Police filed chargesheet against 27 accused day before yesterday in the much hyped case of a small town Muvattupuzha in Kerala in which the right hand of T J Joseph, a private college Malyalam lecturer, was chopped off allegedly by activists of a Muslim outfit Popular Front of India (PFI) on July 4 last year.
The chargesheet filed before the First Additional Sessions court, Ernakulam, V Shircy, lists 54 persons in the accusation in the case and reports that a few alleged ones are absconding. Cases have been registered against the accused for offences against the Nation, and under various sects of IPC including 120, 143, 148 (riot, unlawful assembly, 120(B) (Criminal conspiracy) 323 (Hurt) and 307 (attempt to murder), Sect 3 of Explosive substance act and various sections of unlawful activities (Prevention) Act. The case has been posted to January 18 for hearing.
Six months back, Joseph asked a libelous question to his students in the test paper insulting the sanctity of Prophet Muhammad, which enraged some local youths and eventually his hand was chopped off by someone understood to be a new recruit of the organisation. The said professor was sacked by the management of his Newman College and the PFI removed the alleged youth and his accomplice from its membership and forthwith condemned the act.
Instead of receiving appreciation for its restraints in a highly volatile issue, the PFI was blown out of the size by media and posed it as a fundamentalist and violent organisation.
Some of the latest legal developments would perhaps give a sigh of relief to it and improve its public image.
On January 3, Kerala high court judge V Shersi granted bail for the first and second accused in the case, Jafer and Kaladi Ashraf, citing the inability of the prosecution to file charge sheet against the accused within the stipulated period. Another accused Dr Raneef got relief from the Supreme Court on 4th January, which upheld the Kerala High court order to grant bail against the will of the state government. All of them were also charged under the IPC, the Explosive Substances Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention). Not only these two instances of judgments diffusing the police theory, the remarks made by the apex court further makes dent to its reputation.
Referring to the treatment of one of the accused assailant by Dr Raneef, considered by the police as an act of collaboration, the bench of justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra said, ‘the respondent, being a doctor, was under the Hippocratic oath (oath stating obligations and proper conduct of doctors) to attempt to heal a patient. Just as it is the duty of a lawyer to defend an accused, so it is the duty of a doctor to heal. Even a dentist can apply stitches in an emergency.’ The court also remarked that the books like Jihad that are said to be confiscated from the doctor were available in open market and it is not a crime to have a copy in ones possession.
P Abdul Hameed, general secretary of Popular Front of India reacted that "by rejecting the appeal moved by Kerala government against the bail order, Supreme Court has brought out hollowness of police vilification campaign against Popular Front and its activists". He further said those who are keen to give terrorist label to the organisations like Popular Front of India should be ready to read the judgment.
Raneef’s lawyer contended that he was not one of the assailants and he had also condemned the attack on Jacob. The defense also pointed out that the PFI was not a militant or terrorist organisation. The top court accepted the contention. On the allegation that Raneef belonged to the PFI, the court said that there was no proof to show that it was a terrorist organisation, and he could not be penalized merely for belonging to it.
Even assuming that the PFI was an illegal organisation, it has to be considered whether all members can be automatically held guilty, the honourable judges said. The court cited three US judgments in this context. In one, the US Supreme Court had distinguished between active “knowing” membership and passive, merely nominal membership in a subversive organisation does not qualify one for prosecution.
Since the hand chopping event, the PFI has been illustrated in some media stories as a sort of violent organisation and the Front has started legal action against some of those responsible for the slander, informed one of the PFI’s state president. He was of the opinion that the left front government was playing a communal card being scared of Muslim voters’ swing against it in the ensuing assembly elections, as evinced by the recent local body debacle of the leftists in the state.
The PFI rubbishes the event as a sporadic outrage on the inflammatory behavior of the Christian teacher and think it unacceptable but akin to routine CPM-RSS clashes in Kerala in which not only body parts have been chopped off but several political workers have lost their lives for years together, one of the office-bearers commented. He wondered how the media and the state establishment have singled out his organisation for the blame game.
The so-called 'hand chopping case' has been debated during the past few months in a high pitch which only added the Popular Front in granering popularity among Muslim youth in the state and outside so much so that one of the accused, a college teacher Anas, won a local body election from behind the bar and was squbsequetly released on bail
The de-politicisation of political Islam
The key lies on the Federal Constitution. As long as it remains the status quo, Malaysia will continue the implementation of the common law and thus, will never be an Islamic state. under the Federal Constitution
The state of Malaysian politics?
How do you know that your country is in deep shit?And so, as if Malaysians were not tired and jaded enough, the Hudud issue is back in the limelight in the country. It seems odd, to say the least, that an issue that dates back to the 1980s has been resurrected once again.
There are those who state that this time round it was not PAS that put the issue on the table, but that the Islamist party was merely responding to a challenge posed by its detractors (UMNO).
True though that may be, the fact is that PAS fell into the trap hook, line and sinker; and that as a result the deep ideological cleavages between PAS, PKR and DAP have come to the foreground once again.
This debate will never go away as it is a political debate, and as such will remain a political and politicised issue. To ask PAS to abandon the issue of Hudud and Shariah law is as odd as asking a Socialist party to abandon Socialism or a Conservative party to abandon Conservatism.
Islamism is, after all, the basis of PAS’s existence and why it came about, but perhaps the question can and should be re-framed thus: Granted that PAS is an Islamic party, how can it adapt and adopt its understanding of Islamism to suit the needs of the times?
What comes to mind is the Labour Party of Britain, and how it managed to come to power at last after five uninterrupted periods of rule under Margaret Thatcher and one term under John Major. For those of us living and working in the UK in the 1990s, it seemed as if the Labour Party was, by then, a relic of the past and that it ought to have been mothballed in some Museum of Natural History.
Yet the Labour party did re-bound, but only after some serious soul-searching and a heavy dose of realism and pragmatism that saw the demise of its old guard leaders like Neil Kinnock, Michael Foot, et. al. Under Tony Blair the Labour party was re-packaged and re-sold to the British electorate as ‘New Labour’ (which some might say was a case of old wine in new bottles, or new wine in old bottles.)
Tony Blair(right) and his advisers had, by then, realised that the social changes that had taken place in the UK were real, and that there were new constituencies to be catered to. They ultimately rejected the old Labour notion that political change had to come from a vanguard of the industrial working classes, and presented themselves as the Left alternative for the new urban middle-classes and professionals. This also meant abandoning once and for all the Labour party’s demand for the nationalisation of key national assets, and end of ‘envy taxes’ against the rich, and a more compromising attitude towards Capital.
Rightly or wrongly, the changes did pay off and Tony Blair did come to power in the end — but not without making serious and radical changes to the Labour party and its ideology.
Which raises the crucial question: to what extend does a political party have to make compromises and move to the mainstream middle-ground in order to be elected, or seen to be electable? Tony Blair’s reforms then were certainly not totally popular with the rank and file of the party, and he was also accused of selling out and compromising on some of the most fundamental tenets of Labour. But with hindsight, one might also argue that had these reforms not been undertaken, the party might never have come to power at all.
Which brings us to the present-day mess in Malaysia, and how the parties of the Pakatan Rakyat are floundering in a very public and embarrassing manner. One thing that can be said about the behaviour of PAS and DAP at least is that some degree of predictability has been institutionalised by now, rendering their behavior patterns as normalised.
We can say with some degree of certainty that if PAS was pushed on the questions of Islamic State, Hudud, and Shariah their response would be ‘yes’. We can also say with some certainty that if DAP is pushed on the question of Chinese vernacular schools it too would say ‘yes’.
But it is precisely because both parties will not compromise on the key red-button issues that directly affect their constituencies that we suspect that the Pakatan coalition is an instrumental one at best.
Hence the natural tendency to ask: What then, if they come to power? Continued protection and promotion of separate ethnic schools and limited Hudud law but only for/on Muslims? What sort of nation-building programme is this, and how does this diminish the apparent ethnic-linguistic-religious divide between the communities?
ALL the parties of Pakatan have to realise that grand-standing before their own constituencies is just wayang kulit and theatrics, and does little to educate the Malaysian public. Worse still, the predictability of their political behaviour and responses also means that one can easily manipulate these parties and get them to squabble among each other, as they are doing now, like puppets on a string. If they are really sincere about building this amorphous, nebulous multi-cultural Malaysia they seem to be talking about all the time, then ALL these parties have to realise that in coalition politics all actors have to make sacrifices and adjustments, and no-one should hog the limelight.
Furthermore parties like PAS should also remember that whatever ideological pyrotechnics they may employ may not necessarily translate into votes on polling day: In fact, if we were to look back at PAS’s history and its electoral performances, it would seem that PAS’s electoral performance has suffered whenever its own rhetoric reaches fever-pitch: In the early 1980s PAS’s rhetoric was decidedly revolutionary, with PAS leaders and writers even openly supporting the Iranian revolution and the Islamisation programme in Pakistan.
PAS leaders then engaged in what was called the ‘kafir-mengafir’ controversy, with men like Hadi Awang openly labeling the Islamic party’s opponents un-believers.This overheated rhetoric peaked with the Ibrahim Libya crisis, when the PAS leader Ibrahim Libya (left) was killed at the village of Memali in Baling, Kedah.
Many PAS leaders then believed their cause to be just, and perhaps hoped that they would win big at the coming election as a result of the opposition they received from UMNO and the state security apparatus: But instead they lost, badly, and managed to secure only one miserable seat in Parliament, which effectively silenced the party for the next five years.
A similar outcome came about at the elections of 2004, when PAS had hoped to win big as it stood against UMNO that was then led by Abdullah Badawi. However in the years 2002-2003 PAS’s rhetoric had once again over-heated, as was made manifest at the ill-timed and ill-conceived demonstration in front of the US embassy in KL, in protest against the US-led invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The image of PAS members with banners proclaiming the “Taleban are our brothers” was an own-goal of gargantuan proportions, which reminded Malaysian voters that there were still such pro-Taliban elements within the Malaysian Islamic party, and that the demonised image of PAS was not some concocted media fiction.
To conclude on a pessimistic note that betrays my own irritation and frustration with all the politicians and political parties in this country, I can only ask that they think of the national interest for once, and less about their own ‘natural constituencies’.
Thus far we have been treated to a barrage of corruption scandals, slurs, abuse, threats, amateur heroics and all sorts of bongo-bongo nonsense that may be entertaining for some but not really constructive in dealing with real problems such as wage and income differentials, outflow of FDI, loss of competitiveness and the lingering worry about geo-strategic shifts and changes as Southeast Asia comes under the looming shadows of China, India and America.
Vainglorious talk and boasting about moral politics, grand visions and Hudud law do not really solve any of these problems — they merely add to the theatricality of our political culture which is fast becoming a joke to all. For heavens sake, politicians: Grow Up.
DAP will continue to work with PAS even though the Islamist party wanted to implement hudud laws and set up an Islamic state in Kelantan.
DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said each component party in Pakatan Rakyat was entitled to its own stand on various issues.
He said the DAP would still cooperate with PAS on issues that they had agreed upon as outlined in the Buku Jingga or the Orange Book.
Refusing to be drawn into reports quoting Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat that DAP could say “bye bye” and leave the Opposition coalition if it disagreed with PAS’ stand, Lim Guan Eng insisted that he needed to hear it for himself from the Kelantan Mentri Besar.
“I do not know what he actually said. I will have to verify it first,” he said.
DAP chairman Karpal Singh also said he would clarify the matter with PAS leaders first.
“Let’s see if that was what he (Nik Aziz) really said,” Karpal said
“PAS cannot set up an Islamic state – it’s as simple as that,” he said here yesterday. “As far as we (DAP) are concerned, we will oppose anyone who tries to set up an Islamic state.”
The origins and obligations of Sharia law
Sharia is the body of Islamic religious law based on the Qu'ran and the words and actions of the prophet Mohammed and his followers.
In the West, Sharia has become synonymous with the brutal punishments meted out in Islamic states, but the majority of laws are to do with everyday issues, ranging from personal hygiene to banking.
Hard line Muslim leaders claim that Sharia is eternal and can never be changed, while moderates argue that it is not a strict set of laws but should be open to interpretation.
Sunni and Shia Muslims follow different schools of thought in interpreting the Sharia laws, but all Muslims are required to live according to Sharia wherever they are.
Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran have implemented Sharia as the legal system of the country, but in Britain it has no legal standing, despite the introduction of Sharia-compliant banking and food.
Examples of obligatory laws
• Earnings must be lawfully obtained
• Food must be halal
• Personal hygiene must be of a very high standard
• Couples must have a full bath in flowing water after intercourse
• The body must be covered modestly
• Prayers must be said five times a day
• Believers must fast during Ramadan
By Clare Dwyer Hogg and Jonathan Wynne-Jones, The Telegraph
*******************************************
Sharia is an Arabic word meaning "the right path". The Sharia comes from the Qu'ran, the sacred book of Islam, which Muslims consider the actual word of God. The Sharia also stems from the Prophet Muhammad's teachings and interpretations of those teachings by certain Muslim legal scholars.
Muslims believe that Allah (God) revealed his true will to Muhammad, who then passed on Allah's commands to humans in the Koran.
Since the Sharia originated from Allah, Muslims consider it sacred. Between the seventh century when Muhammad died and the 10th century, many Islamic legal scholars attempted to interpret the Sharia and to adapt it to the expanding Muslim Empire.
The classic Sharia of the 10th century represented an important part of Islam's golden age. From that time, the Sharia has continued to be reinterpreted and adapted to changing circumstances and new issues. In the modern era, the influences of Western colonialism generated efforts to codify it.
Following Muhammad's death in A.D. 632, companions of the Prophet ruled Arabia for about 30 years. These political-religious rulers, called Caliphs, continued to develop Islamic law with their own pronouncements and decisions. The first Caliphs also conquered territories outside Arabia including Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Persia, and Egypt.
As a result, elements of Jewish, Greek, Roman, Persian, and Christian church law also influenced the development of the Sharia.
Islamic law grew along with the expanding Muslim Empire. The Umayyad dynasty Caliphs, who took control of the empire in 661, extended Islam into India, Northwest Africa, and Spain. The Umayyads appointed Islamic judges, kadis, to decide cases involving Muslims. (Non-Muslims kept their own legal system.) Knowledgeable about the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad, kadis decided cases in all areas of the law.
Following a period of revolts and civil war, the Umayyads were overthrown in 750 and replaced by the Abbasid dynasty. During the 500-year rule of the Abbasids, the Sharia reached its full development.
Under their absolute rule, the Abbasids transferred substantial areas of criminal law from the kadis to the government. The kadis continued to handle cases involving religious, family, property, and commercial law.
The Abbasids encouraged legal scholars to debate the Sharia vigorously. One group held that only the divinely inspired Koran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad should make up the Sharia. A rival group, however, argued that the Sharia should also include the reasoned opinions of qualified legal scholars. Different legal systems began to develop in different provinces.
From this very brief history of the Islamic empire and the development of the Sharia, some scholars argue that the Sharia evolved over time and transformed to meet the needs to society during their respective times. In other words, the Shariah was not static but dynamic.
Other scholars argue that the Sharia was already present during the time of the Prophet and was already fully developed by the time the Prophet died. In other words, this was what was laid down by the Prophet and merely continued after the Prophet died (meaning, the Sharia did not evolve or transform over time). This argument is to support the theory that the Sharia came from God and was not ‘invented’ by man over hundreds of years following the death of the Prophet.
In an attempt to reconcile the rival groups, a brilliant legal scholar named Shafiee systematized and developed what were called the "roots of the law". Shafiee argued that in solving a legal question, the kadi or government judge should first consult the Koran. If the answer were not clear there, the judge should refer to the authentic sayings and decisions of Muhammad. If the answer continued to elude the judge, he should then look to the consensus of Muslim legal scholars on the matter. Still failing to find a solution, the judge could form his own answer by analogy from "the precedent nearest in resemblance and most appropriate" to the case at hand.
This clearly shows that even the scholars themselves could not agree on whether the Sharia is God’s law or man’s creation based on interpretation of the Koran and the teachings (examples) of the Prophet.
There are five laws under the Sharia law. Basically, these are:
1. ibadah (ritual worship)
2. mu'amalat (transactions and contracts)
3. adab (morals and manners),
4. i'tiqadat (beliefs)
5. 'uqubat (punishments).
There are three categories of crimes in Sharia law. These are:
1. qisas
2. hudud
3. tazir.
Qisas involves personal injury and has several categories: intentional murder (first-degree), quasi-intentional murder (second-degree), unintentional murder (manslaughter), intentional battery, and unintentional battery.
A qisas offense is treated as a civil case rather than an actual criminal case. If the accused party is found guilty, the victim (or in death, victim's family) determines the punishment, choosing either retribution (qesas-e-nafs), which means execution in the case of intentional murder, imprisonment, and in some cases of intentional battery, the amputation of the limb that was lost; or compensation (diyya) for the loss of life/limb/injury.
The sharia judge (or, in modern sharia systems like those of Iran or Iraq, the state) can convict for and legally punish only qesas crimes on his own authority. However, the state itself may prosecute for crimes committed alongside the qisas offense. If the victim's family pardons the criminal, in addition to the sharia punishment he would normally receive a tazir prison sentence (such as ten to twenty years in prison) for crimes such as "intentional loss of life", "tazir assault and battery" "disturbance of the peace", and so forth.
The second category of crimes is hudud (or hadd). Hudud crimes are crimes whose penalties were laid down by the Qu'ran and are considered to be "crimes against God". The hudud crimes are:
1. adultery (zina), which includes adultery, fornication, incest/pedophilia, rape, and pimping
2. apostasy/blasphemy
3. defamation (meaning false accusation of any of these things)
4. sodomy/lesbianism (or sodomy rape)
5. theft
6. use of intoxicants (alcohol/drug use)
7. "waging war against God and society" (rebellion)
Hudud, therefore, is merely one part of the very broad laws that come under the Islamic Sharia. However, this appears to be the only focus for debate, in particular in Malaysia.
Thus, the current brouhaha about Hudud is only a small part of a very vast Sharia system. In reality, we already have the Shariah in Malaysia. The only thing we do NOT have yet is the Hudud part of Sharia.
Upon closer inspection, the ISA is worse than Hudud. Under the ISA you can be detained BEFORE you commit a crime. That is why the ISA is called a 'preventive law'. Under the Shariah you CAN'T be punished for a crime you have not committed yet. The Sedition Act, Criminal Defamation, etc. are more draconian than Hudud by far.
If we compare apples to apples, there are many elements of the Sharia which are fairer than common laws, and vice versa of course. So we can't say Hudud is better or common law is better. It all depends on specifics. Maybe the one bone of contention is the punishment for theft (hand cutting). If we resolve that one needling issue then the rest is not that much an issue.
Are we opposed to Hudud because it is 'ISLAMIC LAW" OR BECAUSE IT IS UNJUST?
What if it was not called Hudud or Sharia but called 'Common Law'? Would it be acceptable then? For instance, if the Parliament amends laws that decree the punishment for the crime of corruption is firing squad (like China) but it is not called Shariah/Hudud would that be acceptable?
What if Parliament passed a law that the punishment for rape is castration? But this is NOT Islamic law and the word Hudud would not appear. Would many support it then? I would!
Can we disagree that rapists and murderers should not be punished? In fact, many feel Hudud is not even severe enough and they want it more severe. What many do not realise is that the hand cutting punishment is not an automatic thing. The criminal must first be assessed as to why he or she stole. And if it is because of poverty, then instead of cutting off the thief's hand, he or she has to be put under welfare and be taken care of by the state. In fact, the head of the welfare department instead would be punished for neglecting the poor and destitute that resulted in them having to steal to survive.
The issue is the word ISLAM in that law of Hudud, which, as you can see, is a SMALL part of the Sharia.
So what is really happening in the debate? Is hudud being used again by DSAI to curry favor with PAS and as a leverage against DAP to bargain for seat allocation? He expresses his PERSONAL opinion, and then claims he will consult PKR on it later (read more here).
We cannot afford to be battling on such issues and lose sight of the REAL BATTLE before us - winning the next GE! Politics and religion do not mix. Religion should not be used as a subject for political debates or policy decisions. Nip the problem in the bud before this issue brings about the downfall of PR! Let's keep our focus and fight the real enemy!
I suppose, this is Malaysia for you. Malaysians would debate till the cows come home about the Internal Security Act (ISA) whereas the ISA is just one small part of many things that is wrong with the Malaysian justice system and the Malaysian judiciary.
Buried away on page 48 of the former press proprietor Conrad Black’s superb, soon-to-be-published autobiography, A Matter of Principle, is the answer to a burning question that very many people have been asking for several years: What does the pope really think about Islamic immigration into Europe? What, in his heart of hearts, does the Supreme Pontiff of the world’s estimated 1.15 billion Roman Catholics truly feel about the future of Western civilization in a continent that has seen such large-scale Muslim immigration over the past half century?
Everyone remembers the massive international controversy surrounding Pope Benedict XVI’s lecture at Regensburg University in September 2006, when he quoted the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos, one of the last Christian rulers before the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." There were riots in the streets of many Muslim countries, the Pakistani Parliament demanded a retraction, Christian churches were firebombed—including five in the West Bank and Gaza, our exciting new Palestinian state—and 100 Muslim clerics wrote an open letter criticizing the speech, even though all the pope was doing was quoting someone else. As security was stepped up around St. Peter’s, the Vatican issued an apology, saying that the pope "sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions."
Pope Benedict
Now, however, Lord Black’s authoritative and highly readable new memoir (full disclosure: I’m a dedicatee) reveals that at a small dinner party given at the home of Cardinal Gerald Emmett Carter, the then–cardinal archbishop of Toronto, in 1990, the then-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger—now Pope Benedict—"lamented 'the slow suicide of Europe:' its population was aging and shrinking, and the unborn were being partly replaced by unassimilable immigrants. He thought that Europe would awake from its torpor, but that there were difficult days head." Black concluded that "Like other cardinals of my acquaintance (including our host), he was a far-sighted judge of important secular matters."
This four-man dinner party—the fourth was Cardinal Carter’s chancellor—of course took place over a decade before 9/11, and 16 years before Ratzinger would, as pope, speak at Regensburg, before apologizing and rightly pointing out that the offensive words had not been his but those of a long-dead Byzantine emperor. Since then, the Roman Catholic Church has been conspicuous by its absence in championing Western values against the cacophony of radical Islamic assertions. Where was the Vatican during the controversies over the Danish cartoons, for example, or the fatwa against Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or the Swiss minarets issue or the French hijab debate, let alone over the multifarious moral and ethical aspects of the global war on terror? It was most often nowhere to be seen, or else comfortably denouncing NATO and the Americans for "excesses." A strong statement by the Vatican this week opposing Palestine joining the comity of nations while still promising death to Israel, for example, would have been invaluable, but of course the modern, PC-obsessed Catholic Church is not about to display that kind of long-overdue wisdom.
Yet thanks to Lord Black’s fascinating book we now know what the pope really thinks, and indeed thought back in 1990, even before the last two decades of mass immigration into Europe from African and Middle Eastern Muslim countries. For the phrase "unassimilable immigrants" cannot refer to anyone else, because there was no large-scale immigration into Europe at that time from any other peoples who fit that description. The largely unassimilated Muslim populations of Germany, France, Holland, Italy, and Britain were undoubtedly what His Holiness was discussing, and in his (correct) view they represent "the slow suicide of Europe," or at least the Christian Europe for which he should be the prime spokesman. It was Arnold Toynbee who wrote in his multicivilizational work The Study of History that "Civilizations die from suicide, not murder." Now we know that the pope agrees with him, but only in private, not in public, just in case the reaction is too unpleasant.
Thanks to Lord Black’s fascinating book we now know what the pope really thinks.
The great thing about being the Vicar of Christ, who has the job literally for life and without the need to stand for reelection, is that you can say precisely what you believe without fear or favor from anyone terrestrial. You’re even the sovereign of a state, so no secular power can touch you either. So now should be the time that Pope Benedict XVI speaks in public about the phenomenon that everyone knows is true, but because of political correctness most of us shrink from saying. It's hard to think of better words than his own: the slow suicide of Europe is taking place in large part due to unassimilable Islamic immigration. In the meantime, Conrad Black has done us all a signal service in bravely quoting his true thoughts, rather than his own, on this most vital issue.
A recent article in the New York Times showcased the crusading efforts of Mr. David Yerushalmi, a 56 year old Hasidic Jew. His circle of support include like-minded prominent thought leaders and presidential candidates like Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Pamela Geller, and Frank Gaffney - all alleged experts on culture, financial systems, history and religion.
Mr. Yerushalmi, who has been taught Arabic and shariah by two Islamic scholars whose identities he won’t reveal, argues that Islamic law, or shariah, ‘presents the greatest threat to American freedom since the cold war,’ where presumably the USA would eventually stand for the United States of Afghanistan.
Mr. Yerushalmi makes some interesting comments, and three of them require either additional elaborations or placing into context for a more informed understanding.
First, he states Islamic militants have not perverted Islam, but rather the Islamic doctrine seeks global hegemony and overseas Muslims support Islamic rule. It’s interesting to know he and his inner circle believe in something that we, Muslims, do not believe. Islamic militants have not only attempted to pervert the religion, but also hijack its core peaceful teaching with their diametrically opposite ideology of hate and murder.
It goes without saying that as Timothy McVeigh and Anders Behring Breivik (the so called ‘Christian terrorist’) did not represent Christian values, Tamil Tigers did not represent all Tamils, Ayuman Shinto did not represent all Japanese, the IRA did not represent all Catholics, and the late Osama Bin Ladin and his ilk neither represented Islamic values, Muslim culture nor an Arab outlook.
A sampling of the state of Muslims around the world shows that they are not at all homogeneous and their societies are in a state of flux. Most of the word’s internal conflicts are in Muslim majority countries, as can be seen with the brutality in Syria, Yemen, Libya, the change of leadership in Tunisia and Egypt, and the financial accommodations in Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait. Also, extremists have killed far more Muslims than non-Muslims, as can be seen with the al-Shabaab Islamic movement contributing to the famine in Somalia. Finally, the brain drain from Muslim countries due to a lack of education, economic opportunities, repression and corruption, hardly foresees a desire to establish Islamic caliphate in the US.
Why doesn’t Mr. Yerushalmi not use examples of Muslims in Muslim majority countries like Malaysia (a multi-ethnic democracy) and Turkey (a democracy led by an Islamist party) instead of focusing on sensational headlines from Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran? Because it’s easier to influence the masses, via a cooperating media, by presenting things out of context.
Second, according to his groups study, 82% of Imams in 100 Mosques surveyed in the US espouse and promote violence. Much like Peter King’s hearings concerning the radicalization of Muslims in America, there was no ‘smoking gun’ that appeared. We Muslims, would like the names of the 80% of imams so that they can be either ‘de-frocked’ or deported. The mosque, much like a church or synagogue, is a sanctuary to connect with God and find solace. Those that use the pulpit otherwise are "...buying the life of this world at the price of the hereafter" (Qur’an 2:86).
In the US, there are present Muslims from all 57 Muslim countries. American Muslims come in different colors, shapes, sizes and, yes, even ‘beliefs.’ There are different sects in Islam and represented in the US by mosques run by Sunnis, Shias, Sufis, and even Ahmadis and the Nation of Islam. Put three Muslims in a room and you’ll get four opinions.
Sarah Palin’s comment in the article, where she claims the downfall of America if shariah law is adopted, is consistent with her misinformed musings. America has outlasted socialism, fascism, racism and communism, and is much stronger with its checks and balances. The ‘over-accommodation’ of Muslims will not happen here and, more importantly, Muslims are not asking for over accommodation but only a level playing field where possible.
For example, Kosher law is well accepted in the US, including by the Muslims for food consumption. There are common areas between Jewish law and shariah law on food (kosher and halal), custody, divorce, and so on. But Muslims are simply not looking to overturn the US Constitution. As New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie, who recently nominated a Muslim judge to his state Superior Court put it, ”this Sharia law business is crap. It's just crazy. And I'm tired of dealing with the crazies."
Third, the Islamic finance industry, via American banks offering funds, invests in companies deemed shariah compliant, implying to some that these are companies whose primary business may be inconsistent with American values and principles. If we look at the six index providers, from S&P to Dow Jones Indexes, MSCI to FTSE, Russell to Thomson Reuters, they all have Islamic indexes from which such funds are launched.
But the largest companies in the today’s Islamic indexes include Microsoft, IBM, Pfizer, ExxonMobil, Google, and so on. Islamic equity investing is social-ethical investing, with an emphasis is on negative screening. This is where most of the money from Islamic funds is invested. And not one Islamic financial institution to date has been convicted of financing terrorism. Non-regulated moneychangers and charities are a different issue and must be scrutinized to the full extent of the law.
In fairness to Mr Yerushalmi, he asks a good question in the article, ‘what is shariah?’ Perhaps the best way to answer it is in the negative. It consists neither of a covert fifth column nor overt mass conversions and world domination. It’s about having the dignity to take care of one’s family, looking after one’s neighbours, and obeying the law of the land.
One simple test question will flush out its intent: What is the identity and ideology of those Muslims and non-Muslims that wish to establish perverted medieval laws in the US that oppress women, promote non-tolerance of other faiths and ethnicities, and by default think in terms of hate and violence? The answer is the discredited very few that are becoming smaller everyday because their message is failing the stress test of humanity.
Typically, the longest lines in most countries is at the US Embassy, because America provides not only economic opportunities regardless of race, creed or color, but also has all the virtues described in all the holy books - the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. The dollar bill is emblazoned with the words In God We Trust. Enough said.
Now, why would the hard working US Muslims want the USA to stand for the United Shariah of America? It’s in America that we have been born or raised, it’s America we want to make great once again, and it’s on American soil we want to be buried.
The Jewish and Catholic people (with allegations of a coup in US by the Pope via President Kennedy) have gone through what Muslims are now going through in the US, moments of mistrust and motives magnified by external events shown in real time.
Time has vindicated the Jews and Catholics and it will also vindicate the Muslims and people like Mr. Yerushalmi will have contributed to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment