Umno Johor wants the Sharia law and not democracy in Malaysia

Chua Soi Lek himself is a peerless hypocrite. For someone who riles against “promiscuity, adultery, homosexuality, alcohol, gambling”  – he spent his student days in a haze of cannabis, alcohol and pornography. And, from accounts narrated by his friends in his formative years DR,CHUA  had a sexually promiscuous life, with a particular fondness for young malay  girls.



Yet, voices like chua highlight the danger posed to civil discourses by the lunatic fringe, which is slowly gaining traction and provoking a backlash in the mainstream. The failure of multiculturalism in  Malaysia has given rise to fears of a “MCAISTAN” and a “creeping Islamisation” of civil society, which have found expression in the backlash against the full-face Islamic veil in France and elsewhere.

In 2008, the Archbishop of Canterbury acknowledged glowingly that UK society and law already recognised certain provisions of the Sharia law, which provoked an outcry in Britain. (Of course, even that wasn’t enough for Choudary, who said Sharia law had to be “adopted wholesale”.)

Umno’s Kemelah state assemblyperson Ayub Rahmat has proposed that hudud law be implemented in Johor for all races. UMNO imbecile to lure MCA,MIC and GERAKAN a to engage in one-upmanship to this proposal. By dabbling in this form of gross reverse psychology, UMNO hopes to bait MCA,MIC and GERAKAN thereby turning the nascent Muslim voters against MCA . Although knowing this proposal will not see daylight, it mirrors the exasperation and angst of UMNO which is anticipating cracks to appear in their Fortress Johor come GE13. Conversely, it is meant to attract those fence-sitting Muslim voters from attaching themselves time around. It will be interesting to hear MCA’s reaction as Johor is also the MCA’s last bastion. So PAS and Pakatan should stay clear of this quicksand. The non-Muslims are happy with the just and corruption-free administration in Kelantan. Just let this demented fellow bark up the wrong tree as much as he wants and lose more BN votes in the wonder if the pornstar has anything to comment about this proposal from ayeh rahman. The pornstar is only good at challenging dap each time when pas talk about hudud law. What have your got to say mr pornstar?

chua soiled Dick, what did you challenge DAP to do wrt to pAS polices? now answer where you stand on this or we vote you out of parliamant. all chinese will ensure that.Chua Soi Lek, what have you got to say? This hudud law is going to apply to non-Muslm as well? But, Kelantan , only for Muslims.As least PAS is more realistic and understands that islam cannot be forced on non believers. This shows that UMNO is a fanatic party and is now trying to use the Hudud law to trap PAS. PAS should be careful and insist that Hudud that if ever implemented should only be applicable to muslims. What UMNO is proposing is rediculous and is going backward 500 years where non muslims were forced to convert or die.

If Malaysians had love for the peace and prosperity of the country , they would have forgiven the perpetrator of injustice and corruption and help to establish a clean, fair and efficient government. But if they still think they are Malays, Chinese or Indians and Others , then they are the cause of the suffering to the Malaysians and deserves the suffering themselves. The same blame applies to the religious supremacists who thinks God is with them. Umno and the Malays at large are to be blamed squarely. They drooled and snickered arrogantly and reaped the harvest unashamedly. There is no mistake on the prime suspect – all Malays and muslims.

The Rulers too, for they never spoke out against the excesses. The non Malays bent over backwards to accommodate Malay aspirations, but it was to no avail, no matter what they agreed to. The MCA, MIC and the east Malaysian parties are to be partially blamed too for they too, like the Rulers did not speak up. But we have already punished them and will continue to do so. Today a larger share of the blame goes to the Ibans and Kadazans. Why don’t we get rid of these bastards! The Penang Chinese too are bastards as I said, they who supported the biggest frog Lim Chong Eu for 30 years. Chinese are proven frogs. Why don’t we isolate the bastards on the island and cut off water supply from the mainland? Now why are the Malay not thinking ingeniously?
The conservative Center for Security Policy recently issued a warning that Sharia law was being implemented in American courts. Its spokesperson said that Islamic religious demands are arriving mostly through rulings involving cases where foreigners are the principals and he commented that “Sharia enters U.S. courts through the practice of comity to foreign law.”

I shall discuss comity in a moment, but first let me share with you the reaction to this assertion regarding Sharia law. The wonder of the Internet is that it allows reader reaction. There were 237 postings the day that I received this email. Here are some examples: any judge within the United States who invokes the use of any foreign laws should be locked up for treason; wake the hell up America; not only is Sharia not the law of the United States of America, it is the law of the Devil and against the law of God; and my favorite, sent in capital letters — ELIMINATE ALL MUSLIMS THAT ARE FORCING ISLAMIC LAWS AND THEIR DEATH CULT RELIGION.

This hysteria is fueled by conservative politicians. Newt Gingrich has called for a federal law outlawing Sharia law, declaring, “Sharia law is a moral threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it.” Such a law has been proposed in the House of Representatives (H.R. 973). The Tennessee General Assembly recently passed a law that states that Sharia promotes “the destruction of the national existence of the United States.” More than a dozen other states are considering a similar law.

Now it’s time to discuss the concept of comity to foreign law. The United States has no bilateral treaty, nor is it a signatory to any international convention that requires our courts to recognize or enforce foreign judgments or laws. However, an American court can enforce a foreign judgment if it feels that it is compatible with American standards of fairness and procedural legitimacy. An example: An Israeli couple living in America can enforce a divorce decree from a religious court in Israel based on Jewish law or a Saudi couple can enforce a divorce decree from a religious court in Saudi Arabia based on Sharia law — if, and this is a most important if, the court decides that either divorce decree is reasonable based on American legal standards.

Another way that Sharia law legitimately can be implemented in American courts is through the use of arbitration. Arbitration is often used in business disputes to avoid expensive and time-consuming court litigation. Both parties agree to be bound by the arbitrator’s decision and such decisions can be enforced by a court of law. Two Muslims can decide to use a court that applies Sharia business standards and its decision would be enforceable under the American legal system. There is nothing sinister here. It’s their business dispute and it’s their American right to decide it as they wish.

I am compelled to share with you a piece written on the blog TPM (Talking Points Memo) by Josh Marshall: “In our investigation into the growth of Sharia Law in the USA we came across some surprising findings. Numerous American cities now have one or more Muslim religious courts in operation where believers go to adjudicate family law disputes, real estate transactions and various other matters according to Sharia law by binding arbitration. These religious court verdicts can then be enforced by civilian American courts. Various states have also passed laws to codify Muslim dietary laws, though a few of these laws have been struck down. And numerous national corporations now process foods to suit Muslim dietary standards. Finally, one jurisdiction in New York has been settled entirely by devout Muslims: no candidates run for office except those approved by the local imam; road signs in the town are all printed in both English and Arabic; and various local practices have been brought into line with Sharia.

“Actually, there’s one detail I didn’t mention. The law here isn’t Sharia; it’s Halakhah, Jewish religious law. And all of the above are true if you change ‘Muslim’ to ‘Jewish’ and ‘Arabic’ to ‘Hebrew.’ (Actually, Yiddish written in the Hebrew script, to be specific.)”

Marshall then comments: “All true. And yet I think it’s a pretty good example of the fact that the kinds of things (with Muslims) that are supposed to make us run around with our hair on fire, are already happening and have been for decades with Jews and no one seems to care because, frankly, why should they?”

The American Muslim community is predominantly middle class, eschews terrorism and votes Democratic. (Maybe that’s the reason the Republican conservatives target it) A recent poll by the highly respected Pew Research Center shows that Muslims exhibit the highest level of integration among major American religious groups, expressing greater degrees of tolerance toward people of other faiths than do Protestants, Catholics or Jews. It also indicated that nearly 80 percent of American Muslims rate their communities a good place to live, despite the existence of anti-Islamic rhetoric. This highlights the absurdity of anti-Sharia law agitation.
Not only do we do an injustice to American Muslims, but we do harm to America. The Yale historian Eliyahu Stern has written: “In the 20th century we thrived by promoting a Judaic-Christian ethic, respecting differences and accentuating commonalities among Jews, Catholics and Protestants. Today, we need an Abrahamic ethic that welcomes Islam into the religious tapestry of American life. Anti-Sharia legislation fosters a hostile environment that will stymie the growth of America’s tolerant strand of Islam. The continuation of America’s pluralistic religious tradition depends on the ability to distinguish between punishing groups that support terror and blaming terrorist activities on a faith that represents roughly a quarter of the world’s population.”
In less academic and more visceral terms this sentiment was expressed by a local Muslim, as reported by the Sun Sentinel, in response to Congressman Alan West’s attack on Islam: “It’s sleazy politics to whip up fear of Muslims. It’s a dirty, sleazy tactic to attack a religion.”

Since I am writing in a Jewish newspaper, I cannot conclude without mentioning a recent study by the Center for American Progress which shows that seven foundations have spent more than $40 million in the last 10 years to spread misinformation about Muslim Americans. The Forward editorially commented, “And who leads those efforts? Far too many Jews.” It goes on to name Pamela Geller, David Yerushalmi, Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson, who even criticized President George W. Bush and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for being soft on Muslims.

Neocon Jews, a small percentage of our community, bring disgrace upon our liberal Jewish traditions, and they do so under the misguided belief that by denigrating Islam they somehow support Israel. And yet these people are invited to speak in synagogues (primarily Orthodox) and at Jewish Federation functions and are accorded respect. They should be labeled what they actually are: Hate mongers. There is no place in Judaism for that.

A leading barrister has called for the UK to become more sharia-literate, while arguing that Islamic law can be compatible with the toughest human rights legislation.
Sadakat Kadri told the Guardian that so-called “sharia courts”, such as the Muslim arbitration tribunal, were good for “the community as a whole” by putting Sharia on a transparent, public footing and should be more widely accessible to those who want to use them.
Kadri said they played a role in safeguarding human rights: “It’s very important that they be acknowledged and allowed to exist. So long as they’re voluntary, which is crucial, it’s in everyone’s interests these things be transparent and publicly accessible. If you don’t have open tribunals, they’re going to happen anyway, but behind closed doors.”

 

In 2008, Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury, sparked controversy when he appeared to suggest that sharia law should be more widely adopted.
In fact, under the Arbitration Act 1996, the rulings of religious bodies, including the Muslim arbitration tribunal, already have legal force in disputes involving matters such as inheritance and divorce.
Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, has long opposed the use of sharia in the UK, and argued the rule of law “must not be compromised by the introduction of a theocratic legal system operating in parallel”.
He said: “There can be no convincing case made for it to have even a toe-hold in western societies that have developed a mature and far superior legal system. I regard any legal system based on a theocratic model as being dangerous and innately unjust. There is no escaping the fact – whatever interpretation you put on it — that sharia treats women differently from men”
But Kadri, a barrister and contemporary of Barack Obama at Harvard Law School, stresses the ability of sharia to adapt and change. He sets out the history of sharia in a book, Heaven and Earth, to be published on Friday 20 January. He describes the slow development of sharia law, which many assume to be derived directly from the Qur’an, in the centuries after the death of Muhammad.
“After 7/7,” he said, “people were saying the sharia is all about violence, it’s all about chopping people’s hands off, it’s all about stoning adulterers to death. Others said it’s nothing to do with that, Islam is a religion of peace. Clearly both of those things were true at a certain level, but very early on I just realised no one had a clue what sharia said about this or that.”
Sharia, which means “path” in Arabic, is the name Muslims give to a wide-ranging collection of ethical and legal principles that believers are expected to observe. It includes prohibitions on certain foods and alcohol, as well as the obligation to visit Mecca and give to charity.
“I’m not a theologian,” said Kadri. “But this is my interpretation of Islamic history. There’s a mistaken belief that Islamic law is a vast unchanging body of rules – 1,400 years of Muslim history shows that little could be further from the truth.”
“It’s really important that the Muslim community engage with its actual history, as well as idealised traditions. If that’s to take root, critical engagement with the past among young Muslims will be crucially important.”
Kadri points out that many of the punishments associated in people’s minds with sharia law have only been applied very recently. “I try to show how it’s only really in the last 40 years, since Colonel Gaddafi in Libya, but more especially since the Iranian revolution in 1979 that the idea of enforcing Islamic rules through national laws has come to the fore. Before 1973, it was only Saudi Arabia which actually did that.”
Top five sharia myths
That amputation is a typical punishment for theft in Muslim countries
Of the world’s 50 or so Muslim-majority states, only about half a dozen allow for amputations and at least one of those countries – Pakistan – has never carried out the penalty in practice
That veiling is mandatory under sharia law
Women are simply advised by the Qur’an to wear modest clothing and – like men – to lower their eyes and maintain their chastity
That suicide bombing is permissable under sharia law
Most interpreters of the Qur’an understand it to forbid suicide. The first suicide bombing by Muslims was carried out in 1983 during the Lebanese civil war
Stoning is mentioned in the Qur’an
Stoning is not mentioned as a punishment in the Qur’an. It was institutionalised on the basis of hadiths (reports about Muhammad) which were themselves not written down until more than a century after his death
Capital punishment for apostasy is mentioned by the Qur’an
The Qur’an repeatedly warns believers who abandon their faith that they will have to account to God in the afterlife, but it does not provide for their punishment on earth. Again, it was hadiths that later served to justify the death penalty.
[Rabbi Warshal is the publisher emeritus of the Jewish Journal and the author of “Provocative Columns: A Liberal Rabbi Reflects on Beliefs, Israel and American Politics.” 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s