THE MUFTI VERSUS THE LAWYER: THE KAFIR ISSUE

And that is why we should no longer talk about “it is implied that Malaysia is a Secular State” because I can also say “it is implied that Malaysia is an Islamic State” since Muftis can ignore civil laws and can come out with religious laws and decrees.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Lawyer Syahredzan Johan said that the Pahang Mufti, Abdul Rahman Osman, is not immune or exempt from the law and can face charges under Seksyen 505 Kanun Keseksaan (READ HERE). Others, however, are of the view that civil laws cannot be used against the Mufti because he was issuing hisfatwah or decree, which is his job as the Mufti and is within his pay grade.

For example one Mufti might say that smoking is makruh while another might say it is haram, just like drinking liquor or eating pork. Cigarette companies cannot, though, take the Mufti to court for loss of profits for banning Muslims from smoking based on a religious decree.

So who is the final authority on religious decrees? If a certain Mufti says that since MAS serves/sells liquor then all those working for MAS are earning haram wages just like you would if you work in a casino or in a brothel, can MAS sue the Mufti? The Mufti has just triggered mass resignations from MAS and now the airline is grounded. Surely MAS can sue him.

I remember the Kamunting Detention Centre authorities banning the detainees from doing their Friday prayers — although it is considered compulsory — because the Perak Mufti had said that Friday prayers are not compulsory for detainees and prisoners (while they allow the non-compulsory Raya prayers).

Hence the Perak Mufti has the power to legalise what is illegal and vice versa. And I made a police report (together with my lawyers) at the Sentul Police Station regarding this matter but they ignored my police report because the Mufti has the power and authority to say your father is your mother and your mother is your father and no one can challenge that.

So that brings me to my main question (which I had addresses in my previous article, The Malays are confusing the non-Malays): is Malaysia a Secular State or a Theocratic State or a mix of both and something in between? I suppose this is just like saying this is not apple juice and it is also not liquor: it is just apple cider. So does that mean it is halal or haram to drink apple cider since it is definitely NOT liquor but merely fermented apple juice?

Yes, and is Malaysia a fermented Secular State that is not really fully secular but slightly ‘contaminated’ with a Theological Islamic system? And that is why we should no longer talk about “it is implied that Malaysia is a Secular State” because I can also say “it is implied that Malaysia is an Islamic State” since Muftis can ignore civil laws and can come out with religious laws and decrees.

Now, let us not blame the right honourable Pahang Mufti for coming out with that kafir decree. It is not his fault. He was told that he is THE religious authority of his state and that what he says goes. He was NOTtold that his opinion and what he decrees is not worth one cent and that he and all the other 13 Muftis should just shut the fook up and not open their mouths any more.

Actually, the issue of the Syariah and kafir are the two most misunderstood concepts of Islam, even amongst Muslims. And it remains misunderstood because this subject is considered sensitive and no one wants to talk about it. But then not talking about it just means you are not clearing the air concerning the matter and are allowing the confusion to continue.

This was what Bill Warner from the Center for the Study of Political Islam said about the book ‘Sharia Law for Non-Muslims’:

Islam is a political system with its own body of laws called Sharia. Sharia law is based on entirely different principles than our laws. Many of these laws concern the non-Muslim.

What does Sharia law mean for the citizens of this state? How will this affect us? What are the long-term effects of granting Muslims the right to be ruled by Sharia, instead of our laws? Each and every demand that Muslims make is based on the idea of implementing Sharia law in America. Should we allow any Sharia at all? Why? Why not?

How can any political or legal authority make decisions about Sharia law if they do not know what it is? Is this moral?

The answers to all of these questions are found in Sharia Law for Non-Muslims.

The word “non-Muslim” is used in the translation of Sharia law, but the actual Arabic word used is “Kafir”. But the word Kafir means far more than non-Muslim. The original meaning of the word was “concealer”, one who conceals the truth of Islam.

The Koran says that the Kafir may be deceived, plotted against, hated, enslaved, mocked, tortured and worse. The word is usually translated as “unbeliever” but this translation is wrong. The word “unbeliever” is logically and emotionally neutral, whereas, Kafir is the most abusive, prejudiced and hateful word in any language.

There are many religious names for Kafirs: polytheists, idolaters, People of the Book (Christians and Jews), Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, and pagans. Kafir covers them all, because no matter what the religious name is, they can all be treated the same. What Mohammed said and did to polytheists can be done to any other category of Kafir.

Islam devotes a great amount of energy to the Kafir. The majority (64%) of the Koran is devoted to the Kafir, and nearly all of the Sira (81%) deals with Mohammed’s struggle with them. The Hadith (Traditions) devotes 32% of the text to Kafirs. Overall, the Trilogy devotes 60% of its content to the Kafir.

Amount of Text Devoted to the Kafir

Hadith 37%

Sira 81%

Koran 64%

Total 60%