Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joe on March 27, 2015 at 18:26

The first person to warn me about islam was an old woman in the 1980s.  She'd spent decades in Malaysia, as the wife of a British constitutional lawyer there.  She'd seen islam take over the country, even though muslims were only a minority. The discrimination against non-muslims was overt.  That was obvious to her from the 1950s onwards.

I know a gay socialist pensioner who has retired to Kalantan. He's an oxbridge-educated multi-millionaire.  He won't hear a word of criticism about islam or Malaysia. He uses his wealth to buy favours (such as alcohol).  His homes there are not even owned by him, but by his muslim "servants". I've no doubt on his death, they will inherit them. That is probably why they continue to work for this homosexual whom they no doubt despise.

Here's an article on how sharia law is now the criminal law in Kalantan.  Notice how kuffarphobic it is.

Besides medieval punishments such as crucifixion and stoning, Malaysia would probably have to issue a travel warning for all non-Muslims going to Kelantan if the state enforces its Shariah Criminal Code, or hudud, observed political scientists Dr Wong Chin Huat.

Such a warning would likely require non-Muslims to be accompanied by a minimum of two Muslim males of adult age at all times while in the PAS-led state. This is because if non-Muslims were to be robbed in Kelantan, the code does not allow them to give testimony in court.

This is just one of the impracticalities of enforcing the Kelantan Shariah Criminal Code II 1993 (Amended 2015), which states that only male Muslims who are past puberty can be witnesses and testify in crimes such as robbery and murder involving Muslims in the state.

“If I am robbed in Kelantan by a Muslim and his case goes to Shariah Court and I cannot be my own witness in full competence, how can this be justice?” said Wong.

Such a provision in the code is among several others that make Kelantan PAS’s contentious new law problematic in itself, said Wong, of the think-tank Penang Institute, as well as other analysts and lawyers The Malaysian Insider spoke to.

Wong said the supporters of the Kelantan law are trying to silence non-Muslims by creating the illusion that “legal apartheid” is possible and non-Muslims who comment on the bill are interfering with Muslims affairs.

“The claim that non-Muslims will not be affected is an utter lie. The issues with the enactment are of governance, not of faith. Everyone must have the right to comment,” said Wong, who heads the institute’s political and social research section.

Lawyer Latheefa Koya takes that point one step further, arguing that because the enactment is a creation of PAS’s jurists, it cannot be seen as God’s law and therefore beyond reproach.

The code is supposed to be used on all Muslims in Kelantan, and covers six types of crimes – sariqah (theft), hirabah (assault and robbery), zina (adultery), qazaf (unsubstantiated accusations of zina), shurb (consumption of alcohol) and irtidad (apostasy).

Hudud punishments for these six crimes range from caning, imprisonment, stoning, amputation of hands and feet, execution and crucifixion, and depend on the severity of the crime.

For instance, a robber who threatens harm but who has not injured and not gotten away with someone else’s belongings faces imprisonment for not more than five years.

But a robber who gets away with his victim’s belongings and the victim dies as a result of the crime, can be sentenced to death and crucifixion (dibunuh dan selepas itu disalib).

Besides hudud, the code also provides for qisas (law of retaliation) punishments for offences that lead to death or bodily injury.

The code claims that the punishments for hudud and qisas have been laid down in the Quran and the Sunnah (traditions of the Prophet).

If an offence is not covered under hudud or qisas, it is considered ta’zir (discretionary), and the punishment will be determined by the court of the State Legal Department.

Latheefa refutes PAS's claims that the code’s hudud and qisas punishments are based on Islam’s holy text, the Quran. She outlines several discrepancies between the Quran and the Kelantan Code.

Unlike the PAS enactment, in the holy Quran there is:

• no punishment for apostasy;
   
• no mention at all of stoning;
   
• different requirements for amputation of limbs and crucifixion;
   
• different requirements for witnesses in rape and zina.

“Anything different and outside the Quran must not and cannot be passed as hudud. It is interference with the Quran,” said Latheefa, who is also a PKR central committee member.

That the code can be questioned by both Muslims and non-Muslims cannot be overstated as PAS moves to quell dissent by insisting that all Muslims must support the law.

Its punishments aside, Wong said the fact that religion is used to create laws in the public sphere makes the law open to debate.

And as he pointed out, despite vague assurances from PAS, the enactment does affect non-Muslims.

Not only will non-Muslims be affected, but women, even Muslim women, have cause for concern under Kelantan's hudud code if they are victims or witnesses to a crime.

Section 39 to 42 of the code specifically states that all offences covered under it must be proven by testimonies from the accused and sworn oaths from witnesses.

“There shall always be a minimum of two witnesses for all offences under this code except for the offence of zina. For zina, a minimum of four witnesses are required,” states Section 40(1).

The following section 41(1) termed “conditions of being a witness” states that “each witness must be a Muslim male who is just and is past puberty”.

There is no explanation in the code on how non-Muslims are supposed to give testimonies in the Shariah Court as witnesses or victims to an offence.

“If I am robbed in Kelantan by a Muslim and his case goes to Shariah court, the law says I need two Muslim males to be my witness. I cannot be my own witness? How can this be justice?” said Wong.

Also, there is nothing in the code to account for women witnesses and victims, and whether the testimonies of Muslim women can be used, lawyer Andrew Khoo (pic, right) said.

If the code were to be used, there would also be problems with investigation procedures as the police would have to juggle between two sets of laws -  the Kelantan code and the Federal Penal Code, said Wong.

Kelantan PAS, he said, has failed to take into account that crimes do not exclusively occur between Muslims but also between people of different faiths.

“That’s why hudud can only be done on all people or it cannot be done on anyone. It cannot just be applied for some people. If you do hudud, everyone in Kelantan will be affected.”

This impact extends not just to citizens but to institutions such as the Malay Rulers and the Federal Criminal Justice system.

Lawyer Khoo said that since Section 48 of the Code states that sentences cannot be taken back or changed, there is no room for a royal pardon.

“The code would effectively take away one of the last privileges of a Malay ruler,” said Khoo.

Also, the punishments for some offences such as irtidad (apostasy) in Section 23, do not specify a limit for imprisonment, which opens them up to abuse, said Khoo.

But the biggest issue with the enactment itself was that Kelantan as a state, is creating laws for criminal offences.

“The Constitution gives the Federal government the jurisdiction over all types of criminal law,” said Khoo referring to the separation of powers between the Federal government and states.

Khoo refutes PAS’s arguments that their Shariah Criminal Code falls under the state’s power to create laws that deal with the administration of religion.

States can create statutory Shariah offences such as fines for eating in public during Ramadan said Khoo, but that power does not extend to criminal offences.

“When you get fined for eating during Ramadan it does not go into your criminal record. It is not considered a crime.”

By comparison, Kelantan’s enactment is an attempt to create laws to deal with crimes such as theft, robbery and assault. It is in effect, a wholly separate criminal code.

“I don’t think our founding fathers wanted a dual criminal justice system for Malaysia.

“That would run counter to Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, which is that everyone is equal before the law.” – March 26, 2015.

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/hudud-for-all-o...

Permalink Reply by Kinana on March 28, 2015 at 0:06

Permalink Reply by Kinana on March 28, 2015 at 0:16

Kelantan’s hudud a betrayal of Sabah’s trust in Malaysia, churches say

Friday March 27, 2015

02:17 PM GMT+8

UPDATED:
March 27, 2015
03:31 PM GMT

Sabah Council of Churches president Rev Datuk Jerry Dusing voiced concern at the plans to implement the religious-based criminal law. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa

KUALA LUMPUR, March 27 — PAS-ruled Kelantan’s plans to enforce hudud in the state amounts to a “betrayal” of Sabah’s trust when it agreed to form Malaysia with Malaya and Sarawak, the Sabah Council of Churches said today.

Rev Datuk Jerry Dusing, the council’s president, said that historical documents and declarations showed that Malaysia was intended to be founded as a secular country, when he voiced concern at the plans to implement the religious-based criminal law.

“It was based on such assurances that our forefathers, from both sides of the South China Sea, came together to form this new nation of Malaysia, and thus they form the very foundation of our trust in and bond with our fellow Malaysians.

“Hence, it would be inconsistent, and indeed a betrayal of the trust placed by Sabah’s forefathers in the Federation of Malaysia, for laws such as Kelantan’s Hudud Enactment — which will have a huge impact on the public as well as upon the multi-religious Malaysian society as a whole — to find a place in our Federation, a nation envisaged to be secular at its formation,” he said in a statement today.

The Christian leader cited a list of historical documents, including the Cobbold Commission’s June 21, 1962 Report and the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee’s Memorandum on Malaysia dated February 3, 1962 — with the latter saying that Islam’s position as the religion of the federation would not endanger religious freedom or make Malaysia any less secular.

The Cobbold Commission is also known as the Commission of Enquiry on North Borneo and Sarawak, while the consultative committee led by Mohamed Khir Johari included delegations from Brunei, Sabah, Sarawak, Singapore and Malaya.

Dusing acknowledged the aspirations of some Muslims to see hudud enforced as part of their divine duty, but he noted the controversial punishments outlined in the Islamic penal code and the possible legal difficulties such as conflict of laws, double jeopardy and qualification of witnesses.

“Although the hudud enactment is presently stated to be only applicable to the Muslims, we feel duty bound to express the deep concerns and anxieties of the Christian community in Sabah, who in recent years have struggled to navigate the ambiguous and uncertain state of the law on religious freedom,” he said, referring to the Kelantan Shariah Criminal Code II Enactment 1993 (Amendment 2015).

He said that the Sabah churches did not intend to be dragged into “political or legal debates” over hudud, instead stressing that Malaysia was formed as a plural society with diverse culture and religious beliefs, as reflected in the diversity in east Malaysia.

All Malaysians are duty-bound to defend the country’s “very foundation” instead of undermining it, Dusing said.

“Therefore, the Sabah Council of Churches urges and calls upon all patriotic Malaysians, irrespective of religious persuasions and including the Kelantan State Government, to honour and defend the original intention of our founding fathers, and to strengthen the foundation of our Federation, and above all to focus and build on what unite us, rather than what divide us,” the Christian leader later added.

On March 19, PAS-ruled Kelantan passed key amendments to its Shariah Criminal Code II 1993 in a move to enable the eventual implementation of hudud in the Malay-majority east coast state.

PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang last week served notice to Parliament on another set of amendments in a proposed private member’s bill, this time to Act 355 or the Shariah Court’s (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965, which his party wants changed in order to allow Kelantan to carry out hudud.

With DAP and PKR’s rejection, PAS and its 21 MPs in the lower house must rely on all of Umno’s MPs, plus more from other non-Muslim parties, in order to get a simple majority of 112 votes to get the Bill passed.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/kelantans-hudud-...

Permalink Reply by Alan Lake on March 28, 2015 at 1:35

All the Guardianista fascists must be so happy to see their beloved religious Apartheid growing in power and enforcing itself around the world.