Islam was revealed as Mercy for all mankind. Hence Syariah, which emanates from the Creator, is unequivocally compassionate even to offenders of Islamic law.
This aspect of Syariah’s beauty is however lost on its “frenzied detractors”, said Isma activists Mohd Luttfi Abdul Khalid and Danial Ariff Shaari in their joint article yesterday.
Airing their views together on Ismaweb, Luttfi and Danial believe these detractors blind to the Syariah’s mercy or rahmah are rife in the ranks of Malaysian liberals, such as those running NGOs like Bebas (Azrul Mohd Khalib and Azira Aziz), Sisters in Islam and the Islamic Renaissance Front.
Opponents of RUU355 are indeed a strange coterie of bedfellows ranging from secularist Azrul to feminist Boo Su-lyn; from strident Siti Kasim to ‘Islamologist’ Farouk A. Peru; from Catholic Teresa Kok to the Protestant Council of Churches of Malaysia (CCM).
“One of the most distinguishing factors [among RUU355’s non-Muslim opponents] is their evangelical Christianity,” the Isma duo added, citing A. Karim Omar – a respected local voice in Islamic activism – as having highlighted how certain DAP national leaders, MPs and Aduns are “staunch evangelists”.
⇓ Azrul snaps wefie with anti-355 gang, including Siti Kasim (the ‘blonde’ bombshell)
Luttfi and Danial see a well-orchestrated public campaign to demonize Syariah in order to block the passage of RUU355.
“The DAP, the liberals and all their collaborators and comrades seem to forget that they have unwittingly exposed their true nature as being dishonest and hypocritical [in trying to derail 355]”, they posited.
DAP likes to posture as the moral compass of our nation while peddling “the illusion of love”.
One of a piece, the evangelical party at the same time portrays an image of Islam to the contrary, that is, of the faith’s devout adherents as “contemptuous of human rights and liberties [as well as] inconsiderate towards the non-Muslims”, said Luttfi and Danial.
The two activists belonging to Isma’s i-Peguam bureau also see the anti-355 Malay collaborators and Muslim comrades, who are affiliated with the well-funded DAP agenda, as already “forfeited and disqualified themselves” from dictating or elucidating on Syariah provisions, prescriptions and punishments.
They explained that Maqasid al Syariah – loosely translated as ‘the Purpose of Legislation’ – is the rationale, wisdom and objectives behind Islamic law.
Its teachings, as has been interpreted by eminent jurists through the ages, serve to protect the ummah in any given time, space and geographical location. Therefore those Muslims today in Malaysia who support the tabling of RUU355 are being “perfectly legal and reasonable” in their demand, Luttfi and Danial stressed.
⇓ Azrul advocates fighting Hate & Racism with Love
Striking while the iron is still lukewarm following their Feb 18 Taman Jaya assembly, the Bebas group – led by Azrul – is now organizing a public debate this Friday (March 17) titled ‘RUU355 should be made into law’.
They had previously organized the anti-RUU 355 gathering in Petaling Jaya to counter the PAS rally held the same day in Padang Merbok, KL.
Last week Azrul was called in by the police to have his statement recorded under the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012.
According to Bebas spokesman Azrul, the aim of Friday night’s debate is to stimulate critical discussion on the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act.
The debate is formatted in four rounds comprising 1) Opening statements, 2) Addressing the other side’s statements, 3) Questions from the public and 4) Closing statements.
Proponents of the motion are Aidil Khalid and Lukman Sheriff Alias while opposing are S. Ambiga and Haris Ibrahim.
Aidil is campaign coordinator with Concerned Lawyers for Justice (CLJ); Lukman is one of the G100 initiators; Ambiga is president of the National Human Rights Society of Malaysia (Hakam) and Haris is founder of Anything But Umno (ABU) and Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM).
All four debaters are trained in law.
⇓ Debate begins at 8pm in PJ Live Arts Studio
Azrul sounds exactly like a Dapster
It looks like Azrul Mohd Khalib is the Malay ‘IDEAS’ person in our country who is most vociferous and vehement against RUU355.
Azrul even declares that this proposed enhancement of syariah will “victimize” the transgressors.
He insists in his interview with news portal Menara that the increased penalties being suggested in the private member’s bill are too heavy and extreme for what amounts to ‘personal’ (or victimless) crimes.
‘Azrul Khalib: Orang Islam tidak bersetuju RUU 355’ — Menara (20 Jan 2017)
He further mentions that hudud is a law only implemented in undemocratic, oppressive and failed states.
Azrul – pix below – points out moreover that the funds used to operate and enforce the syariah system in Malaysia come from non-Muslim taxpayers too.
FACT: The amendments drafted in RUU355 do not create new offences. They merely deal with the threshold of punishments meted out.
Since the upper limit of the proposed punishments are syariah compliant, what is Azrul’s objection – as a good, practising Muslim – to the bill anyway?
FACT: All crimes that are already enacted under Penal Code are not affected in any way.
So what issue does Azrul have with a legal process tabled in parliament and waiting to be voted by MPs in accordance with proper procedure and majority will?
FACT: Presently, the jurisdiction given to Syariah courts is lower than that of second class magistrate in civil courts.
Factoid (i): Criminal jurisdiction in civil courts is subjected to amendment too. For example, section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1953 was amended in 2007 to increase sentences of life imprisonment from 20 to 30 years.
Factoid (ii): The Penal Code has been routinely amended to provide for increase in fines to keep up with rising inflation. For example, Section 160 of the Penal Code was amended in 2006 to increase the maximum fine for the offence of affray from RM200 in 2006 to RM1,000 currently.
RUU355 merely seeks to increase the jurisdiction of the syariah courts by amending Act 355, which was last amended in 1984 — some 32 years ago.
Suggestions for amendments were made and noted in the 18th Syariah and Civil Law Coordination Meeting in 2008 — a decade ago.
Why does Azrul think the current move is a regression?
Why does Azrul only now choose to microscope any perceived impact of the law on non-Muslims? He should first tell us which non-Muslim has ever been put on trial in a Malaysian Syariah Court.
Lastly, why taint Islamic law with his bad blood? If Azrul walks like a Dapster and talks like a Dapster, then many observant Muslims will come around to believing that he is indeed an anti-Islam Dapster.