Friday, February 17, 2017

Of simply RUU 355...

This is not something that I like to write...
If you guys ask whether I will be in Padang Merbok tomorrow, the answer is "NO, I will not be there. I will be in Antong coffee factory, Taiping after attending a wedding-do"

Almost everybody has their own answer to PAS's proposed RUU 355. Regardless of whether you are for or against RUU 355, this time around let's digest what some says about RUU 355.

Ex-judge Mohamad Ariff gives his flow of thoughts as follows :-
1. Potential abuse through greater discrepancies in punishment;
2. Maximum of RM 100,000 fine with maximum 30 years jail, 100 lashes compared to the present RM 5,000 fine, 3 years jail, 6 lashes;
3. All Muslims will be subjected to RUU 355, if passed;
4. This is a certain moral code to be followed and adhered to by Muslims;

My answer to the honourable ex-judge are :-
1. There should not be discrepancies in punishment as the punishment is guided by certain code of practise to be adhered to. This code of practise can be tabled/outlined by the Ulama' syura consisting of Muftis from all the States. Those with limited knowledge in Islam should not be allowed to be member of this council;
2. The maximum fine is acceptable as this in itself covers almost 80 % of the fine practise during the 4 Khalifah. The present day RM 5,000 fine is a disgrace and belittle the status of Syariah ruling. On the lashes, it should be pointed out that the lashes carried out under Syariah courts differ from those carried out under civil courts. Whilst Syariah-based lashes is meant to educate and deter, civil-based lashes aims for bodily harm and psychological scar. This is something thet most people do not understand and tends to equate syariah-based lashes as similar to civil-based lashes.
3. Yes, Muslims are subjected to RUU 355 as this is in line with the syahadah taken by Muslims. Those who have similar views of Siti Kassim should re-visit their syahadah and muhasabah. Again, it should be stressed that RUU 355 is not applicable to non-Muslims.

Then, there are those who straight away takes "NO to RUU 355" as their stand. Sisters in Islam believes in the following :-
1. Injustice and bad image of Islam as a punitive religion;
2. Discriminatory towards minority group and lower income group;

Clearly SIS is out of tangent and arrives to their stand based on misguided information. If SIS studies indepth, they will find that Islam is a religion of justice and takes many factors in consideration before sentence is meted out. That is why the range of fine varies to accomodate all walks of life. You don't expert a labour to be fined RM 100,000 and at the same time expect a high profile person to be fines RM 1 for their offence. This is where judges should be the learned instruments to give a fair and appropriate sentencing.

This said, RUU 355 should put Islam as a religion aimed at deterring people from conducting bad deeds and not punitive as claimed by SIS. By deterence, it means those who intend to run afoul of syariah rule will be reminded of the high consequence for their misdeeds and not like today whereby a person can just pay the kacang putih fine of RM5,000 maximum. For those in the corridors of power, they even have a backdoor access to clear their misdeeds. This should not happen when RUU 355 comes in play.

The has-been Tg Li says he will not support RUU 355. His reason is because RUU 355 contravenes Federal constitution. Tg Li fails to notice that RUU 355 is meant to elevate Syariah rule, putting it in its rightful place. As RUU 355 is applicable to certain sections especially hudud, it does not invade into federal constitution and civil court. On this, Tg Li can refer to Muslim scholars and if he feels Kelantan mufti is politically biased, then he can refer to WP mufti. What Tg Li should not do is to go against something that he profess as his syahadah. What Tg Li should do is to place Syariah rule above civil rule and not vice versa.

There is an interesting part written by Zan Azlee in Malaysiakini. Amongst others, he wrote :-
1. Valet Doa, since declared inappropriate by WP Mufti;
2. Pork free restaurants;
3. Quranic learning in jets;

Yes, I agree that many Muslims are gullible lots, easily manipulated. Doa is best done by oneself as you directly seeks Allah's help. Of course, many choose Imam and others to recite certain doa but that does not in any way ranks higher than your own direct doa.

On pork free restaurants, the main question should be what is the ingredient used. Some pork free restaurants use all the necessary halal sources except they serve alchohol in their menu. This disqualify the restaurant from getting a Halal certificate.

As of Quranic learning in private jets, it does not make oneself better than a person learning quran in candlelight surrounding. Those who can afford money to splash with maybe RM billions in their account may want to go mile-high to learn Quran reading. But that mile-high cannot be translated that your mile-high is better than those who learn Quran elsewhere.

Whatever it is your choice whether to attend RUU 355 gathering tomorrow or not.

Till then...G'nite M'sia...wherever u are...

No comments: