My last three columns have related to the issue of, if or whether, we can and should seek to make hudud a common law reality in Malaysia. Obviously, I would not write four columns if I had no problems with such a local bylaw within the context of our Federation of Malaysia.
Our problem with framing issues
No one really taught us in primary school that our framing of issues often decries the preference or worldviews we already have a preference for. Let me state an example to make my point. For example, today’s headline in The Sun , the only paper I now subscribe to, states: ‘Straight FIGHT’. It does not take brilliance to figure out the rest of the story. Does it really mean that in Penang their fight is not straight, or in fact it is actually crooked, or not really straight?
No. The editors of The Sun newspaper decided volitionally that it will be a ‘battle for Teluk Intan.’ But their picture shows a smiling handsome pair of candidates who will seek to win the race for who should represent the people of that constituency as the Member of Parliament. But, why this language of political battle or war, when we can frame it in more friendly terms?
Furthermore, according to the reports the two sides and supporters have in fact agreed to make it a clean campaign for support without any personal attacks. That does not, to me at least, mean, ‘a straight fight,’ but rather a clean and moral campaign for the right to represent the people to Teluk Intan.
And it defines the philosophy of the two opponents that, at the end of the day, it is the people and their quality of representation which will define who really wins. Now, both want to argue or make a case that they are going to be the better representative.
Any reader also knows that I have purposefully avoided the language of ‘the politics of winner-takes-all’ philosophy in my paragraph above. Alternatively it can also be considered ‘the win-lose or black-white framing of issues, concerns or problems.’ That is reductionism in practice.
My framing of the ‘hudud issue’
At university, we were taught that we cannot reduce all reality into simply blacks or whites. For that matter, even natural reality teaches us about the colours of the rainbow; and which truly gives us hope. Hope, too, is a multicoloured reality. Too often though, our poor teachers, or so-called educated and informed ones, are the same ones misleading us with reductionistic options of the either-or form. They reduce reality to their level of knowledge.
It was my university professor of Philosophy, Science, and Religion at George Washington University (GWU) who taught me to think and understand that ‘a veil reveals as much as it hides’. Please think about it. What does such dressing also say about the person behind the veil? For that matter, routinely I see ladies who wear the purdah or headscarf but also wear low cut or low hanging pants, which reveal more than they hide.
Therefore, allow me to seek to define my terms before I create an unintended furore about this write-up. Nonetheless, I will accept it if I am attacked for my views. It is their win-lose worldview.
At my second time of relearning at the tertiary level, I also learnt that belief and science are not mutually exclusive. In fact I finally came up with my own definition that belief or faith is beyond reason; it is not unreasonable, but really it transcends reasoning. It simply means that belief or faith is non-reasonable. That is also my preferred definition to the logic system for hudud. It is non-reasonable.
This means that those who believe it is taught in Islam as a ‘must have law’ cannot be reasoned with; it is beyond reason for them. But, for those who are open, it is not beyond reason.
My question in the title of this column is whether hudud is anti-constitutional? What do I mean? It simply means, can we use logic of science and reason to come to a common and agreeable conclusion that under our Federation of Malaysia system of our rule of law principle that hudud can never be applied under the current constitution and its historical antecedents?
Yes, that is my question, with my long-winded way of words and all assumptions implicit under our words and phrases.
Our supreme law of Malaysia
The federal constitution (FC) speaks of itself as the supreme law of the Federation. Now, did it say it is qualified by the Council of Rulers, or the respective constituent states, or the two-thirds majority vote in Parliament by the elected and appointed members? No, it does not say that at all but there are stipulated clear and well-articulated processes for seeking such ‘amendments to the FC.’
In the meantime, there is little or no doubt to any constitutionalist that the constitution, as is and with warts and all, is the supreme document of law in this country. Now, then it is reasonable and obvious to all who are rational and empirical in our views, that the word, ‘supreme’ makes it an end in itself, with zero qualifiers.
A more fundamental question about hudud
Having served as a policy maker and analyst all my life, I cannot but ask the most relevant question of all Malaysians: why do we need hudud in this day and age, within the context of a multicultural Malaysia which we advertise so, in a four-layered hierarchy of legal realities (please read my earlier column on this)?
Finally, how do we do this, within the context of a society driven and powered by social media technology in this modern age of the internetworked world, which we cannot change or alter, but which we need to deal with, but which also calls for creativity and innovation but never a return to medieval systems which bans all that is ‘so-called ‘black,’ in the black-white framing of the world?’
That is my question to all my Muslim friends, allies, and the not-so-friendly people. Yes, I include my allies in Perkasa or Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma), or anyone else. Surely, mine is not a too difficult question that we cannot reasonable talk about, without losing emotions, and within a context of mutual regard and respect.
So, we invite all (here I speak as an NGO) to come and join the dialogue we already started, but on the same terms and conditions as all others already in dialogue and engaged with us.
Surely, in the beginning decades of the 21st century, with all kinds of technology, gadgets and processes available to us, can we not sit down and carry on a reasonable dialogue? The worst that can happen is that we agree to disagree, in some agreeable way, until we meet and try again.
For those who are not familiar how all this can work, please go and review the video, ‘The Imam and the Pastor’ . It is a true story of breakdown of inter-religious conflict in Nigeria and how these two gentlemen worked against all odds to win a losing war of emotions. May God bless Malaysia to learn from the mistakes of others.
