Hudud punishment comprises six major types of offences: theft, rebellion or highway robbery, illicit sex, false accusation of someone having illicit sex, drunkenness and apostasy. People may argue that the Hudud ruling is not complete enough, and this is because during the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w time, these are the major offences that usually people during that time committed. They did not commit bribery, they did not do illegal racing and they did not commit cyberspace crime. Time changed and human is too creative in developing new crime. And there is no harm in combining Hudud and the civil law in the constitution as long as it is suitable with the current situation.
The laws are controversial because of their stipulated punishment – including stoning to death, whipping and amputation – which many consider cruel, unusual and contrary to current human rights standards. No one or none of the media take into consideration to give further information about this punishment. Actually, stoning to death can be carry of if the criminal is proven guilty and the stoning can only be conducted by people that have never commit any sin throughout his/her life. Not everyone can conduct the stoning procedure. How about the death sentence in the Federal Law? Does that less cruel than stoning to death?
We are not supposed to look at the surface of the Hudud Law. All the laws that stated in the Holy Quran come with explanation and guidance, yet no one cares to educate the community regarding this. People just absorb in everything that they listen and read in the media without even care to search for further clarification and explanation. Most Malaysian is highly educated and we are supposed to perform the thinking process rather than being totally spoon fed.
** Taqlid or taklid (Arabic تَقْليد taqlīd) is an Arabic term in Islamic legal terminology connoting “imitation”, that is; following the decisions of a religious authority without necessarily examining the scriptural basis or reasoning of that decision, such as accepting and following the verdict of scholars of jurisprudence (fiqh) without demanding an explanation of the processes by which they arrive at it, hence adherence to one of the classical schools (madhhab) of jurisprudence. (source for wikipedia)