Ahem, I think you need to re-read the article, the author explicitly discussed rape and adultery as two separate acts, and that Islamic jurisprudence can lead to issues that can lead to inequality and biased against women in both acts. If you want to respond to the author, please rebut the author's points. And please, what is "hudud"? no one really knows, so no one can really validate or verify its effectiveness. But what is clear is that the proponents of "hudud" Malaysia wants it to rules every aspect of life in Malaysia, including the jinayat (jenayah) of rape, hence, the author's point of contention exists, as even rape traditionally requires "four trustworthy males to testify". We wouldn't know, would we, since these "hudud" proponents are adamant at shoving "hudud" doen the throats of everyone, even before the "points of law" of "hudud" is established, and there are people who are gullible and naive enough to give their approval even before seeing what "hudud" really is. It's like blindly buying "iphone 6" online, because the advertisement says its a genuine iphone, only to get a genuine cardboard iphone. So sad, that these supporters can be blinded by religious fervor, that they forget it is also their responsibility as a good Muslim to uphold justice. Acting blindly is not going to improve justice.

In my opinion, the author has not adequately justified their claim that "Hudud reinforces the Constitution", nor has the authors responded to Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) contention that implementing hudud would destroy the Constitution,” and that hudud is “out of place in this day and age ... as they constitute torture, cruel and unusual punishment." The point of contention is straight forward, a large section of Malaysian society distrust hudud, or have little confidence in the application of hudud in this modern age. On the other hand, the other large section of Malaysian society that supports hudud are doing so out of blind faith, or doing so because it is "obligatory for a pious Muslim to upheld "hudud", regardless of its implications or unsuitability in modern society. Simply, what exactly is "hudud"? Proponents of hudud can argue until the end of time on the claims of hudud's benefit, but the truth is, in Malaysia, and in Kelantan, "hudud" is nothing but an ideal with no details. You can't blame the large section of Malaysian society for outright rejecting "hudud"s implementation. And the proponents of "hudud" are simply putting blind faith in implementing an "ideal" that is not even there for all to see. To blindly support a untested "law" is a disturbing trend. While I can read, analyse, dissect, and even amend the current "secular" law of Malaysia, I simply have have no information on what "hudud" is, much less evaluating its merits or shortcomings. The examples of "hudud" that we observe in Saudi Arabia, Taliban Afghanistan, Iran, are certainly not laws we want in Malaysia. Of course, proponents of "hudud" in Malaysia claims Malaysia would not be Saudi Arabia, but really, what is "hudud" Malaysia then? How can you shove a law down my throat when the words of law is non-existent or inaccessible for evaluation. One does not need to look that far, the closest barometer for "hudud" can be found in the existing the Shariah Laws, which in more regards than not, suffers from the fact that it is more or less “out of place in this day and age". Take the oft opined fact of gender inequality that pock marks the implementation of Shariah. Or the bullying rulings on unilateral conversions, or the prevailing rule that fatwas cannot be questioned or discussed, or the prescribed injustice and lack of due process when it comes to "protecting the sanctity of Islam", to the clear selective prosecution discrimination against the East Malaysian Christians practicing their Bahasa Malaysia versions of Christianity in the Peninsular. The recent case of The Herald, or the use of "Allah" - has shown to me that if "hudud" where to become the law of the land, instead of punishing "reactionary parties who will cause havoc" the Courts choose to persecute "the persons who are just going about practicing their century old practices". Clearly there is no evidence that the use of "Allah" has been use to proselytize Muslims, how is this justice? promoting mob rule over rule of law? Hence, it would be highly irresponsible and delusional of me to accept something that is "not existent", "cannot be questioned", and "incompatible with basic human rights". Unless you can convince me otherwise with evidence, all these claims that "hudud" is somehow better than the current "secular" law in Malaysia passes off to me as a Salesman selling snake oil.

It is certainly enlightening for Eisel Mazard to point out the "disconnect", and the missed opportunity of studying the relationship between Buddhist philosophy and contemporary politics, I am not surprised with this "disconnect", if we examine the aims and motivations of Buddhist practice. Venerable K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera, who have written on Buddhism and politics, sums it up nicely. Quote: "The thrust of the Buddha Dhamma is not directed to the creation of new political institutions and establishing political arrangements. Basically, it seeks to approach the problems of society by reforming the individuals constituting that society and by suggesting some general principles through which the society can be guided towards greater humanism, improved welfare of its members, and more equitable sharing of resources.There is a limit to the extent to which a political system can safeguard the happiness and prosperity of its people. No political system, no matter how ideal it may appear to be, can bring about peace and happiness as long as the people in the system are dominated by greed, hatred and delusion. (Great examples being Thaksin Shinawatra and Hun Sen). no matter what political system is adopted, there are certain universal factors which the members of that society will have to experience: the effects of good and bad kamma, the lack of real satisfaction or everlasting happiness in the world characterized by dukkha (unsatisfactoriness), anicca (impermanence), and anatta (egolessness). To the Buddhist, nowhere in Samsara is there real freedom, not even in the heavens or the world of Brahama."

Who is confused here, looks to me you are. The truth is for all to see, "hudud", take Acheh's case as an example, is injustice, inequality and hooliganism. Injustice because it seems these self righteous moral police bermaharajalela and mete out punishment without due process, as if they're God, judge, police and executioner. Inequality because they blame man's evil on the fairer sex. and hooliganism because it encourages vigilantism and not rule of law. Truth is, they call "hudud" God's Law, but in the end these self righteous men are just delusional, because "hudud" is written my men, and "hudud" in its current form is worse than secular law to guarantee justice, fairness, and rule of law

The fact is, when the Hilali-Khan translation stereotypes the Jews by labeling them as the people that evoke anger, and stereotypes the Christians by labeling them as astray, it inadvertently (or perhaps even intentionally) promotes a condescending attitude towards the Jewish and Christian religion, and with all that, it is a short call away from being upgraded to hostility, and blind hatred. That is exactly the point Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa is making, and its testable. Dr Fathul Bari Mat Jahaya can claim, interpret and hypothesise all he wants that that it is not the intent of the Hilali-Khan translation, yet the truth is, the evidence on the ground worldwide and in Malaysia supports Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa's analysis. The way Islam is propagated in many parts of the world, leads to hatred, delusion and violence.

creative accounting you mean?

Potable water from the tap are certified safe to drink, and protected by the amount of chlorine added to it, nonetheless, we cannot discount that fact that the safety of potable water can be compromised with a faulty distribution system (e.g. leaky pipes, old pipes, lead pipes (ancient Rome), sedimentation, biofilms, cross contamination, leacheates, faecal contamination). While it is certainly noble to create awareness in the somewhat wasteful practice of boiling tap water, with the oft mentioned reason that it is redundant to boil tap water if the aim is render tap water safe for consumption, reality is, we will never know unless we sample and assess microbiological and chemically the water we get at the point of consumption (the tap). If I can afford it, I'll go for a well maintained reverse osmosis system, for peace of mind.

With all dues respect, how can the Sultan make an out of Court judgement on this incident, isn't that a miscarriage of justice? The sultan told The Star that the Bibles were stamped because a 1988 law had been breached despite the Attorney-General deciding that the Bibles did not go against the said law. If we read the section 9 (1) Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Amongst Muslims) Enactment 1988", the key word here is control of propagation amongst Muslims, hence to state that the enactment has been breached, means that there must be evidence of propagation amongst Muslims, is there any evidence! This is injustice and discrimination at the highest order. It is neither fair or legal for tMAIS to trample over the rule of law and the Constitution by using a feeble excuse of "respect and protect the religious sensitivities of Muslims in Malaysia". The fact is, is it morally and legally right to convict and condemn a person based on suspicion of a crime without due process or evidence?

Hello, the article is about KL, under the purview of Federal appointed DBKL

It would have been nice and effective if you have posted the sources and references to the facts and data you are stating in this analysis. I commend you for the analysis, however, at the moment I cannot effectively communicate your message as I feel that I cannot share this article without having verified the facts and statements made. Please post the references.