KEBENCIAN, KEDENGKIAN, KESOMBONGAN DAN
DENDAM KESUMAT MASIH MEWARNAI SEGELINTIR PEMIKIRAN
UMAT ISLAM PASCA PEMBEBASAN DSAI.
Bagi setiap insan terdapat parameter yang menjadi panduan untuk dia berfikir dan bertindak. Seorang athies yang tidak mempercayai kewujudan tuhan, akan bertindak dalam kerangka kefahaman dan kepercayaannya itu. Begitu juga bagi kalangan yang mempercayai kewujudan tuhan, akan berfikir dan bertindak mengikut kehendak dan kepercayaan kepada arahan tuhan. Seorang muslim yang mempercayai kepada Allah sebagai Rabb (Tuhan) yang memiliki alam, mengurus dan mentadbir sewajarnya bertindak mengikut kehendak kepercayaannya itu.
Mutaakhir ini bagaimana pemikiran muslim bila bertembung dengan isu yang melibatkan hukum hakam agama ?. Kedengaran dari suara-suara tertentu yang meresahkan umat Islam, malah mengelirukan serta berlaku pelanggaran pada syariat dan lebih menyedihkan dia menyesatkan orang lain dalam tindakannya itu. Amat malang bagi kita apabila mencampuri kepentingan peribadi dan emosi bila mengungkapkan perkara yang berkaitan dengan hukum agama. Tidakkah pelik seorang yang bergelar muslim yang sepatutnya menuruti ajaran agama lantas bersedia untuk mengenepikan hukum bila berhadapan dengan isu-isu tertentu. Seharusnya agamalah yang meluruskan emosi dan peribadi seorang muslim itu.Rujukan kes yang ingin saya utarakan adalah berkaitan dengan fitnah liwat yang melibatkan DSAI. Bukan sekadar memberikan maklumbalas kepada keputusan mahkamah yang telah membersihkan DSAI daripada salahlaku tersebut. Tetapi bagaimana seorang muslim seharusnya berfikir dalam kerangka orang yang beragama dan yang memiliki Tuhan. Apa maknanya agama jika ia bukan untuk diamalkan dan dituruti jalannya.Pasca keputusan diterima oleh orang kebanyakan, terutamanya penyokong PR dengan gembira, kesyukuran dan sebahagian dari episod kemenangan dalam perjuangan. Namun bagi orang yang membawa emosi dan peribadi sukar untuk menerima keputusan tersebut, lantas mengeluarkan kenyataan yang jelas melampaui batas-batas hukum dan syariat yang dianutinya. Kepercayaan bahawa berlaku peristiwa liwat tersebut kekal dalam minda mereka , kerana dendam kesumat, kebencian yang sukar dinyatakan serta kesombongan diri dan dikelirukan dengan fakta palsu.Tidak ada asas langsung untuk kelompok ini menjustifikasikan liwat telah berlaku. Pertama dari sisi agama, jelas amat rapuh, tidak ‘valid’, bertentangan dengan kaedah mensabitkan perbuatan liwat. Malah membuat tuduhan tanpa bukti yang dipinta oleh syarak patut dikenakan hukuman qazaf. Kedua, bukti di mahkamah yang cuba dimanipulasi dengan pelbagai cara dan kaedah saintifik juga ditolak. Apa lagi hujah kalau ia bukan suatu kesombongan, kebencian dan kedengkian serta dendam kesumat untuk melakukan apa sahaja, walaupun ia bertentangan dengan agama sendiri.Saya cuba untuk membawa pemikiran pembaca untuk melihat dari sisi agama, dengan mengenepikan sentimen kepartaian dan ketaasuban. Jauh sekali untuk memaksumkan insan yang bernama Anwar Ibrahim. Kerana apabila ia melibatkan soal hukum hakam syariat, sewajibnya seorang muslim itu mengutamakan agama lebih dari segalanya. Perkara ini saya tegaskan berkali-kali dalam pertemuan, kuliah atau berbicara dengan sahabat-sahabat supaya jangan kita terlajak untuk menghukum seseorang dengan hukuman yang melibatkan syariat Allah. Termasuk kepada musuh-musuh dalam politik kepartaian. Tidak ada sebab juga untuk kita membalas serangan dan tuduhan sebagaimana kita menerima tohmahan dan fitnah dari musuh politik.
Sering saya ingatkan sahabat-sahabat, supaya menjaga lidah daripada membuat tuduhan zina atau liwat kepada musuh politik kita, kerana kita tidak ada asas dari sudut agama untuk menjustifikasikan tuduhan. Maklumat yang berupa “hear say” tidak membenarkan kita untuk membuat tuduhan yang melibatkan hukum syariat. Serangan kepada musuh politik juga mesti dipelihara adap dan batasan agama, supaya kita tidak melanggar tanpa alasan yang syarie. Kerana menuduh seorang muslim baik lelaki atau wanita yang terkenal suci melakukan zina dan liwat amat berat disisi agama.Kesimpulan dari topik perbincangan ini, saya ingin mengajak semua muslimin dan muslimat untuk kembali ke jalan yang telah ditetapkan syariat. Sekiranya begitu kehendak syariat maka begitulah kata kita. Walaupun di hadapan kita ada musuh yang sepatutnya diganyang semahunya, namun syariat tidak membenarkan, maka patuhilah syariat. Bersifat tawaduk dan menghormati syariat mengatasi segala-galanya mudah-mudahan hidup kita penuh keberkatan dan mendapat keredhoan illahi.
Disediakan oleh :
Ahmad bin Kasim,
Pengerusi Biro Pemahaman dan Pemantapan Agama (PKR)
Ahli Parlimen Kawasan Kuala Kedah.
Daim and Aziz: latest victims
Mystery illness strikes Anwar trial
|A mystery illness struck the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trial this month, causing key witnesses to suffer severe psychological problems that prevent them from testifying in court. According to a medical doctor who refused to be named, the medical term for the condition is “Trialtestiphobia” and causes sufferers to experience “an intense, consuming and persistent fear of appearing in court to testify at the Anwar Ibrahim trial”The first to suffer from the strange ailment was Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who successfully avoided making a court appearance last month. The latest to fall victim to the disease were Finance Minister Daim Zainuddin and Deputy Education Minister Abdul Aziz Shamsuddin, who this month applied to set aside subpoenas served on them to testify at the trial.”This phobic anxiety causes the victims physiological symptoms such as a rapid, pounding heartbeat, stomach disorders, nausea, diarrhea, frequent urination, choking feelings, flushing of the face, perspiration, tremulousness, and faintness,” the doctor explained. “They should avoid strenuous activities such as horse riding.”
He added that sufferers are also unable to confront their fears and avoid the situation or object that causes the fear. They walk around in a daze, mumbling repeatedly “I am in no position to give any relevant or material evidence or personal knowledge of any person or persons planning to end the political career of Anwar Ibrahim.”
2. Despite the efforts of the learned judges there are still huge backlogs of cases of all kinds, civil and criminal, which probably will never be heard, much less adjudged. This is because the hearings take such a long time that the parties to the cases would have forgotten the facts or they would have died.
3. And, as they say, “justice delayed is justice denied”.
4. The litigations by politicians may be justified. But politicians must accept that as politicians they would be bad-mouthed by their opponents. It is up to them to counter the allegations made. They should not always be suing in court.
Accusation is the easy exit route for UMNO. Introspection will take us back to the beginning. Betrayal is impossible without trust. We did not trust to be honest. We trusted our political class, and it continues to search for new and inventive ways to betray us again. Datuk V.K. Lingam’s former secretary, G. Jayanti, exposed … Read more DID DATUK V.K. LINGAM WROTE AN ENTIRE LEGAL JUDGMENT THEN LEAK IT TO DATO’ MOHD.ARIFF SABRI BIN HJ. ABDUL TUN DAIM ZAINUDDIN’S HITMAN
5. For Muslims they should be willing to swear properly that there is no truth to the allegations.
6. Often the litigation is intended to shut the mouths of their opponents. In Malaysia when a case is being heard in a court, it becomes sub-judice and comments outside can constitute “contempt of court”. By suing the matter becomes sub-judice and the opponents’ mouths would be shut. Through repeated appeals the case can be prolonged and the defendants’ mouths would remain shut to the advantage of the litigant for years.
you have not see what this two most powerful department can do…or d entire Govn Departments. They are the Law In This Country…its up to their interpretation,is white and they can say is black…what can we Rakyat do ? The only thing that we can do is change this Govn … Read more WHY AREN’T MUSA HASSAN AND GANI PATAIL IN JAIL WHEN SODOMY1 IS NOT SODOMY2?
7. For the person sued, much money would have to be spent on lawyers. For years he would be assailed with anxiety that he might be found guilty and if he is unable to pay he may be bankrupted.
8. Yet when the defendant wins, the litigant may need to pay cost only, which the court will fix. Often the amount would be a minute fraction of the amount he is sued for.
9. Because the cost to the litigant is so very little, the tendency is to sue for millions. This is grossly unfair to the defendants. If the law is intended to promote justice then the litigant should also suffer from the same anxieties for the length of time of the hearing and if his allegation is baseless he should pay his victim the same amount he sued for.
10. Then there would be justice and frivolous cases would not be brought before the courts. The judges would then have time for their other cases.
11. Incidentally I was sued for 100 million Ringgit. When after almost five years I won, I was awarded cost at 70 thousand Ringgit, which of course go to my lawyers
On Oct 20, 2009, the Court of Appeal threw out an appeal by Anwar because the memorandum of appeal was not in Bahasa Malaysia.Last year, the Federal Court had dismissed the point of law raised by Anwar’s lead counsel Karpal Singh in his leave application to appeal over his RM100mil defamation suit against Dr Mahathir. The point of law raised was whether the grounds of judgments which were written in English, are invalid.
A plaintiff’s lawyer writes the judicial decision against a reporter in a defamation suit
In an astonishing display of the corruption of Malaysia’s legal system, a legal secretary testified Tuesday that a plaintiff’s lawyer in 1994 wrote an entire judgment to be read by a presiding judge who awarded RM10 million in defamation damages to a crony of former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad against a journalist and six other defendants.
The story revolves around V K Lingam, one of Malaysia’s best-connected lawyers, who in September 2006 became the star player in a continuing legal scandal when a videotape was made public of a telephone conversation he was having with Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, then the country’s third-ranking judge, who was in charge of the appointment of most senior judges. The videotape appeared to show that some of Mahathir’s closest associates, particularly gaming tycoon Vincent Tan, were involved in the appointments of politically malleable judges.
Tuesday, a royal commission appointed to probe the allegations was told by G. Jayanthi, then a legal secretary to Lingam, that Lingam had written the judgment for the controversial case, in which Vincent Tan was awarded MR10 million in damages over four articles written about him in the now-defunct Malaysian Industry magazine. The judgment was transferred to a computer disk and delivered to High Court Judge Mokhtar Sidin, who read it in court. In the offending articles, Pillai, who faced RM2 million in damages, wrote that Tan was using his own newspaper to favor his business interests.
The hearing was adjourned yesterday until Friday to hear applications to disqualify commissioners Mahadev Shankar and Khoo Kay Kim.
Mokhtar presided over the 1994 defamation case, in which Tan was also awarded legal fees and 8 percent annual interest on the total damages until they were fully paid. Pillai has since died. In 2000, he told theInternational Herald Tribune, “In my 40 years as a journalist I have not earned 2 million ringgit. They are welcome to take the money I don’t have.”
The record damages set a standard for subsequent defamation cases, in which Malaysian business and political figures have used libel suits as a bludgeon to limit critical reporting.
It is not the first time the charge has been made against Lingam. Raphael Pura, a correspondent for the Asian Wall Street Journal who himself was sued by Lingam, made the same charge in 1999, alleging that the judgment, by Mokhtar, “written in part by the plaintiff’s counsel, Datuk V.K. Lingam” was typed by “Lingam’s secretaries one Jayanthi and Sumanthi.”
The leader of the panel looking into the charges against Lingam is Haidar Mohd Noor, a former chief judge. Haidar ruled in 2000 against allowing Pura’s allegations against Lingam into evidence. In the current series of events, he allowed Jayanthi’s testimony to be admitted into the record.
That has raised suspicions that the commission is actually allowing into evidence mostly information that would reflect badly on former Prime Minister Mahathir. Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, who made the original videotape public in September, charged in a press conference in Hong Kong Wednesday that the government of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is seeking to neutralize Mahathir in advance of elections which have been called for March 13. Mahaathir has called for Abdullah Badawi to step down as prime minister to be replaced by Najib Tun Razak.
“I don’t think anyone seriously expects anything to happen in this commission,” Anwar said. “I only think it is meant to put Dr Mahathir in check.”
Certainly prior to the current round of hearings, the tendency in Malaysia’s government-controlled press has been to play down allegations of wrongdoing in the judiciary. The panel itself is regarded as having little power and little inclination to use what it does have. Despite repeated requests to testify, Anwar has been ignored. At one point, the panel threatened to arrest Anwar if he didn’t come up with the name of the anonymous person who had videotaped the conversation between Lingam and Ahmad Fairuz.
Jayanthi, 45, also testified to the commission Tuesday that she had been given money by Lingam to deliver to other judges. In the case involving Pillai, she said that at some time between November and early December 1994, she and two other secretaries had been asked to do some “confidential typing,” which turned out to be the judgment in Tan’s favor.
“I soon discovered that this (confidential typing) was about preparing and typing the judgment in relation to civil suit number S5-23-23-94 between Tan Sri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun vs Hassan Hamzah, Soh Eng Lim, MGG Pillai and four others,” Jayanti testified in a written statement. “Datuk Lingam was dictating from some handwritten notes the draft judgment for Sumanti to type. “Every now and then, he would order me to get various reported cases in the library to be incorporated in the judgment. He completed dictating the full judgment at about 3am.”
In 2000, the case took on additional controversy when the appeal by Pillai was denied by a three-judge Supreme Court panel headed by then-chief justice Eusoff Chin after Chin came under public scrutiny for spending part of his overseas vacation in New Zealand with V K Lingam after he had argued the case.
Lingam later denied allegations that the New Zealand holiday had been paid for by Lingam, and that they had merely met on the flight. Nonetheless, in 2000, Eusoff was criticized by a government minister charged with legal affairs for behavior “”not in keeping with the proper behavior of a judicial personality.”
In her statement, most of which was written, Jayanthi said that that Lingam was assisted by his brother, another lawyer and the former head of Malaysia’s Industrial Court. She told the court that she had given her handwritten corrections of the draft judgment along with the judgment itself to her lawyer, Muhammad Shafee Abdullah.
Jayanthi worked with Lingam for 13 months before resigning, she said, after being accused of stealing 1 million of Lingam’s shares in Berjaya Group. Although the shares were later found and she was asked to come back, she refused, she told the panel.
Lingam, she said, “corrected the draft judgment in red ink on certain pages. Sumanti then did the corrections accordingly and made a copy of the draft judgment in a floppy disk which was to be given by Datuk Lingam to Justice Datuk Mokhtar Sidin. I later discovered that the judgment as was written by Lingam was fully incorporated as the official judgment of the said judge.”
The charges by Jayanthi are the latest in a series of commission hearings that at times have threatened to envelop the entire judiciary in allegations of deceit, corruption and factionalism, with the would-be reformers of the Malaysian Bar Association coming under fire as well for asking Lingam for help in securing appointments. Lingam at one point accused Robert Lazar, a lawyer representing the Malaysia Bar Council, of seeking Lingam’s help to become an appellate court judge, bypassing the lower courts. Lazar denied the charge.
In one tape made public by the commission, Dzaiddin Abdullah, who served as chief justice between 2000 and 2003, was implicated for accepting gifts and payments from Lingam. In addition, as an example of the factionalism in the court, Dzaiddin was asked to explain yet another videotape, in which Lingam claimed that he hated his predecessor, Eusoff Chin, and that Chin had blocked his chances to become a candidate for state honors.