Syariah Laws and Malaysia

The first, and probably most important, is that syariah law is intrinsically linked to the Holy Quran as its philosophical anchor. Just as laws in the United States are based on philosophies forwarded in the American Constitution and English common law is closely linked to historical precedent, so too a similar relation exists between syariah law and the Quran; in effect, the Quran is the constitution of Islam. This may be the reason why some have argued that the hudud aspect of syariah law contradicts the Federal Constitution: there can only be one law of the land.

Secondly, historical accounts show that the Prophet Muhammad successfully ran a state based on syariah laws. He was able to do this because syariah law regulates all aspects of human interaction and activity: politics (e.g. the structure of the legislature and government), economics (e.g. usurious interest or riba is illegal) and social issues (e.g. marriage and divorce).

Advocates of syariah law today cite his example as positive proof of the ‘implementability’ of syariah law, including the hudud. The point here is to examine whether or not conditions that contemporary society face today would allow for a similar exercise of successful implementation.

There has been a lot of argument that the laws of Islam are not bound by the effects of space and time — it would be interesting to see detailed, objective studies that would prove this to be so. Too much argument on this particular matter has been based on rhetoric and "the-Prophet-was-successful-so-we-can-be-too".

Another often neglected fact is that the Prophet was a great man and leader — who among us today can claim to be his equal and be as fair and just as him in the implementation of laws? The eventual collapse of the Islamic empire begun once the strong leaders (i.e. the Companions of the Prophet) were replaced by weaker ones.

Thirdly, examples of syariah law implementation in countries like Pakistan, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, etc. in modern times have drawn severe criticism from the international community — horror stories of amputated limbs, women being stoned to death, teenagers being lashed with a whip are often quoted and used as a metaphorical bludgeon to argue the barbaric nature of Islamic syariah law.

Whether or not these criticisms are justified is a matter of opinion and is thus beyond the realm of fact. The fact is that Islam has drawn bad press from the international community because of the severe modes of punishment advocated by syariah law. And it is also a less-known fact that these ‘sensational’ stories are very often the exception rather than the norm.

The courts in these Muslim countries still deal with the everyday, mundane issues that all normal courts deal with, issues that are often non-criminal and civil in nature. As cases like this make up the bulk of the court dockets, perhaps rather than focusing on the horror stories, a proper study should be made to see how well syariah law stands up in these cases, cases that will most likely have a greater impact on the everyday lives of people.

Fourthly, in Malaysia, syariah law is already in practice but it is largely confined to the Muslim community in Malaysia and for a very limited scope of legal issues such as family law. Hudud law, or the Islamic criminal code, is the portion of syariah which allows for severe modes of punishment such as amputation, whippings and stonings.

In Malaysia, hudud laws in this form have been passed into state legislature in the states of Kelantan and Terengganu. Enforcement of the hudud laws is yet to take place in Malaysia; in the 11 years that it has existed in Kelantan, we don't see an abundance of public executions or stonings. Either Kelantan is an extremely crime-free state, or hudud laws are unenforceable.

Fifthly, hudud law can be very successful in reducing crime rates as seen in the Zamfara state, northern Nigeria. Ever since syariah law was adopted by the local government two years ago, crime rates have dropped by more than half. It has been so successful in reducing crime that 10 of the 36 states in Nigeria are planning to introduce syariah law in the near future; people are putting democratic pressure on their local governments to follow the example of Zamfara.

But grumbles have begun to appear among the people that the fear of crime is beginning to be replaced by the fear of government oppression. The issue in the implementation of hudud law has always been the ability to find a balance. That balance seems to have eluded many places that implement syariah to its fullest.

Could the same happen in Malaysia? And what would be the consequences of a loss of balance in the multi-racial, multi-religious society that Malaysia is?

Appearing in www.malaysiakini.com 28 August 2002