My name is Mujahidin, I am a Muslim and I reject Hadi’s bill

Mujahidin Zulkiffli
Free Malaysia Today
February 19, 2017

“Maybe many will question why I reject Abdul Hadi Awang’s proposed amendments to Act 355. If I am a Muslim, aren’t I compelled to accept shariah law?”


I am a Muslim. I am far from a perfect Muslim but I believe in Allah.

Maybe many will question why I reject Abdul Hadi Awang’s proposed amendments to Act 355. If I am a Muslim, aren’t I compelled to accept shariah law?

My first response is that this is not Allah’s law. It is a man-made law. It does not state in the Quran and hadiths that punishments is paid in ringgit or any currency for that matter.

There is no summons or punishment prescribed in shariah, What is prescribed is compensation in place of Qisas (law of retaliation). So my question is where does the punishment of paying a fine come from?

From Allah? Or has Hadi become God?

In the Quran, Allah says: Allah will not burden his people with that which they have no ability to bear (Surah Albaqarah).

Who can afford to pay the RM100,000 fine which Hadi is seeking? Only the rich and if the proposed amendments are passed, where is the social justice should the fine be too heavy for the poor?

And if a judge has the discretion to heavily fine a rich person and give a poor man a lighter punishment, then isn’t this prejudice which goes against Allah’s commandment?

“O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.” (An Nisa 135).

Only Allah is fit to judge a person. A prejudiced judge is a judge who isn’t accepted by Islam. Punishments which aren’t based on the Quran or hadiths should be abolished not misused.

Secondly, the punishment of 100 lashes of the cane is a hudud punishment. It is indeed found in the Quran but for zina (unlawful sexual relations). In carrying out this punishment, you need four Muslim male witnesses.

The witnesses have to be of good character, clever, fair and someone who is not fasiq or unreliable (by virtue of intentionally and constantly transgresses boundaries prescribed by Allah, and considered unreliable).

Let us look at khalwat (close proximity) raids.

Most of the raids are carried out by officers who don’t appear to be of good character (a lack of manners means not of good character, right?), and they don’t appear to be clever or else they would be doctors, engineers or lawyers, right?

Ok, maybe they are clever because the requirement for being clever is not being insane, but are they really not insane? Hmmm… at a glance, some of them look crazy enough.

And are they fair? If their KPI is to arrest people, then there is a problem because a lack of arrests can be seen as them not doing their job.

And if they are seen as not doing their job they can be sacked. So how can we be sure they will be 100% fair?

And are they really not fasiq? Do they not commit the smallest sins? Who doesn’t commit the smallest sins? Most of them smoke and that is enough to constitute a small sin (and since smoking is haram according to a previous fatwa). This makes them unreliable.

And if the 100 lashes is a hudud punishment, why are they lying by saying the proposed amendments aren’t hudud? If they can lie like this why do we want to accept liars as our leaders?

They might feel this is tazir punishments (punishments at a discretion of a judge or ruler) but tazir punishments cannot be as heavy as hudud punishments.

This was agreed upon by the Islamic jurists Al Shafie, Al Hanbali and Hanafi. Only Maliki feels tazir punishments can be heavy but not excessive.

But if we want to follow the Maliki school of thought, we also have to accept that dogs aren’t unclean? Hah? Why not, right?

Also, the 30-year jail sentence isn’t in the Quran. This punishment is excessive for our existing shariah offences. In fact, it goes against the views of the Islamic jurists, including Maliki.

Fourthly, shariah law will disrupt the lives of non-Muslims. A khalwat raid on a couple where one person is a non-Muslim will have an impact on that person.

The need for witnesses who are Muslim will also have an impact on non-Muslims as they can’t be witnesses. If they can’t be witnesses, how can they get justice?

As an example, if a non-Muslim husband or wife has an adulterous relationship with a Muslim, they cannot accuse the Muslim of adultery.

Thankfully, they aren’t punished by our shariah laws or else they would receive 80 lashes of the cane.

Once more, most importantly, if such punishments aren’t prescribed in the Quran and hadiths, why is it called Allah’s law?

Astargfirullahalazim… we shouldn’t simply come up with worldly punishments and label them as Allah’s law. Don’t lie and more importantly, don’t slander Allah.

Allah commands that slander is worst than murder. More importantly, Allah commanded prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.)

“Verily, We have sent down to you (O Muhammad) the Book for mankind in truth. So whosoever accepts the guidance, it is only for his own self; and whosoever goes astray, he goes astray only for his own loss.” (Qur’an 39:41)

If the Prophet Muhammad was advised against controlling the actions of others, who is Hadi?

  1. #1 by Bigjoe on Sunday, 19 February 2017 - 4:23 pm

    Why, when discussing Islam, it’s never enough to just argue the logic? Fact of matter is there is no need for capital punishment for family law and misdeameanour. RUU 355 makes no sense unless the intention is to creep into jurisdiction of criminal law and breaking the Constitution – a back door to Islamic state rather than up front.

    If the argument is social problem, the cause is not because the problems lack severity of punishment. The problems are always mostly economic first, governance second. Resorting to cries of “maruah” and avoiding root cause and responsibility is Orwellian, no different than Najib avoiding 1MDB accountability and should NEVER be acceptable.

  2. #2 by worldpress on Sunday, 19 February 2017 - 5:02 pm

    Malaysia can not allow any chances the extremist claiming have won with their trick and demand – pass the private bill.

    They will mess up our country spread a divide society, encouraging people that it need 4 Muslim eye witness to charge the reaper! encouraging crime to non-muslim as there is need all eyewitness must be Muslim.

    There will be no one stopping those extremist leaders say whatever favor them and claim is God saying to claim his authority no one can/should oppose!

  3. #3 by good coolie on Monday, 20 February 2017 - 11:37 am

    Everyone knows that the Bill is meant to be a stepping-stone to the implementation of Islamic Law in Malaysia. That makes it the business of Non-Muslims as well as Muslims to speak on the Bill.

    Every person who votes for the Bill is responsible for the religious extremism that is going to result from it You can run but you cannot hide (from the blame).

    The Malays must act wisely, rejecting religious extremism. Stand up before it is too late.

    Ditch Najib and Mahatir; Azalina too.

You must be logged in to post a comment.