HUDUUD??

Islamic judicial system may ensure better justice
Saad Hashim Jan 14, 09 3:16pm

I refer to the Malaysiakini report Karpal: Anwar's statement on hudud misleading.

I find it quite amazing that in the light of the collapse of the Western financial system and the growing relevance of the Islamic one, DAP chairperson Karpal Singh continues to practice scare- mongering tactic against Islamic laws.

Is Karpal (including the so-called progressive Muslims) saying that hudud is nothing but a set of laws for the the jungle which are no longer applicable in this modern life? In the first place, has Karpal studied the full extent of Islamic criminal law on the crimes of theft and homicide and their rules on evidence and punishment as they are now practiced in some Islamic countries?
Has Karpal studied the principles of ijma and qiyas of the Islamic law in reaching a just and equitable result in a case? My reading is that Karpal and the non-Muslim lawyers are against it purely due to theitr selfish reasons ie, they have already made a comfortable living from practising the existing English law, thus his massive income from handling cases in court would be reduced considerably if hudud was introduced.

So too if this country decided to adopt the European law system. Here, I would like to ask Karpal what happens to the principle that defence counsel are also officers of the court which together with the bench, try to establish truth and justice before punishment is meted out.
I wonder whether the first result of the Altantuya trial would have been different if the accused were tried under hudud or European law. Karpal, as a prominent criminal lawyer, should hold a seminar to discuss the differences among the various judicial systems like the British and the American system as well as the European system.

In this seminar Karpal himself should present an objective and impartial assessment of these systems because between the European inquisitorial system and the English adversarial system, there are also pros and cons so how do they compare with the Islamic judicial system (provided they are implemented properly).

I am sure non-Muslims like Karpal are aware that the hudud or Islamic criminal system is merely a component of Islamic law. Also, why then does Karpal chose to ignore that many non-Muslims and non-Muslim companies are now happily taking advantage of the Islamic banking and financial system.

As a matter of fact, more and more European banks are now offering Islamic instruments in raising new capital because they know that these Islamic instruments - which are not riba or usury- based - are better than the conventional ones.
So if the Islamic banking and financial system are acceptable to the non-Muslims, how then that they cannot accept hudud whose main aim is also to establish justice and equality? The problem with human beings is that they don’t know, don’t want to know or that they know but they don’t want people to know that they know.

The problem with hudud is that it was never clearly explained to Muslims as well as to non -Muslims because we all thought that whatever we have now is good enough so why should we rock the boat.

The problem with our British law system is that while we have drifted quite far away from the the original legal practices in England and Wales, we tend to think that what we have here is quite good despite the fact that in recent years our judicial system, including the appointment of judges, has been quite flawed.

At the end of the day, Malaysia as an Islamic country, should, after the success of the Islamic banking and financial system, look for a much better judicial system like the Islamic judicial system if it can guarantee the rights of every citizen, Muslim and non-Muslim alike