Thursday, 31 March 2011

In respond to a Question ?

Anonymous said... (From my Blog reader)

Kudos ...i like what is written, to unite malays under islam, how about desolve pas and umno and all ex-members from both parties to join a newly form party based on islamic principles, all dealings are strictly based on the Quraan and Hadith....can or not ????

This is another example of a classical sickness. Detachment from reality.Number one, if talks for unity between UMNO and PAS is to be of any benefits to anybody, why set conditions likewise.Why must UMNO and PAS be dissolved just to unite ? Thats utter rubbish. Why must dissolve if you want to unite ? Did DAP, PKR and PAS dissolves when they form Pakatan Rakyat ? Did PAS gave any conditions to DAP before they went into Pakatan Rakyat ? Did PAS said to DAP, we will join Pakatan Rakyat if  all dealings are strictly based on the Quraan and Hadith ? No...PAS just walk in to Pakatan Rakyat without any condition at all.

 It looks very clear you don’t understand political science and PAS is one sided and wrong when dealing with a Muslim party like UMNO. Different political parties have different agendas, ideologies and methods in managing the people. If there is opportunity to unite, PAS should just join Barisan Nasional. Period.  Likewise PAS is now in Pakatan Rakyat.

Then learn a little bit of history. Please read up and make reading a habit-lah. PAS was actually from UMNO. UMNO has a religious section within it during the early 40's and 50's....That section of UMNO broke away and formed PAS. Tuan Ahmad Fuad Hassan lost his bid in UMNO election and he was not satisfied. He move out and formed PAS...So if UMNO and PAS were to unite, orang Melayu kata sireh pulang ke right the prodigal son (PAS),  is the one should be dissolve just like Semangat 46 or PKR...They were from UMNO. UMNO is the root for PAS, Semangat 46, Perkasa and PKR..
Let us discuss the Sharia Law. Issues pertaining to its implementations. Talking is easy. Implementation is another matter at all. There are various issues about the Sharia Law which need to be addressed.
There are more non Muslim than Muslim in the Parliament in Malaysia. Muslim are not the majority in Malaysia...If we combine all the non Muslim in this country , they are the majority. So Muslim must do da'wah work among the non Muslim to work towards making Malaysia a total Muslim country. Then implement Islamic Law. One thing about Islamic Law, there are not many injunctions in the Quran that are legal in manner. To implement that, we need to create a conducive environment whereby there are some considerations need to be taken into account. Most impotantly, the population must be at least 95% Muslim.  95% of Malaysian must accept Islam as the only religion in Malaysia.  A minority cannot exert its laws on the majority of the population. Da’wah work must be intensified so that the Indians and Chinese accept Islam. Than ,how the hell these people are going to accept Islam, if PAS openly said that UMNO is kafir.

There not many legal injunctions in the Quran but there are many legal opinions  that are man made out side of the Quran made by old Islamic jurist(s) and they are not even codified and consistent with each other. . Fiqh jurisprudence interprets and extends the application of Sharia to questions not directly addressed in the primary sources by including secondary sources. These secondary sources usually include the consensus of the religious scholars embodied in ijma, and analogy from the Qur'an and Sunnah through qiyas. Current context, the Sharia law can be organized in different ways:

Sharia can be divided into five main branches:
  1. ibadah (ritual worship)
  2. mu'amalat (transactions and contracts)
  3. adab (morals and manners),
  4. i'tiqadat (beliefs)
  5. 'uqubat (punishments).
Major parts of the Sharia concentrate on these areas of concerns ;
  1. Purification
  2. Prayer
  3. The Funeral Prayer
  4. The Poor Tax
  5. Fasting
  6. The Pilgrimage
  7. Trade
  8. Inheritance
  9. Marriage
  10. Divorce
  11. Justice
There are three categories of crimes in Sharia law, qisas, hudud, and tazir. Qisas involves personal injury, have several categories: intentional murder (first-degree), quasi-intentional murder (second-degree), unintentional murder (manslaughter), intentional battery, and unintentional battery. It is treated as a civil case rather than an actual criminal case. If found guilty, the victim (or in death, victim's family) determines the punishment. They can either demand retribution (qesas-e-nafs), which means execution in the case of intentional murder, imprisonment, and in some cases of intentional battery, the amputation of the limb that was lost, or they can request diyya, which is compensation (blood money), for the loss of life/limb/injury. The judge (or in modern sharia systems like Iran or Iraq, the state) can only convict, and legally punish a qesas crime on his own authority, the victim (or family) must determine that. However, the state/judge may prosecute for crimes committed alongside the murder. If the victim's family pardon's the criminal, he would normally receive a tazir prison sentence alongside the crime (such as 10–20 years in prison) for crimes such as "intentional loss of life", "tazir assault and battery" "disturbance of the peace", and such.
One of the major problems in the early centuries was to produce a system that was certain in its operation and predictable in its outcomes. After the 1st World War, many of the Muslim countries were under colonial rule. Since then, the Islamic Syaria stop evolving and was taken over by Western Legal System. There are many areas within the Syaria which still needs to be improved and added on especially the Legal Codexes or Statutes that involves Criminal Law, Civil Law, Administrative Law, Tort, Contract, Trust, Labour Law and Law of Evidence. Even the Family Law and Inheritance in Malaysia under the Syaria Courts differ between state to state in the whole of Malaysia. These differences need to be addressed before implementations could take place.
Islamic Sharia Law must be codified into one single unified codification which cover every aspect of Laws likewise the English Legal Systems which has evolved for a very long period. Sharia judicial proceedings have significant differences with other legal traditions, including those in both common law and civil law. Sharia courts traditionally do not rely on lawyers; plaintiffs and defendants represent themselves. Trials are conducted solely by the judge, and there is no jury system (like civil law in countries such as Russia and France). There is no pre-trial discovery process, and no cross-examination of witnesses. Unlike common law, judges' verdicts do not set binding precedents under the principle of stare decisis and unlike civil law, Sharia does not utilize formally codified statutes (these were first introduced only in the late 19th century during the decline of the Ottoman Empire, cf. mecelle).

What is  stare decisis ?

Stare decisis (Anglo-Latin pronunciation: /ˈstɛəri dɨˈsaɪsɨs]) is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed." In a legal context, this is understood to mean that courts should generally abide by precedentsand not disturb settled matters. This doctrine requires a Court to follow rules established by a superior court. The doctrine that holdings have binding precedence value is not valid within most civil law jurisdictions as it is generally understood that this principle interferes with the right of judges to interpret law and the right of the legislature to make law. Most such systems, however, recognize the concept of jurisprudence constante, which argues that even though judges are independent, they should judge in a predictable and non-chaotic manner. Therefore, judges' right to interpret law does not preclude the adoption of a small number of selected binding case laws.

Instead of precedents and codes, Sharia relies on jurist's manuals and collections of non-binding legal opinions, or hadith, (ulama, particularly a mufti); these can be made binding for a particular case at the discretion of a judge.
The second category of crimes is hudud (or hadd). Hadd crimes are crimes whose penalties were laid down by the Quran, and are considered to be "claims against God". Hadd crimes are: adultery (zina): includes adultery, fornication, incest/pedophilia, and rape, pimping; sodomy/lesbianism (or sodomy rape); hiraba (uniquely known as moharebeh/mofsed-e-filarz in Iran) waging war against God and society: armed robbery, terrorism, armed violence; theft; use of intoxicants (alcohol/drug use); apostasy/blasphemy; and defamation (meaning false accusation of any of these things). These cases not meant as actual punishments, but as deterrents, to simply to set an example to the general public, and to prosecute the most flagrant violations. Hudud is meant as a deterrent, not a general punishment. The process is extremely exacting, a minimum of two witnesses are required to corroborate the evidence, and in the case of sex crimes, four witnesses, thus making it in most cases hard, if not impossible, to receive the violent punishments. Circumstantial evidence is not allowed to be part of the testimony. When one does receive them, it usually would occurring in a case where the offense was so obvious, obscene or flagrant that it is impossible to not be convicted. In lieu of written evidence, oaths are accorded much greater weight; rather than being used simply to guarantee the truth of ensuing testimony, they are themselves used as evidence. Plaintiffs lacking other evidence to support their claims may demand that defendants take an oath swearing their innocence, refusal thereof can result in a verdict for the plaintiff. Taking an oath for Muslims can be a grave act; one study of courts in Morocco found that lying litigants would often "maintain their testimony 'right up to the moment of oath-taking and then to stop, refuse the oath, and surrender the case." Accordingly, defendants are not routinely required to swear before testifying, which would risk casually profaning the Qur'an should the defendant commit perjury; instead oaths are a solemn procedure performed as a final part of the evidence process.

I would like to see that PAS religious scholars apply the Sharia Law of Hudud on Anwar Ibrahim ? That is a good start.
Now , PAS cannot implement Hudud in Malaysia as long they are in coalition with DAP. Why is that so ? asklah....According to your Nik Aziz, DAP are not prepared as they dont understand Islam..So we (PAS) a dog putting tail in between the legs, will on hold the hudud law till further notice. What dignity is this ?
DAP or the Democratic Action Party rejected Islam in total as they viewed Malaysia as a secular state. This is the answer given by Karpal Singh when asked about Islam and Malaysia..

Do you think Malaysia should be a secular or an Islamic state? Why?

Malaysia is a secular state as provided for in the Federal Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. Islam, as provided for in the constitution, is the religion of the federation, with other religions being allowed to be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the federation. A multireligious and multiracial society requires a secular state.  (Karpal Singh) Source - Blog/Website:

PAS on the other hand wants an Islamic state so that they could exercise Hudud Law. The facts remain, the Hudud Law as intrepreted by PAS was actualy created out of their own opinions.  The brand of Islam that Karpal Singh and Lim Kit Siang feared most out of ignorant is the brand of Islam practiced by PAS and their cohorts.

KOTA BAHARU, Dec 22 (Bernama)

 The DAP has made it clear that it is opposed to PAS' pledge to implement hudud laws if the opposition coalition takes over the administration of the country. Its secretary-general, Lim Guan Eng, said the implementation of hudud laws was not included in the Pakatan Rakyat's manifesto in the March 8 general election."The DAP does not agree and definitely opposes the plan," he told reporters here Monday.

PAS Admits Difficulty Getting Consensus On Hudud From Opposition Partners

The admission was made by PAS vice-president Datuk Husam Musa at a press conference, here, today as the three opposition components had signed an agreement in August, stating that any policy change should have a multilateral agreement among them.

"However, PAS will continue with its struggle to implement Hudud law, which is God's law, by explaining to all quarters, including the Pakatan Rakyat component parties, until they are ready to accept the law. (Datuk Husam Musa)

This is a beggary mentality that PAS has developed just for the sake of political ambition, PAS has to go around like a beggar to DAP and PKR to accept its version of Hudud Law.

There is no tolerance on the side of DAP and PKR for PAS Hudud Law and how on earth these TRINITY ever going to settle such issues , only God knows how and when.

It is Opposition Politics which causes Islam to be downgraded and eventually this will lead to anarchy as they fight each other either to accept or reject PAS Hudud Law. This is a result of failure of PAS to protect the dignity of ISLAM. PAS uses and abuses  ISLAM to score political points and at the end of the day Hudud Law is like an appetizer put on a plate which was not on the menu for DAP and PKR.
This is an apt statement by our Chief of Justice - Tun Zaki Azmi -  people on the net ;

"There is a small group of vociferous people out there, who go onto the internet and blogs and Facebook and all that and make comments without knowing the proper background. Many are not even lawyers.

I leave you with this video to ponder upon ? This Sheikh  is a former Islamic Dean of Qatar University. Based on his arguments, I believe PAS is an Extremist Islamic Party.

1 comment:

  1. Based on what I read in the Internet (blogs and online news), I think the problem of Malay unity is simply Nik Aziz and Anwar. I agree with what Tun Dr Mahathir said.

    If these two are not around politically, Malay unity will come about. I suspect many supporters of Nik Aziz follow him simply because he is regarded as an ulamak. They even believe him when he said "Tuhan pun mencarut". They like it when he kafir mengkafirkan UMNO and non-PAS supporters.

    The other PAS leaders know this. They also keep quiet though they may be taken aghast by his statements like "Saya kagum dengan Karpal Singh" despite Karpal having arrogantly said "Over my dead body" to Hukum Hudud.

    Unless we can find ways to get PAS leaders to singkirkan Nik Aziz, he's going to remain as Menteri Besar and as Mursidur until death.

    I like the idea of the dinner at Istana Trengganu attended by Nik Aziz and Hadi where Najib and Muhyiddin were said to be also present. I wish more of such happening.