Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) continues to be a “political volcano” - spewing large quantities of ash and debris across the land.
Explanations, including the one made yesterday, only seem to make this volcano rumble even louder.
A week ago, PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang stridently declared in Parliament that “there is no DNAA in Islam”. Only guilty or not guilty.
In fairness, he made this comment in the context of the fight against corruption; that graft is abhorrent in Islam and the trial of those accused of corruption must be continued until the end; that justice is a black-and-white matter.
To buttress his point, Hadi referred to Fatih Sultan Mehmet II, the Conqueror of Constantinople (1453).
He had wrongly ordered the hand of an Orthodox Christian architect to be chopped off. The poor man appealed for redress to a leading judge, a Sheikh. The sultan was summoned to trial.
The aggrieved Christian was offered both available options under Syariah - lifetime compensation paid by the sultan or the ruler’s hand getting chopped off - an eye for an eye.
The response to Hadi’s comments made in Parliament was swift and furious, judging from the widely shared articles in the media.
Interestingly, these responses included those who were once associated with PAS - Mohamed Hanipa Maidin, Khairuddin Aman Razali and Faiz Fadzil.
The response by Faiz, in particular, gives us an insight into the workings of Hadi’s mind.
Faiz pointed out that Section 103(1) of the Syariah Criminal Code Enactment (Terengganu) 2001, passed when Hadi was menteri besar of the state has elements of DNAA, allowing the prosecution to seek a suspension of proceedings if the prosecution believed there were grounds to do so.
He also pointed out that Hadi had no issues with DNAA when former PAS deputy president Nasharudin Mat Isa received it on Nov 4, 2020, on 16 counts of breach of trust.
Faiz said that DNAA is a procedure that exists in many judicial systems, including in Syariah. He himself was recently granted a DNAA on a sexual assault charge.
So, what is the common man’s take on all this?
But first, some interesting facts that Hadi could have shared with us for the sake of fairness and balance.
In the Turkish/Ottoman naming tradition, none are deemed worthy of carrying the Prophet’s name. Hence, the use of Mehmet or Mehmed, is a close approximation of Muhammad.
This tradition has found little traction in the rest of the Islamic world. In his youth, Mehmet II received a sound education - being taught Sufism, Latin, ancient Greek history, mathematics and law.
In later life, he surrounded himself with Greek and Italian courtiers - in addition to scholars, artists and learned men from both the Islamic and Western schools of thought.
After the conquest of Constantinople, Mehmet II styled himself “Caesar of Rome”.
Back to the issue at hand, it is refreshing and enlightening to find out, by simply asking around, how many Malaysians of all races, young and old, view this matter.
And better still, they were unafraid and unapologetic in speaking their mind.
The foremost view is that such differences among preachers and politicians arise because of the infallibility of divine laws as opposed to the fallibility of human interpretation.
The colloquial Malay for spin, “pandai pusing” was used to describe the tendency of humans to interpret these laws to suit a particular position based on expediency or self-interest.
The second view is that politics is religion and religion is politics.
In both these formulations, politics is seen as the culprit and our preachers and politicians are all “pandai main politik” (playing politics).
There were also sly remarks that the older one gets - and with a long beard to match - the cleverer they become at hiding religion in their politics and vice versa.
Third, when asked about how they can tell when a person is spinning and when he is preaching, the inevitable answer was the internet is useful in checking and researching past records of a politician or preacher.
Politicians and their games
Videos, often entertaining, are a great help in forming an opinion about them. But they felt that making up stories, “buat cerita” (making up stories), is part of their trade.
The surprisingly sophisticated fourth view on DNAA is that justice is not always about the truth or fairness.
All praise for thinking this way! Those who have closely followed Malaysian politics from 1998 to the present will come to the same conclusion. The courts look like the “second home” of the rich and famous with their never-ending “money problems”.
The fifth and final view on the DNAA came from a very pious person and surely, the smartest of the lot.
If a good person gets a DNAA, no one would have objected. Perhaps, the person getting the DNAA is the problem. He had offended too many people, abused many things and made too many enemies to reach the top. Now, they want him in jail!
What all this tells us is simple enough. What citizens fear the most about any law whether secular or religious, including DNAA, is human fallibility, inconsistency and the selective application of these laws.
And this can happen under a leader or powerful group of elites as amply borne out by our recent past, when strongman politicians ruled the roost. Those days are over, sudah lah!
Make no mistake, the people, like members of a jury, may not know the law but they know right from wrong.
And they certainly know that DNAA now comes in three colours - black, white and grey. Politicians and preachers beware!
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.