Siti Kasim warns non-Muslims against domino effect of Mufti Bill to their citizenry rights

 

CITING how Lebanon’s 80% Christians population “got wiped out from their land due to their past tidak apa attitude”, human rights activist Siti Kasim has urged non-Muslim Malaysians to oppose the Mufti Bill (Federal Territories) 2024 which is slated for second and third readings on Oct 16 or 17 in the Dewan Rakyat.

Stating that the said Bill which she deemed as unnecessary will not only rob the constitutional rights of Muslims but also that of non-Muslims, the legal eagle regarded the Bill as an attempt to empower the Syariah Court in the long-term.

“Those people (non-Muslims) who think that this won’t affect you, please think again wisely,” she berated in a three-part Facebook video.

“Look at Lebanon which in the past boasted 80% Christian population yet they (the Christians) didn’t say anything (allowing Muslims to gain foothold in the country and Islamisation to thrive).

“Apparently, Lebanon becomes what it is today. Don’t think you’ll escape for eventually there’s bound to be domino effect … If the Bill gets through, it’ll be difficult to turn back; I hope MPs in the Parliament will take notice by not letting the Bill through.”

For the uninitiated, historians are still baffled yet impressed at how Lebanon went from being majority Christian in the early 20th century to predominantly Muslim in less than 100 years. Whatever the case is, this demonstrates how political Islam is capable of conquering a non-Muslim state even in the contemporary age.

Apart from Siti Kasim, former de facto law minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim has recently hit out at the Mufti Bill (FT) 2024 as he contended that Muftis are not the people’s elected representatives while elevating their influence would eventually result in “the whole Federation being ruled by Muftis”.

“If I walk in to have my sushi or oyster bar at BSC (Bangsar Shopping Centre), I could have committed an offence for such places do not usually carry the halal sign,” fumed the former defence counsel of now incarcerated former premier Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

“Do I have any personal liberties left, a constitutional right to eat wherever I please? Under Madani, no.

“What happens to democracy and religious freedom? What if the Muftis ruled that Muslims could no longer shake hands with their female colleagues? Or deny Muslims to wish Merry Christmas? Or Happy Deepavali?”

Earlier, Siti Kasim has lambasted the Bill as having “challenged our constitutional rights, our intellectual freedom and the balance of power between the religious and civil authorities”.

“We’ve to ask if fatwa (Islamic jurisprudence) can be made a law – if yes, then wouldn’t it be right to question how individuals who were not elected are accorded the authority to enforce binding law and order,” the Orang Asli advocate echoed the opposition-slant Zaid.

“Section 11 of the Bill states that it is binding to all Muslims in FT to adhere to the fatwa and that this is recognised by the court of law. Does this mean it only refers to the Syariah Court or both the Syariah Court and civil court?”

Added Siti Kasim: “I really don’t understand why the Madani government needs to introduce this Bill. Is PMX (Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim) trying to do what he did in 1987 with the inclusion of new clause (1A) into Article 121 whereby there is now a problem of which court (between Syariah Court and civil court) to go to?”

If two Muslims have a problem involving their personal law (for example, a divorce between a Muslim couple), then this is a “matter within the jurisdiction of the syariah courts”. The civil courts should not interfere when one party comes to the civil court after losing a case in the syariah courts. – Focus Malaysia