Hudud? Let's just forget everything and join the Sith. Life's easier that way.

Image credit: Nababa

Recent barks from the political side of the world (Look out your window- it's the noisiest, tackiest area in sight) have really managed to hit a certain glossy red button with the words 'IRRITATE ME' embossed on it. The barker in question happens to be one Dr. Siti Mariah Mahmud, Member of Parliament for Kota Raja, which, though not located in my neighborhood, is too close for comfort.

In her letter, Hudud is a Choice for all Muslims (9 Oct 2011) 'if it is nearly impossible to get a conviction in the case of adultery, why then the need for such a law? The answer is to maintain the status of adultery as a heinous crime in the eyes of the public. No one will then brag of having had illicit affairs in public'.

Here's what we can extrapolate from that statement: adultery is bad, but prosecution is nigh impossible under hudud. This alone would be grounds for repealing the law (Obsolescence, if you need it spelled out to you), but instead she prefers to keep said non-functioning law as a deterrent. Deterrent to what, pray tell? Giacomo bin Casanova will still wander from woman to woman, but he's not going to boast about it.

She continues: 'the purpose of this requirement (The harsh rules relating to prosecution) is also to ensure that such accusations are not made irresponsibly and rumors pertaining to a person's moral uprightness are seen as something unacceptable by the general public'. Ho-hum. Let's break this up. Situation (a) bring a charge of adultery. Reputation harmed, regardless of outcome. Situation (b) commit adultery, but don't bring a charge, let's just keep it quiet... is that what she's gunning for? Pretty hypocritical, I say.

She then moves on to a 'hotter' topic- rape. First of all she says that rape and adultery are two different things (The lack of consent for rape). No issues there- that should be pretty obvious. She then says 'many rapists get off scot free as they allege it was consensual sex. This is more so in "date rapes" or cases when the rapist is an acquaintance of the victim', followed by 'consensual sex is not a defense for the rapist as in effect he would be admitting to adultery'.

Uh. Excuse me, but are you now equating rape to adultery? I don't know if there's a difference between punishments for the two under hudud, but if this were regular law we were talking about- there would be a great difference (I'm not going to get into specifics). Where's the Feminazi when you need them for some productive raging?

On to date rape. In the US,  use of date rape drugs would lead to another 20 years behind bars (Via Wiki). On the other hand, under hudud- ah. Yes, I believe the punishment is indeed different- why should the accused plead consensual sex as a defense when he knows they'll get him for adultery instead? Anyway, under hudud the accused would in fact escape a lighter charge of rape. In any case it's simply ridiculous to say that the victim consented to rape when s/he was drugged by the accused.

That's all the time I have for the MP. Sisters in Islam replied in this piece on the 16th of October- I skimmed through it and it made sense, but I'm not going to bother with an analysis. Read it if you like. Oh, and please remind me to, if I plan on becoming a rapist and hudud as advertised by the MP does come into force- to convert to Islam. I'll get more bang for my buck whack.

Note: That last bit was SARCASM, for those of you literal people out there. I do not, I repeat, I DO NOT intend on raping every thing that moves which has the right to the prefix Ms. or Mrs. On the other hand, if you intend on becoming a career rapist, I suggest you get a therapist. Which interestingly has the word 'rapist' in it, so I believe you will get along just fine... great. I've just made another boatload of enemies.