Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Posted: 27 Aug 2012 05:44 PM PDT

UMNO keeps attacking PAS through state-controlled media in the hope that it would turn PAS and DAP against each other. Many too are waiting for PAS to fall apart before elections. At the same time, UMNO has not shown courage to respond to MCA's repeated rejection of Hudud. It is more interested to keep deceiving Malay voters, ensuring they remain in the dark.

Tuan Guru Abdul Hadi Awang, Harakah

Hudud form one of several of Islamic penal codes, along with qisas and ta'zir. It is divine prerogative, as codified in the Qu'ran and mutawatir hadiths (whose chain of narrations is solid making them authoritative), detailing specific offences covered in Hudud, the punishments they entail and the grounds of punishment.

It is obligatory upon Muslims to firstly believe that Islam is the way of life. This obligation is not just upon PAS supporters but is required of all Muslims, whether they belong to NGOs or political parties, including UMNO. Although UMNO is party based on race which is only open to Bumiputera, Muslim and non-Muslim, its Muslim members are nevertheless bound by this conviction. They are obligated to believe in and act on Islam as the way of life according to the Quran and Sunnah.

Qur'anic verses revealed in Madinah as contained in such surahs as Al-Maidah and Al-Nur have touched upon the issue of crimes and punishments.

It starts with a strong call:

O you who believe, fulfil all contracts. (Al-Maidah: 1)

These contracts include the declaration of faith or shahadah, the most essential requirement in being a Muslim. It is the point at which one declares his belief in God and His Messenger.

[This is] a surah which We have sent down and made [that within it] obligatory and revealed therein verses of clear evidence that you might remember. (Al-Nur: 1)

It is a must that the implementation of Islamic law which incorporates hudud, qisas and ta'zir is carried out through a just system of judiciary. It is prohibited that they are implemented spontaneously by mere individuals or families or even by officials at district or state levels, without first having a proper structured system in place. This is especially so in Malaysia, where Islamic law is implemented by virtue of political power. This is not so different from the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) when he was unable to implement Islamic law in the absence of political power during the early years of Makkah. Such a power was vested in him in Madinah, where Islamic law was supreme under the auspices of a sovereign state and a comprehensive legal system.

A multiracial and diverse society is not a hurdle for Islamic law; many verses in the Qur'an have been revealed specifically for the purpose of explaining the law to non-Muslims in Madinah who objected to Hudud. The Prophet did not wait until everyone in Madinah agreed or understood the law before implementing it, and ultimately, this understanding came together with implementation. The social effects of Islamic law have demonstrated to the suspecting non-Muslims in Madinah that it is just and effective in controlling crime and creating a sense of security in society.

We must not forget that even though Islamic punishments are harsh, the punishment thresholds are proportionately higher. The burden of proof that the accuser or the prosecutor has to bear is more stringent than that in most civil laws. A slightest shadow of a doubt would lead to acquittals from being subjected to Hudud punishment, and could lead to a clean acquittal or a sentence based on the principle of ta'zir (punishment meted out at the discretion of the judge). Ta'zir ensures that Hudud is not rendered ineffective due to its stringent application. In a way, it also ensures out of court settlements. That was why some criminals had indeed escaped Hudud during the times of the Righteous Caliphs, not because the authority deliberately dropped the Hudud, but because the ta'zir was opted instead.

PAS has ruled Kelantan through democracy and adherence to federalism, in the same way it once ruled Terengganu. This is in contrast with UMNO which had undermined the principle of federalism, punishing the people of Kelantan over their choice of government. Faced with Federal pressure, PAS has consistently fulfilled its obligation to implement Islam as the way of life. These efforts culminated in the passing in Kelantan of the Shariah Criminal Code enactment at the state assembly. Kelantan has also implementing several Islamic laws at the municipal level, including the prohibition on gambling and the limitation of liquor to only non-Muslims. PAS has at the same time taken every care to respect the inviolable freedom of non-Muslims.

The process of compiling the Shariah enactment was done with the help of legal scholars and experts, and publicised to the public before being debated at the state assembly level. Political parties and NGOs were invited to debate the enactment. PAS members of parliament had several times sought to amend the constitution but stopped by the Standing Orders of the Dewan Rakyat and their motions were deliberately placed at the bottom of the agenda, making them unlikely for parliamentary approval.

PAS is determined to uphold its objectives through democratic channels and political alliances, as allowed by Islam as well as the party constitution. In the same spirit, PAS respects and acknowledges the differences of opinions among its allies in Pakatan Rakyat, and subscribes to a common policy platform to battle corruption, power abuse and oppression. In the past 50 years, Barisan Nasional at the federal government has shown little determination in bringing useful reforms where needed, instead, power play has become a central agenda.

UMNO is the largest component in BN, and it drew votes from the Malay Muslim community at every election. It controls governments at state and federal levels, is in charge of national institutes such as the Institute for Islamic Understanding Malaysia (IKIM), the National Fatwa Council, the religious departments in most states and various institutes of higher learning. With all the resources and opportunities at its disposal, there is no doubt that UMNO bears a bigger responsibility to implement Islamic law. Clearly, this has only been used as UMNO's political tool against PAS to manipulate voter sentiments.

After more than half a century at the helm, UMNO should have been aware of its obligation to uphold Islamic principles, at the very least to nurture understanding of Islam among its allies in BN. If that obligation has been fulfilled by UMNO, PAS would be more than happy to support efforts to implement Islam, which include the fight against corruption and for justice in society. In such a situation, it will even be wrong for PAS to oppose UMNO, or any other BN components for that matter. Unfortunately, there is no sign that UMNO even wishes to go in that direction. In fact, it was the top UMNO leader who delivered the ultimatum to Kelantan to stop the implementation of Islamic law.

A Muslim's failure to fulfil the duty of implementing God's law amounts to a betrayal of God and His Messenger. The effects of such betrayals are clear for us to see; crime is on the rise, mainly due to the ineffectiveness of the current legal system to combat crime, and yet we continue to support the retention of such a flawed system.

UMNO keeps attacking PAS through state-controlled media in the hope that it would turn PAS and DAP against each other. Many too are waiting for PAS to fall apart before elections. At the same time, UMNO has not shown courage to respond to MCA's repeated rejection of Hudud. It is more interested to keep deceiving Malay voters, ensuring they remain in the dark.

The culture of subservience to UMNO must be ended. It is time that we rise to be better and more dignified. In that spirit, PAS will continue to welcome support and not be deterred by any obstacle, wherever it may come from, in order to uphold Islam. Because we believe that Islam is the way of life.

Hopping means betrayal

Posted: 27 Aug 2012 05:21 PM PDT

We are curious about the stand of Pakatan Rakyat leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, who is the leader behind the scene that caused the fall of the PBS state government in 1994 and planned the September 16 takeover attempt in 2008, over the proposed anti party-hopping Bill.

Lim Sue Goan, Sin Chew Daily

The Penang state government is planning to table an anti party-hopping Bill at the November sitting of the State Legislative Assembly. It has triggered the questions of whether preventing the people's elected representatives from changing parties is a violation of the freedom of association conferred by the Federal Constitution, and why Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng made such a proposal at this time?

It is not something new to have elected government being collapsed by party-hopping lawmakers. In the 1994 Sabah state election, Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) managed to stay in power after winning 25 of the total 48 state assembly seats. However, its members were induced and roped, and the state government fell two months later. It is a forever pain in the heart of its founding president Datuk Joseph Pairin Kitingan.

On January 25, 2009, Umno Bota state assembly member Datuk Nasarudin Hashim hopped to the PKR, causing the Pakatan Rakyat to have 32 seats in the Perak state assembly, five seats more than the BN's 27 seats. The BN and Umno rapidly launched a counterattack by pulling back Nasarudin to Umno, and roping in DAP Jelapang state assembly member Datuk Hee Yit Foong, PKR Behrang state assembly member Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi and Changkat Jering state assemblyman Mohd Osman Jailu. They quit the Pakatan Rakyat and supported the BN, allowing the BN to regain the Perak state regime.

Different people in different situations have different feelings for the proposed anti party-hopping Bill. Pairin believes that when a people's representative contests under the banner of a political party, he or she has "sealed" a social contract with the people. If he or she changes party after being elected, it means a betrayal to the commitment. However, other BN leaders do not agree with the anti party-hopping Bill and MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek even challenged the DAP to amend its party constitution to prohibit party-hopping lawmakers from joining the party.

If there is no law to prevent lawmakers from violating the commitments, the elected government might eventually fall, causing the election to lose its significance.

The Penang state government proposed the anti party-hopping Bill with the hope to gain public support and prompt the federal government to amend the Federal Constitution. The general view is, the BN and the Pakatan Rakyat are equal in strength and if the numbers of seats they gain in the next general election are close, the elected government would be unstable, if there is no law prohibiting lawmakers from changing parties. Can the BN be sure that betrayal will not happen within the ruling coalition?

Therefore, there must be an anti party-hopping law to clarify that the seat of a lawmaker who quits his or her party will be vacant, even if he or she does not join the rival party.

The people's right to vote should be prioritised over lawmaker's right of association. Moreover, the act of quitting and joining rival parties is related to the lawmaker's integrity and should not be simplified as democracy and freedom.

However, even if the anti party-hopping Bill is passed in the Penang state assembly, it would still be ruled invalid once it is brought to court.

In 1993, the PBS had foreseen a potential threat for the state government and thus, an anti party-hopping Bill was passed by in the Sabah state assembly. However, the Bill was challenged in court and eventually ruled invalid due to the violation of the Federal Constitution.

Similar to the restoration of local elections, lawmakers can still change parties as they like if the federal government refuses to cooperate. Such kind of democracy and freedom of association are not worth mentioning.

Hudud not just a religious issue

Posted: 27 Aug 2012 01:19 PM PDT

Muslims must recognise that people of other religions have the right to their own beliefs. They must also recognise that a person's belief does not hinder him from associating and or cooperating with – what is now a commonly used term – "kafirs" if the purpose is beneficial to all.

Awang Abdillah

According to the Quran, there is no compulsion in the freedom of faith.

The hudud issue is one of those opportunistic topics that snakes its way into the mainstream every time conniving politicians hit a wall.

As a Muslim, let me share a simple truth enshrined in the Quran.

The Surah AlKafirun affirms that for a Muslim "his religion is his" and for a non-Muslim "his religion is his", which basically means "to you your religion and to me mine".

It is crystal clear that there is no compulsion in this freedom of faith. As such, persons with different beliefs can still work together

Beliefs are a set of values about the spiritual or physical things that a person has faith in such as truth, strength, guidance and benefits.

Hence everyone has his own beliefs, be it factual, real or mythical.

Muslims must recognise that people of other religions have the right to their own beliefs.

They must also recognise that a person's belief does not hinder him from associating and or cooperating with – what is now a commonly used term – "kafirs" if the purpose is beneficial to all.

Which brings me to the politics of the day.

Prophet lived with a Christian

If the DAP does not accept the hudud Islamic law, so be it. The question of prohibiting Muslims from supporting DAP does not arise at all.

As a political party, DAP has its own struggle – in the pursuit of its own principles and objectives.

And being a non-Muslim party, its beliefs will in many ways run contrary to that of a Muslim.

Nevertheless in the political cause, the party can still work together with Muslim parties for the benefit of the nation.

As far as cooperation – for justice, good governance and nation building – is concerned, there is no reason why different political parties cannot work together.

The Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) lived with his uncle Abu Talib who was not a Muslim and assisted the latter in the trade business.

The first Hijrah of the Muslims was to Habsyah (now modern Ethiopia), which was a Christian country at that time, to seek protection from persecutions from the Meccans.

Let me enlighten you with this insight: on the issue of the implementation of hudud law, even many Umno stalwarts are not in favour of it.

What is happening now is that certain PAS hardliners are believed to be using the issue for their own political ends.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Selasa, 28 Ogos 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan