|
KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 8 — Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim accused the Syariah court today of being politically manipulated and for blundering in rejecting his application to prosecute his former aide for making a false accusation of sodomy against him.
The opposition leader is appealing against a decision to dismiss his application for qazaf, or false accusation, in the Syariah court.
The PKR de facto leader filed an amendment today to his notice of appeal over his qazaf appeal to compel the prosecution to charge Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.
“The Syariah prosecutor failed to fulfil their duty because of political instructions and did not prosecute based on my report,” he said.
Let Muslims have their sharia courts
[Present here are two divergent Opinions regarding Shariah courts in the Netherlands. Both the Opinions are interesting and at the same time quite important when seen in a perspective. Maurits Berger, a professor of Islam in the West at LeidenUniversity, argues in favour of the establishment of Shariah courts in the Netherlands on the plea that Jewish and Catholic 'courts' are already functioning in this important Western nation. However, Nahed Selim, a Dutch-Egyptian interpreter and writer, strongly argues against the establishment of Sharia courts saying that this would be sheerly a surrender to the dictates of the radical Muslim clergy and Islamic fundamentalists and this needs to be immediately stopped forthwith. The Opinions have been published in a Netherlands website NRC Handelsblad -http://www.nrc.nl]
By Maurits Berger
Last week's commotion about sharia courts in Britain, which even led to questions being asked in the Dutch parliament, was reminiscent of the pandemonium over the alleged introduction of the sharia in Canada in 2004. Apparently, the word sharia is enough to scare people out of their minds.
Let us first establish that there are in fact no sharia courts in the Netherlands. At most, some Dutch Muslims will consult an imam or seek advice on theInternet for some problems or disputes.
But let's assume there were sharia courts in the Netherlands. It is said that there is an inherent danger in having parallel forms of conflict resolution in the Netherlands. But we already have those. Is it illegal? No. Is it desirable? It depends on who you ask but, for better or worse, they are a part of our democratic state of law.
West-European countries have always had two parallel systems: courts that issue verdicts about the law, and conflict resolution councils to whose authority people submit on a voluntary basis. The latter exist in the construction sector (arbitration), in divorce cases (mediation) or in the form of 'religious courts' (Catholics and Jews). These councils have their own set of rules and their own 'judges'; they are an alternative to the regular court system.
So even if the Muslim community in the Netherlands wanted sharia courts, it would be difficult to deny them this privilege, given that Catholics and Jews have their own 'courts' too. And Catholic and Jewish courts also have rules that contradict Dutch law: the Catholics don't allow divorce, and the Jews require the man's permission for divorce.
There are of course limits to freedom of religion. Stoning, forced marriage of minors, cutting off hands: these are strictly forbidden. But religious courts usually deal mostly with family law. If adults want to submit to religious rules, even if they allow for inequality between men and women, it is their right to do so. After all, the Dutch orthodox Christian party SGP adheres to similar principles: it doesn't allow women to hold political office, for instance.
Part of the problem is in the name 'court': calling them 'sharia courts' suggests that they have the same jurisdiction as regular courts. At least in the Netherlands, they do not. A Dutch judge doesn't recognise a religious marriage or divorce, only civil marriage.
But just because the law doesn't recognise something it doesn't follow that it is forbidden. It is perfectly okay to marry or divorce religiously; but then a judge will not hear the case if there is a marital conflict. It works the other way around too: a Catholic or a Jew can be divorced according to the law, but still be married according to their religious laws.
The fact that secular and religious courts exist side by side often leads to confusion. For instance, if a sharia court is asked whether polygamy is allowed in Islam it will answer affirmatively. That doesn't mean that polygamy is allowed in the country in question. But if you ask a question of a religious institution, you can expect a religious answer.
The trouble is that in some Anglo-saxon law systems, like those in Britian and Canada, conflict resolution in family matters can sometimes take the form of officially sanctioned arbitration. That was the case in the Canadian state Ontario, where Christian and Jewish arbitration commissions had been applying their own laws for years.
That was never a problem until the Muslims wanted the same thing in 2004. Suddenly, all kinds of shortcomings of these arbitration commissions were highlighted. Their voluntary character was questioned. There was nothing wrong with that, except that the problem was presented as exclusively Islamic when the Muslims only wanted to do what the other religiouscommunities had been doing for years.
The same controversy now looms in the Netherlands. If Dutch Muslims should decide to adopt our system of parallel religious conflict resolution, and form their own 'sharia courts', there will undoubtedly be public indignation. That might even be warranted, but then the question has to be asked why only Muslim courts are cause for alarm.
We will then be put before a choice: either the Muslims are allowed to do what other religions have been doing for centuries, or the entire system of parallel religious law must be dismantled.
Help Muslims escape the tyranny of sharia law
By Nahed Selim
Sharia law in the Netherlands may not be practised in an actual 'sharia court', but that makes little difference. The point is that Islamic rules about marriage, divorce, custody, parental authority, alimony and inheritance are being implemented according to the sharia, and that these contradict Dutch law.
The clearest example of this is polygamy. Marriages are made and dissolved in mosques in the Netherlands, including polygamous marriages. On September 19, 2008, newspaper De Telegraaf reported that 173 men in Amsterdam are registered as having two legal wives, two men even have three wives. A spokesperson for the city of Rotterdam admitted in NRC Handelsblad last year that polygamous marriages are being registered in thatcity on an almost weekly basis.
It's a pity that the national statistics bureau automatically rejects these marriages because it thinks they're mistakes. Because of this there are no national data about polygamy in the Netherlands. (Non-registered polygamy is probably even much wider-spread.)
The same goes for marriages with underage girls. They are mostly not registered, but sometimes they are. Either way, according to the national statistics bureau they don't exist.
In a way, we already have two parallel legal systems: some things are illegal for non-Muslims but not for Muslims. This is typical of the Dutch attitude towards the Islamisation of Dutch society. Things are happening that the government doesn't know about or doesn't want to know about. They just throw away the statistics, case closed.
Verdicts by imams should not be tolerated by Dutch society even if they happen in the backrooms of mosques. That Catholics and Jews do the same thing, as Berger says, is up to them. Presumably their 'courts' do not impose decapitation for heretics or homosexuals, or condone disobedient wives being beaten up by their husbands.
For everything in sharia law is discriminatory against women: marrying a non-Muslim is not allowed, divorce is not allowed unless the husband agrees to it. The man, for his part, can disown his wife whenever he wants. (A sharia court in Malaysia has ruled that a text message saying 'I disown you' suffices.) If he changes his mind within three months, he can take his wife back. He can do this up to three times. Custody always goes to the father: the mother may raise the children, but he always has the final word.
There are thousands of divorce cases in Islamic countries waiting for a ruling by a sharia court. Needless to say, these are divorces instigated by women. Men don't need the approval of a court in most Islamic countries.
For all these reasons I oppose sharia law in the Netherlands. According to sharia law, a woman is worth only half a man. When she inherits she gets only half what her brother gets. In a court case, her testimony is worth half that of a man.
We can't let this happen in the Netherlands. Mosques practising sharia law should be closed down. The minister claims there is no legal ground to do so, but there is: the European court in Strasbourg on February 13, 2003 ruled that sharia law violates the principles of democracy. The ruling came as a result of an appeals case brought by the banned Turkish Refah party against the Turkish state.
This verdict should provide plenty of legal ground for the Dutch authorities to close down mosques that have effectively introduced sharia law. The European ruling takes precedence over Dutch courts.
The permissiveness of Dutch politicians with regard to Muslim fundamentalists has to stop, also for the sake of moderate Muslims. Allowing a parallel justice system would only rubberstamp existing ghettos.
Even if half of Dutch Muslims say they are in favour of introducing sharia law, that still leaves another half that doesn't. This other half is a better ally because it is not hostile towards the West; it just want lo live according to the same laws that apply to other citizens.
It's enough to consult websites such as "Muslims against sharia", "Women against sharia", "Women living under Muslim laws", "No sharia" or "One law for all " to find out that people all over the world are fighting to escape the tyranny of sharia law. If you want to help Muslims, one should help the right group of Muslims, not the fundamentalists who are intent of having the next generations grow up under a misogynist ideology.
(Courtesy: NRC Handelsblad, Netherlands)
The amendment was over the word “keseluruhan” which means overall, which was omitted in the appeal notice.
“The technical issues to me are not important because it’s the core issue, why did the prosecutor refuse to prosecute in such a clear-cut case?
“I am disappointed because the judiciary system, the Syariah court itself, has been used for political agenda,” Anwar (picture) said.
He added that to his knowledge, the prosecution team had prepared a case to charge Saiful, and yet the process had been interrupted.
“So when you come to a stage like in this country where the Syariah court can be used and manipulated by the political forces, then it’s a sad stage for this country because not only are the courts in question, but the Syariah court is deemed to be ineffective, a stooge of the political masters,” he said.
Accompanying him were his wife, Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, and his lead counsel for qazaf, Kamar Ainiah Kamaruzaman.
Anwar, 63, had on April 23 filed the appeal after the Syariah High Court dismissed his application to initiate qazaf proceedings against Saiful.
On May 14, Federal Territory chief Syariah prosecutor Shamsuddin Hussain, FT Religious Department director Datuk Che Mat Che Ali and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom, as the applicants, had applied to strike out Anwar’s appeal on the grounds that his notice of appeal was defective.
On January 7, Anwar had applied to the Syariah High Court to compel the trio, who he had named as the respondents, to initiate prosecution proceedings against Mohd Saiful, citing that the latter had made false sodomy accusations about Anwar.
On February 9, the respondents had filed a preliminary objection against Anwar’s qazaf application, citing that the the Syariah High Court did not have jurisdiction to hear an alleged sodomy case as this came under the purview of the civil criminal court.
Anwar is currently facing sodomy charges for the second time in his life.
The former deputy prime minister is charged with sodomising Saiful at Unit 11-5-1 of the Desa Damansara Condominium in Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara here between 3.01pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.
Anwar has denied the charge, describing it as “evil, frivolous lies by those in power” when the charge was read out to him. He is charged under section 377B of the Penal Code and can be sentenced to a maximum of 20 years’ jail and whipping upon conviction. The trial is taking place 18 months after Anwar was charged in court in August 2008.
He was charged with sodomy and corruption in 1998 after he was sacked from the Cabinet and was later convicted and jailed for both offences. He was freed in September 2004 and later resurrected his political career by winning back his Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat in a by-election in 2008, which had been held in the interim by his wife.
He had two years ago led the opposition coalition Pakatan Rakyat to a historic sweep of five states and 82 parliamentary seats in Election 2008
.
No comments:
Post a Comment