The Judicial Conundrum of the Shari’a and Secular Courts
[Personal note: Following my essay, I posted a well written piece by Following my essay, I posted a well written piece by Chez1978. I agree with the essence of his arguments. Shari’a affects us all, Muslims and non-Muslims; it behooves us all to be informed.
The literature on Shari’a is voluminous, and can be classified in two broad categories. The first, written mostly by Muslims educated in the traditional mode, is long on description but woefully short on analysis. These scholars have great influence in the Muslim world. Second are by those, Muslims and non-Muslims, trained under Western liberal education. Their scholarships are rigorous and analytical. Unfortunately, they are often dismissed as being influenced by the “Orientalists.”
One of the best treatises is Abdullah An-Naim’s Toward An Islamic Reformation, published by Syracuse University Press. In Malaysia, we had the intellectual giant, the late Ahmad Ibrahim. Though trained as a lawyer at Cambridge, he was highly respected by Malaysian Islamists. I recommend two additional references: Salbiah Ahmad and Shad Saleem Faruqi. Salbiah is a Malaysian social activist, a lawyer by training, and was a Fellow at Emory. Indian-born Shad Faruqi, a law professor at Universiti Technlogy MARA, was educated both in America and Pakistan, and a student of Ahmad Ibrahim.]
The Judicial Conundrum of the Shari’a and Secualr Courts
M. Bakri Musa
Recent highly-publicized decisions by the secular and Syariah courts exposed the stark “judicial conundrum” resulting from their overlapping jurisdictions. This is not a legal problem; its solution lies beyond changing the judicial system or tinkering with the constitution. Rather, it is a political problem; it must therefore be solved in the political arena.
It involves defining the very nature of our nation; more practically, addressing the meaning and implications of such phrases as, “Malaysia is an Islamic state,” and “Islam is the official religion.”
Malaysians are familiar with the civil, criminal and other courts of the secular justice system, based essentially on the English common law. The furor over the Shari’a system is that since the constitutional amendment of 1988, its status is elevated so that it is now separate and equal with the secular system.
To Muslims, the Shari’a is supreme; therein lies the problem. The Federal Court cannot claim to be the highest court in the land if it cannot hear cases from the Shari’a.
Overlapping and Conflicting Jurisdictions
Matters of Islam fall under state purview; federal jurisdiction applies only to the four states without sultans, and the two federal territories. Shari’a applies only to Muslims, but they are also subject to the secular justice system. Muslims are thus potentially subjected to two conflicting or at least competing legal jurisdictions.
The other conundrum lies when one party to a dispute is a Muslim and thus answerable to the Shari’a, and the other non-Muslim and beyond the reach of the Shari’a. Which court has jurisdiction, and which court will decide when there is dispute between the Shari’a and secular system?
In the past, Shari’a covered essentially family law, dealing with such mundane matters as divorces and inheritances. Besides, the estates of most Muslims then were not large or complicated. Even with that, disputes occurred, but they could be appealed to the usual secular appellate process. That avenue is now apparently closed.
Today the Shari’a has been vastly expanded; its jurisdiction now includes areas once under the purview of traditional criminal courts.
Consider this: A man beats his wife. If he is a non-Muslim; he could be charged in criminal court for assault and battery. At the same time his wife could sue him for torts (bodily damage and emotional distress) in civil court. If he is a Muslim, he falls under the Shari’a family dispute. Same action, but very different legal treatment based purely on the faith of the alleged perpetrator. That is not justice. It is an affront to the universal norms of equality before the law.
Muslims might gloat that this would induce non-Muslims to embrace the faith. The flip side is that many Muslim women, especially recent converts, would want to renounce their faith.
Consider another more dramatic example. A man is caught in “close proximity” with a woman other than his wife. If both were Muslims, this is khalwat, adultery under Shari’a and potentially punishable by stoning to death. Fortunately Malaysia does not (as yet) have that barbaric provision, but not for lack of trying on the part of the Islamists. If both parties were non-Muslims, there is no crime or civil liability as it was a consensual act. This differential treatment based solely on the faith of the participants is again not justice. The dilemma would be compounded vastly if only one party were a Muslim.
Malaysia has had nearly two hundred years experience with its current secular system. The elevation of the Shari’a is recent. The late Ahmad Ibrahim was the intellectual and legal giant instrumental in giving credence to the politicians’ elevating the Shari’a. Since then, the system has been bereft of talent in the ranks of both its practitioners as well as theoreticians.
Shari’a Not Divine
To Muslims, Shari’a is the “Whole duty of mankind;” it is divine law. To ascribe any inadequacies or shortcomings would be tantamount to attributing less than perfection to Allah – a blasphemy. However, as noted by Abdullah An-Naim in his book, Toward An Islamic Reformation, Shari’a is not divine in the manner of being revealed like the Quran. Rather, it was crafted by early Muslim jurists based on the Quran and the hadith. Shari’a remains the work of men, and thus suffers from all the imperfections inherent in such endeavors.
At its inception, the Shari’a represented a quantum leap in intellectual, legal and social achievement. Its treatment of women in particular was light years ahead of the times.
Shari’a has been in existence for over a thousand years; it was the operative system during the era of the great Muslim civilization as well as during the Ottoman Empire. Today only such countries as Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia are using it. These are not exactly examples that Malaysia would want to pattern itself after. It would be easier to sell the Shari’a if these countries were models of peace, social justice, and economic development.
Those countries are also overwhelmingly Muslim, making Shari’a more readily acceptable. Muslims proudly point to the first Muslim community in Madina set up by Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. to prove that the Shari’a is applicable to plural societies. We need a reality check on this point to disabuse ourselves of this delusion.
While Shari’a has remained unchanged for centuries, it is still far different in form, spirit and execution from the original Medina Charter. Second, and far more significant, that first Muslim community was led by no less than the Prophet s.a.w himself. To say that today’s Muslim leaders are a far shadow of the noble Prophet would be a severe understatement.
There has been little improvement or intellectual exertion by Muslim scholars and jurists to make the Shari’a relevant to and consonant with modern universally accepted notions of justice. In particular, as pointed out by An-Naim, the Shari’a’s position on gender equity, public law, and human rights – in particular the freedom of conscience – is problematic. Aspects of Shari’a’s hudud (criminal) provisions seem particularly barbaric and inhumane.
Malaysia’s judicial conundrum is not unique. Canada too has a bijural legal system, with most of the country under the English common law and Quebec under the French civil law based on the Napoleonic code. Unlike Malaysia however, its Supreme Court is national; as the highest court of the land it hears cases from all the other courts. Canada too had difficulties; it was not until the 1970s that it began making a concerted effort at integrating the two systems.
Reconciling the Shari’a with the secular system would require the best minds – legal, Islamic, political and others – as well as the widest input from citizens. In crafting the nation’s first constitution, we tapped the best legal talent in the Commonwealth. Today we would need another mini Reid commission composed of citizens to resolve this pressing issue.
It is not just non-Muslims who are uneasy over the expansion of the Shari’a; this sentiment is also shared by many Muslims.
The two leaders most instrumental in elevating the role of Islam in government and Shari’a specifically are Tun Mahathir and Anwar Ibrahim. It is revealing that Anwar in suing Mahathir for libel chose the civil rather the Shari’a court. That speaks volumes of his (and the public) confidence in the Shari’a.
====
January 20, 2006
Reader’s opinion: Legislating Islam
Chez 1978
[Edited for brevity]
The latest action by the ten non-Muslim cabinet ministers further stoked the public debate on Article 121 (1A). Little is known of the actual content of the memorandum they submitted to the Prime Minister.
There is a difference between being informed and imagining ourselves to be so. I am pleased that the Bar Council has called for caution about further amending the constitution on this issue. The Council’s position on Article 121 (1A) is in line with past court decisions, that is, the High Courts can and have overruled the Syariah courts.
Civil courts are courts of general jurisdiction, and exceptions are made only by specific legislation. Kamali (2000) pointed out that “the basic intention of the amendment to Article 121 of the Constitution was to address problems arising out of conflicting jurisdiction and not so much as to create any new jurisdiction or introduce any basic changes to the status of the civil courts as courts of general jurisdiction in the country.”
Further, “a Syariah Court is not a court of inherent jurisdiction. It is created by the power in Item 1 and it relies of Federal laws for its jurisdiction over offences.” Further, “Up till 1948, the Court of Qadis and Assistant Qadis in the Malay states were part of the structure of the civil courts,” and was dropped only with the introduction of the Courts Ordinance. The Syariah Court was reestablished in Article 121 of the Constitution, not after 1988 amendment. Supreme Court Judge Harun Hashim noted, “What Article 121 (1A) has done is TO GRANT EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION to the Syariah Courts in the administration of Islamic law.”
Any law student can make the distinction between civil and syariah courts, and recognize that the latter derives its existence from the Constitution and thus its jurisdiction is limited to what is noted in the State List. Islamic laws apply to those professing that religion so far as it is defined by specific legislation, except in matters included in the Federal List. Taking a page from Sukma Darmawa v. Ketua Pengarah Penjara Malaysia’s case in 1998, we must remember that like the Prosecutor back then, Kaliammal could not present her case to the Syariah Court as she is a non-Muslim. The judge opined that the civil court has no jurisdiction regarding matters over which the Syariah Court has been vested jurisdiction, thus declining to hear Kaliammal’s grievances. That case is now under appeal, and with it Judge Kamali’s precedent (2000): “It [Article 121 (1A)] does not, however, overrule the general jurisdiction of the High Courts to overrule decisions of the Syariah Courts for it merely says that civil courts cannot exercise the Syariah court’s jurisdiction.”
It is not necessary to amend the Constitution to rid of Article 121 (1A) if we bear in mind its original limitations. Article 121 (1A) does not remove the ability of a High Court to hear from the Syariah courts. It is the abortion of justice in both Shamala and Kaliammal cases that led to the recent uproar where non-Muslims felt that they have no legal recourse to their grievances. Certainly, legislations in Islamic law that creates unequal treatment of the sexes and between Muslims and non-Muslims in such areas as custodianship and religious conversion of a minor complicate the matter.
With apologies to all, Malaysia is not an Islamic State where the Quran and Hadith reign supreme; the Constitution is still supreme. Laws are not created to grant every supposed “rights” one claims to have, or should have. Article 121 (1A) states that the civil courts do not have jurisdiction in what the Syariah courts enjoy, not that they are equal systems. Syariah court is not merely an “unequal part of a dichotomy,” it is not even part of a dichotomy as it is limited to certain areas only as expressly permitted by legislation.
To force those converts to Islam to publicly declare their conversion with penalties for those who failed to do so, as has been suggested, is to discriminate against Muslim converts. Our Constitution provides some basic freedom, and freedom of religion is one. Why should Muslim converts alone make their conversions public?
Clearly, the masses are easily persuaded or outraged by symbolic changes. I do not think it necessary to amend Article 121 (1A). The issue has always been how the civil courts failed to provide a venue for remedy to hear Kaliammal’s case. Why is there so much fear by the High Court that JAWI could not present evidence needed to convince Kaliammal and the judge, or the resentment of the Syariah court towards the civil system where it itself sprang from?
Ahmad Ibrahim noted that “in Malaysia, a person who has embraced Islam is still bound according to the civil law by his or her former personal law.” It was meant to point out that a convert to Islam cannot initiate divorce proceedings under a civil marriage, in effect making a change of religion a matrimonial offence and a reason for divorce. To the Syariah court, the civil marriage automatically is null and void, but can we write off blood relations as easily when it comes to their children? Here, it is important to note what Ahmad Ibrahim (1997) said: “It would result in grave injustice to non-Muslim spouses and children whose only remedy would be in civil courts if the High Court no longer has jurisdiction, since the Shariah courts do not have jurisdiction over non-Muslims.”
We have fundamental rights that cannot be taken away with any law passed by Parliament. The Constitution protects us, and all courts and laws operate under its purview. Nothing is above the Constitution. However, the Constitution is only ink written on a piece of paper if it is not embraced. Previous amendments to the Constitution might have changed the original spirit of the document or weakened its intended meaning, but we must be careful in making further quick changes lest it results in further confusion. Seperti tikus membaiki labu (Mice fixing the pumpkins).
I agree that the Syariah Court and Islamic laws must be given a chance to mature and sort out the weaknesses. Islamic jurisprudence, like common law, is an evolving entity, not wholly free from human interpretations though guided by the Quran and Hadith; thus the various interpretations. In the end, the evolution of Islamic laws will also serve to open the door of ijtihad, inviting open debate. This would only make Islamic justice a more attractive alternative.
It is the universality of the principles in justice that are at trial here, not my rights stepping on yours, or vice versa. It would be a serious misinterpretation to view the recent controversy over the Islamic Family Law amendments as merely a disagreement between Muslim men and women. It is more accurately a struggle between conservative (literal) versus progressive and open interpretations of the Quran. The latter interpretation affirms gender equity. It would be disastrous to automatically favor fathers in the custody battles, especially where the husband has been proven to be unreliable and irresponsible. Legislating Islam is a human affair, and Muslims must partake in much the same way that other Malaysians partake in the passing of laws in Parliament. We do not live in separate worlds where Muslims and non-Muslims do not come in contact.
References:
http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/45948
Mohamad Hashim Kamali (2000). Islamic Law in Malaysia: Issues and Developments. Ilmiah Publications: Kuala Lumpur
Tun Mohamed Suffian Hashim (1976). An Introduction to the Constitution of Malaysia (2nd ed.). Government Printer: Kuala Lumpur.
Mimi Kamariah Majid (1992). Undang-undang Keluarga di Malaysia. Butterworths Asia: Kuala Lumpur.
Ahmad Ibrahim (1997). Family Law in Malaysia (3rd ed.)http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/content/view/2232/2/
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009796.php
http://www.aliran.com/monthly/2004b/9e.html
February 5th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
Hi Chez 1978:
After reading your article, it now looks like a number of us have been “jumping around” for nothing. It is quite clear from what you have written that we have to tread very carefully when harping on changes to our Federal Constitution.
Besides the High Court Judge’s apparent lack of understanding, it would also appear that the lawyer who appeared for Kaliammal may not have argued the matter well. I may be wrong but perhaps realising the explosive situation, he could have helped the judge with decided precedents and a literal interpretation of the relevant laws. Again, I could be wrong. It is only my view.
By and large, a religion gets a face from those who represent it. I mean, this applies to all religions. With people like you and Dr. Bakri, there is no doubt, Islam gets a good name, as it truly should.
February 5th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Fair Malaysian,
“Besides the High Court Judge’s apparent lack of understanding…”
You are liable for contempt of court. If found guilty you are liable to 6 months’ imprisonment.
He may also put you on ice (siitng naked on ice can be a very numbing experience) for the duration of your stay in the big house.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:49 am
Hi COunsel,
Thank you for the advice. But before me, perhaps, about a hundred of them have publicly said that the judge chose the easy way out. Well, the former AG, Tun Abu Talib Othman should be cited first before me as he specifically mentioned, if you have not read any of the newspapers. I actually took the cue from him, as apart from being someone anchored very well in law, he was the one who had introduced the amendment on which the High Court judge had relied on his ruling. Do you mean that he, too, was in contempt?
By the way, I do respect the sacrosanct position of our courts and my afore-mentioned phrase definitely does not mention anything against the Court. If you read the letter Chez 1978 in between the lines, what do you really understand?
Usually, the Court makes its decision after hearing out the arguments of the counsels. That is the reason why I said the counsel for Kaliammal may not have argued the case well. Notwitstanding, I qualified my statement if you had cared to read my posting in full, instead of taking excerpts out of context.
And please do not get excited and display a shallow understanding of what we are trying to discuss.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:41 am
One of the reasons for supporting democracy is the hope that it supports the evolution of law. In simple words, if the law is not good enough or subject to abuse by any parties - rulers, judges, prosecutors, lawyers, plaintiffs or defendants, police or the public - whether by being badly worded, or in contradiction with justice, or made with evil intent to benefit certain parties - it can be changed through pressure from the public.
Dead or stagnant law decreed that cannot be improved on the merits of the case and the justice and fairness to the parties concerned and the public’s good is something that is fundamentally and conceptually wrong. From a practicing point this must eventually come out with cases where judgements becomes a mockery of justice and public good due to its inflexibility or limited scope.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
Guys,
I agree with former Attorney-General and Malaysian Human Rights Commission Chairman Tan Sri Abu Talib (see NST, February 5, 2006 interview). It is time for the Government to introduce an Act (or an amendment to the Constitution, I may add) for contempt by judges. This will enable those criticised or condemned unfairly by judges can seek redress.
After all judges,as humans, are not infallible. They have known to bear grudges, and have used their positions to extract retribution. I suspect the Metramac case is one such instance. Here the Judge (one of three in the Appeals process) made written comments that were not relevant to the dispute, and in that process he has tarnished the reputations of a former Government Minister who served his country with distinction, and two outstanding Malay businessmen. What recourse do these men have to clear their names?
I would go one step further. The Government should ensure that only those who are eminently qualified should be appointed judges. For this purpose, a select body in Parliament should be created along lines of the US Senate Judiciary Committee to vet the character, legal philisophy and track record of potential judges. Once the review process is completed, Parliament can approve the nomination (s) for Royal Assent.
We have to change the present system which can be subject to political interference. We have to make it accountable to the people via Parliament and very transparent. The Prime Minister can only nominate. Our King then formally appoints judges after the confirmation process by Parliament. In this way, our court system can be credible again. Just a thought.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
correction change “can” to “to seek redress…”
February 6th, 2006 at 11:10 pm
Correction to read “have been known to bear…”
February 7th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
I agree with former Attorney-General …. It is time for the Government to introduce an Act (or an amendment to the Constitution, I may add) for contempt by judges.”
“Contempt by judges” is a novel concept not known to be practiced by any jurisdiction. If I may add, it defies definition.
We hear of “contempt of court” by individuals. For example, refusing to name the source of the information whilst under oath and when so requested by the judge. More controversial is the making of statements that would be “disrespectful of the courts system and its officers”. In some jurisdictions like the United Sates where they value freedom of speech more than anything else, they allow some leeway when it comes to criticising a judge’s decision in a case. In the Metramac case, the appellant was obviously advised not to say anything that could be construed as contempt of court since the case is still under appeal to a higher court. There are other reasons.
“After all judges, as humans, are not infallible.”
That is why we have appeals.
But if you are referring to the character flaws of our judges, then it belongs I suppose to the process of selection. The process followed in Malaysia in the selection, nomination and appointment of judges to our Federal Court, the highest court of the land, for example, is not as rigorous, demanding and taxing as it is in the United States. It is time we look into the working of the process itself and make sure that it does not become a tool of the executive – that the three branches of government i.e. legislative, executive and judiciary be clearly separated and remain separated.
“…..Metramac case is one such instance. Here the Judge (one of three in the Appeals process) made written comments that were not relevant to the dispute, and in that process he has tarnished the reputations of a former Government Minister who served his country with distinction, and two outstanding Malay businessmen.”
This Judge even when he was in private practice was a bit of a loose cannon ball. But in this instance I would have to come to his aid. We need more Appeal Judges of his caliber, who are not afraid of the powers that be when making judgments, and are inclined to tread the fine line and cause legal controversy now and then. An English judge comes to mind here - Lord Denning.
This Appeals Judge has opened the way for prosecution of wrongdoings by other public figures. You may criticize him, blame him even but you cannot fault him – and I mean as a judge. This Judge is fierce and unafraid in his observations of what he thought must have happened in the Metramac Case.
”What recourse do these men have to clear their names?”
They have a choice. They can always defend themselves in the court of public opinion. They chose not to – apparently advised by their counsel. And I think the advice is sound because if they were to do so they might incriminate themselves in the process. Silence is best because I think they have a lot to hide.
“The Prime Minister can only nominate. Our King then formally appoints judges after the confirmation process by Parliament. In this way, our court system can be credible again.”
I am not acquainted with the Malaysian system of appointment of high court and appeals judges. Since we follow the Westminster model of Parliamentary democracy, the Prime Minister “advises” and the King “appoints” – don’t let the language used confused you. It is the PM who decides in each and every case. He does not decide without help of course, having to listen to the Lord President, the highest judicial officer, for his views before giving his “advice” to the Agong.
However, there is nothing to prevent him from going it alone. The Federal Constitution has not too long ago been amended and the then PM’s refusal to follow the principles of natural justice has blurred the lines between the executive and judiciary – much to the dismay of learned members of the profession.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
According to you Dr. Bakri,“A man is caught in “close proximity” with a woman other than his wife. If both were Muslims, this is khalwat, adultery under Shari’a and potentially punishable….”
If one is a non-Muslim, and since the non-Muslim partner is not subject to shariah law and, therefore, has not committed any offence under the Penal Code he or she goes free. The Muslim partner still is liable for the offence of “close proximity”. So it is still khalwat for the Muslim partner. It doesn’t have to be both Muslims.
It is unfair to let the non-Muslim partner escape liability as it is obvious that he or she is liable for some wrongdoing. This is the dilemma facing the clerics in a country like Malaysia – and there is no answer to it.
Further, “berkhalwat” and “berzina” are two different offences – the latter is adultery punishable by stoning during the time of the Prophet. In Malaysia, if you find yourself in the Office alone in the same room as your secretary with the door closed, it is technically “khalwat” although you don’t have the mens rea for it.
According to western legal jurisprudence, for a crime to be committed you must show ‘actus reus’ and ‘mens rea’ – not so under Islamic legal jurisprudence.
February 7th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Thanks COunsel. You need to educate some people on the independence of the Judiciary, especially here in Malaysia where the Executive is supreme.
The Metramac case is just the tip of the iceberg. Much public funds have gone to waste due to the actions of some who are cronies of the Establishment. If and unless we act there will be more losses in the future.
We need to have more judges of calibre especially those who do not fear veiled threats from the ruling party and retribution in the afterlife.
Kudos to you Yang Ariff.
February 8th, 2006 at 8:39 am
Aiyah more rubbish.
Counsel said: “It is unfair to let the non-Muslim partner escape liability as it is obvious that he or she is liable for some wrongdoing. This is the dilemma facing the clerics in a country like Malaysia – and there is no answer to it.”
This is a typically warped Muslim perspective and illogical and ignorant thinking to boot. The truth is that the non-Muslim partner did not commit any wrongdoing, because no law applicable to him/her made that act a wrong.
Get it.
However, the operational Islamic law in Malaysia which is applicable to all Muslims is the one that makes the act a wrong.
So the Muslim is rightly punished for committing a wrong under applicable Muslim law (who asked you to be Muslim lah brader? You choose or remain, you face the music)), but the non-Muslim is not punished because the law that applies to the latter does not make the act a wrong (clever, that is why we don’t want to be Muslims, mah?)
Nothing so terribly difficult for people to appreciate this, is there? So why are Muslim clerics in a dilemma? Bingong ke?
In any event, everyone realises that Khalwat is an unjust Islamic criminal offence. A long time ago Prof Ahmad Ibrahim suggested that only Zina should be made an offence (because it needs serious proof) but that Khalwat should not be criminalised because it can be established with the flimsiest of evidence, innuendo and speculation and it is susceptible to extortion, blackmail and graft.
If the great Prof could not persuade these dodos, who can?
LJ
February 8th, 2006 at 10:37 am
In the meantime I have been thinking.
When the Taliban in 2001 destroyed two colossal images of the Buddha in the Baniyan Province in Afghanistan - on the basis that they were un-Islamic graven images - it must have offended the Buddhists of the world no end.
What good fortune for the world that Buddhist tolerance sustained itself so superbly that it did not drive its believers on to the streets vowing the butchering, slaughtering and beheading of Muslims.
What a contrast to the behaviour of their Muslim brethren today in their response to the Danish newspaper cartoons of the Prophet.
LJ
February 8th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
LJ,
I’m a “hantu” but sometimes I talk to human! What say you if I say that the Taliban did great justice to Buddha himself, by destroying his image? Just read this one first and then you comment!
“First, it is important to recognize that the massacre has little to do with religion. The Buddha is not God or even one among many gods. During his lifetime of 80 years, Buddha Sakyamuni only allowed his image to be recorded as a reflection in rippling water. Images of the Buddha himself did not appear for at least 400 years after his death and even then were created only to remind followers of their own innate “Buddha Nature.” This kind of early aversion to “idolatry” is typical of Christianity and other religions — many devotees of Christ railed against material images of Jesus for centuries, especially during two waves of “iconoclasts” (idol smashers) in the Byzantine Empire.”
February 8th, 2006 at 10:31 pm
What is lacking in us today is Tolerance, Lovingkindness and Goodwill. There’s still so much hatred, restlessness, fear, suspicion and insecurity that has become extremely difficult for fellowmen to coexist peacefully. It is very sad.
If Christians live by the Sermon on the Mount, if Buddhists follow the Noble Eightfold Path, Muslims follow the concept of Brotherhood and if Hindus shape their life in Oneness, definitely there will be peace and harmony in this world. Inspite of these invaluable Teachings of the great religious teachers, we still have not realised let alone master, the value of their contribution. Everyday we see, read and hear the “intolerance” that is practised in the name of religion, that is most disgraceful and deplorable.
Today the world has bled and disease of intolerance and dogmatism has plagued us. Some who may think to return good for evil is absurd, unthinkable and that tolerance, kindness and goodwill are effeminate, not ‘macho’! …but what harm is there if we are able to settle disputes in a peaceful manner, sacrificing our ego and dangerous pride?
February 9th, 2006 at 12:12 am
Dear LJ, you said:
“What good fortune for the world that Buddhist tolerance sustained itself so superbly that it did not drive its believers on to the streets vowing the butchering, slaughtering and beheading of Muslims. ”
I agree with you in total, that’s spiritual maturity at its best !
Dear Hantu Gigi Jarang,
To the Buddhists, it does not matter if the Buddha statues were destroyed afterall the Buddha himself discouraged idolatory(idol worshiping). They were carved out by buddhist followers centuries ago as a mark of respect to this great holy man of extraordinaire. The statues were mere visual aids that help recall the Buddha’s qualities that inspired generations throughout the civilised world.
It’s the mental state of mind of the Talibans at that point of time, that was of much concern, and not the statue nor its teachings.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:46 am
Jong,
I’m a “hantu” , but sometimes I can be confused too!
Yes, I totally agree of the high level of tolerence shown by the Buddhist all around the world on the Bamiyan issue. I would say that they really followed the original teachings of Budhha, one of which is on idolatory! So, instead of only tolerenting, they should also be thankful to the Taliban. On the same ground, dont you think that it’s only natural for the Muslims to be hurt by these caricatures of Prophet Mohamad (saw)?.
To repeat your words with slight tweaks, “It’s the intention of these non-believer western cartoonists at that point of time, that was of much concern, and not the cartoons nor its teachings”. For, if they do really believe in and uphold the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) would have not resorted to this cartoon drawing issue!
“This kind of early aversion to “idolatry” is typical of Christianity and other religions — many devotees of Christ railed against material images of Jesus for centuries, especially during two waves of “iconoclasts” (idol smashers) in the Byzantine Empire.”
Now, I’m turning myself into a “hantu”!
February 9th, 2006 at 2:54 am
Jong,
Soory, got to bring myself back to the human world!
Dont get me wrong! Yes, I’m hurt by the offending caricatures but I dont agree to the violent response by certain quarters of the Muslim world. Any issue on religion should be handled through diplomacy, if possible! If not, the Muslims should at least have something equivalent to the ADL for the Jews! Unfortunately, the Muslim world is weak and in total disarray. If they are united, they could have 100 times more powerful ADL!
I agree with DR Mahathir that some Muslim leaders in the Arab world should be tried in court for their failures to prosper their nations/people. If the Muslims are strong economically and morally, they can fight for their belief from being rediculed, more effectively.
And one more thing Jong & LJ, …very few people may be permitted to enter the Heaven, as promised by God in the Quran! Those are people who really submitted to the One and only God. Muslims or non-Muslims is not a factor!
I’m getting smelly, I’m turning into a “hantu” already!
February 9th, 2006 at 5:40 am
as per LJ
“Aiyah more rubbish.
Counsel said: “It is unfair to let the non-Muslim partner escape liability as it is obvious that he or she is liable for some wrongdoing. This is the dilemma facing the clerics in a country like Malaysia – and there is no answer to it.”
This is a typically warped Muslim perspective and illogical and ignorant thinking to boot. The truth is that the non-Muslim partner did not commit any wrongdoing, because no law applicable to him/her made that act a wrong.”
The non-Muslim partner has not committed an offence under the Penal Code – which is obvious except to someone who says “it is a typically warped perspective”. The word is “wrongdoing” and that gray matter between your ears ought to have come to your aid – but did not - and again for obvious reasons.
Let’s hope there is enough gray matter to help you understand that not all “wrongdoings” rise to the level of a “criminal offence”.
February 9th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
The twelve political cartoons of Prophet Mohammad, depicting him with horns and a bomb on his head, and another saying to suicide bombers
”Stop! Stop! We’re out of virgins!” pales in comparison to the vile and venom poured out by Moslem fanatics and anti-Jewish caricatures of Jews as pigs etc by Moslems all over the world.
LJ
February 9th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
LJ,LJ…
Are you Long Jaafar? Whatever..!!
Hantu Tak Bergigi, your suggestion is too much. Dont you realise that we, “hantus” sometimes have better moral than some of these humans?. It’s only when “bulan mengambang” that we cant bear not to eat someone!
Back to this LJ,
From written unbiased history, if you care to do a little reaserch, you will discover that fanaticism towards Christians and Jews is hardly found in orthodox Islam till after the Crusades, though the Christians were not always easy subjects for toleration. Many of them thought it a religious virtue to insult the religion of Islam in public, and so court martyrdom from the natural indignation of the rulers. There were epidemics of this kind of religious mania at various times in different countries, and the sensible calm manner in which the Muslim rulers dealt with them is one great things in Muslim history.
And LJ, if you care to do some more reaserch (from unbiased reports offcourse!), you’ll find that the demolition of the Bamiyan statutes were consented by many Buddhist scholars and clerics who were really upholding the original teachings of Buddha, that you can find many of them in the current Afganistan. Buddha is a man, a noble one and could be one of the many prophets of God, as mentioned in the Quran. LJ, we and the rest of the human beings submit to the same, the one and the only God!
February 9th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
Hantu has entertained us all with a piece of nonsense of the highest degree.
He says”
And LJ, if you care to do some more reaserch (from unbiased reports offcourse!), you’ll find that the demolition of the Bamiyan statutes were consented by many Buddhist scholars and clerics who were really upholding the original teachings of Buddha, that you can find many of them in the current Afganistan. Buddha is a man, a noble one and could be one of the many prophets of God, as mentioned in the Quran. LJ, we and the rest of the human beings submit to the same, the one and the only God! ”
What he essentially preaches is the supremacy of one culture over other another. Wow, look, you do not understand your own culture, let us correct it for you!
Do you like it if Americans go around hunting radical clerics? They can claim that they are doing a great service for Islam by removing this preachers of hate.
The kind of logic spouted by this Hantu is incredible … What incenses me is not so much that the destruction is an insult to Buddha, but rather the actions degrade the cultural achievements and history of an ancient people. The egyptian Muslims do not go around tearing down the pyramids. Please reflect upon this first before trying to become a taleban apologist.
It’ll be interesting to see how this person carries on his spin, there is a saying … “menegakkan benang yang basah”.
February 9th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
What is going here in Badawiland? Rubbish.
February 9th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
Ghostbusters,
Dont be mad if you cant catch me all this while!
You say “Do you like it if Americans go around hunting radical clerics? They can claim that they are doing a great service for Islam by removing this preachers of hate”. What if I say yes, go ahead because Islam did not and should not be propagated through hate or violence. That’s also in the Quran!. But you should spare those who are oppressed and therefore has to fight back in self-defence!
The pyramids are still in good order and quite safe for many more years. The Bamiyan has cracks and each as big as full size male Afghan. It poses danger to people despite many years effort by the Afganistan government, with assistance from India government and UN to restore it.
Nah, catch me if you can~!
February 9th, 2006 at 9:21 pm
Hantu GigiJ, you said:
“And LJ, if you care to do some more reaserch (from unbiased reports offcourse!), you’ll find that the demolition of the Bamiyan statutes were consented by many Buddhist scholars and clerics who were really upholding the original teachings of Buddha, that you can find many of them in the current Afganistan.
Buddha is a man, a noble one and could be one of the many prophets of God, as mentioned in the Quran. LJ, we and the rest of the human beings submit to the same, the one and the only God! ”
I do not think “consented” is the correct word. As I said in my earlier posting, the original teachings of Buddha discourages idolatory(idol worshipping) and places alot of emphasis on tolerance, so it definitely should not matter to any buddhist scholars or practising clerics when the Talibans were adamant in destroying the two centuries old world tallest Buddha’s statues which they(Talibans) claimed were “offensive to Islam” . How could they be, and has their destruction served any purpose ? They were just sick.
February 9th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
I didn’t catch you … it is just that you have gone into the ghost trap and completed my job by locking yourself up and throwing the key out of reach.
Please write more of your spin and let readers judge your mental state.
I will not do anymore disservice in Bakri’s website by responding to you.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:53 am
Okay Ghostbuster,
This is the last spin before I’m off to my “6 feet underground”!
Jong my dear, “offensive to Islam” is taken from biased reports, mostly made by western journalists! Go around Afganistan now, there’re hundreds if not thousands of statutes all over the country, still intact and some are well maintained. Jong, I’ve been to Kabul twice, and during one of the visits, I was in Bamiyan, right under the statute! I know the problems.
Bye-bye!
February 10th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Hantu GigiJ:
Comeon, they were national relics, treasures of the Afghan people - priceless pre-Islamic heritage ! You mean to say there was no credibility in the words of Conservationist Rahhaldas Sengupta who spent 9 long years of his life in restoring works, UNESCO head Koichiro Matsura & UN Sec-Gen Kofi Annan and their pleas with the Talibans to spare those relics?
Btw how “unsafe” could those buddha statues be when even when the Talibans found it so difficult to destroy with dynamites and shells because the statues were carved out of a cliff and firmly attached to the mountain.
I guess the statues simply refused to disappear so easily.
Hope they have doctors too, in your part of the world!
February 12th, 2006 at 9:09 am
Ghostbuster is LJ?