What are your contributions to the nation, says Isma warning non-Muslims over hudud issue - The...

View and read more at http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/what-are-your-contributions-to-the-nation-says-isma-warning-non-muslims-ove

#ISMA #Hudud http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/what-are-your-contributions-to-the-nation-says-isma-warning-non-muslims-ove

(Auto-Posted-Link via IFTTT from Justice In Malaysia fbpage on April 20, 2015 at 02:02AM.)

Read More

Dr M shocked with Umno support for PAS’s hudud, says it is un-Islamic

View and read more at http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/dr-m-shocked-with-umno-support-for-pass-hudud-says-it-is-un-islamic



(Auto-Posted-Link via IFTTT from Justice In Malaysia fbpage on April 16, 2015 at 11:08AM.)

Read More

CSOSS: Federal Constitution Must Be Renegotiated If Kelantan Persists With Hudud

View and read more at http://sabahkini.com/csoss-federal-constitution-must-be-renegotiated-if-kelantan-persists-with-hudud/

http://sabahkini.com/csoss-federal-constitution-must-be-renegotiated-if-kelantan-persists-with-hudud/

(Auto-Posted-Link via IFTTT from Justice In Malaysia fbpage on April 08, 2015 at 10:31PM.)

Read More

Sabah, Sarawak leaders against hudud Bill

View and read more at http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2015/03/23/sabah-sarawak-leaders-against-hudud-bill/

www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2015/03/23/sabah-sarawak-leaders-against-hudud-bill/

(Auto-Posted-Link via IFTTT from Justice In Malaysia fbpage on March 24, 2015 at 01:52AM.)

Read More

Hudud and the Islamisation of Malaysia – Boniface Willy Anak Tumek - The Malaysian Insider

View and read more at http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/hudud-and-the-islamisation-of-malaysia-boniface-willy-anak-tumek

On March 19, 2015, the PAS-majority state government of Kelantan unanimously voted to pass the Syariah Criminal Code (11) 1993 (Amendment 2015) Bill. The next milestone in Kelantan’s journey to implement hudud in the state, and eventually in Malaysia, will be the tabling of the private member’s bill in parliament.

Irrespective of the fate of the private member’s bill, an irreversible stage has been reached in the on-going process to Islamise Malaysian laws and this is accompanied by further erosion of the rights of non-Muslim Malaysians.

Proponents and backers of hudud, notwithstanding their motives, have sought to allay the fears of the non-muslims by saying non-Muslims will not be bound by hudud and hudud will have no effect on them.



Those who are not too intellectually inclined have resorted to saying that only bad people, the criminals, need fear hudud.
Non-muslim politicians and ordinary Malaysians who look at Kelantan’s ambitions for hudud from a purely political angle may consider it as a non-issue, pointing to the fact that non-muslim MPs from both sides of the divide plus the dissenting Muslim MPs will ensure that PAS does not get the two-third majority they need to secure the necessary amendment to the federal constitution.

But for the many who find PAS’s proposal to implement hudud troubling, are their fears justified?

Assuming that there are enough Muslim MPs who believe that hudud should not be implemented now, because conditions precedent are not fulfilled and these join the non-muslim MPs to vote against it and deny PAS the simple majority they need, NGOs like ISMA and the others of the same mould will ensure that hudud gains traction and will not fade away. Every five years, Islam and hudud will be part of the rallying call of Umno and PAS, further ensuring that the traction does not diminish over time.

It is not lost on the non-muslims in Malaysia that hudud is contained in the Koran and is therefore to the Muslims, divinely sanctioned. Following on this, is the realisation that many dissenting Muslim MPs will come to a stage where they will have to wrestle with their conscience over hudud. So, the chances of getting a two-third majority in parliament favouring hudud not so improbable at some point in the future.

Malaysia’s history has shown that non-muslims indeed have very compelling reasons to fear PAS’s proposal for hudud. From as early as 1966, just three years after Malaysia came into being, there have been relentless efforts by the Umno-led BN government to Islamise the country’s laws, resulting in the non-muslims suffering substantial loss of right in the area of the practise of their faith.

In 1988, the minister of education directed that the employment of all principals of Christian mission schools who are religious (i.e priests, religious brothers and sisters) be terminated immediately upon them reaching the age of 55. In peninsular Malaysia, the principals who took over were mostly Muslim. Christian mission schools in Sarawak and Sabah, due largely to the significant Christian population in the states were for the most part, were spared. Foreign priests were denied entry into Malaysia and those already in the country had their stay cut short and made to leave. The growing Christian population especially in Sabah and Sarawak were faced with a severe shortage of priests.

In 1981, the Indonesian translation of the Bible – the ‘AlKitab’ was banned under the ISA. The ban was later lifted on the conditions that these Bibles were stamped with warning that the Bibles are for Christian use only. In 2000, the Bahasa Malaysia-translated AlKitab was confiscated by the Special Branch of PDRM from the bookstore of the Daughters of St. Paul in Petaling Jaya.

In 1984, a ministerial order of the Home Ministry made it illegal for non-muslims to use 49 ‘Islamic’ words including ‘Allah’. The Herald, a publication of the Roman Catholic church became a victim of this ban and took their case to court. The high profile case culminated in the federal court affirming the ban in June 2014. In April 2011, fearing a backlash from Christians in the GE13, Putrajaya announced the 10-Points Resolution, exempting non-Muslims in Sabah and Sarawak from the ban but questions are now being asked whether or not the cabinet decision that resulted in the 10-Points Resolution has precedence over a binding judgment of the nation’s apex court.

In Sept 1986, the Federal government and state governments in Peninsular Malaysia agreed to the integration of the Syariah and the Civil Courts. Following a strong protest from the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism (MCCBCHS) the plan was aborted but not before Tun Salleh Abas, then Lord President remarked that ‘the best changes are those which are imperceptible’. Today, the Attorney General’s Chambers has a Syariah unit whose function, among others, is to take steps towards the realisation of a set of laws and specific body that will be responsible for the harmonisation civil law and syarak.

Over the years, successive prime ministers, from Mahathir to Najib, have made statements that amounted to asserting that Malaysia is an Islamic nation.

Tun Salleh Abas’s words are a reminder of the proverbial “elephant-in-the-room,” a big problem that has gone largely unnoticed and which not too many people are willing to talk about. Part of the reasons why the problem has gone largely unnoticed, is because the changes were not only incremental but were also imperceptible, and also because we have short memory for things that do not inflict severe pain or extreme hardships on us personally.

Through all these, non-muslim Malaysians take comfort in the federal constitution and in the matter of hudud, Article 76A(1) of the Federal Constitution, noting that a two-third majority in the Dewan Rakyat is required to amend that article.

How strong a protection does the Malaysian constitution really gives to a citizen of this country?

Since Malaysia’s federal constitution came into force in Sept 1963, it has seen at least 42 amendments, one of the most profound being the 1993 amendment. This is the amendment which removed the legal immunity of royalty. Mathematically, it is an average of one amendment in every one and a half year. In contrast, the Federal Constitution of Australia which is now 115 years old, has been amended less than ten times only.

This perhaps answers the question that many people may have in their mind; is it all that easy to amend the Federal Constitution? The inevitable conclusion that one may draw from this is that the protection in the constitution is only as strong as the difficulty with which the constitution may be amended.

A prominent professor of constitutional law once remarked (about Malaysia’s constitution),”There is no doubt that the spirit of the original document has been diluted, and that the present Federal Constitution bears only a superficial resemblance of the original document”.

The safeguard it seems lies in the ability to keep the numbers of dissenting MPs at a level that can effectively deny the proponents of hudud the required two-third majority in parliament. But allegations of gerrymandering mixed with the potentials for unusual alliances by MPs who are forced to wrestle with their conscience makes for a very uncertain future.  Throw in consequences of MPs mixing politics and business and becoming subservient to the powers that be and you get the most fluid of situation.

We pray that Malaysians can rise above race and religion and move together on the path to peace and harmony, motivated only by justice and equality. – March 23, 2015.

*Boniface Willy Anak Tumek reads the Malaysian Insider.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.

(Auto-Posted-Link via IFTTT from Justice In Malaysia fbpage on March 24, 2015 at 01:30AM.)

Read More

Brunei puts stop to Christmas celebrations to protect Muslims, religious ministry says

View and read more at http://m.themalaymailonline.com/world/article/brunei-puts-stop-to-christmas-celebrations-to-protect-muslims-religious-min

m.themalaymailonline.com/world/article/brunei-puts-stop-to-christmas-celebrations-to-protect-muslims-religious-min

(Auto-Posted-Link via IFTTT from Justice In Malaysia fbpage on January 09, 2015 at 08:43AM.)

Read More

Brunei bans public Christmas celebrations to ‘protect’ Islamic faith - The Malaysian Insider

View and read more at http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/world/article/brunei-bans-christmas-celebrations

www.themalaysianinsider.com/world/article/brunei-bans-christmas-celebrations #hudud

(Auto-Posted-Link via IFTTT from Justice In Malaysia fbpage on January 09, 2015 at 07:11AM.)

Read More

Hudud - punishment or goals? - The Star Online

http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/07/14/Hudud-punishment-or-goals/

If Kelantan and Brunei were to focus first on promoting the goals of hudud rather than the punishments, all citizens – Muslims and non-Muslims – might rally around such an agenda.

RETIRED Chief Justice of Malaysia Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamad made the point that the goal of criminal law is not to punish but to prevent prohibited acts, establish public order and administer justice.

Punish­ment is merely a tool used to achieve that goal.

“A tool is not a goal,” he added.

So, too, is the case in Islamic law. The hudud punishments are not ends in themselves, but a tool to achieve goals.

What are the goals of the hudud, and how did jurists identify them?

The goal of the hadd punishment for terrorism and killing innocent civilians is to protect life.

The goal of the hadd punishment for theft is to protect property.

The goal of the hadd punishment for adultery is to protect family and clarity of lineage.

The goal of the hadd punishment for slander is to protect dignity.

The goal of the hadd punishment for apostasy is to protect religion.

And the goal of the hadd punishment for consuming alcohol is to protect intellect. (There are strong reasons to question the authenticity of the hudud punishments for apostasy and consumption of alcohol, which were imputed from the hudud punishments for treason and slander respectively, but I will examine these particular problems with the juristic construct in a separate piece.)

As the most serious punishments, the hudud indicate that these goals are of the utmost importance, both to God and to humankind.

Islamic jurists identified these six goals of the hudud as the objectives of God’s law (maqasid al-Shari`a).

They recognised that all of God’s commandments (shar`) could be classified as protecting one of these six categories: life, dignity, property, family, religion or intellect.

The objectives of God’s laws are not specific to Islam. Because the Quran states that God sent a messenger to every community to provide guidance on right and wrong (10:47), Islamic jurists regard the objectives of God’s law as universal human rights needed and desired by all people.

Regardless of religion, culture, or nationality, all people tend to want a long and healthy life; a sense of dignity and honour; property and wealth; love, intimacy, and a family life; the freedom to practise their beliefs; and the ability to engage in whatever intellectual or other pursuits that bring them joy and happiness.

The six objectives of God’s law are also God’s objectives for all humanity, which the law seeks to protect and to further.

The goals of the hudud therefore define the “common good” (al-ma`ruf).

The Quran defines the best society (khayra ummah) as one that commands the common good and forbids the common wrong, and believes in God (“ta’muruna bil-ma`ruf wa tanhawna `an il-munkar wa tu’minuna billah,” 3:110).

For this reason, many Muslim scholars assert that the best society is one that promotes the objectives of God’s law, helping its citizens thrive in body, mind, and spirit.

“God’s law seeks to protect and promote these objectives,” points out International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies CEO Prof Mohammad Hashim Kamali, “and it validates a variety of measures to that end”.

Excellent healthcare, free schooling and scholarships for higher learning, education on moral behaviour and ethical decision-making, financial assistance for the poor, and loans for new small businesses would all be measures that would command the common good.

By the same token, hudud defines forbidden actions not just by Islamic law but in practically all societies.

Murder, terrorism, theft and slander are universally considered crimes; religious oppression, adultery and reckless behaviour induced by alcohol are reprehensible, if not also crimes.

The nature and degree of punishment may vary but all societies tend to agree that these offences constitute the common wrong.

Implementing hudud punishments alone, or as mandatory, will not in itself make Kelantan more just, or “more Islamic”.

In Nigeria, Pakistan, and Sudan, implementing mandatory hudud punishments has not created “more Islamic” societies.

According to Tun Hamid’s research, “They have not achieved the desired objectives of a better society, peace, tranquillity, and an improved level of justice.”

Prof Kamali points out that simply implementing hudud punishments as an isolated aspect of Islam, and not as part of a holistic approach that encompasses the broader Quranic vision of justice, does not necessarily create an Islamic state.

An Islamic state would command the good, not just forbid the wrong, and would fully implement the Quranic and Prophetic directives on mercy, repentance, and reformation. Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab’s ruling to suspend the hadd punishment for theft during famine reflects this crucial balance, and led to the legal principle that “necessity allows the prohibited” (al-darurah tubih ul-mahzurat).

Based on this precedent and legal principle, many Muslim scholars, including Yusuf Qaradawi, Muham­mad al-Ghazali and Saleem al-`Awwa, argue that an Islamic state must first help its citizens meet their hudud-based rights at the two highest levels of need determined by Muslim jurists (daruriyyat and hajiyyat) before applying the hudud penalties.

We are, after all, told to command the common good and forbid the wrong – not the other way around.

By commanding the good first, there will be less inclination to resort to wrong, more opportunities for repentance and reformation, and less need for maximum punishments.

If Kelantan and Brunei were to focus first on promoting the goals of the hudud rather than the punishments, all citizens – Muslims and non-Muslims – might rally around such an agenda.

Which Kelantan would be more Islamic: a Kelantan where more crimes are committed and hudud punishments are imposed, or a Kelantan where fewer crimes are committed and hudud punishments are not imposed?

> Editor’s note: This article is the third in a special series for Ramadan, a month when Muslims are urged to deepen their understanding of their faith by reading and studying the Quran. In this spirit, this series is intended to help the reader fathom what hudud is and help reduce division between faith communities on this issue. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. Imam Feisal would welcome any questions readers may have. Please write to imamfeisal@thestar.com.my.

Shared on Justice In Malaysia Facebookpage: http://ift.tt/1yfpUQz

via IFTTT

Read More

Hannah Yeoh: A True Malaysian Who Stand Up For Malaysians

Related Topic: Hudud

In Hannah Yeoh, we have a good example – Joshua Wu (17 June 2014)
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/in-hannah-yeoh-we-have-a-good-example-joshua-wu

Out of the blue, Sungai Air Tawar assemblyman Kamarol Zaki Abdul Malik decided to table a motion to discuss hudud and its possible implementation in Selangor.

What was more shocking was that Selangor Speaker, Hannah Yeoh, decided to allow for the motion to be debated in the state legislative assembly

The Selangor Speaker set a good example by allowing hudud to be debated. After all, it is an issue which has been plaguing Malaysians.

Selangorians would definitely want to hear both sides of the political divide arguing their case
Many felt that the motion was to trap Pakatan Rakyat. If Hannah Yeoh were to disapprove of the motion, she would be labelled as anti-Islam, and afraid to deal with the sensitive issue

Despite being criticised for her decision to allow the motion to be debated, Hannah Yeoh stood firm on her principle of being a neutral and fair Speaker to all parties, and maintained her decision

When a motion was tabled to debate about hudud in Terengganu, the Speaker decided to not allow the matter to come to pass.

Barisan Nasional is capable of pushing for hudud in Terengganu as they form the state government by virtue of having the most seats in the state assembly.

Isn't it ironic that Umno decided to talk about hudud in Selangor when they discarded the very same issue in Terengganu?

Unfortunately, Kamarol Zaki Abdul Malik decided to withdraw the motion in Selangor. This lead to the rakyat questioning the sincerity of Umno regarding the issue

As Muslims believe hudud to be God's law, it should not be manipulated for political gains. Such revolting acts only reflect poorly on spirituality of the perpetrator(s).

As if that wasn't enough, Selangor BN put the onus on PAS to push for hudud in Selangor. Talk about looking at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye but not paying attention to the plank in your eyes!

Moving on, it was reported on June 16 that 10 written questions submitted by Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail of Kajang was rejected by the Selangor state legislative assembly by virtue of exceeding the 40 word limit imposed on each question.

Guess who was behind such a bold decision? If you guessed Hannah Yeoh, you are right!

Hannah Yeoh is doing a superb job as a Speaker and is setting a very good precedent for others in a similar position of authority. Her impartiality and strict obedience of the rules is nothing short of praiseworthy!

Ladies and gentlemen, in Hannah Yeoh we have a good example! – June 17, 2014.

Hannah Yeoh berjaya buktikan Umno tidak jujur dalam isu hudud (17 June 2014)
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/bahasa/article/hannah-yeoh-berjaya-buktikan-umno-tidak-jujur-dalam-isu-hudud

Ramai yang curiga dengan kemampuan wanita berbadan kecil, Hannah Yeoh ketika dilantik sebagai speaker Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) Selangor selepas Pilihan Raya Umum ke-13 lalu, namun ketelusannya dalam mengendalikan isu "Usul Hudud" yang dikemukakan oleh Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (Adun) Umno menyerlahkan kehebatannya.

Yeoh berjaya membuktikan Umno hanya menggunakan isu hudud untuk kepentingan politik dan apabila merasakan akan rugi, mereka akan berundur balik.

Kewibawaan Yeoh meningkat dalam mengendalikan usul kontroversi oleh Adun Sungai Air Tawar, Kamarol Zaki Abdul Malik yang meminta undang-undang hudud dikaji untuk dilaksanakan di Selangor.

Tindakan Yeoh menerima usul itu untuk dibahaskan dalam sidang DUN menerima kecaman ramai pada awalnya kerana dianggap membuka ruang kepada isu yang menjadi masalah itu dan akan menyusahkan banyak pihak.

Tetapi atas dasar ketelusan dan beliau adalah speaker untuk semua Adun tanpa mengira apa parti yang mereka wakili, Yeoh menerima usul itu dibahaskan.

Bagaimanapun, belum sempat dibahaskan, pada 13 Jun lalu, Kamarol Zaki menarik balik usul berkenaan, sehari selepas ia diluluskan untuk perbahasan dalam DUN.

Ia ditarik balik kerana usul Kamarol ini menyusahkan rakan Umno dalam Barisan Nasional (BN) sendiri khasnya MCA dan Gerakan.

Ketua Pembangkang Selangor, Datuk Mohd Shamsuddin Lias mengakui hal ini apabila memberikan alasan usul itu menimbulkan banyak kekeliruan.

Ahli Parlimen Shah Alam, Khalid Abdul Samad, berkata keputusan Yeoh membenarkan isu itu dibahaskan menyebabkan Umno terjerumus ke dalam perangkap ciptaan sendiri dan terpaksa manarik balik notis yang dimohon sebelum itu.

“Mereka menjangka apabila membawakan usul itu, speaker akan menghalang ia dibahaskan dengan harapan mampu mencetuskan perbalahan PAS dengan DAP dan mungkin PKR serta membolehkan mereka menuduh PAS tunduk kepada DAP.

“Itulah perancangan mereka tetapi apabila speaker setuju hudud dibahaskan, ini menimbulkan masalah kepada Umno dan BN kerana usul untuk membahaskan hudud datang daripada Umno, sudah tentu menimbulkan kemarahan MCA, Gerakan dan MIC. Apa yang mereka harapkan tidak berlaku,” kata Khalid seperti dilaporkan portal Selangorkini.

Setiausaha Agung DAP, Lim Guan Eng, berkata Umno hanya bermain politik dengan isu hudud dan ketika merasakan ia akan merugikan mereka, ia ditarik balik.

“Dengan usul itu, Umno membuktikan mereka yang sebenarnya memulakan isu pelaksanaan hudud di negara ini,” kata Lim dalam satu kenyataannya semalam.

“Sementara kami menghormati Islam dan kedudukan hudud dalam agama itu, pelaksanaannya berlawanan dengan Perlembagaan dan tidak sesuai dalam masyarakat majmuk di negara ini. Kami konsisten dengan prinsip ini,” katanya.

Roketkini merakamkan ucapan tahniah Lim kepada Yeoh yang membenarkan usul itu dibahaskan kerana ia membuktikan beliau seorang speaker yang adil, neutral dan demokratik, walaupun secara peribadi tidak bersetuju dengan pelaksanaan undang-undang itu.

Laman web DAP itu juga meletakkan wanita pertama yang dipertanggungjawabkan sebagai speaker itu sebagai ikon ahli politik wanita tanah air, sebaris tokoh wanita negara yang berkhidmat demi kebaikan anak watan.

DAP pada awalnya tidak senang dengan tindakan Yeoh membenarkan usul itu kerana parti berkenaan menentang hudud dilaksanakan di negara ini.

Tindakan Yeoh berbeza sekali jika dibandingkan dengan Speaker DUN Terengganu daripada Umno yang menolak usul seumpama itu yang dikemukakan oleh Adun PAS.

Pada 15 April lalu, Speaker DUN Terengganu, Mohd Zubir Embong menolak usul yang dibawa oleh Adun Bukit Payong, Mohd Nor Hamzah di bawah peraturan mesyuarat Fasal 30 Peraturan-peraturan dan Perintah Tetap DUN untuk membahaskan usul pelaksanaan hudud di negeri itu.

Sebaliknya, Zubir mencadangkan semua ahli Parlimen beragama Islam menyokong usul yang akan dibawa Kelantan ke Dewan Rakyat yang entah bila akan berlaku itu.

Padahal, dalam media dan daripada cakap-cakapnya, Umno seolah-olah penyokong utama pelaksanaan hudud di negara ini. Ia dapat dilihat dalam isu pelaksanaan Hudud di Kelantan.

Menteri Di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom melalui Dewan Rakyat memberikan jaminan kepada semua negeri kerajaan persekutuan akan membantu mana-mana kerajaan negeri yang mahu melaksanakan hukum hudud.

Sehubungan itulah, Menteri Besar Kelantan Datuk Ahmad Yakub memaklumkan kerajaan negeri Kelantan akan mengemukakan satu rang undang-undang persendirian di Dewan Rakyat bagi membolehkan undang-undang jenayah syariah itu dilaksanakan di Kelantan.

Ia kemudian menjadi isu yang meretakkan hubungan dalam Pakatan Rakyat apabila DAP membantah cadangan itu.

Akhirnya PAS menangguhkan cadangan mengemukakan usul persendirian itu untuk membolehkan Jawatankuasa Teknikal yang bakal dibentuk oleh kerajaan persekutuan membuat kajian mengenai pelaksanaan hudud.

Kini, Yeoh membuktikan beliau berjaya menguruskan isu ini secara terbuka dan telus apabila beliau membenarkan Umno mengemukakan usul ini.

Dan teori beliau benar. Umno hanya bermain politik dengan isu hudud dan cuba meraih undi dengannya. Namun selepas terbukti bakal gagal, Umno undur balik dan menarik balik usul tersebut.

Kita tunggu pula cadangan Timbalan Presiden Umno, Tan Sri Muhyidin Yassin selepas ini yang mencadangkan Jawatankuasa Teknikal dibentuk untuk mengkaji pelaksanaan hudud kerana ramai yang beranggapan ini juga cadangan perangkap Umno kepada PAS.

Apakah ia umpama usul Kamarol yang akan ditarik balik kemudiannya atau isu hudud sekali lagi bakal disapu ke bawah permaidani. – 17 Jun, 2014.

Ketegasan Hannah Yeoh wajar dipuji (17 June 2014)
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2014/06/17/ketegasan-hannah-yeoh-wajar-dipuji/

Selangor Speaker defends hudud debate, says it’s fair to all parties (13 June 2014)
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/selangor-speaker-defends-hudud-debate-says-its-fair-to-all-parties

The Selangor Speaker has come out in defence of her decision to allow the hudud debate in the state legislative assembly, saying that her approval was based on her role as speaker for all parties in the state.

“When I am the speaker, I am no longer a DAP or Pakatan Rakyat member. I am neutral. My personal view does not matter,” Hannah Yeoh (pic) told a press conference today.

Yeoh said as the speaker she had to be fair to all parties in the assembly.

“I have to give consideration to all requests,” she said.
Prominent lawyer Tommy Thomas yesterday criticised Yeoh for allowing the hudud debate to be held in the state legislature, saying that it was unconstitutional.

“State assemblies have no business discussing what is clearly a criminal issue outside the legislative competence of state assemblies,” he said.

MCA also entered the fray and urged Yeoh to reject the motion which had been tabled by Umno Selangor.

MCA Selangor state liaison committee deputy chairman Datuk Donald Lim Siang Chai said the debate on hudud was not important. – June 13, 2014.

Hannah Yeoh 'in between rock and hard place'
http://www.therakyatpost.com/news/2014/06/13/hannah-yeoh-rock-hard-place/

SHAH ALAM, June 13:

Hannah Yeoh said that she had to do what was right for the state assembly irrespective of what she felt about a particular issue.

In defending her decision to approve the proposal by Umno to discuss the introduction of hudud in the state assembly, Yeoh who is Selangor Speaker, said that her feelings or that of her party, DAP, was irrelevant as she was responsible for all assemblymen.

Yeoh’s decision yesterday led to criticisms, in particular from MCA who said that DAP was setting a “political trap” and that it had abandoned their vision of a secular state as well as their Malaysian Malaysia concept.

The Subang Jaya assemblywoman, however, admitted that she could not win on this matter.
“If I don’t allow, Umno will say I’m anti-Islam, if I do, MCA will accuse me of playing with hudud.

“If you were a Speaker, what would you do?” she asked reporters at a press conference this morning.

Yeoh said that as a Speaker, she had to take a neutral position and be fair, adding that when she chaired the state assembly she no longer saw herself as a DAP or Pakatan Rakyat (PR) representative.

She also said that she could not expect praises “all the time”, nor could she expect to like the “hard decisions” she had to make.

Yeoh then stressed that a debate should be the culture of elected representatives.

The debate on hudud implementation in Selangor is poised to take place on Wednesday.

Umno’s hudud bid gets Selangor Speaker’s nod (12 June 2014)
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/umnos-hudud-bid-gets-selangor-speakers-nod

KUALA LUMPUR, June 12 — Umno will now be made to walk the talk on hudud after its proposal to introduce the Islamic penal code in Selangor was approved by the state assembly Speaker today.

The motion to discuss implementing the Islamic penal code in the country's most developed state was among four Umno submitted last week.

The party had decided to press ahead with the move on Tuesday, despite news reports of their intention drawing immediate backlash from its Barisan Nasional (BN) allies.

“Out of these four motions, I have approved three, rejected one,” Selangor Speaker Hannah Yeoh was reported as saying by news portal Malaysiakini today.

“The one that I have approved is also the motion to debate on hudud. I have approved it.”

Yeoh had on Tuesday confirmed receiving the four motions, including the controversial one on hudud.

MCA has since demanded that Umno president Datuk Seri Najib Razak punish the Selangor representatives who submitted the motion and demand that it be withdrawn.

Gerakan also warned the Malay nationalist party's assemblymen on the proposal for hudud in Selangor, saying it contravened the spirit of consensus in BN.

The Malay Mail Online understands the proposal seeks to look into the possibility of enforcing hudud in Selangor.

Malay-Muslim activists in support of the idea have argued the enforcement of hudud is in line Article 3 in the Federal Constitution, which states that Islam is the religion of the federation.

Opponents argue, however, that hudud cannot be carried out in Malaysia as Islamic law is applicable only on Muslims and if enforced, would run counter to other fundamental provisions in the constitution, namely Article 8, which prescribes equality before the law for all, regardless of their religious beliefs.

The proposal which seeks to look into the possibility of enforcing hudud in Selangor, was submitted by Sungai Air Tawar BN assemblyman Kamarol Zaki Abdul Malik last week.

In Selangor, BN is represented by 12 assemblymen, all from Umno.

Subang Jaya rep Hannah Yeoh appointed first woman Speaker in Selangor (31 May 2014)
http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2013/05/31/Subang-Jaya-rep-Hannah-Yeoh-appointed-first-woman-Speaker/

Hannah Yeoh, journalists covering Selangor state assembly down with food poisoning (18 April 2014)
http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/04/18/Selangor-food-poisoning/

DUN Terengganu tolak bahas usul hudud, keikhlasan Umno diragui (15 April 2014)
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/bahasa/article/dun-terengganu-tolak-bahas-usul-hudud

Hannah Yeoh lodges police report over death threat (7 January 2014)
http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/01/07/Hannah-Yeoh-receives-death-threat/

PETALING JAYA: Selangor assembly speaker Hannah Yeoh has lodged a police report early Tuesday morning at the USJ 8 police station after receiving a death threat over a fake quote attributed to her.

“I have lodged a police report this morning. I hope the police will investigate these cybertroopers who are spreading lies to create racial hatred,” said the Subang Jaya assemblyman.

The quote, which was posted in the Internet together with a photograph, alleged that the DAP politician encouraged pregnant women to sit cross-legged.

The post implied that it was not necessary to give up an occupied seat to a pregnant woman travelling in public transport.

The photograph showed a pregnant woman wearing a headscarf, inciting racial slurs from some commenters.

A Facebook commenter Ben Firdaus posted: "Jom cari hannah ni... bunuh dia. (Let’s find this Hannah... kill her.)"

After being alerted about the fake quote on Saturday, Yeoh immediately denied the claims on Twitter and Facebook.

Selangor’s atom ant—mighty Hannah Yeoh (12 July 2013)
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/selangors-atom-ant-the-mighty-hannah-yeoh

No offence, but you expect someone who breaks a glass ceiling to be, well, just a little taller. But Malaysia’s first woman state assembly speaker is all of five feet tall, and a bit.

Still, Selangor speaker Hannah Yeoh (pic) is a couple of heads taller than some of her most avid fans.

“I was at Sunway Pyramid recently when a 12-year-old girl came up to me and asked for my autograph. After I signed it, the girl said to me ‘I love you’.

"It was then that it hit me, I am not just a politician but a role model for the younger generation,” said the eldest of three siblings and wife to her husband of five years.
The mother of two young girls is aware of the impact of her role, not just on a whole generation of Malaysians but also on her assembly, as the youngest state speaker, at 34, in this country’s history.

She takes a firm but kindly approach to the assembly of Tan Sri’s, Datuks and demi-Datuks, that is to say, the soon-to-be’s and the wannabees.

Speaking to The Malaysian Insider, she said: “At the assembly, you have people who are older than you, some who are Datuks and Tan Sri’s. It is playing by the same set of rules but at the same time we have to be courteous and polite.”

She added: “Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think I would be a speaker. But I enjoy being in that role and when I look back now, I feel there is really nothing more that I can ask for in life.

“For a law graduate, you aim to either be a top lawyer or to be a judge. But I never imagined I would be the speaker of a legislative arm where laws are made here. This is like a dream come true for me.”

Fun fact: When talking about Barisan Nasional reps, Yeoh confidently, correctly and easily refers to them as the opposition.

"I figured out that as elected reps, all they want at the assembly is to be heard. I could accommodate that. I am also mindful that there are only 12 assemblymen from the opposition this time round.”

Yeoh said she is for a strong opposition to ensure check and balance and that was why she gave them more time to speak up.

“Whenever the debate got heated, I did not switch off the microphones. I feel that the assemblymen should know how to behave themselves, since this is telecast live.”

Yeoh added that she was satisfied with how the proceedings went for six days in the last meeting as they were able to debate the Sultan’s speech, the Supplementary Bill and the motions brought by the assemblymen.

She said: “Before the first sitting, I was anxious because I was not sure whether I would be able to control the floor when both sides debate. But after the first day, I felt more at ease and comfortable with the role.”

But what was the most difficult moment during the last assembly? “Controlling myself from bursting out laughing on many occasions," said Yeoh.

“There have been times when I had to cut short a question from first-term assemblymen as it was not related to the issue being discussed. You should see the look on their faces. It's priceless.” – July 12, 2013.

Related Topic: Hudud

Hannah Yeoh: Anak Malaysia and fighting corruption
(Video posted on 3 May 2013)

Read More

Hudud: Tun M

Tun M tetap dengan pendirian tidak sokong hudud (4 June 2014) http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2014/06/04/tun-m-tetap-dengan-pendirian-tidak-sokong-hudud/

KUALA LUMPUR: Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad dengan pendirian hudud tidak sesuai dilaksanakan di Malaysia.

“Saya bersaudara dengan (Datuk) Nik Aziz (Nik Mat), tetapi apabila mengenai hudud, itu yang membuat kami berbeza.

” Secara rasional, jangan politikkan agama. Saya faham akan prinsip undang-undang untuk memperjuangkan keadilan. Saya beri contoh, sekiraya ada dua orang ditangkap atas kesalahan mencuri, seorang beragama Islam dan seorang lagi bukan beragama Islam.

“Ketika dijatuhkan hukuman, pencuri bukan Islam dijatuhkan hukuman penjara manakala pencuri beragama Islam itu, dipotong tangannya.

“Itu tidak adil. Kita hidup dalam negara pelbagai budaya, berbilang kaum dan agama. Banyak perspektif perlu diambil kira. Potong tangan, potong kaki, saya kira, ini bukan penyelesaiannya,” katanya.

Tambah beliau, PAS tidak mungkin dapat melaksanakan hukum hudud kerana parti itu tidak akan mampu menguasai majoriti kerusi parlimen untuk meminda perlembagaan negara.

Beliau berkata bagi meminda perlembagaan, PAS perlu memperoleh sokongan dua pertiga kerusi parlimen dan ia pasti tidak akan tercapai kerana parti itu hanya bertanding 70 kerusi parlimen daripada keseluruhan 222 kerusi.

PAS berulang kali untuk melaksanakan undang-undang hudud meskipun mendapat tentangan dari rakannya iaitu DAP dan PKR.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Melihat hudud daripada perspektif budaya, masyarakat mula tunjuk toleransi (TMI - 4 June 2014)
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/opinion/dinsman/article/melihat-hudud-daripada-perspektif-budaya-masyarakat-mula-tunjuk-toleransi

Polemik hukum hudud yang berlangsung selama beberapa bulan ini meliputi pelbagai aspek, ragam, sudut, perspektif dan dimensinya. Suatu hal yang cukup menarik untuk diperhatikan.

Masyarakat Malaysia dalam pelbagai nada dan rentak, walaupun ada yang agak emosional dan menunjukkan kemarahan, kebencian dan kebosanan, namun secara keseluruhannya boleh dianggap berjaya memperkatakan dan berbincang mengenai isu agama yang sensitif ini secara agak munasabah dan bertoleransi, dalam suasana demokratik.

Agak memeranjatkan juga bagaimana kita boleh mencapai toleransi dan demokratik hingga ke tahap tinggi yang seperti itu. Masyarakat yang dikatakan sangat liberal dan demokratik di Amerika Syarikat pun, terutamanya di Hollywood dan Beverly Hills, begitu cepat melatah dan menunjukkan ‘kuasa’ mereka dengan aksi memboikot perniagaan (hotel) Sultan Brunei di sana, kerana tidak bersetuju sultan itu melaksanakan hukum hudud di Brunei.

Begitu juga dengan tokoh usahawan British seperti Richard Branson yang memiliki Virgin Group itu. Mereka nampaknya langsung tidak tahu menunjukkan sedikit pun rasa hormat kepada budaya dan agama orang lain yang berbeza daripada mereka.
Dalam hal ini kita sangat bersyukur dengan masyarakat kita yang pelbagai kaum, agama dan budaya ini, walaupun dalam berpolitik kita masih belum mencapai tahap kematangan yang serupa. Barangkali kerana politik itu berhubungan dengan kuasa dan perebutan, pemilikan, penunjukan serta manipulasi kuasa. (Kuasa selalu menggoda dan menuntut manusia supaya menguasai orang lain secara tidak demokratik).

Saya sendiri pun tidak menduga implikasinya yang sebaik dan sesihat itu di peringkat awalnya apabila kerajaan negeri Kelantan menyatakan rancangan untuk membawa usul pelaksanaan hudud di Kelantan itu ke Parlimen (Rang Undang-Undang Persendirian).

Situasinya hingga ke saat ini, saya perhatikan, tanpa memikirkan implikasi politiknya (apakah akhirnya Umno-BN yang akan mengaut untung darinya atau Pakatan Rakyat akan berpecah kerananya), adalah sangat baik untuk masyarakat kita. Ia membuka medan perbincangan dan medan persefahaman bersama, berasaskan suatu hukum agama yang dianuti oleh sebahgian besar rakyat negara ini.

Pembicaraan hukum yang pada asalnya dianggap eksklusif hak ulama atau ilmuan Islam itu, kini terbuka menjadi medan perbincangan hampir semua orang – sesiapa sahaja, yang pakar mahupun yang jahil, Islam atau bukan Islam – walaupun hukum itu sebenarnya dicadangkan akan dilaksanakan eksklusif di Kelantan dan atas orang Islam sahaja.

Maka kita pun dapat mengikuti perbahasan dan pemikiran yang pelbagai ragam, bertujuan mencari rasional dan kewajaran bagi menegakkan pandangan dan pendirian masing-masing, hingga tidak kurang juga yang begitu melucukan, atau mengelirukan (tanpa disedari oleh pihak yang berhujah tentunya) apabila dilihat daripada sudut tertentu. Dan kadang-kadang kita pun tidak menduga hujah sedemikian itu boleh diucapkan oleh orang atau tokoh yang sedemikian.

Tidak dinafikan ada juga pihak yang cuba membuat ugutan dan yang seumpamanya, tetapi hingga saat ini belum lagi ada yang sampai ke peringkat melampaui batas-batas demokratik.

Dan perbincangan bukan sahaja mengenai apakah potong tangan (kerana mencuri) itu wajar dilaksanakan atau tidak, suatu tindakan yang selaras dengan nilai ketamadunan moden atau tidak, tetapi juga mengenai makna dan maksud ‘mencuri’ itu sendiri pun.

Misalnya pihak pemodal yang mendapatkan hak ke atas tanah rakyat secara tidak adil melalui pengaruh wangnya, apakah itu juga dianggap sebagai ‘pencuri’, makanya pemodal itu perlu dipotong tangannya? Begitu juga penguasa yang menyalahgunakan kuasa untuk mendapatkan kekayaan yang sebenarnya bukan haknya. Juga perasuah yang mendapatkan sesuatu melalui rasuah.

Tidakkah mereka itu juga sebenarnya mencuri, kerana mereka mengambil sesuatu yang bukan hak mereka? Maka apakah perasuah dan penyalahguna kuasa itu juga tergolong sebagai pesalah ‘curi’ yang akan dipotong tangannya?

Kita tiba-tiba berfikir sampai ke situ, atau membuka fikiran kita hingga seluas itu, sedangkan selama ratusan tahu lalu di bawah undang-undang jenayah biasa kita tidak pernah pun berfikiran demikian? Kenapa kini ketika memikirkan hukum hudud maka fikiran kita tiba-tiba menjadi kreatif dan meneroka makna mencuri itu hingga sedemikian?

Apakah kerana hukum Islam itu dikatakan pada asasnya bertujuan untuk keadilan, makanya kita pun berfikir dalam perspektif mencari keadilan? Kalau benarlah demikian alangkah bagusnya, kerana itu menunjukkan pembicara hudud yang sebahagiannya terdiri daripada orang bukan Islam itu menerima asas prinsip hukum Islam adalah berasaskan tujuan untuk keadilan.

Secara tidak disedari kita dapati proses pemahaman atau persefahaman bersama antara rakyat Malaysia yang pelbagai agama dan budaya itu sedang berlangsung. Inilah perspektif budaya yang saya maksudkan. Kita melihat perkembangan polemik hudud yang sedang berlangsung itu bebas daripada sentimen dan pengaruh politik.

Memanglah polemik itu pada asalnya dicetuskan oleh suatu tindakan politik, atau cita-cita dan tekad politik (yang di suatu pihak itu bertunjangkan agama). Tetapi perkembangannya hari ini sudah melampaui perbatasan politik dan agama.

Saya pernah timbulkan persoalan nilai kemanusiaan pada denda potong tangan yang kebanyakan orang hari ini menganggapnya sebagai ketinggalan zaman dan bersifat kuno dan barbaric, (maka Dr Mahathir pun menyindir: akan kudunglah tangan-tangan orang Islam); sedangkan doktrin Islam menegaskan ajaran Islam, termasuk hukum-hukumnya, adalah sesuai untuk sepanjang zaman.

Persoalan itu dijelaskan dengan baik sekali oleh seorang pengamal undang-undang Mohamed Hanipa Maidin – tidak semestinya yang lama itu tidak baik dan yang baru itu lebih baik. Beliau mengemukakan hujahnya dengan bukti-bukti daripada apa yang berlaku dalam dunia perundangan dan kehakiman hari ini.

Memang hujahnya ada, tetapi bukan itu yang saya pertikaikan. Saya menyatakan persepsi orang ramai dan berdasarkan fahaman awam terhadap nilai ketamadunan moden hari ini, maka denda seperti potong tangan itu dianggap kuno dan barbaric. Itu terjadi akibat kegagalan umat Islam mempertahankan kedudukan mereka sebagai pemimpin tamadun dunia sebelum kebangkitan Eropah pada abad ke-17.

Hari ini nilai baik daripada denda potong tangan itu sudah tidak mahu diterima lagi oleh orang moden. Maka bagaimana dan apakah yang seharusnya dilakukan oleh orang Islam (dan parti serta kerajaan Islam) bagi mengembalikan nilai baik tersebut? Suatu jenis kempen secara lembut dan berseni perlulah dilakukan.

Misalnya saya teringat pada sebuah filem Iran terbitan 2001, Kandahar, karya dan arahan Mohsen Makhmalbaf, yang bercerita mengenai masyarakat Afghanistan yang ramai kehilangan kaki akibat peperangan. Bukan cerita pokoknya, tetapi menjadi sebahagian latar masyarakatnya. Maka kaki palsu menjadi barang yang sangat diperlukan oleh masyarakat miskin itu.

Akibat peperangan! Ramai orang kehilangan kaki. Yang mati di Iraq, Beirut dan Palestin jangan dikira, terlalu banyak. Juga yang cacat dan cedera. Akibat perang. Sejenis perbuatan yang masih terus dilakukan dalam tamadun manusia terkini, dipelopori oleh Amerika dan Eropah (yang bukan Islam itu).

Tetapi kenapa kita tidak berkempen menentang perang seperti kita berkempen menentang hudud hari ini? Kenapa perang tidak dicemuh sebagai aksi yang kuno, primitif dan barbaric? – 4 Jun, 2014.

Read More

Hudud? Read this and think.

Related topics: Blasphemy, Apostasy, Law

Do you think Hudood (Hudud) is necessary to be a fair and just law? You should read this and think first:

Lies & Distortions by the Media about Hudood Ordinance (of Pakistan) http://jsmawais.googlepages.com/Booklet.pdf

Sharia Justice? Sultan of Brunei's Playboy Prince Brother 'Kept Mistress as Adulterers Face Death by Stoning'
By Ludovica Iaccino (7 May 2014)
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sharia-justice-sultan-bruneis-playboy-prince-brother-kept-mistress-adulterers-face-death-by-1447528

Jillian Lauren claims she was the mistress
of Prince Jefri, brother of the Sultan
of Brunei - Facebook

An American Jewish woman has claimed she was hired to be the mistress of Prince Jefri Bolkiah, the playboy brother of the Sultan of Brunei.

Her revelation came just days after Brunei implemented sharia law, which allows residents to be stoned to death for "transgressions" such as homosexuality and adultery.

In her book Some Girls: My Life in a Harem, Jillian Lauren, 36, explained how she was picked to be Jefri's mistress.

Before turning 17, Lauren had dropped out of school to become a stripper. During her career, she was offered $20,000 (£11,785) to perform for a Singaporean businessman.

She soon understood that the man she had to entertain was not a Singaporean, but the Brunei prince.

"[The job] was an invitation to be the personal guest of the notorious playboy prince Jefri Bolkiah, the youngest brother of the Sultan of Brunei," Lauren told the Daily Beast.

"The prince threw lavish parties every night. At these parties there was drinking (which was not legal in public), dancing, some fairly hilarious karaoke, and, most important, women—about 30 or 40 beauties from all over the world, comprising a harem of sorts.

"I spent the next year and some change as his girlfriend."

Sharia law, also known as Islami Qaqun, is the moral code and religious law and is the bedrock of the legal system in several Islamic countries.

Under sharia, sexual intercourse is only allowed between husband and wife. Any form of sex outside wedlock is considered a crime and punishable by death.

Lauren, who has returned to her hometown, suggested that the prince and sultan might not be willing to observe the laws they have implemented.

"It is the privilege of the prince and the sultan to misbehave," she said. "As the citizens of Brunei face the erosion of their rights, I imagine the man I once knew, holed up in a posh hotel suite somewhere, maybe with another American teenager in his lap, making laws that legislate morality."

The introduction of sharia law in Brunei has sparked international outrage.

Many NGOs have repeatedly urged the sultan to withdraw the new rigid penal code, seen as a limitation of freedom and basic human rights.

Many people, including celebrities, are boycotting hotels owned by the oil-rich state's monarch in protest.

Consider to read:
http://nypost.com/2014/05/10/inside-the-wacky-sex-obsessed-world-of-brunei/

Brunei: When Sharia serves the sultan and US media

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/brunei-sharia-law-at-what-cost-2014528134130788926.html

The Sultan of Brunei Hassanal Bolkiah recently announced the adoption of a penal code based on Sharia [EPA]

On May 1, the Sultanate of Brunei introduced the first of three phases in its adoption of a penal code based on Islamic law, or Sharia. The move brought with it a flurry of international outcry, condemnation and moral indignation in the United States. The outrage over the adoption of a Sharia-based penal code, however, has outweighed any actual understanding of not only Sharia, but also of the Sultan of Brunei's calculated political move.

Condemnations have focused, in particular, on the application of the death penalty by stoning for offences such as blasphemy and illicit sex acts such as sodomy, rape and extra-marital sex; whipping and amputations for "less serious crimes". According to the United Nations, Brunei's adoption of the penal code violates international law as "stoning people to death constitutes torture or other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment and is thus clearly prohibited". Amnesty International also warned that the move threatened to send the country back to the "dark ages".

Selective outrage


In keeping with a tradition of selective and uninformed outrage, US media outlets, celebrities and some lawmakers have been at the forefront of public condemnation of Brunei's new penal code.

US headlines boasted of Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah's own Sharia non-compliancy and "wacky sex obsession"; admonished the silence of the US government; and called into question Brunei's financial connection to the Clinton Foundation.

Hollywood, too, was unable to resist expressing outrage as it rushed to boycott the Beverly Hills Hotel, owned by the Sultan's Brunei Investment Agency. The boycott, which cost the agency over $1.5m in cancelled bookings, has been led by the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy organisation in the US.

Framing Brunei's new Sharia system in terms of "anti-gay" and "anti-women" legislation, as it has been in US coverage and protests, obscures the actual motivations behind the Sultanate's decision and nourishes the tired trope of "those crazy Muslims", an angle which the US media has an all-too comfortable relationship with.

Critical engagement with this story has been near non-existent, save an attempt in a PolicyMic article by Scott Long in which he questions the motives of US protests against the Sultanate's adoption of Sharia: "Why are gay bloggers, Tweeters and groups like Human Rights Campaign hyping this as an 'anti-gay' law? Obviously, because they haven't talked to anybody in Brunei … [and] consulted feminist groups in South and Southeast Asia who could clue them in on the impact of these laws … They're interested in publicity and the satisfaction of speaking their minds."

The domestic context within the US is central to how this story has been covered. There is an increasing popular and political support for same-sex marriage and LGBTQ rights in the country, with 30 states currently embroiled in legal debates over the status of same-sex marriage. During the past year and a half, there have also been a number of anti-Sharia bills introduced and passed in several states, with the most recent bill being passed in the Florida state senate on April 28.

Thus, Sharia is scary; LGBTQ rights are trendy. Scary Islam stories that tap into current and ever-present ideological moods and sensitivities generate visceral reactions that in turn bring in clicks and traffic.

Brunei's economic downturn


In the midst of the noise from all this outcry, US media outlets have hardly troubled themselves with asking why the playboy sultan is suddenly interested in bringing in a penal code that should (at least in theory) indict him before anyone else. It is interesting to note that the release of the latest economic performance figures for his country coincided with Sultan Bolkiah's original announcement of bringing in Sharia.





The 2013-2014 Global Competitiveness Report from the World Economic Forum revealed that for the first time in its recent history, the most problematic factor for doing business in Brunei is now access to financing.

According to a report released in February by The Brunei Times, crude oil exports, fell 34 percent in one year. This had an immense effect on total exports, which decreased by 11.8 percent.

More striking drops came from miscellaneous manufactured articles and chemical exports, which fell by a whopping 53.8 and 98.3 percent, respectively. In contrast, chemical imports increased by 18.8 percent, transport rose 31.5 percent, and imports of manufactured articles went up by 39.2 percent. Brunei's total trade between 2012 and 2013 has declined by 8.4 percent. In a single year, Brunei went through quite a dramatic economic downturn.

Although officials insist that Brunei's economic decline is only short-term in nature, the population has felt its effect. Concern for increased crime has prompted some to welcome the implementation of the Sharia penal code. Of course, neither the economic decline nor the crimes punishable by the newly introduced penal code have an effect on the royals, who live an extremely lavish lifestyle that includes the keeping of mistresses.

Sharia as a means of control?


In giving an overall evaluation of what the Sharia is about, the 14th century scholar Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya stated that: "The essence and basis of Sharia is wisdom and benefits for people in this world and the next. It is all justice, all mercy, all benefits, and all wisdom. Every application that goes from justice to oppression, from mercy to its opposite, from benefit to harm, and from wisdom to frivolity then it is not from Sharia - even if [someone] tries to interpret it as such."

If we consider the motives of the sultan for introducing Sharia in Brunei, in light of what Ibn Qayyim says what Sharia is about, we can safely conclude that the sultan is joining the ranks of governments in the Muslim world who manipulate Islam to suit their own political purposes.

In an earlier address answering the negative reactions to the introduction of what he calls Sharia's legal code, the sultan commented on what he feels are "abuses" of mass communication media, including Internet blogs and WhatsApp. There seems to be a strong sense of concern for political unrest triggered by "certain parties" who may be "provoking the people" and "wish to see internal strife or to instigate conflict and do not respect their leader or government".

In contrast to what has been communicated through US media about the sultan introducing Sharia to target homosexuals or apply extreme punishments for crimes, he actually stated that his motives are political in nature: "[The critics] can no longer be given the liberty to continue with their mockery, and if there is a basis for them to be brought to court, the first phase of the [Sharia] (criminal) law this coming April will be relevant to them."

Any further talk of religion is superfluous at this point. Focusing the discussion on Brunei's move to adopt Sharia penal code, which more importantly relies on mischaracterisations of Sharia, is dishonest framing. It encourages knee-jerk reactionary protests that pick and choose their causes for alarm. Both the sultan and US media are exploiting Sharia for their own purposes. Meanwhile, the people of Brunei who are in the middle and ignored, will face the real possibility of the oncoming oppression.

Prince Jefri at his London home in Regents Park in 2006.
Photo: Paul Grover

Related topics: Blasphemy, Apostasy, Law

Read More