From www.Malvu.org

Is Islamic State one with no hunger or with no limbs [of their citizens]. What is “State” and what is “religion?”

An Islamic state where there is no hunger (and anything that weighs down on the human persons and their dignity) is far different from another where some of the citizens lose their hands as punishment because they are forced to steal out of hunger. The two states are miles apart. Which way is PAS heading with its concept of Islamic state?

This distinction is similar to another drawn by the Buddhist scholar-activist Sulak Sivaraksa who decades ago distinguished Buddhism with capital letter (associated with big organisations, government appointments, big power and positions, etc.) and the small letter buddhists who simply put their good religious values into their everyday life and practices. Is this a case of religion being subverted by (state) power or a state subverted by religiously-inspired values? The reply of Bakri Musa to his capital letter “Islamic State” advocates is a good read.
—————

From www.malaysia-today.net

Dear People:

Once again another very interesting article which PAS people ought to read and absorb.

Regards,

Dr Syed Alwi
———-

Dr.Syed Alwi,if you are a Muslim,you are a disgrace to the Ummah and above all to the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w, but if you are not a Muslim then you are slandering Islam and Muslims and you have a very dirty heart for using that nickname!

Jangan melampau dalam berkata-kata tentang agama.
Olifante
———-

“It is more correct to say that Hudud and Sharia are what some Muslims, specifically Arab male scholars of the 7-10th century, proclaimed to be God’s laws.” It is not correct at all. Hudud is the exact law from God with the exact words from Him in the Quran.
Ittaqullah

le-khair
———–
Direct e-mail:

Dear Sir:

I am non-Muslim but find the whole debate of Islamic state interesting (malaysia-today.com). These are my comments.

Is Islamic state a myth or reality? Can the sovereignty of a state be vested to God? Did God give mandate to the State? The concept of statehood did not exist when the prophet s.a.w. had his revelation of Islam in the 7th century.

If Muslims cannot answer these, why crack their heads arguing about Islamic state! Iran wants reforms now, why do the Iranians want a change after achieving an Islamic State.

Looks like it is a constant struggle trying to re define Islam within the Muslim community. Shiite Muslims perform the prayer rituals three times a day (some claim they merge the prayers). So is this right” Is it divine? Is hadith, which consist of narration of prophet life, also divine? Why do Muslims not accept differences and instead prefer to fight it out (as with the Sunni and Shiite)? Can man-made laws co exist with God laws? Many more questions!

Regards,
Chris

God’s Laws and Man-made Laws

M. Bakri Musa
bakrimusa@juno.com

(Reprinted from www.malaysia-today.net, June 24, 2005)

Thank you for taking your time to comment on my recent essay, “The Path to a True Islamic State.” I will address some of the issues raised.

I am always dismayed when someone proclaims with such certitude that Hudud and Sharia are “God’s laws.” The implication is that such laws are perfect, immutable and far superior to what we mortals could craft. We should therefore not tamper with them.

It is more correct to say that Hudud and Sharia are what some Muslims, specifically Arab male scholars of the 7-10th century, proclaimed to be God’s laws. They based their conclusion on their reading of the Quran and Hadith (sayings of the prophet s.a.w.). To Muslims, the Quran is the word of God, as revealed to His Last Messenger, Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. That is a matter of faith. We cannot claim to be a Muslim if we do not accept this. All religions are based on faith, and for Muslims, this is the basic article of our faith.

Out of over 6,000 verses in the Quran, less than 600 are concerned with the law, and most of those cover such matters as prayers and rituals. Only about 80 verses deal with such traditional legal issues as contracts, inheritance, family law, and crime and punishment. Clearly the Quran is not a legal tome but a general guide on how to build a moral and just society.

It is an enduring tribute to the intellect and wisdom of those ancient Muslim scholars that they were able to fashion out of the Quran and Hadith a coherent and consistent body of laws that is the Sharia. In its time the Sharia represented a quantum leap in intellectual, legal and social achievement. The status of women, for example, was a thousand times better with the Sharia than with the prevailing norms. Sharia granted women a share of the inheritance, whereas before THEY were the inheritance. They were chattels or properties of their husband, to be traded or passed on accordingly. Sharia emancipated women. Its system of criminal justice was also light years ahead of the prevailing “an eye for an eye” ethos; likewise its treatment of slavery and indentured labour.

Those wise scholars successfully crafted, based on the Quran and Hadith, an enlightened body of laws far superior to the existing ones. We rightly owe them an immense debt of gratitude. In our reverence for them, however, we should not fall into the trap of ascribing what they had done as perfect, immutable or infallible. Those are properly the attributes of Almighty Allah, not of mere mortals. Yet in proclaiming that Hudud and Shariah are God’s laws, we are in effect saying that their crafters who were mere humans are also God or have God-like qualities – a blasphemous assumption.

Similarly with the Hadith; they are widely proclaimed to be what the Prophet had said. It is more correct to say that the Hadith are what some ancient scholars (in particular Bukhari, Daud, Muslim, etc.) claimed to be what the Prophet s.a.w. said. Even Imam Bukhari, whose collection of Hadith are deemed most sahih (authentic), was modest enough to admit that he may have included some hadith that are not true and excluded others that are. Such modesty and humility are sadly lacking with today’s commentators.

Today we should strive to craft a similarly enlightened body of laws based on the Quran and Hadith to meet the current challenges facing our community. The Quran and Hadith teach us through the use of anecdotes, parables and similitude. The late Fazlur Rahman suggested that we should emulate those ancient scholars and deduce from the particularities of the Quran and Hadith the underlying guiding principles, and then apply them to our present problems. This would entail considerable thought, a much more intellectually challenging endeavor.

Instead of being fixated on such contentious issues as Hudud and Sharia, we should instead focus on the other areas that we can agree upon. Indeed Tariq Ramadan has called for a moratorium on implementing Hudud as it is such a divisive issue.

There are so many other pressing issues facing the ummah: alleviating poverty, reducing corruption, improving education, and preparing our young to be productive citizens. Yet, at the recent PAS Muktamar, hardly a word was said on these important issues. Instead, the preoccupation was whether the delegates should dress in Arabic robes or Baju Melayu (Malay costumes) and whether women were ready for senior leadership positions.

PAS would get my vote once its leaders articulate coherent polices addressing those major issues and once they have shown some modicum of competence in managing a modern state. After decades under PAS, Kelantan and Terengganu remain the most backward in the nation. Infant mortality remains the highest in those two states. That is not God’s will but PAS incompetence.

Nik Aziz has the arrogance to proclaim that he is leading Muslims in Kelantan to Paradise when he could not even lead them out of their living hell right here on earth. I have tremendous regards for Nik Aziz as ulama (scholar), but as the chief executive of a state, he is a dismal failure. The people elected him to be Chief Minister, not Khatib. Sadly, the man lacks the necessary humility to recognize his own limitations. Out of reverence his followers will not tell him either.

How will PAS solve the lack of competitiveness of and increasing inequities among Malaysians, specifically Muslims? How would PAS revamp the education system? How do PAS leaders plan to uplift Malaysians, in particular Muslims, from the dehumanizing clutches of poverty? Present coherent and workable policies to achieve these and PAS would be able to bring the nation that much closer towards an Islamic State.

Were PAS to be successful, all – Muslims and non-Muslims alike – would applaud.

Letters are edited for purposes of brevity, clarity and liability.

Reprinted from www.Malaysia-today.net
Tuesday June 14, 2007

“The basic question – Are these laws just? – is never asked. Hand amputation deprives a person the means to feed, clean and protect himself. Stoning to death is barbaric; even a rabid dog should be spared such a torture.

Nor are these laws fair. A non-Muslim caught stealing would be jailed; a Muslim, amputated. That would surely drive Muslims away from our faith.”

Dr. Bakri may be an expert in his field, but I am rather disappointed at his level of “expertise” in his own religion, assuming that he is a Muslim. I wonder whether he even bothered to read the Hukum Hudud draft thoroughly before making his opinion public.

Waja Steele
—————
Thursday, June 16, 2005

Dr. Siti Mariah:

I read with sadness M Bakri’s article. There is lack of understanding of what Islamic laws and state is all about. You wrote as if in an Islamic state corruption, poverty, dishonesty, breach of trusts, economic stagnation, supression of liberties, ISA and other injustices are acceptable as long as hudud laws are implemented. In your understanding, this means the cutting off hands and stoning to death for adultery. Sadder still is when you said that “their justifications are nothing more than endless recitations of some Arabic texts interspersed liberally with Quranic quotations”. Please go back to the Quran and Sunnah. Verses and Hadiths regarding the punishment for stealing and adultery are very clearly stated.

Do you think that once the laws are passed, when someone is caught stealing, he or she would be immediately dragged to the town square and the hand chopped off? Of course that would be barbaric! Due process of law would have to take place. The witnesses, the evidences, the prosecution, the defence, the appeal and the whole wheel of justice would have to be implemented. Do you also imagine that all cases will be treated the same – with the hand choopped off – whether the stolen article is worthless or the victim robbed at gunpoint? You also choose to ignore that circumstances for stealing are also taken into consideration when passing the sentence. You conveniently forget that cutting off the hands is not the only punishment for stealing. There are jail sentences as well as fines and other punishments including remedial sentence that can also be employed by the court (this is called takzir, and we already have that in our laws).

Cutting off the hands is the severest form of punishment, and the conditions under which this will be applied are also stringent. The details of implementation are up to the lawmakers. This is where the consensus of the ulama (scholars in law, not the ustaz in the village who teaches tajwid or quranic renditions) come in! You think it is injustice to the thief but you forgot the victim and future victims. Where is the justice for the victim and community members who live in fear? Where is the justice to the victims who toil and sweat to earn an honest living? Islamic laws are meant to be a deterrent and to strike fear in the hearts of sinners-to-be. You also speak as if once the law is passed our streets would be filled with people with amputated arms and hands or wobbling around with no feet. Are you saying that a majority of our people are thieves? If that were the case, then there is something awfully wrong with our society. Imagine if there were one amputated thief who walks around and be seen by others, the message gets across – crime does not pay! Potetnial thieves would think a thousand times before choosing this easy way to make a living.

M Bakri, however, contradicts himself when he says, “non-Muslims at the time time of the prophet s.a.w. respected and obeyed the Medinah Compact not because the laws were Islamic, rather those laws were just to them as well as to Muslims.” So you agree that the non-Muslims then accept Islamic Laws because they were just! Mind you among the laws implemented then was the hudud laws that you claim to be unjust.

Your perceived concept of All-Merciful and All-Beneficient (Ar-Rahman and Ar-Rahim) is definitely not the same as that intended by the All-Mighty. If you think that the laws given by Allah s.w.t are unjust, what about heaven and hell? Are you saying that Allah ceased to be Ar-Rahman and Ar-Rahim because those who sinned will be punished in Hell? What about those unfortunate ones born with congenital deformities and diseases? What about those inflicted with incurable diseases? What about those who live in poverty and perpetual suppression? Since God is Al-Mighty, why didn’t He created this world and bestowed His creations with everything that they need? He could make all people nice, happy, good, etc. Then can only we say God is All-Merciful and All-Benevolent? Just because the Quran prescribed something that we perceive as “unjust” we say, “Oh this is not from God. How can it be? How can this come from the Creator who profess to be Merciful?” Allah s.w.t has 99 names describing His qualities. Please take a look at these names and you will understand better. If we go by your human logic , everything that God does becomes illogical! That is why believing in every single word of the Quran becomes an article of faith in Islam. A Muslim cannot reject even a single word, what more a verse from the Quran. If we do that we cease to become a Muslim in faith.

I heartily agree with M Bakri on Islam Hadhari! We have to embrace Islam in all aspects. We cannot pick and choose the so called “progressive” elements (stable economy, eradication of poverty, ensuring basic utilities to the rakyat, etc.) and leave “the non progressive” ones (must be the hudud, no drinking of alcohol, usury, adultery). We cannot ask people to do good things and at the same time encourage evil practices. Islam Hadhari is about contradictions in Islamic practice. Simplay having Muslims adminster the state does not it an Islamic state. Piety alone is not enough to run an Islamic state but piety (taqwa) is the guiding light for the leaders to be just and honest. It is piety that prevents one from corruption because even though one knows that the rakyat may not know about it, but God knows and takes into account of one’s conduct.

I thank you Dr Syed Alwi for suggesting that PAS members should read M Bakri’s article. I think the article is more relevant to UMNO members. The bulk of the article is actually directed at them. They are the people causing all these mess in our country. All the laws in this country were enacted and passed by the UMNO/BN. PAS/BA just wants to take the nation to the Islamic ideals and correct the injustices. Given the chance, all the things that M Bakri proposes – cleansing the society of corruption, ISA, eradication of poverty, all acts suppressing basic rights – are what we have in mind. With regards to Hudud laws, we are confident if sufficient education, discussions, explanations, correcting the weaknesses in existing enactments, etc, that in due time Malaysians will accept them.

Dr. Siti Mariah
——————
Thursday, June 16, 2005

Dear Dr Siti Mariah:

If chopping off the hands of thieves and stoning of married adulterers are so difficult to implement, then why bother having them in the Penal Code in the first place? It makes no sense. We no longer subscribe to 10th century, Middle Eastern values, and I do not need to be hypocritical about religion. Some faith is good but too much of it is dangerous as the previous PAS leadership has abundantly demonstrated. My view of PAS is well known: Keep religion personal. You – Dr Siti Mariah – are free to believe whatever you want to, but do not dream of ever forcing down your beliefs on me! I will fight tooth and nail against that.

Regards,

Dr Syed Alwi
—————-

My dear Dr. Syed Alwi:

Whatever gives you the idea that I can force my values and beliefs on you? I respect your beliefs and I expect you to do the same for me. The fact that we are engaging in democracy to forward our ideas, beliefs, struggles and values means that we do not plan to coerce rather to persuade. If the majority accepts, and I do not it see coming during my lifetime, then I have made it. If not, I have tried my best.

Why do we keep saying that the hudud laws are not implementable? We have not even tried it! Just because it is a “10th century idea from the Middle East” does not necessarily mean that it is not good or effective. Why are we so worked up about the hudud law? Even if we were adulterers, are we going to be that shameless to commit it in the open for four witnesses to see and describe it in court? Even if the laws were in place, it need not mean that there will be convictions as cases may not be admissible or qualify for prosecution under hudud laws. During the prophet’s.a.w time, the punishment was meted only to a few who confessed and repented and wanted the punishment in this world rather than the hereafter.

Man’s desires and behaviors have not changed since the time of Adam ,and will remain very much the same till doomsday. Only the Creator knows the real nature of His creations and the remedies for their maladies. For practicing Muslims, whether the law can be implemented or not is another story. There are many reasons that could qualify for the suspension of any specific law, rule and regulation in Islam. During the rule of Caliph Omar Al-Khattab, the hudud law for theft was suspended when economy was bad. But it was not abolished. What we would like to do is to implement God’s law (whose primary source is the Quran and Sunnah) as we believe in it and in its supreme ability to ensure that justice is done to the accused as well as to the victim. If I were to use your same reasoning that laws perceived not implementable should not be enacted, then would you agree with me that laws that are not effective should also be abolished? Can we now abolish the death sentence for drug addicts/distributors, jail sentence for stealing, fines and whipping for many offences as they are not effective in controlling these crimes. The crime rates are ever increasing. Why cannot we mere mortals submit to the supreme knowledge of God?

Anyway, why are we arguing about the small portion of that we disagree on? We have much more that we agree on like fighting corruption, restoring real democracy, abolishing ISA and other oppressive laws, and many more that M Bakri wrote about and which we all very well know about. Let us settle these mainstay issues first for the sake of our beloved nation, and once we have achieved them we can settle this nagging issue of hudud in a civil and democratic manner. None of the opposition parties can make it alone, and we know that. We cannot claim to be democratic if we cannot learn to respect each other’s ideology. Nor can we call for all parties to drop their ideology or belief as a prerequisite for cooperating and working together. That would be hypocrisy.

Dr. Siti Mariah