a special position whilst the rights of other religions are guaranteed.

Pakatan Rakyat vows to:
1.Defend the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation and guarantee freedom of religion for every Malaysian.

2.Organise dialogues and consultations between cultures and religion in order to strengthen the understanding between them.
3.Set up a comprehensive mechanism to provide just resolution to cases which involve the overlap of civil and Syariah laws, including a Royal Commission to deeply study all the relevant issues.
4.Strengthen the management of Islamic institutions such as Baitul Mal and Tabung Haji to ensure that they are administered effectively and efficiently to achieve their objectives.
5.Ensure suitable areas for places of worship and burial grounds for all religions.”

Hudud laws and Islamic state are not policies of Pakatan Rakyat as any policy change would need the agreement of all three component parties and there is no such consensus in Pakatan Rakyat on hudud laws and Islamic state.

Strangely enough, who is on record as supporting an Islamic State as advocated by the last three Prime Ministers, Tun Dr. Mahathir, Tun Abdullah and Datuk Seri Najib Razak – completely in contradiction to the clearly expressed public positions of the first three Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein Onn that Malaysia was founded as a secular nation and not an Islamic State?

It is the leaderships of the MCA, Gerakan, MIC, SUPP and the other Barisan Nasional component parties who were ever-ready to give unquestioned support to the declarations by the last three Prime Ministers, beginning with Mahathir’s “929 Declaration” that Malaysia is an Islamic state on Sept. 29, 2001, who should be repudiating their past positions instead of trying to pull the wool over the people’s eyes.

  1. #1 by k1980 on Sunday, 22 August 2010 - 2:06 pm

    And the young lovers didn’t even dump any babies, unlike Bolehlanders,0,2384664.story

  2. #2 by BoycottLocalPapers on Sunday, 22 August 2010 - 2:15 pm

    What is wrong with praying for Lim Guan Eng or mentioning Lim Guan Eng’s name in a prayer? Is it wrong?

    (By the way, I don’t wish that Lim Guan Eng convert to Islam & don’t want Muslims to pray for him to convert to Islam)

    As long as freedom of religion is not guaranteed in our constitution, there will be no end to this kind of problem as UMNO will continue to make use of the religion (that is regarded as official by the constitution) as an excuse to persecute non-Muslims & Muslims alike.

    If it is wrong to mention Lim Guan Eng’s name in Muslim prayer, then why blame Lim Guan Eng?

    Lim Guan Eng has no control to what the Muslim imams wanted to say in their prayers.

    Blame the UMNO appointed Imams who mentioned Lim Guan Eng’s name instead of Lim Guan Eng!!!! YOU STUPID MORONS!

    UMNO is using this non-issue to send Lim Guan Eng to jail again. This is UMNO’s twisted (ill)logic.

    Muslim Imams mentioned Lim Guan Eng’s name instead of Agong, and Lim Guan Eng will be the one sending to jail instead of the imams who uttered that prayers just like how one underage girl was raped by one UMNO member and Lim Guan Eng was the one jailed instead of that rapist UMNO minister.

    Malaysia will continue to be a hopeless country just like Pakistan as long as freedom of religion is not granted to all and equality of all races is guaranteed in the constitution.

    As long as one race is regarded as supreme above all others and one religion is regarded as supreme above all others, there will be no peace and harmony in Malaysia as politicians especially from UMNO regime, will continue to harp on race and religion issues.

  3. #3 by k1980 on Sunday, 22 August 2010 - 2:19 pm

    If a rabbi mentioned Moo’s name in his prayer, so will Moo be jailed?

  4. #4 by Winston on Sunday, 22 August 2010 - 3:29 pm

    All these race and religious issues were non-existence before.
    And they are fomented just to stir up the Malays to gain votes; by showing how chauvinistic they were.
    What they don’t seem to know is how stupid and dangerous they are.
    The Malays of today are different from those of yesteryears! And they are much less swayed by such stupid leaders.
    Also, all such acts show, without a doubt, that UMNO/BN is on the way out!
    And is grasping at straws!

  5. #5 by pulau_sibu on Sunday, 22 August 2010 - 4:57 pm

    Before we say about the Islamic laws, let’s talk about the basic ethics of those BN politicians. They are the one promoting gambling, corruption, etc. These wrong doings are all allowed in BN religion, only in BN religion for the BN politicians.

  6. #6 by frankyapp on Sunday, 22 August 2010 - 5:58 pm

    God/Allah created us human,hence let no man or woman discriminates HIS creation. All believers in HIM are free to pray for anyone of his kind and if force is applied,then it’s against HIM. Hence I think it’s not wrong for anyone to pray for his/her well- being. GOD/ALLAH will be pretty happy if muslim prays for non muslim and vice versa. Catholic prays daily for everyone irrespective of race and religion and I also know of believer of TAIPEKGONG, praying for family members and friends of other religion. And according to Mother Theresa, qoute ” everyone believes in ONE GOD/ALLAH though they may pray in different forms or ways ” end qoute. Hence what’s the fuss with some people ?

  7. #7 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 22 August 2010 - 6:19 pm

    ///Hudud laws and Islamic state are not policies of Pakatan Rakyat///

    I accept that that is the general position of DAP. It is also true that there is no consensus – even amongst Islamic scholars- on what exactly constitutes an “Islamic State” and its characteristics. If one uses as reference Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan that claim they are an Islamic state, of course Malaysia is not one. The fact that Malaysians of all races and creed are subject to a plethora of laws of secular and Common Law roots sanctioned by the Constitution also argue strongly that we’re not an Islamic State in senses meant in context of the countries mentioned above. The fact that the Federal Court in 1988 Che Omar bin Che Soh’s case laid down that we were secular state, which has not been overruled, buttresses the position that we’re secular state or at least definitely not an Islamic state. However those of us opposed to the establishment of an Islamic State have to be vigilant. For those who advocate it do not expect an Islamic State to be installed overnight, given a large and still significant percentage of the populace being non-Muslims. They would fight and work for a rapid evolution to such a state. In these they have a couple of arguments up their sleeves.

    First, the fact that the position of Islam is protected under the Constitution as the religion of the Federation makes it is given a special place of primacy and importance. Even Pakatan Rakyat (PR)’s pledge to defend it could be stretched to mean promote it, there being little difference between defence and promotion!

    Second, it will be cited as argument that the fact that our political administration is infused with Islamic values and there are many Islamic based institutions governing Islamic banking, sukuk bonds & insurance (takaful) etc, this suggested that we’re already more than half way to an Islamic state.

    Third, the fact that Non Muslims are guaranteed freedom of religion by the Constitution does not mean it is not consistent with an Islamic State being promoted. This is because of the argument that Islam is compassionate and tolerant of non Muslim minorities’ position. It does not mean that if Non Muslims are accorded right to their own religious beliefs, Muslims cannot be subject to Hudud, assuming lslam requires it. Based on this position if majority of country are Muslims subject to Hudud then this country is already a defacto Islamic State. Arguing from this position then, there is nothing in Pakatan Rakyat common platform regarding “Religion” that explicitly denies or (for that matter) affirms the introduction of Hudud (if Islam requires it) or the establishment of the Islamic state (as liberally defined to mean a state with dominance of Islam in administration and enforcement of laws).

    The main obstacle to Islamists is that whilst Muslims are subject to Sharia they are not subject to Sharia exclusively and wholly – in support of the above majority argument- but are also still subject to secular laws, like for eg our criminal code, the Penal Code and also many commercial laws based on Common Law.

    Here the battle is waged around the article 121(A) of the Federal Constitution which separates the streams of syariah from secular law and the jurisdictions of Civil Courts from Sharia Courts. Where the two overlap and conflict, and the question arises as to which prevail, the civil/secular courts have so far in deference abdicated the arbiter role to the syariah courts. That’s one big advantage going to the side of an Islamist striving for our evolution towards the Islamic state.

  8. #8 by Taxidriver on Sunday, 22 August 2010 - 10:46 pm

    Hudud Laws cannot be more scary than UMNOB Laws. So why be afraid, eh?

  9. #9 by mifadzil on Monday, 23 August 2010 - 1:00 am

    First of all, the PR and BN are saying freedom of religion and what make me feel dissappointed is the hypocracy of both alliance on this statement. Why Muslim cannot perform their religous obligation of using Hudud as their law for Muslim people? I believe all Muslims in this country accept that non-Muslims are free to practice their religion and allow to follow the Civil courts. What is the gap here is that, we make a bridge between the Muslim and non-Muslim in cases that involve both people so that both Muslim and non-Muslim can live without prejudice and coexist with tolerence. Now, already 3 years, i havent seen either side on solution the bridge this gap. I dont see a problem of applying hudud for Muslim and civil law for non-Muslim and make everyone happy. We only need to provide a solution here and not argue about secularism or islamism of the nation. Nothing is going to be loose by anyone if we have common understanding on the solution that we can accept for both sides and coexist. Dont say freedom of religion if you only want to endorse this to non-Muslim but for Muslim need sacrifice their religious obligation or vice versa. It’s not freedom of religion anymore, it’s just hypocracy of both alliance. Full stop.

  10. #10 by mifadzil on Monday, 23 August 2010 - 1:13 am

    One more thing, you wont able to take Federal government if you are not getting majority Muslims support in any GE. That is the fact and even if you win with minority Muslims support, the government is not going to stay for long because you will alway got resistance from the large majority Muslims that didnt support you. This is fact. Do the right thing to provide consensus deal for all the people and not just for certain people that support you only.

  11. #11 by Taxidriver on Monday, 23 August 2010 - 6:11 am

    Dear mifadzil #9,

    You disdain hypocricy and so do I. But don’t you think WE should first ( terlebih dahalu ) ask UMNOB why they have not imposed Hudud Laws after more than half a century in power? Afterall, they claim to be ” Juara bangsa, AGAMA dan NERAKA.”

  12. #12 by Thor on Monday, 23 August 2010 - 8:38 am

    Hudud law?
    Go ahead and implement it.
    I wanna see that Kinabatangan fella get stoned.
    And what are the punishment for lying and defamation?
    I bet the whole Umno goons will be queing up for that!

  13. #13 by dagen on Monday, 23 August 2010 - 8:46 am

    Wow Thor, mass stoning huh? What a scene that would be. And it would surely more than put bolehland in the world map. In fact bolehland would stand out in the entire universe. Even the decepticons from planet cybertron might even come to learn from us.

    Jib Jib Boleh.

  14. #14 by k1980 on Monday, 23 August 2010 - 8:49 am

    Wny no Hudud punishment for the “political analyst” who bonked Altan, caused her to be blown apart, and pocketing RM500 million in the process?

  15. #15 by Hassan on Monday, 23 August 2010 - 8:33 pm

    Koran tell moslem to pray for those who closed to you, including family, friends and your leader, regardless race or to non moslem friends, please dont believe to harunsanni or anybody associates wit umno said! they never intrested in telling the truth..

  16. #16 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 24 August 2010 - 1:14 am

    PAS vice-president Datuk Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man.told TheMalaysianInsider (23rd August) that DAP rejected hudud because it did not clearly understand its implementation; that it was actually compulsory for the government to implement hudud; that he hoped that DAP would understand and respect PAS principles. “We have never questioned DAP or PKR policies We can agree on certain things so we hope DAP will do the same ” said Tuan Ibrahim “Hudud law is only for Muslims if it is implemented the non-Muslims would not be affected.”

    The PAS Vice President is way off mark.

    Firstly what does he mean by saying it was actually compulsory for the government to implement hudud or that DAP did not clearly understand its implementation???

    He argued that that he hoped that DAP would understand and respect PAS principles (as PAS respected DAP’s). “We have never questioned DAP or PKR policies” he said. Yes but when you first came together with PKR and DAP and agreed jointly to Pakatan Rakyat Manifesto -that excluded Hudud – why didn’t you then come forth to say you wanted to implement it? To say it after keeping quiet and riding on several victories with other PR’s partners’ help is misrepresentation if not deception of common expectations.

    Arguing that if Hudud were implemented, the non-Muslims would not be affected is wholly besides the point.

    The DAP is not fighting for non Muslims only. It fights for all Malaysians and Malaysians’ known way of life since the time our Constitution was first promulgated (without Hudud on Muslims)….

    With this kind of mentality prevailing within PAS what kind of collaboration can we expect for PR to reach Putrajaya??? If the partners would not fight openly now they would fight later, whether win or lose the election!

  17. #17 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 24 August 2010 - 1:25 am

    What is disconcerting and disappointing is that it is none other than PAS’s spiritual leader Nik Aziz Nik Mat – the voice of PAS – who categorically said that Pakatan would implement hudud laws if it took over the federal administration…..[Reference: Malaysiakini’s report “Hudud laws best solution to tackle crimes, says Nik Aziz”
    Aug 19, 10 10:39pm].

    As I have always maintained in my comments in this blog, this leopard will never change its spots. It engages in twists and turns to reach its final objective, of which it never wavers.

  18. #18 by Bigjoe on Tuesday, 24 August 2010 - 2:44 pm

    This whole issue of Islamic law between PAS and DAP is not a simple matter. The fact of the matter is the issue is not being promoted because it stands in the way of PR going into Putrajaya. From Day 1, Anwar told PAS straight out that they would have to if they want to get to Putrajaya. Any change in that is on PAS.

    The only reason any BNer – UMNO or any component party is to play spoiler in PR’s game. Forget the sincerity of BNer went it come to this issue.

    The fact of the matter is full Islamic law – Hudud and Islamic state is a complex issue and any leader from PAS or BN side who push it as a straighforward issue is being insincere and sinister. Any PR govt that does not have full Islamic law will be more compliant to true Islamic principle than any BN govt will ever be. So there is no issue of a PR govt not being better for those who dream of Islamic state. On the other hand, the charge that a PAS govt, that wishes for Islamic state will put secularity in danger fails to see that a corrupt secular govt is NO govt in the first place and put secularity in greater danger. A too compliant MCA to BN religio-fanactism, puts secularity in greater threat.

    The fact is secularity has been under threat since Mahathir Islamization. If we go to Islamic state under PAS, we can thank Mahathir first. It means that those who fear Islamic state must understand that the answer is not to react emotionally to threat of Islamic state but to engage those who want it and ask for clear justification and for that to happen, we have to be clearer about it not emotional about it. So long as we are determined to ask and engage PAS to answer their position, so long as we will have the best chance against an Islamic state, not a corrupt BN that will do anything for their selfish end including selling an Islamic state drug if they have to.

You must be logged in to post a comment.