MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku


Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Freedom to oppose as long as you agree with me

What some people in PAS can’t seem to understand is that PAS is a political party. And as a political party it has every right to propagate and promote its political ideology. And in the case of PAS it is Islamic politics. But PAS can’t deny Malaysians their rights as well. And this right is to reject the PAS brand of politics in favour of some other political ideology.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

I was wondering when Rahman Celcom a.k.a. Tulang Besi would crawl out of his hole in the ground. In case some of you are not aware, Rahman was the person who revealed that Ustaz Hadi Awang, Mustaffa Ali, Hassan Ali and a few other top PAS leaders were engaged in secret talks with Umno soon after the March 2008 general election.

People like Rahman and those of his ilk have only one view. And that is if you agree with everything they say, then you are learned (ulamak). If, however, you disagree with what they say, then you are ignorant (jahil).

Your status -- whether you are a learned or an ignorant person -- depends on whether you agree or disagree with what these people think and say. In my case, since I disagree with them, then I am an ignorant person.

It does not matter where I studied. It does not matter how long I studied. It does not matter from whom I studied. It does not matter how many books I may have read and who wrote those books. I am learned only if I agree with their opinion and am ignorant if I do not.

These people are of the view they have the right to propagate, propose, promote, etc., their brand of politics. In this case it happens to be Islamic politics. You and I, however, do not have the right to reject their brand of politics. You must agree with them and not reject them or dispute what they say.

Oh, it’s not that they do not believe in freedom of speech, expression, opinion, association, or whatever. They do. But this freedom is only allowed as long as you too share their views as to what is right and wrong and what is permitted and not permitted.

For example, if they oppose Ketuanan Melayu, and you too oppose Ketuanan Melayu, then they allow you the freedom to oppose Ketuanan Melayu. Your freedom extends to only those areas of ‘common interest’. But once you part company on certain issues then you forfeit your right to this freedom.

Another thing these people believe in is that they have a right to impose their opinion on you. They have a certain opinion and you must accept this opinion. You may not disagree with what they think. Malaysia may be a democracy. But democracy is only allowed as long as you do not disagree with their opinion.

Think what you want. Say what you want. Just make sure you think and say what they too think and say and not opposite to that.

This is the mentality of Rahman Celcom and those of his ilk. And the fact that they tolerate other religions -- although tolerate is something you do when it is a nuisance -- proves that they are very reasonable people.


J. Hussain wrote:

“In Islamic law, crimes are classified in three ways: hudud, qisas (and) Ta’azir...Hudud crimes are those specifically mentioned in the Koran as transgressing the limits which God himself has placed on people's behavior. The hudud crimes are: theft, highway robbery, drinking alcohol, unlawful sexual intercourse and false accusation of unchastity. Some jurists also include murder and apostasy (al-riddah) among the categories of hudud crimes.”

Schacht wrote that hudud is reserved for crimes against Allah for which there can be no mercy or judicial discretion.

Further, Al-Awwa adds “unlawful rebellion” to the list of hudud crimes.

Schacht sets out the specifics of huhud:

“The death penalty either by stoning (the more severe punishment for unlawful intercourse) or by crucifixion or with the sword (for highway robbery with homicide); cutting off hand and/or foot (for highway robbery without homicide and for theft....”

Schacht also confirms the rigidity of Islamic law; that hudud is meted out as:

“... a right or claim of Allah, therefore no pardon or amicable settlement is possible.”

However, in some cases, Muslim law allows a criminal defendant to pay off the victim (diyya) and thus, to escape punishment; an option obviously only available to the wealthy.


* Al-Awwa, Muhammad Salim, “The Basis of Islamic Penal Legislation”, published in The Islamic Criminal Justice System (Rome: Oceana Publications Inc., 1982), page 127

* Duhaime, Lloyd, Legal Definition of Ta’azir

* Hussain, J., Islamic Law and Society (Sydney: Federation Press, 1999), page 134

* Schacht, J., An Introduction to Islamic Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), page 175


Raja Petra went to town attacking the PAS Youth Chief for suggesting Hudud as an alternative. My initial response is : AT LEAST SOMEONE IS THINKING OF A SOLUTION TO THE WORSENING CRIME PROBLEM in Malaysia.

Instead of providing a sound alternative, RPK chose to redicule the PAS Youth Chief.

He went to cite the failure of Christian laws in Europe from the history of Christianity. The trouble with this argument is that the same cannot be said about Islamic laws or Hudud. The Islamic Penal Code has been in practiced for 1400 years and NO ONE complained about it's implementation.

The removal of Islamic Penal Code from the lives of Muslims are mostly the handiwork of Colonials like British, Russians, France, Belgium, Dutch etc when Muslim Lands were invaded by them.

In fact, in India, women were prevented from getting inheritence from their fathers because the Common Law of Britain forbids any inheritance to women, at that time, when British first invaded India. For a few hundred years before that women were getting inheritance without any hinderance because they were subjected to Shariah Laws.

So, there lies Raja Petra's main weakness in his argument: he cites examples from the history of CHRISTIANITY which DIFFERS greatly from the history of Islam and Islamic Penal Code.

As far as history has shown, Islamic Penal Code is practiced by Muslims for the last 1400 years and no one complained about it despite the coming and going of Muslim rulers throughout the ages.

So, i beg Raja Petra to come up with a better argument to negate the effectiveness of Islamic Penal Code.

Oh, and Raja Petra also made this argument:

If this is true then why quote the example of the murder of Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya? This woman was allegedly killed by Indian Hindus, not by Malay Muslims. And since Hudud applies only to Muslims then it does not matter whether Malaysia does or does not implement these Islamic laws. It would not have deterred these Indian Hindus from killing Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya because they would have been exempted from these laws anyway.

It so happens, the crime of murder falls under QISAS and not HUDUD. And trust me, anyone would agree to QISAS regardless of their religion.

As for me, if a Jewish gentleman name Noah Feldman who actually thinks that Islamic Penal Code is good and practical.

Funny, a guy like RPK who claims to be Muslims, giving hell about Islamic laws while a Jewish professor from Harvard wrote and article in the New York TImes to defend the Shariah.

How the world has turned upside down. Did I mention the Jewish guy is a professor of law from Harvard?

Tulang Besi a.k.a Rahman Celcom

ps i've written before about Raja Petra's shallowness in understanding Islam and the Islamic Penal Code. No matter what RPK says, majority Muslims supports the Shariah and wants it's implementation. Hell, even in Britain, the Shariah is being practiced albeit still limited.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.