WHEN the Islamist party PAS tried to implement hudud in Malaysia, Muslims were told they could not object to it as it was God’s law.

Now, as the party pushes for higher penalties in the shariah courts via PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang’s bill to amend the Shariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965, Muslims are again told to give their full support as it is in line with God’s law. 

Meanwhile, non-Muslims are asked to stay out as it does not concern them.

“The shariah courts are esteemed by Muslims. Respecting shariah law is regarded as a way to obtain blessings from Allah,” Parit Buntar MP Dr Mujahid Yusof Rawa said.

Like PAS’s struggle to implement hudud, Hadi’s bill – better known in Bahasa Malaysia as Rang Undang-undang 355 (RUU355) – is in the public sphere where it is debated, raising sensitivities and emotions between supporters and critics, and politicised.

“Proponents of the bill are saying those who oppose RUU355 (Hadi’s bill) are opposing hukum Allah (God’s law). But that is not (hukum Allah),” the Amanah vice-president told The Malaysian Insight recently.

Hadi, who is Marang MP, is trying to amend the law to increase shariah court punishments to 30 years’ jail, RM100,000 fine and 100 lashes. 

Under existing provisions, the shariah courts, which rule over religious matters and family law for Muslims, can only sentence offenders up to three years’ jail, a RM5,000 fine and six lashes of the rotan (cane).

Hadi’s private member’s bill will appear in the Dewan Rakyat for the fifth time. The bill appeared in the order paper four times previously but never went through the first reading nor debated due to time constraints and two deferment. 

It has been revised several times since it first appeared in the order paper in April 2015. Its earliest version sought to amend the Federal Constitution to empower the PAS-controlled Kelantan government to implement the shariah penal code.

The Barisan Nasional government said it would take up the bill but earlier this week, Prime Minister Najib Razak said the government would not adopt the bill in line with the principle of consensus in the coalition.

Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi Ali told The Malaysian Insight that he was relieved BN had decided otherwise, so he would not have to draft the amendments to Hadi’s bill that he felt would had been opposed anyway.

Apandi said several BN politicians had voiced their concerns over the bill, including the risk of BN losing some seats in Sabah and Sarawak. He also felt RUU355 was more political than legal, to reap political mileage.

Saving Hadi’s face

Mujahid said he was not surprised that BN turned its back on RUU355 because if it wanted to expand the shariah court jurisdiction, it would have drafted the bill.

A government bill, he said, would had been researched, drafted, tabled and debated professionally; unlike a private member’s bill.

“Especially when it comes from a person long associated with the implementation of hudud,” he said, referring to Hadi. 

“Nobody should also say it is a misunderstanding on the part of non-Muslims, who worry that this will lead to hudud law being introduced.”

Weighing in on Apandi’s remarks, Mujahid said it was an ironic because the attorney-general should have advised the government before all the troubles began.

“He should have given his opinion to the government earlier, not after all this has happened. Had the government tabled the bill, there would be no hoo-hah. Because it was left to Hadi, it became a political arena. 

“What’s worse is the game is not even over because Najib had proposed that the Dewan Rakyat speaker use his discretion to give Hadi the chance to table the bill.”

The move might help Hadi save face and the bill might end up being put to a vote after the debate, with the Pakatan Harapan opposition pact being made the bad guy, Mujahid said.

When PH lawmakers reject Hadi’s bill, Najib and BN would be spared the blame, he said.

Creating a rift

The issue, Mujahid said, ended up politicising the shariah courts and Islam as a religion, creating a rift between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Those critical and not supportive of Hadi’s bill were labelled “kafir” (infidels), and those in Amanah – a PAS splinter party – were “munafiq” (Muslims not sympathetic to Muslim causes and who undermined the ummah), he said.

“Some muftis were used to support the bill. The Federal Territories mufti even said it is compulsory for Muslim MPs to support the bill,” he said, referring to the statement by Dr Zulkifli Mohamad Al-Bakri last September.

“Muslims MPs who questioned the bill from a legal standpoint were made to sound like they rejected God’s law.

“Only the Perlis and Penang muftis said the bill must be discussed further and debated before it can be supported.” 

Perlis mufti Dr Asri Zainul Abidin and Penang mufti Dr Wan Salim Wan Mohd Noor had both questioned Hadi’s bill and criticised the “kafir” label.

Mujahid, the author of Berdialog dengan Gereja – Sebuah Travelog Kedamaian (Dialogue with the Church – A Peace Travelogue), said Hadi’s bill has widened the rift between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Hadi’s bill also divided politicians on both sides of the divide. PAS and some PH parties, namely DAP and Amanah, are at loggerheads over it.

“The bill was used to break up the old opposition pact Pakatan Rakyat (PR) and weaken PAS by purging the party of its progressive faction,” Mujahid said, adding that shariah should not be limited to increasing punishments or implementing hudud. – April 2, 2017.