Thursday, October 27, 2011

Here is a letter wrote by a professor in the Star which agreed to my long held view on Malaysia. I have trouble explaining it to my friends on my point of view and I hope this prof explanation would end that debate

Tuesday October 25, 2011

Let’s not take credit away from our founding fathers

THERE has been much debate recently over the issue of the country’s relations with Britain prior to 1957. The remark by Professor Zainal Kling, a senior scholar in the social sciences, that Malaya was colonised for only two years, that is, during the lifespan of the Malayan Union (March 1946 to February 1948) triggered rebuttals from various quarters, including our Deputy Prime Minister.

On Oct 6, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin intervened. “We were colonised,” he declared. The DPM’s statement was explicit though short on historical facts.

Up to World War Two, the nine Malay states were, legally, protected states of Britain. In other words, they were not colonies like Penang, Malacca and Singapore. They were treated in international law as part of the British Commonwealth and Empire, although theoretically they had a right to claim to be independent foreign states.

This was acknowledged by none other than Sir Harold Duncan, a legal adviser of the Colonial Office.

In reality, however, whether the Malay states were protected or not, they were treated like de facto colonies by the British authorities. Every Malay state had a British Adviser whose advice had to be followed except on matters of adat and agama.

The Colonial Office became aware of the legal loophole during WW2 when its officials were planning for the re-conquest and re-occupation of Malaya.

They realised that a Malaya liberated from Japanese occupation would require legislation under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act to enable it to proceed with “the political development of the country as a whole” and this could only be carried out by having the nine Malay Rulers cede jurisdiction over their respective states to the British Crown.

Accordingly, the Colonial Office prepared identical treaties for the nine Malay Rulers to sign and Sir Harold MacMichael who was assigned this job secured the signatures of all nine Malay Rulers in rapid succession in 1945. The MacMichael Treaties took immediate effect and enabled Britain to amalgamate control of the Straits Settlements and the Malay states.

It was never in doubt that the signatures of the Malay rulers were obtained under conditions of uncertainty and insecurity. These MacMichael Treaties were not accepted by the Malay community.

As such, when the Malayan Union, which was formed immediately after the MacMichael Treaties were signed, was inaugurated, the Malay Rulers boycotted the swearing-in of the new Governor.

Umno was formed to mobilise support against the Malayan Union throughout the country. As a result, in February 1948, the Malayan Union was set aside and a new Federation of Malaya was announced.

However, the dissolution of the Malayan Union did not diminish Britain’s colonial power and influence in Malaya.

In the 1948 Federation of Malaya Agreement, the powers that originally belonged to the states were restored but the British authority responsible for holding the federation of states together maintained a very tight grip on power in the country.

It was left to Tunku Abdul Rahman and his Umno, MCA and MIC alliance to negotiate with the colonial government for these substantial powers to be reverted to the Rulers and peoples of Malaya.

They began to build up a Sino-Malay consensus to fight for Merdeka and formulated a constitution that was balanced, democratic and fair and that could withstand the test of time, the complexities and difficulties not withstanding.

They secured the colonial government’s consent to cede the powers that Britain had accumulated in Malaya, including the powers acquired through the MacMichael Treaties, to the chosen King of Malaya and the elected government of the country.

To sum up, let us not take away from Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Abdul Razak, Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman, Tun Tan Cheng Lock, Tun Lee Hau Shik, Tun V.T. Sambanthan and other founding fathers of Malaya the credit they deserve.

DATUK DR GOH CHENG TEIK,

PROF DR PHANG SIEW NOOI,

Sunway University.

This article appear in the Star on Thursday. I feel relieve that what I have said many times on this issue found a voice. I feel justified.

Thursday October 27, 2011

Chin Peng: A dying banished man wanting to come home


Diplomatically Speaking
By Dennis Ignatius

RECENT reports indicate that Chin Peng, the erstwhile leader of the now defunct Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), is on his deathbed in Thailand. His last wish is to return home to die.

Chin Peng, alias Ong Boon Hua, was an early fighter for independence against Britain. What set him apart from others of his era was his goal to turn Malaya into a full-fledged socialist state under the leadership of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM).

When the Japanese invaded Malaya in 1941, Chin Peng joined forces with his nemesis, the British, to fight the Japanese. For his efforts, he was awarded the Order of the British Empire, one of Britain’s highest decorations (it was later withdrawn).

If he had stopped there, he might well have been remembered as a national hero. His political ambitions and convictions, however, drove him to launch a long and bloody campaign, first against the British and then against the government of the emerging independent state of Malaya.

In 1955, at the Baling talks, the late Tunku Abdul Rahman tried to convince Chin Peng to abandon his armed struggle but he refused. An offer of general amnesty was similarly rejected.

Many Malaysians of all ethnic backgrounds were killed during what came to be called the “Emergency” from 1948 to 1960. Chin Peng, like other communist revolutionaries of his time, was ruthless in the pursuit of his goals.

Sound political strategy and good military tactics on the part of the Government gradually marginalised the Communist Terrorists (CTs).

Like so much of our early history, the sacrifices and heroism of so many in that long struggle against the CTs lie forgotten or only selectively remembered. Commonwealth forces, for example, played a critical role but their service has never been fully acknowledged or appropriately honoured.

Special Branch officers, particularly those of Chinese origin, also played a heroic role by infiltrating and undermining the CT network from within. Many paid with their lives but are largely forgotten today.

The turning point came when the Alliance Government, precursor of today’s Barisan Nasional, was able to convince Malaya’s ethnic communities, especially the Chinese, that an independent and genuinely democratic nation where their rights and privileges would be protected was a better alternative to that which Chin Peng offered.

As Malaya’s ethnic groups rallied to the Tunku and the Alliance, the insurrection withered.

Chin Peng and his men eventually withdrew in defeat across the border into southern Thailand. Some went on to live in China.

Thank goodness we were able to defeat Chin Peng and stymie his ambition to establish a communist state. God knows what our country would be like today had he succeeded. A Peoples Democratic Republic of Malaya, or something similar, would have been an unmitigated disaster.

In 1989, Chin Peng was persuaded to formally bow to reality and sign a peace accord with the Government of Malaysia. The nation had moved on and both he and his dreams for a communist state had been consigned to the dustbin of history.

As part of the Peace Accord, Chin Peng and former members of the CPM were to be permitted to return home and live as normal citizens. This was a key element of the accord which allowed both sides to bring final closure to the issue.

Successive Malaysian administrations, however, in contravention of the solemn written undertaking enshrined in the Peace Accord, have used all sorts of excuses to block Chin Peng from returning home, even for a brief visit.

It has been suggested that our ex-servicemen who fought the CTs and those who lost family members to Chin Peng’s terror might find his return unpalatable. That may be understandable but a commitment is a commitment.

In any case, the Government’s position makes little sense. Many other CPM leaders, including Sham­siah Fakeh, Rashid Mydin and Abdul­lah CD have been allowed to return home or visit regularly. They were part and parcel of the CPM leadership but appear to have been absolved of their share of the responsibility for all the atrocities committed.

It is disingenuous to argue, as some have, that they were treated differently because they were only puppets of Chin Peng. That is just too convenient.

In addition, China which provided moral support and sanctuary for the CPM and hosted the CPM’s Radio Suara Revolusi Malaya for years, is now our close friend and one of our largest trading partners. If we could forge such close relations with the CPM’s most ardent supporter, what reason can there be to keep the now ailing ex-leader of the CPM out?

Former IGP Tan Sri Rahim Noor, who signed the peace accord on behalf of the Government, has himself said that the Government should do the honourable thing and live up to its commitments under the Accord. It should do so now before its too late.

Thanks to the heroic sacrifices of the security forces and the support of the people, the war against Communism was won and our freedom secured. We can afford to be magnanimous and, as a humanitarian gesture, allow an old and broken man to come home to die. Time to let bygones be bygones.

> Datuk Dennis Ignatius is a 36-year veteran of the Malaysian foreign service. He has served in London, Beijing and Washington and was ambassador to Chile and Argentina. He was twice Undersecretary for American Affairs. He retired as High Commis­sioner to Canada in July 2008.

Labels:

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Ive ask myself many times was Gadaffi's death right? He was murdered as far as I am concern. His death cannot speak for Arab spring crusade. It cannot speak for justice, more so for Islam. It was not right.

When Osama was killed by the US Army all Muslims, especially the Ulamak call the death as cruel. Many said the Wild West Era of the West shows their barbaric nature and condemn them. Many were angry that Osama was buried at sea. Many doubted that the funeral Islamic rites were not held for him in fact here in our country a small demostration was done in front of the US Embassy. Osama was never a leader of a country, he was proven to be a terrorist and proven to have carried out bombings where civilians were killed both in Yemen and US. Some of the dead were Muslims. His spheres of influence reach across the globe. The Bali Bombing and the JI activities are closely related to Al Qaeda which he head. Yet we protest his death as barbaric but when our own did that to another person Gadafi, a head of State of a Country, who no doubt was cruel, yet we remain muted. Where is the Ulamak, where are the Muslims to condemn this atrocities? Where is Mahathir and Anwar? Why the mute silence? When he assume power in 1969 the literacy rate in Libya was 10% when he died after 42 years it was 90%! Infant Mortality rate decreases from 125 per thousand birth to 15 per thousand the best in Africa.Life expectancy rose from 57 to 77 years.He irrigates large tract of the desert turning it into green fields so Libyans could plant food and raise cattle. He provide free medical and free education and when he was topple, unlike us Libya was debt free!!

Yes he was despotic leader but so too were others but we cannot deny he did good for the country and he nor does his son deserve to be murdered without trial. I prefer to send him to exile but then I am not Libyan. My fear is how Islam is perceive by the west although the act was Unislamic but it was done by Muslims to another Muslims. We call them Jahilliyah but are we not one? He was buried in the desert in the cover of night. He and his son. To me Alfatihah goes to him and his sons. I wish that to all Muslims both living and dead, for what was done is tragic. To lay his corpse for all to see in a Meat Room not even a freezer until it was starting to rot and the smell permeates the air and then buried was cruel. I am sad that he was treated less than a dog, for all his weaknesses and transgression he has done good for his country and for that we must respect him.

But I am more sad When the Muslim leaders went mute. That spoke volume on them and for me all these leaders do not understand the meaning of Islam and thus I am very disappointed!!!!

Labels:

Sunday, October 23, 2011

This article is hilarious. i hope the Malay Muslims can read it and laugh at themselves like i did. Came out in the Star today

One Man's Meat
By PHILIP GOLINGAI

The Obedient Wives Club wanted to keep it under the covers but since it leaked out, interest for its sex-guide book has yet to reach a climax.

FRIDAY’S press conference by the Obedient Wives Club (OWC) reminded me of Salt-n-Pepa’s 1991 hit song Let’s Talk About Sex.

The hip-hop song goes: “Let’s talk about sex. Yo, I don’t think we should talk about this. C’mon, why not? People might misunderstand what we’re tryin’ to say, you know? No, but that’s a part of life.”

That about sums up the exasperation of the club embroiled in a controversy after it published a pocket-sized 115-page Malay-language book titled Seks Islam, Perangi Yahudi Untuk Kembalikan Seks Islam Kepada Dunia (Islamic Sex, Fighting Jews to Return Islamic Sex to the World).

Embroiled in controversy: The sex guide which was published by OWC.

To clarify media reports that the book encouraged a man to have an orgy with all of his wives, five OWC officials (including two men) met the press.

At the start of the 90-minute press conference in Petaling Jaya, OWC national chairman in Malaysia Fauziah Ariffin read a statement from Hatijah Aam, the club founder.

Hatijah, one of the wives of the late Al-Arqam founder Ashaari Muhammad, said the sex guide was only for OWC members who were married.

“We are disappointed with those who distributed the book without our knowledge until it created a misunderstanding,” she said.

Fauziah then tackled the controversial issue of “seks serentak (simultaneous sex)”.

“Simultaneous does not mean that on the bed there is one man and four women,” she said with a sarcastic laugh.

“When a man has reached a high level of spirituality, his wali (spiritual guardian) can come in contact with his wives wherever they are.

“Maybe one wife is in Ipoh, another in Kuala Lumpur, in Singapore or in Johor but he can ‘come’ to his wife simultaneously. That is the wonder of spiritual sex.”

Wow! I thought. Note to myself: evolve from missionary position. But was “spiritual sex” possible, I wondered.

As if reading my thoughts, Dr Azlina Jamaluddin, a dentist and OWC leader, said it was not something a common person could comprehend.

“To you there might be no logic to what we are saying,” Dr Azlina explained. “But when Prophet Noah built an ark on a mountain at that time there was no logic in what he was doing.”

Mohd Rasidi, a male member of the panel, claimed what was taught in the book was “high level” sex. “It is PhD-level,” he said.

“To understand the book,” said Fauziah, “the author of the book herself wants to talk to the media via Skype from Mecca.”

And Hatijah’s voice filled the conference room.

In an exasperated tone, the 57-year-old Malaysian woman based in Saudi Arabia said the club purposely did not sell the book to non-members because the public would not be able to comprehend it.

In other words, you and I are practising “kindergarten-level sex” as compared with “PhD-level sex”.

And, quoting the Quran, Hatijah went deep into the theory of “spiritual sex”.

Here are some of Hatijah’s insights on sex.

> If your spirit is pure you can have sex with your wife even though you are abroad fighting a war.

> God allows sex sports. And to be good in sex you need practice.

> Orgasm releases a pain killer and helps with fever. But don’t have affairs on the pretext of curing your fever.

> Orgasm prevents wrinkles.

> Sex can make you younger. Jogging can be replaced by “sexcercise”.

> Only animals have sex without mukadimah (foreplay).

> It is important for a woman’s breasts to be sucked in order to prevent breast cancer (quoting a BBC news report).

During the Q&A session, I asked: “I’m curious, has the panel experienced simultaneous sex? Have you reached the PhD-level of sex?”

And – I’m not sure whether I imagined this – the panel members lowered their heads as if they felt sexually inadequate.

After a hush-hush discussion among themselves, Mohd Rasidi said: “So far, it is a knowledge that we are still trying to understand.

“We have not experienced it as our roh (spirit) has not reached PhD-level,” he explained.

“How about Hatijah?” I asked.

And Azlina, the dentist, said: “We have not experienced it yet. We are still trying. The person who has experienced it is Hatijah Aam. Hopefully one day, God willing, we can reach that level.”

Hatijah also revealed that she was writing a second sex guide book.

“The first book revealed 20% (sex knowledge). But the second book will reveal 100%. But we will make sure the public will not get their hands on this book about heaven on earth,” she added.

Labels:

I AM AGAINST ANTI APOSTASY LAW! Ah I've said it. In the Quran it is stated there is no compulsion in religion thus I abide by it. The late Tantawi says those who apostate let them be, as long as they live in peace we leave them alone but it is Qardhawi and people like Hadi and harusani who wish to put them to death. I explain many times in the olden days where 'Islamic' State rule then apostasy is a crime against the state, they were regarded as traitors thus it is accepted that those who betray the 'country' deserve capital punishment but now the Islamic state of yore is no more thus the reason required for capital punishment has ceased! I know the link in wikipedia will be frown upon by those readers who still am adamant to put them to death but at least take time out to go through the list of books that is stated in wiki. Here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam .

Please the himpunan sejuta umat was a laughing stock. Of 100,000 was suppose to come but according to AFP only 2000 turn up. On TV3 10,000 other newspaper 8000. It shows like thinking Malays understand the rights of individuals to profess their own belief although they might not be happy but they do accept that inherent right. Years back without the internet perhaps it was easily to influence now many can read. Many knows that creating fear is not the right way. Demanding without understanding the issues seem to be paramount of leaders like Hurasani etc. We Muslims might not be happy of our sisters and brothers who apostate but if we ask them, the other religion to stop proselytising Muslims, then we too must stop trying to convert them.If our religion is so true do we need those who don't belief in our flock or let them go? Is it our right to punish them or shall we live it to God? Here is a piece of news that was transmit all over the world by a blog which of all things promote islamicphobia.

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Moderate Malaysia: Muslims hold anti-Christian rally

The peaceniks are at it again.

And so is the media. Check out how they describe devout Muslims: "Right-wing Malaysian activists."

MuslimsMalaysianRally-apMuslims on Saturday staged a rally against Christians who 'challenge the sovereignty of Islam', amid fears of growing Islamisation in the multicultural nation. -- PHOTO: AP

Malaysian Muslims hold anti-conversion rally Straits Times

SHAH ALAM, Malaysia (AFP) - Right-wing Malaysian activists on Saturday staged a rally against Christians who 'challenge the sovereignty of Islam', amid fears of growing Islamisation in the multicultural nation.

The gathering of about 2,000 people in Selangor state follows allegations of Christian proselytisation in the Muslim-majority country after religious police raided a Methodist church event in August fearing Muslims were being converted.

Newspapers linked to the ruling coalition have also alleged that Christian groups are secretly trying to convert poor Muslims by using welfare such as housing, food and cash.

'Apostasy violates the wishes of Allah, there is no bigger sin,' Yusri Mohamad, the event's chief organiser, told the crowd in Shah Alam, the state capital.

See what happen when we do things foolishly!

In Malaysia, the Malay population is defined by Article 160 of the Malaysian Constitution as someone born to a Malaysian citizen who professes to be a Muslim, habitually speaks the Malay language, adheres to Malay customs and is domiciled in Malaysia. So if you apostate you are no more Malay. Is that not enough to punish those that wish to renounce the religion!


Labels:

Saturday, October 08, 2011

Thursday October 6, 2011

Right to question hudud law

BRAVE NEW WORLD
By AZMI SHAROM


My problem with religion-based law making, is the idea that it cannot be questioned because it is divine in origin. In a democracy, if we can’t question the laws that affect our lives, then it is not a democracy at all.

POOR Fulham. Despite thoroughly thrashing Tony Fernandes’ Queens Park Rangers 6-0, all the sports headlines were about the other London derby where Tottenham Hotspur edged Arsenal 2-1. I suppose it is all about perception; just what is important and what is not.

As much as I would like to think that the game at White Hart Lane is an indication that the power in North London has shifted to Seven Sisters road, I am ever cautious and am reminded of the saying that a swallow does not a summer make.

Although I suppose in the case of the Spurs-Arsenal rivalry, considering that we have beaten them three times in the last four league clashes, it just may be there is more than one swallow fluttering about.

However, I digress. My earlier point remains and that is the perception of what is important and what is not.

At the moment, there are all sorts of news stories floating about and they point towards one thing, elections.

PAS has once again raised the hudud issue. Frankly, I am not too worried about this matter.

Pakatan Rakyat has stated that they will not go on with hudud unless all the component parties agree.

This seems highly unlikely as DAP will never agree and I am sure there are some voices in Keadilan too who will not be comfortable with hudud.

However, if they do try to introduce it, I will most certainly object.

The reason why I object is encapsulated in Hadi’s (PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang) statement in the press on the matter (if it was accurately reported) where he said that hudud cannot be questioned.

Whoa there, “cannot be questioned”? I am sorry, if you have personal beliefs that affect only you and you won’t question them, that’s all fine and dandy.

But if you are going to introduce something into the public sphere, something that will affect the lives of the citizens, I don’t care if the source of what you are introducing is divine, it jolly well better be questioned.

And I don’t care if you say I have no degree from Al-Azhar and no goatee to go along with it, I will question any law that any government wants to introduce.

This has been my problem with any religion-based law making, the idea that simply because it is divine in origin means it can’t be questioned. In a democracy, if we can’t question the laws that affect our lives, then it is not a democracy at all.

And then there is poor Mat Sabu; charged with criminal defamation for questioning the heroism of the policemen who fought at Bukit Kepong.

I checked the Penal Code and sure enough, criminal defamation can be committed against the dead.

It’s a bit weird because how far back does this provision extend? I mean in historical matters there will always be different perspectives and differing opinions based on new findings and discoveries.

In case the Government decides to charge me with criminal defamation for questioning the character of one of our early leaders, let me use an American example.

Thomas Jefferson; renaissance man who helped draft the American Constitution and ensured a modern democracy where all men were created equal, or a shameless hypocrite slave owner who fathered numerous children with his female slaves?

Both views are correct and depending on your own take on history the view that will take precedence will differ.

And surely that was what Mat Sabu’s statement was; his take on history.

Was it insensitive, probably, should he be prosecuted for it, I don’t think so.

However, all these issues are really not that important to me. I think they are just the usual sound and fury that come with politicians posturing in the light that elections are coming.

The real important story for now should be the Budget and more importantly the alternative budget that the Pakatan has unveiled.

It is really good to see Pakatan acting like they have a Shadow Cabinet (although they don’t have one really).

We need to see concrete counter proposals from the opposition to not only help us question the Government’s Budget but also to assess the alternatives which a different government could give. This is vital in a mature democracy.

I certainly hope that discussions in the next couple of weeks will be about comparing the two budgets for surely that is more important than a hudud law which is unlikely to be implemented and Mat Sabu’s supposed lack of patriotism.

> Post Script: I don’t think the Fulham game was that important, who cares what happened at Craven Cottage. We beat Arsenal, again!

Sunday October 2, 2011

No hudud please, we’re Malaysians

SHARING THE NATION By ZAINAH ANWAR


ARE our politicians plain bad, crazy or stupid? In this divisive, corrosive, cynical political climate of ours, if I were the Opposition, I would jump and present my party as the party of first and obvious choice for the electorate.

I would have not only welcomed the Prime Minister’s bold announcements in repealing those repressive laws and states of emergency, I would also up the ante and begin a public debate on how we as citizens should exercise and enjoy our Constitutional guarantees of fundamental liberties.

I would be planning over the next few months on how to build public opinion to hold the Government accountable and ensure that whatever alternative national security or public order laws that might emerge will uphold my fundamental freedoms.

I would want to make it politically very costly for the Government if it falls short or back-pedal on the promises of democratic reform it has made.

Instead, what do we get? An offer of the hudud law and its grim serving of chopped-off Muslim hands and feet, and stoning to death! What kind of future is that?

And we have politicians, who supposedly hold the mantle of leadership, who simply and continually miss the point.

“It’s okay to implement the hudud law because it doesn’t affect non-Muslims.” So it’s okay for Muslims to be brutalised?

See what happens when the first Muslim hand gets chopped off for stealing a motorbike.

What if a medical team is on standby to gather the chopped-off hand and the victim and run to Terengganu or fly to KL for the hand to be stitched back?

What if the thief was with a Chinese or Indian accomplice who was sentenced only to a few months’ imprisonment under the Penal Code while the Malay thief is now disabled and unable to get a job, and be forever publicly stigmatised?

Or really, could this be a conspiracy to make the Malays permanently physically disabled in order to justify affirmative action in perpetuity? I wonder.

“Non-Muslims should shut up because it doesn’t affect them.” But they are Malaysian citizens who have every right to speak up on laws that allow for brutal and inhumane punishments against their fellow citizens, the majority population to boot.

Who wants to live in such a society when your neighbour, your friend, or your fellow citizen are subject to a cruel legal system?

How could I live with my conscience if I were a Chinese who has witnessed a rape, but my infidel evidence would not be accepted under the hudud law? No, I cannot keep quiet and accept such a law.

“Muslims who are not experts on Islam should shut up”. Then please take religion out of the public sphere and make it private between us and God. But not when I can be flogged 80 lashes for qazaf (slanderous accusation) if I report I have been raped and am unable to produce four pious and just Muslim males who witnessed the rape.

On top of that, my rape report could also be taken as confession of illicit sex and I could be charged for zina. And even if I could produce the four men, I would be torn apart wondering why four supposedly pious and just men watched me being raped.

And God forbid if I was single and became pregnant because of the rape. I would be charged for zina and lashed 100 times because my pregnancy is regarded as

evidence of illicit sex.

The burden is on me, not the state, to prove I was indeed raped. The evidential requirements make this impossible. And the accused rapist will be free from any hudud punishment by simply denying the rape.

And we are all supposed to shut up? No wonder some of our political leaders are bent on their so-called “Islamic state” and “Islamic law” project because it is so easy to fly the flag of religion and silence dissenting voices.

Even of their political opponents – many of whom can only summon the courage to claim: “I am not against the Hudud law, but the time and conditions are not right to implement it.” There are hundreds of commands, exhortations, values and principles in the Quran that we ignore or violate on a daily basis.

The command for us to be kind and compassionate at all times, the duty of a man to provide and protect his wife and children, the obligation of a leader to be just and fair in his ruling are just a few of these.

And what does an Islamist party prioritise as the hallmark of its piousness? The Hudud law. Instead of having the political courage to say no to the Hudud law, once and for all on so many available grounds – Islamic, constitutional, human rights principles, lived realities – so many of their political opponents dither and hedge.

It is so tiresome that we the rakyat are subject to this again and again.

Sisters in Islam wrote letters to the editor, published a book and submitted a memorandum to the Government, all objecting to the PAS attempts to introduce the Hudud law in Kelantan and Terengganu in 1993 and 2002 respectively.

When PAS recently announced it was shifting from its push for an “Islamic state” to a “welfare state”, many thought the leadership finally realised that its future lies with social justice transformation, not with a punitive and joyless Islam of gloom and doom.

On some issues, it was even looking more progressive than Umno.

But its Hudud law pronouncements have jolted us back to reality. So many in the PAS leadership and its rank and file remain stuck in medieval times, unable to imagine what justice should mean to an Islamist party in the 21st century and unable to envision what it means to be Muslim in a modern, democratic, progressive multi-ethnic, multi-religious Malaysia today.

Sunday October 9, 2011

Hudud is a matter of choice for Muslims


I AM writing this in response to Zainah Anwar’s article “No hudud please, we are Malaysians” (Sunday Star, Oct 2), where she presented her objections to the implementation of hudud law.

I understand that she sees herself as a “modern, democratic and progressive” person and, as such, has great difficulty in understanding why there exists to this day people who are “stuck in medieval times”.

I know that her views with respect to hudud and perhaps the Islamic legal system is shared by some Muslims and this is why I am responding to her article. First, I believe a brief explanation on what hudud law is about would be relevant.

Hudud law refers to those specific crimes and their related punishment which have been categorically mentioned in the Quran. As such, there are only a few crimes which fall under the purview of hudud law. Given that these laws are directly derived from the Quran, to the Muslim who believes that the Quran is the word of God, its implementation is a matter of faith.

The crimes which cannot be charged under hudud fall under the purview of ta’zir wherein the punishment and mode of proof is open to discussion and debate.

It has also to be understood that the implementation of hudud laws is subject to very strict and stringent requirements. Due to the stringent punishments which are to be meted out, the requirements to necessitate the implementation of these laws are also equally stringent.

The case of adultery

The question of four witnesses in the case of adultery and the subsequent qazaf punishment should the accuser fail to bring forth the four witnesses is frequently scoffed at but it is an example of the strict and stringent requirements for conviction in view of the stringent punishment to be meted out. To meet the requirement of four reputable witnesses makes conviction almost impossible.

Perhaps some may then question that 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.

The social implications of adultery is obvious for all to see. Abandoned babies, divorces and such are clearly on the increase. We speak out against the stringent punishment for adultery but who speaks out for the dead baby found in the trash bins?

The purpose of this requirement is also to ensure that such accusations are not made irresponsibly and rumours pertaining to a person’s moral uprightness are seen as something unacceptable by the general public.

The case of rape

In relation to the issue of rape, it has also to be explained, in the event some people still do not understand, that rape and adultery are two different things. The law pertaining to adultery is not applicable to rape. An accusation of adultery is made by a third party wherein the act is done by other consenting individuals.

An accusation of rape, on the other hand, is made by the victim herself, not a third party, and it is far from being consensual.

Given the situation, the requirement for the four witnesses is not relevant to rape as it is to strengthen the accusation of the third party in the case of an accusation of adultery. In the case of rape, conventional items of proof can be used such as DNA to secure a conviction.

It is to be noted that in the case of rape, 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.

In such cases, the victim has to prove that it was not consensual. In most cases the victim and her moral integrity is then put on trial. Under the Islamic system, consensual sex is not a defence for the rapist as in effect he would be admitting to adultery. The victim would be let off as she claims rape and her involvement in the sexual act was not consensual.

There are those who would argue that an unsuspecting male would then become the victim when a woman seduces him and she then cries rape.

To that, my response would be for the male to keep his pants on at all times. This in itself would be a deterent to the occurrence of adultery as the male would always be wary since he would have no escape route open to him should she intend to entrap him.

I do not deny that in some cases, there are those who insist that rape and adultery are the same. It has to be noted that such claims have no Quranic justification and can be taken as a misinterpretation of Islamic law by individuals who do not understand the difference between the two.

If this happens, I am sure the Sisters in Islam will be able to argue out the case for differentiating between the two cases.

Pregnancy out of wedlock

Similar is the case for women who become pregnant out of wedlock. All that needs to be done is to say that she was raped or forced to have sex and that would suffice as her defence. Anyone saying otherwise should bring forth four witnesses as they are then the ones accusing her of having committed adultery.

A case in point is an incident in the time of Umar Al-Khattab when an unmarried woman was brought to him after having given birth to a child. Umar wanted to punish her but when asked by Ali, she explained what happened some 10 months before when she was forced to have sex in exchange for a drink of milk while she was dying of thirst.

Given that explanation, Ali quickly retorted that she was a victim, forced to have sex and should not therefore be punished. She was then released.

It is to be understood that the spirit behind the implementation of the law is to find the accused innocent unless the evidence and proof are so overwhelming and all requirements have been met that it cannot be opined otherwise other than guilty.

It is not to be implemented with a blood-thirsty and overzealous attitude as what some may wish to portray.

Thieves and the cutting

off of their hands

In the case of theft and the cutting off of the hand of the thief, it has to be understood that in the first place, two righteous persons need to come forward as witnesses. They must have seen the thief stealing the item with their own eyes.

At the same time, the item stolen must be above a certain value, kept in a reasonably safe location and the reasons for stealing must be other than out of necessity.

Last but not least, the victim must insist on charging the thief or thieves in court knowing full well the punishment which will be meted out in the case of a conviction.

Should the victim choose to retract all charges, after having achieved an amicable out of court agreement, then again the conviction and thereby the punishment averted.

It must be always borne in mind that the purpose of the law is to act as a serious deterrent to all “would-be perpetrators” and in so doing, reduce crime significantly. It is not the objective to maximise the number of those punished.

Theft, especially one accompanied by violence, leaves traumatised victims in its wake. Victims of snatch thieves, dragged over a few metres, suffer serious injuries. Some have died. Pregnant women have been known to suffer miscarriage and even innocent bystanders have been known to have become victims of this crime.

While conviction is difficult, due to the requirements set by the hudud, its implementation will serve as an effective deterrent. Should, through its implementation, the occurrence of crime be significantly reduced, then we must say that it has achieved its objective.

If a single hand is in the end cut off, but through it a thousand incidents are averted, and with it also a thousand traumatised victims, would one not say that the law has been a success?

It has to be reiterated that in the event a case cannot be charged under hudud, due to it not fulfilling the explicit requirements, it can then be charged under ta’zir.

In the case of theft, this includes situations where there were no witnesses to the crime but the stolen material was found in the possession of the accused, or there was only one witness instead of two. In such cases the accused, if found guilty, will still be punished but not under the laws of hudud.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that much is not known about hudud law and how it works within the bigger overall legal system, particularly by those who wish to appear as champions opposing it. What should happen is for the proponents to present their case in detail first, before it is opposed based on the points presented.

Secondly, while the punishment for hudud crimes are quite explicit, the procedures for its implementation can be discussed and so designed so as to ensure that they will not lead to an easy conviction.

Third and last, it is up to Muslims to decide whether they wish for these laws to be implemented on them.

If that is what they wish for, understanding it to be a requirement of their faith, who then is Zainah to refuse them their choice? After all, is it not said that one man’s meat is another man’s poison?

For those who like to give the impression that when hudud is implemented there will be so many people walking around without limbs and there will be not enough stones to throw, they are admitting that there are many thieves and adulterers among us who would commit these heinous crimes unashamedly in broad daylight.

If society has come to this point, don’t you think that immorality in our society has reached uncontrollable levels and that hudud is imperative? Laws are not only to punish but to be a deterrent.

Allah SWT understands the nature of His creations better than we understand ourselves. It is our faith that Allah SWT knows best.

As Assoc Prof Dr Mohd Asri puts it precisely, as Muslim you cannot go against Allah’s decree (the Quran is the word of God) but you can question the enactments and their implementation.

Sisters, if you accept the word of Allah SWT, you would be doing a great service to Islam if you can sit down with the implementers to iron out what you may perceive would be unjust in the implementation of hudud.

DR SITI MARIAH MAHMUD,
MP Kota Raja, Selangor.

Friday October 14, 2011

Hudud raises concerns


I WRITE in response to Dr Siti Mariah Mahmud’s letter (Sunday Star, Oct 9) where she gave her opinion that hudud is a matter of choice for Muslims.

I found Dr Siti Mariah’s letter interesting and would like to thank her for shedding some light on the implementation of hudud in Malaysia.

As a non-Muslim however, her letter has not allayed any of my concerns and worries.

My understanding of Islamic law, gleaned from many books and articles, is that where hudud is implemented, Islamic law of evidence will also be applied.

Dr Siti Mariah referred to the testimony of two righteous persons who must come forward as witnesses in the case of theft to present evidence. I am uncertain about the definition of ‘righteous persons’.

Does this only cover Muslims or non-Muslims? What is the status of two Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant or Hindu persons who can give evidence of the theft?

It may be that theft of the property of this group falls under the definition of ta’zir as the strict evidential requirements cannot be fulfilled.

Dr Siti assures us that the thief will still be punished but not under the laws of hudud. I would be very alarmed by such an explanation as this means that Muslim thieves and robbers will target non-Muslims with the assurance that even if caught red-handed, their punishment will be less harsh than if they were to target Muslims.

I fail to understand how, in these circumstances, PAS can state with confidence that hudud will not affect non-Muslims.

Assuming that I am wrong and that the evidence of ‘two righteous persons’ includes the evidence of non-Muslims witnesses, then I am still troubled by the term ‘righteous’.

This implies that the victim’s character determines if he or she is entitled to justice.

I assume that a drug addict or alcoholic whose handbag has been snatched will not be able to give evidence or bring forward her friends as witnesses to testify against the thief.

If non-Muslims are permitted to give evidence against Muslim thieves, then my next question would be, in which court will the thief be tried?

As hudud is part of Islamic law, and the Ninth Schedule relates to the powers of the State, offences under hudud will probably be tried by the Syariah courts.

Paragraph 1 of List II in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution makes it clear that the Syariah courts does not have jurisdiction over non-Muslims. How then will the non-Muslim give evidence before the Syariah court?

It may be a simple matter to amend List II to permit non-Muslims to give evidence before the Syariah courts but this means that hudud will affect non-Muslims contrary to claims by PAS.

Further as a non-Muslim, I would be reluctant to support any such amendment as it could be interpreted to extend the jurisdiction of the Syariah court to other areas such as khalwat and zina which are not offences under my religion.

Furthermore, non-Muslims have been repeatedly ordered not to interfere in Islamic affairs or in matters solely within the purview of Islamic authorities or they will face repercussions.

Why then would non-Muslims be willing to submit to the jurisdiction of the Syariah court?

I am also concerned as to how the punishments under hudud will affect non-Muslims.

Currently, offences specific to the Islamic religion under the various State Islamic law enactments are tried by the Syariah courts. Religious officers are authorised to arrest and prosecute offenders.

Hudud covers theft, snatch-theft and armed robbery and like offences which are currently punished under the Penal Code.

There is no distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims in the Penal Code and those convicted of a crime will be imprisoned at the taxpayers’ expense.

If hudud were to be implemented, then assuming that the thief’s hand is chopped off, leaving him unable to work, will my taxes be used to provide welfare to him?

Will I be taxed more heavily to provide welfare payments to thieves who are unable to work or will the Islamic authorities take charge of his welfare using specific taxes such as zakat?

My understanding is that victims of crimes under hudud may choose to forgive the perpetrator of the crime and accept compensation instead.

How will this be carried out if the perpetrator is a drug addict with no means of compensation? Would this amount to one law for the rich and one for the poor?

Rich drug addicts may have family members who are willing to pay large sums to avoid the penalties under hudud. Is there any provision to avoid this?

The current criminal justice system makes the perpetrator pay for his crimes but also allows the victim to move on.

I cannot speak for my fellow non-Muslims but it would be extremely difficult for me to push for a penalty under hudud if my religion does not provide for it.

If I choose the hudud penalty, I will always wonder if it was vengeance or justice that motivated me?

Unlike Muslims, I cannot say that I am following God’s law and my choice will weigh heavily on my conscience.

It could also cause me and others like me, to be victimised by thieves and robbers due to my religious beliefs.

Dr Siti and PAS politicians have reiterated that hudud will not be implemented in a blood-thirsty and overzealous manner. How can they be so sure of this?

PAS itself has had to defend Muslims and non-Muslims from the accusations and actions of zealots so I am puzzled by their comments.

If what PAS means is that it will apply hudud according to the spirit of the law then how does it intend to guarantee that it will be applied in the same manner if another political party were to seize power in the states controlled by PAS?

How will PAS guarantee that hudud will not be applied to non-Muslims in future?

Non-Muslims perceive that their religious rights have been eroded over the last decade and it is unlikely that a guarantee by PAS or anyone else under current circumstances will allay their worries.

I fear that statements that hudud does not concern non-Muslims causes me great consternation and I have taken Dr Siti’s advice and presented my views in the hope that my concerns will be addressed on the points presented and that I will not be threatened for “interfering” in Islamic matters.

CONCERNED NON-MUSLIM,
Petaling Jaya.


Labels: