1. We're against it because we are not Muslims.

2. That's silly. People object not only because they intend to commit crimes. Suppose I were to propose that we make the penalty for litterbugs be guilotine for their first born child as soon as the child reaches 20 years of age. You say you don't that (it's too harsh, the child is innocent, or whatever) and I ask you "do you object because you plan to become a litterbug"?

3. Yes we plan to commit crimes. We plan to eat things that are haram. We plan to eat during puasa month. We don't want to go to the mosque to pray. We don't want to wear purdah. If I hire a male driver, I don't want to have to hire a female one to drive my wife when I'm not in the car.

Can use secular law. Muslims are still subject to the regular laws right? So even if Shariah says nothing about the OSA ...

The question arises if the same crime is covered by both Shariah and secular law. What if the standard of proof differs (as you pointed out above). Or the severity of punishment differs. Who gets to choose which law to apply? Does the accused get to choose or is he punished twice for the same crime?

About 160,000 convicts were transported from Britain to Australia. 80% of them for larceny (ie theft). source

This amounts to permanent exile, to the opposite end of the earth. The poor people could never afford passage back, and they stayed there. Imagine if we had that today. Imagine being exiled to Peru for stealing a rabbit or cutting down a tree. That sort punishment is extreme, no?

Prior to transportation, in 18th century UK, they executed people for stealing rabbits and cutting down trees. Neither you nor I may have witnessed such severe penalties, but they had been used. But it did not eradicate crime.

My point is that severe penalties do not reduce crime over the long term. How long have Malaysia been executing convicts, and yet the execution goes on. And people continue with crimes that carries the death penalty. What happens is that when the penalty is racheted up, people are scared initially. We see a drop in crime rates. But over time, people gradually get used to it, and crime rate increase back to the previous level.

Who here has not seen the movie where the kidnap victim accidentally sees the face of the kidnappers, and they go "gotta kill him now, cause he's seen our face and can identify us". If the penalty for kidnapping is death, and the penalty for murder is death, then it is not logical that the kidnapper kill the victim so that they don't get caught?

Why do rapists kill their victims? Yes, because they are sick bastards, and some of them may be necrophiliacs. But some does it to hide their crime. If rape was common place, and rapists were fined $300, then many more rape victims would live. Unfortunately, there would also be a lot more rape victims if the penalty amounts to a speeding ticket. But if the penalty for rape is death, then many more rape victims would die.

The point being, there is an appropriate level of punishment for each crime. If it is too low, it is no deterrent. If it is too high, it is bad too. Deterrence need not be achieved by ever more extreme punishments. Deterrence can be increased by more effective enforcement, and by changing community values. If everybody thinks it is normal to try to bribe police officers when they get pulled over, then we've got an uphill battle ahead of us.

If we have a few motorists sent to prision for 3 months for trying to bribe policemen with RM20 to get out of a RM300 fine, it would be a great deterence. Just highlight it on TV, interview them, make a few shows about them, and everybody would know the risk of trying to slip money under their license.

This post has been edited by dkk: Oct 20 2014, 11:13 AM

If the current law is imperfect (and it is) we can tweak it however much we want. Non lawyers can criticize and give their own opinion on what is good and bad.

Hudud, non-Muslim have no say whatsoever. Open mouth, people will say you're not Muslim, you don't know anything about Islam, you must go study Islam for 20 years, only then can back and can talk, etc ...

If Hudud is only for Muslims, then it is fine. But Muslims will say it is unfair that they are subject to two sets of laws. What is allowed by secular law but disallowed by Islamic law, get punished. What is allowed by Islamic law but not by secular law, get punished again. Double bad. I forsee clamour of "unfair". They will want to apply it to non-Muslims as well. Because God's Law is perfect and good. They will have no reason to object.

We all thought that Islamic law have no effect on non-Muslims. JAIS want to do whatever they want, we don't care. It's the Muslim's business. We don't want to meddle. None of our business. Until: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-25578348

Because we live in this country, and what the country does in our name, we cannot just brush it off and say "not my fault".

I'll give you an example. Say I want to introduce an absurd new law. Anyone with blue eyes is to be blinded immediately. As long as you don't have blue eyes, why you worry?