Critical Thoughts

This is a very tired, old reaction to anything involving any proposal to revive the Shariah. You will see non-Muslims going up in arms against this idea, even though it is merely at a proposal stage and yet to be properly formulated on how the framework would be or how it will affect both Muslims and non-Muslims. I think these days that is the same case with anything that involves the word “Islam” in it. Nevertheless, it is not my purpose in this post to talk about the Shariah or an Islamic State in Malaysia. That, we can leave for another time. What I want to answer is the insinuation is that “Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism” (or for that matter, any other religion apart from Islam) have a clear and concise idea of what constitutes “statehood” or even has a proper legal framework.

Continue reading…

Let me see….first we have the Danish cartoons. Then it was that idiotic and bigoted statement from the so-called “Vicar of Christ”, Pope Benedict XVI, regarding the Prophet (P). More recently it was Geert Wilders’ Fitna movie. Now we are having bloggers bashing a proposal to reform the Shariah laws as discussed at a recent forum organised by the Institute of Islamic Understanding (IKIM) and the Syariah Judiciary Department Malaysia.

A seminar on Syariah Law review wants non-Muslims found committing khalwat (close proximity) with Muslims to also be held liable. This was among the proposals made at the two-day seminar organised by the Islamic Institute of Understanding Malaysia (Ikim) and the Syariah Judiciary Department Malaysia.

Syariah Court of Appeal Judge Datuk Mohd Asri Abdullah said the seminar had proposed that non-Muslims committing khalwat with Muslims should also be sentenced accordingly, but in the civil courts.

“We don’t have the jurisdiction to sentence non-Muslims committing khalwat with Muslims,” he told reporters after closing the seminar on behalf of department director-general Datuk Ibrahim Lembut at Ikim here today.

“The Muslims can be sentenced in Syariah courts, and the non-Muslim partners can probably be sentenced in the civil courts, to be fair to both parties.”

He said the proposal, contained in a draft resolution at the seminar, would be forwarded to the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

“It is up to the Attorney-General’s Chambers or the relevant authorities to decide how to create such a law,” he said.

Continue reading…

Amazing how one particular Islamophobe thinks he can get away with this:

In Syriah[sic] Law, the living stand to inherit nothing from the dead Muslim spouse or kin. It seems to me the eldest son (is a Muslim) fabricated the story in order to be the sole heir of the deadman’s property[....]To think that a family receives nothing from their departed ones, the house, money and car, I’ll call this robbery. The eldest son or Baitulmal have no right to take everything from a family.

[confer Inheritance Law in Islam to see this liar exposed.]

Continue reading…

I sometimes find it ironic that proponents of secularism tend to wave around the “hudud” flag and claim that since Islamic law condones the so-called “barbaric” practices such as cutting off the hands [and forgetting that this can only be implemented if exceeding a certain value], lapidation [again, forgetting that there can only be four witnesses to married adulterers caught in the act] and other such punishments deemed “unsuitable” [according to whom?] to them, it therefore follows that secularism remains the only alternative. How ignorant they truly are, these miserable folks! They should get a good book on Shariah if they wish to comment about it.

Continue reading…