|
yessir posted this in Difficult Questions on March 11th, 2010
It has been a week now since Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno had her audience with the Tengku Mahkota of Pahang, Tengku Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah. During the meeting, Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno reportedly told Tengku Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah about the stress that the long delay in carrying out the caning sentence given by the Kuantan Syariah High Court for illegally consuming alcohol had on her life. Tengku Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah then said he would bring the case to the Sultan of Pahang for a decision. Hopes have been raised that Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno could possibly receive an unsolicited royal pardon when Tengku Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah said that under Section 133 of the Pahang Syariah Criminal Procedure Enactment 2002, the Sultan of Pahang is empowered to reduce the 6 strokes of the cane meted to her, or to pardon her. Tengku Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah also said that “this case will be settled as soon as possible.” Since Tengku Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah said that the Sultan has the legal power to vary the caning sentence, and even to the extent of pardoning Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno although she has not lodged an appeal against the caning sentence, what then could possibly hold up this case further? Actually Tengku Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah did add a rejoiner. He said: ”It just needs scrutiny in terms of the implementation of the penalty.” In other words, before taking any action either to vary the number of strokes of the cane to be lashed on Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno or to pardon her, the Sultan needs to have a legal opinion on his power and ability to do so. Usually a royal pardon can be considered and granted if there is an appeal for one by the guilty party. But in this case, Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno is adamant that she would not appeal against the sentence, and as far as we know, neither did she appeal for a royal pardon. So given the circumstances of the case, it is wise of the Sultan of Pahang to seek legal advice before making a decision on whether to pardon Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno. Indeed Sultan Ahmad Shah said: “I have to study the case and seek legal advice before making a decision.” The Sultan also confirmed that Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno has not file for a royal pardon. Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno pleaded guilty to drinking alcohol and was punished by the Kuantan Syariah High Court on July 20, 2009 with a fine of RM5,000 and given 6 strokes of the cane. Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno paid the fine, and was all set to become the first Muslim woman to be caned in Malaysia. Under Malaysia’s Civil law, it is illegal to cane a woman, but Malaysia has a dual track Civil and Syariah law running in parallel. One of the complications in this case is that the authorities can only cane prisoners, but the Kuantan Syariah High Court did not sentence Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno to a prison term. In a totally unexpected and surprising development, Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein said recently that 3 Muslim women prisoners were caned on February 9 this year for illicit sex resulting in pregnancy out of wedlock, thus becoming the first women to be caned in Malaysia. Noticeably, these 3 unnamed Muslim women were serving prison terms before being lashed with the cane. Think about it. Where is this case heading? It has been going round and round. There can only be 2 possible outcome. Either Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno will be caned, or she will be pardoned. Which outcome is more likely? Previous posts Kartika Caning – Will She Receive A Royal Pardon? yessir posted this in Family & Relationships on March 10th, 2010
In case you are wondering what happened to Jennifer Birrell, here is an update. Last we heard, she had appealed to Saudi Arabia King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud to intervene for the release of her Egyptian husband Mohammed Ahmed Nagi, who was imprisoned and caned on false charges brought by her former husband. Now, unexpectedly, on the eve of her meeting with King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud last month, Jennifer Birrell was deported from Saudi Arabia. But freedom came with a price – she was forced to leave 3 children behind, and her current husband remains in a Saudi jail. Jennifer Birrell is an Australian citizen. She became a widow at the age of 19 when her first husband died of cancer barely 7 months into the marriage. Later, a failed second marriage left her with custody of a child, Jamilla who is now 11 years old. Disillusioned, she renounced her Christian faith at the age of 21 and became a Muslim. At the Adelaide Mosque where she worshipped, her imam introduced her to an Australian citizen of Yemeni origin who also holds a Saudi passport. They got married, and 3 children were born in Australia from this marriage – Aliyah, Salem and Ibraheem. They are now aged 8, 7 and 4 years respectively. Trouble began when the family uprooted from Australia in 2004 to settle down in Saudi Arabia. There Jennifer Birrell found herself being both the family’s sole breadwinner (because her husband wouldn’t work) and an abused wife (being assualted by him). After she was legally divorced by her former husband before witnesses, she married her colleague, Mohammed Ahmed Nagi, and had a child, Ahmed, who is now 1 year old. But her former husband suddenly reappeared, falsely charged Mohammed Ahmed Nagi with being a marriage wrecker. Mohammed Ahmed Nagi was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment and 300 lashes of the cane, based on this false charge. He has now served more than half the prison term and had been caned more than 200 times. But why couldn’t Jennifer Birrell just pack up and leave Saudi Arabia with her 5 children? Because her former husband falsely claimed to be still her male guardian. In Saudi Arabia, Muslim women have no rights to several things, including travel, without the permission of her male guardian. It seems that a meeting was arranged for Jennifer Birrell with King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud, but the day before the meeting, Jennifer Birrell who is the director of English at Al-Yamamah University found herself forcibly deported, without the 3 children fathered by her former husband. Back home in Melbourne, Jennifer Birrell said: ”Now I’m expected to just accept that I will lose my children and not be able to see them for 10 years, and I can’t even come back to Saudi to visit them.” And what does she plan to do? Jennifer Birrell said: ”I really need to find someone who is willing to help and bring my kids back … really hoping to be able to find a good lawyer who has international ties so that we can do something.” Earlier in Saudi Arabia, Jennifer Birrell had a tearful departure when Aliyah, Salem and Ibraheem (all Australian citizens) were forcibly separated from her. On the road outside her Riyadh home, Jennifer Birrell pleaded to no avail with her former husband: ”Please, don’t take my kids from me.” Perhaps Jennifer Birrell did not expect this outcome. She said: “I kept going through battle after battle – the solution as such was to have me deported” without her children. At one point, it appeared that she was going to leave with all her children. On December 8 last year, Jennifer Birrell received a phone call from Kevin Magee, the Australian ambassador in Riyadh. Jennifer Birrell said: ”He said we have a breakthrough in your case … you and all of your children can leave and go back to Australia.” But this was not the case. Australian consul Benjamin Van Eldik was later told by local authorities that her exit permit did not include Aliyah, Salem and Ibraheem, but Jamilla and Ahmed were included. Desrcribing her shock at this turn of event, Jennifer Birrell said that Benjamin Van Eldik told her: “Jennifer you just have to accept it. You are being deported without your children.” Then he added: “‘I know it’s not easy but when you get back to Australia you can rain down hell on them for what they have done.” But why didn’t the Australian embassy intervene? Jennifer Birrell said: ”Because their father is an Australian citizen, I wasn’t able to get help from the Australian embassy – and the Saudi Arabian law prefers a man keeps his children.” A spokeswoman for the Department of Foreign Affairs in Australia said that extensive consular assistance had been given to Jennifer Birrell and her children since 2007 to help them return to Australia. But she also said that Jennifer Birrell was under investigation for an undisclosed ”serious criminal offence” under Saudi law, a charge that Jennifer Birrell denied. And how are the children left behind in Saudi Arabia coping with the situation? Jennifer Birrell said: “”I spoke to the man who used to be my former driver who went to take some of the boxes of their things to their dad’s house, he said he saw them there and they were ok but they were asking when I was coming.” And what about her current husband Mohammed Ahmed Nagi? He is still in jail, but he may be deported back to Egypt. If this happens, then at least she can be reunited with her husband again, but regaining custody of the 3 children in Saudi Arabia is going to be a tough battle. Think about it. Recently there were reports that Saudi Arabia is going to do away with the male guardianship law (or at least modify it to allow women to carry out certain activities). Male guardianship can be abused, as seen in the case of Jennifer Birrell. Would it be possible for Jennifer Birrell to leave Saudi Arabia with all her 5 children if the male guardianship law is scrapped? Previous post yessir posted this in Difficult Questions on March 9th, 2010
Last month, a Muslim woman by the name of Jannah B’int Hannah led a group of Muslim women in gatecrashing the main prayer hall of the Islamic Center of Washington to demand an end to sex segregation in mosques in America. That demonstration was broken up by Washington DC police but the Muslim women said they would continue with their struggle on this matter. This week, true to their word, risking arrest, the Muslim women returned to the Islamic Center of Washington to repeat their action and their demand for an end to sex segregation in mosques. Whereas the February protest managed to gather 20 Muslim women, this time round the demonstrating group consists of 6 Muslim women. According to press reports, this group is led by Fatima Thompson, an American Muslim who converted to the faith 18 years ago. The 6 Muslim women, with hair covered by headscarves, entered the prayer hall of the Islamic Center of Washington through the main door. They then joined 20 other Muslim men present to pray. The main prayer hall is the domain of male worshippers. Female worshippers have their own prayer room at the side, which is much smaller, the entrance door of which is hidden behind a screen. What is the purpose of this demonstration? Fatima Thompson explains: “Wooden barriers have to be taken down and women have to be allowed to join, to pray behind the men in the main praying area. That’s our request. We are against gender segregation, against the fact that women are put aside or in a totally different room at the mosque.” Fatima Thompson added: “The general issue we are pushing is gender segregation and the ramifications it fosters. It’s not healthy, and not reflective of our society here. It’s very reflective of very restrictive, ultra orthodox societies.” Asra Nomani, a leading Islamic feminist who led a similar protest in West Virginia, said last month: “We have this generation of American Muslim women who are saying ‘look, you want us to go to Harvard, to rise to the highest level of Wall Street firms and you want us to sit where in the mosque?’” Speaking about this month’s protest, Asra Nomani said: “If you are black in this country they can’t tell you to sit in a corner but if you are a woman they can.” So how did the protest end? Well, like the way the first protest last month ended. DC police were called in to evict the Muslim women. The imam presiding over the prayer meeting announced: “We are going to wait, because some people came to disturb the prayer, until the police come and take care of this issue.” Then he added: “It’s disgusting. If they are Muslims they have to follow the rules.” The police came, and promptly ordered the 6 Muslim women out or face arrest. So what did the women do? Well they left alright, but they regathered on the street outside facing the metal gates of the mosque to perform their prayers. One male onlooker offered this hopeful advice to the women: “Build your own mosque.” Did the women expect to resolve things that day? Jannah B’int Hannah who led last month’s protest said: “We may not get to see that in our lifetime but we do that for our daughters.” She added that she would continue to fight for shared prayer space. But the women were encouraged by a comment made by Bachir Kardoussi, a lecturer in comparative religion at the University of Constantine. He said: “Traditions control Islam at the moment, and that’s not the same as Islam.” Think about it. Is Bachir Kardoussi correct in saying that Islam that is controlled by traditions is not Islam? If so, is there any branch of Islam that is not influenced by traditions? For that matter, is there any religion in the world that is not influenced by traditions? Previous post USA – Muslim Women Question Sex Segregation In Mosque Prayer Hall yessir posted this in Insights & Views on March 8th, 2010
We have all heard or read stories of Roman Catholic priests being caught for sexual sins in various countries from time to time. But now, right in the heart of Vatican, a gay prostitution ring has been uncovered. So far Angelo Balducci, a Gentleman of His Holiness and Thomas Chinedu Ehiem, a Vatican choir singer have been implicated, but more may be involved. Father Thomas Williams said: “We’re just scratching the surface here. There’s definitely more to come. We only know of these two men connected with the Vatican in some way, but obviously, they’re talking about a ring, and a ring means definitely more people involved. So, I’m sure more will be coming out in the days to come.” The irony is that this sex scandal was uncovered by accident. Angelo Balducci works for the Italian government. His job is to oversee the awarding of government construction contracts. Italian police were in the midst of investigating several people suspected of being involved in financial corruption, and Angelo Balducci was one of the suspects. Angelo Balducci has been placed in “cautionary custody” on suspicions of involvement in financial corruption. He is suspected of awarding government contracts to businessmen in return for sexual, monetary and other favors. He said that he is innocent. The Italian police uncovered the gay prostitution ring during the course of a 2-year wiretapping operations as part of their investigation into the financial corruption case. Now transcripts of the telephone conversions recorded from April 14, 2008, and January 20, 2010 somehow found their way to the Italian press. What exactly is a Gentleman of His Holiness? This is a grand ceremonial title for unpaid black suited ushers whose main responsibility is to welcome heads of state to the Vatican and escort them to see the Pope. The wiretapped recordings show Angelo Balducci negotiating with Thomas Chinedu Ehiem for male prostitutes. Father Thomas Williams said: “It’s really a sordid affair, and we really didn’t need this right now, but it is what it is.” How did Angelo Balducci meet Thomas Chinedu Ehiem in the first place? Well they apparently met more than a decade ago at the introduction of an escort friend. Thomas Chinedu Ehiem said of Angelo Balducci: “He asked me to do it with him, but I like women and just the thought grossed me out.” Then Thomas Chinedu Ehiem added: “He asked me if I could procure him other men. He told me that he was married and that it had to be done in great secrecy. I told him that there was the Internet. But he asked me to take care of it because he couldn’t do it from his home.” So what kind of male prostitutes does Angelo Balducci like? Thomas Chinedu Ehiem said: “For Balducci, a 26- or 27-year-old man was too young. He preferred older men, above 40 years old. Sometimes he would ask for two meetings a day.” On April 22, 2008 the transcript of the wiretap recording shows Thomas Chinedu Ehiem talking: ”Two black, Cuban men … really tall, tall, tall … so … if you are free … we can try to organize right away … that is, I saw both of them, Angelo … believe me that … they could be two excellent options.” And on August 21, 2008 Thomas Chinedu Ehiem was recorded as saying: “Look, if you want I can have them come one after the other … it is possible … if you have some free time … I can arrange for the two of them … one from Bologna and the other one from Rome.” So what has the Vatican done about Angelo Balducci and Thomas Chinedu Ehiem? It looks like the latter has been dismissed from his choir duties. However, no action has so far been taken against Angelo Balducci, as according to a Vatican source: “It is obvious that, while in prison, he cannot exercise his duties as a papal gentleman.” But how did Angelo Balducci get to become a Gentleman of His Holiness? The same Vatican source said: ”You do the best you can to screen these people. But there are 150 of these men that serve as ushers as Gentlemen of His Holiness. And it’s hard to know exactly what they’re doing in their private lives. They don’t live in Vatican City, they have their jobs, their families and they have other things going on, as well.” Angelo Balducci is appealling against the “cautionary custody”, insisting that he is innocent of financial corruption. But what about his sex scandal? Franco Coppi, lawyer for Angelo Balducci said: “We are talking about things that are personal and private. I can not make any comment and I don’t want to make any comment. It is shameful that private matters are published, matters that have nothing to do with the charges. It is curious to find out how these private matters end up in the press.” And what about the Italian press? Well they have nicknamed this scandal “grande opere”, or “big works”. That just about sums it all up in a country like Italy where sex scandal is no longer a surprise. Think about it. Angelo Balducci’s trouble seems to involve money (financial corruption) and sexual lust. Isn’t it true that the love of money and the lust for sex have caused many men to fall? Think of Tiger Woods, John Terry, Ashley Cole, etc. In this upside down world, what can a man do to avoid falling? yessir posted this in Difficult Questions on March 7th, 2010
Eyebrows were raised recently when Malaysia’s Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail decided not to take action against the Al-Islam magazine and 2 of its Muslim journalists despite police reports lodged against them for desecrating a Roman Catholic ritual last year. But now, Al-Islam and its 2 Muslim journalists involved have apologized to Christians, and in particular, Roman Catholics for their action. Why did the Attorney-General decide to drop the case against Al-Islam and the 2 Muslim journalists? When P Gunasegaram, Managing Editor of The Star newspaper wrote a recent article questioning whether the sentence of both caning and detention meted out to 3 Muslim women are proportionate to the offence, ie illicit sex, and argued against punitive sentence for private behaviour, the Home Ministry issued a show cause letter to The Star after several police reports were made against both P Gunasegaram and The Star. So how come there is no show cause letter sent to Al-Islam? Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail said: ”The actions of the two reporters may have hurt the feelings of the people but I was satisfied that they did not intend to offend anyone. It was an act of sheer ignorance. Therefore in view of the circumstances at that particular time and in the interest of justice, peace and harmony, I decided not to press any charges against them.” However, the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), a component party of the ruling Barisan Nasional said the action of the two Al-Islam journalists were offensive and contrary to the Malaysian culture of peace, harmony and tolerance. So what exactly did Al-Islam magazine and its 2 Muslim journalists do that caused much distress to the Roman Catholic Church? In May last year, Al-Islam sent 2 of its Muslim journalists on a spying mission, pretending to be Christians, to St. Anthony’s Church in Jalan Robertson, located near Puduraya in Kuala Lumpur. It seems that Al-Islam had heard rumors that this church was engaging Muslims and illegally converting Muslims to the Roman Catholic faith. The spies published a report entitled “Tinjauan Al-Islam Dalam Gereja: Mencari Kesahihan Remaja Melayu Murtad” in which they said that they did not see any sign of such illegal activities taking place in the church. However, in order to blend in with the crowd of worshippers and not to attract attention, the 2 Muslim journalists participated in the Mass. They admitted to actually spitting the Communion wafers out, and publishing a photograph of a partially bitten Communion wafer. Roman Catholics consider what the 2 spies did as desecretion. Elaborating further on why he decided to drop the case, Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail said: “No disturbance was caused in the church. In fact, no one in the church was aware that they were Malays.” He added that the 2 journalists did not “know the significance of the white bread” given to them and had committed “an act of ignorance, not malice.” The decision by the Attorney-General to drop the case brought a swift response from the Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam. Expressing personal sadness and the Roman Catholic Church’s regret at the decision of the Attorney-General, Tan sri Murphy Pakiam said: “The journalists have displayed utmost disrespect for the Catholic community when they admit receiving and spitting out the Holy Communion.” Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam went on to say: “Forgiveness is in our blood. Everyday, we pray for God to forgive us, and for forgiveness for those who have sinned against us.” Then he added that the Roman Catholic church would not pursue further legal action if Al-Islam and the 2 Muslim journalists were to apologize publicly for their misdeeds. Opposition leader Lim Kit Siang said: ”The Attorney-General would not be able to convince the community hurt by the act of desecration with such a lame excuse – what more, without any apology from the perpetrators to show remorse for the religious desecration which must be regarded as an act of heinous insensitivity completely unacceptable in Najib’s 1Malaysia.” Lim Kit Siang added: “Malaysians are charitable people and are prepared to forget and even forgive wrongs and offences committed – but there must be proper apology and contrition for a heinous insensitivity like the religious desecration perpetrated by Al-Islam reporters in our plural society.” Then suddenly, Al-Islam issued a public apology on the website of its publisher, Utusan Karya. It said in a statement: “The Al-Islam magazine apologizes in connection with the publication of the article” and it went on to say that Al-Islam “never meant to insult the Christian faith, let alone to disturb or trespass into its house of worship.” It acknowleged that its report had “unintentionally hurt the feelings of Christians especially Catholics.” Referring to its 2 Muslim journalists, the statement added that they were also sorry and had been unaware that their actions would offend Christians. Responding to the public apology, Mabel Sabastian, president of Malaysia’s Catholic Lawyers’ Society said her group accepts the apology and plans to take no further action. She said that the apology “gives us some closure.” Think about it. Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail said that the 2 Muslim journalists from Al-Islam acted out of sheer ignorance and had no intention to cause harm, and thus he decided against prosecuting them. Does this make sense? Can one plead ignorance and good intention when caught for committing an offense and get away with it? What justice is the Attorney-General talking about? Previous post yessir posted this in Insights & Views on March 6th, 2010
While the public is aware of the Allah issue associated with the Roman Catholic’s newspaper, The Herald, many may have forgotten about another case that could be coming to trial soon, unless the authorities reached an out-of-court settlement with the Sidang Injil Borneo (SIB) church, a move recommended by Kuala Lumpur High Court (Special Powers and Appellate division) judge Datuk Aziah Ali. Bobby Chew, lawyer for SIB said: “If no solution is reached, a hearing date would be fixed on April 30.” In The Herald’s case, High Court Judge Lau Bee Lan ruled last New Year’s eve that the word “Allah” is not exclusive to Islam, and The Herald can continue to use that term in its publication. SIB, established in 1928, is East Malaysia’s most prominent church, with 120,000 members in Sabah and 100,000 in Sarawak. In 1993, in response to the migration of many Sabahan and Sarawakian Christians to Peninsular Malaysia, SIB spread its wings to Peninsular Malaysia where it now has 30,000 members in 31 congregations, 29 of which worship in Bahasa Malaysia. In all of Malaysia, SIB has over 600 churches today. The SIB case predates The Herald’s case, but the former has not yet gone to trial. On July 15, 2007 Royal Customs and Excise Department officers at the KLIA low-cost carrier terminal (LCCT) confiscated eight religious books brought in by the church from Indonesia for its Sunday school children classes. The books were on transit to Kota Kinabalu in East Malaysia. The Home Ministry, which controls the department, claimed that the books contained the word “Allah” which is barred from use by non-Muslims, and seized them to prevent confusing Muslims. SIB appealed to the Home Ministry to lift the ban on Christians books imported from Indonesia which has the word “Allah” in them, but without success. In December 2007, SIB made its application to the court for judicial review. It sought a 10-point declaration, which includes, inter-alia, a declaration that the government recognizes SIB’s constitutional right to use the term “Allah” in both the Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesia Bibles and in all SIB’s religious publications for distribution to its congregants. Pastor Jerry Dusing, head of Sabah SIB said: “We have no problem. All we want is for them to declare we can use the word in all our religious materials published in Bahasa.” Earlier, referring to the suggestion of Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, Minister in the Prime Minister Department, that East Malaysian churches be allowed to use “Allah”, Pastor Jerry Dusing said: “We have East Malaysians in the Peninsula as well. This is contradictory to the 1 Malaysia ideals. How can there be two systems in one country?” On December 27, 2007 the case was adjourned for “outside parties” to try to resolve it but the effort was in vain. Pastor Jerry Dusing said that he proferred the suggestion to have SIB stamp the words “For Christian Use Only” or “Christian Publication” on the cover of its religious books so that Muslims who inadvertently got hold of such publications would not be confused. This suggestion is similar to what The Herald did. The Herald newspaper is prominently stamped with “Not for Muslims” on its front cover, but this did not prevent Muslims from accusing the newspaper of trying to convert Muslims by using the word “Allah” in its articles. But why did SIB resort to importing books from Indonesia. Pastor Jerry Dusing said this was because there were none available locally. He said no local printers wanted to print religious books for the church. The government has asked for the case to be thrown out without a hearing. But given the judgment in The Herald’s case, this is unlikely to succeed. So far the Home Ministry has not replied to SIB’s suggestion to stamp warnings that its religious publications are for Christians use. So unless there is a out-of-court settlement soon, it looks like the SIB Allah issue will be heading to the court for settlement. And that may well bring further disquiet to the Malaysians, both Muslims and non-Muslims. Previous posts Allah ruling – 1 Malaysia 2 Bibles? Jury Still Out yessir posted this in Difficult Questions on March 5th, 2010
Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir is a well known personality in Malaysia. On her blog she describes herself, inter-alia, as a “general nuisance” who occasionally “irritates some people by going on about feminism and Islam”. And now she may have just proven herself right when The Star newspaper pulled an article that she has written. But Marina Mahathir believes this is wrong, and she responded on her blog, Rantings byMM, saying: “There is room for courage, to stand up for freedom of speech… Online there is room for all points of view… what is the point of censoring the mainstream media when there is the freewheeling internet?” For 20 years, Marina Mahathir has been faithfully writing articles for the Musings column in The Star. This is the first time that The Star has refused to publish an article written by Marina Mahathir. But English speaking readers can still find her article on her blog, while Chinese speaking readers should hopefully find a translated copy of her article in the Chinese press, Nanyang Siang Pau. But why did The Star take this drastic action, the first time in 20 years? Marina Mahathir said: “The Star has refused to publish it because, after what happened to P Gunasegaram’s article which was pulled out after the Home Ministry gave them a show-cause letter, they don’t want any ’sensitive’ articles that may jeopardise their KDN permit. The Publishing and Printing Presses Act requires every single publication to apply for a permit every year. And no media which wants to survive can afford to get shut down.” P Gunasegaram is the Managing Editor of The Star. He recently wrote a commentary on the caning of 3 Muslim women for illicit sex entitled “Persuason, not compulsion” in his column, Question Time in which he asked whether the sentence of both caning and detention are proportionate to the offence, ie illicit sex, and argued against punitive sentence for private behaviour. P Gunasegaram also wrote: “With three women already having been caned for illicit sex, the way has been paved for more caning of women in the future. That will not endear Malaysia to Malaysians, let alone foreigners who are inevitably going to equate us with the Taliban. And who can blame them? And are we going to go further down the slippery road and cane women for dressing immodestly too, as has been done in some countries?” And he also added: “There are already indications that Malays, especially women, are migrating and leaving their homeland, not because they don’t have opportunities here but because as Muslims, their personal freedom is restricted – and there is danger that it will be curtailed even more.” Following publication of that commentary, 8 individuals and several NGOs lodged police reports against P Gunasegaram and The Star. Press reports identified the NGOs as National Indigenous Organisation (Perkasa), Perkasa Selangor, Muslim Consummers Association of Malaysia (PPIM) and the Malaysian Muslim People’s Coalition (IRIMM). But why the police reports? The press reported that the NGOs viewed the commentary as an insult to Islam because it came from a non-Muslim. Besides an apology, the Muslim NGOs demanded that the writer be sacked. Following the police reports, the Home Ministry issued a show cause letter to The Star, which thereafter issued an apology and withdrew the article from its website. Marina Mahathir said: “Indeed the space for any form of public discussion is narrowing every day, with not only the PPA (The Publishing and Printing Presses Act) being used but also police reports against anyone who puts forward the slightest alternative or opposing view. ” Deborah Loh who wrote an article entitled “Who Speaks for Islam?” in The Nut Graph asked: ”Can non-Muslims speak about Islam? For that matter, can faithful, practising but non-scholarly Muslims, or Muslim women, or Muslim human rights activists, speak about Islam? As long as the fundamentals of Islam are given due respect, can’t there be room for comment or to express concern about aspects in the implementation of Islamic law, which, directly or indirectly, has affected or can affect all citizens, even non-Muslims? Apparently, the answer is “no”. There seems to be growing hypersensitivity over different views on issues involving Islam, whether about using the word “Allah”, or the caning of women. Any contrarian view is deemed as an insult to the religion.” So what did Marina Mahathir write that caused The Star to stop its publication? Her article is about the weaknesses in the formulation of syariah laws. In it she also said that “ there are some people who are of the view that the Syariah court is superior to the Civil courts simply because Syariah law is deemed of a higher order than Civil laws. This is because apparently God made Syariah laws while mere human beings made the Civil laws.” Marina Mahathir said: “If one believes that Syariah laws are superior to Civil laws, should they not be held to higher standards? If Syariah courts are deemed superior to Civil courts, should not their processes be more transparent and efficient?” Then she asked: “How is it also that we suddenly hear about women being caned without any information about the processes they went through? Did they have the benefit of legal representation and heard in an open court? If they did, who were their lawyers and what defense did they mount? Surely the best court of law is one that strives for justice, which shows it is fair to all parties. In this case, on whose behalf was justice served?” Is Marina Mahathir then against Syariah law? She said: “I have no problems with Syariah laws if their foundation is justice, equality and non-discrimination for all, even non-Muslims. But when their intent, processes and enforcement are unfair, they only give the impression that Islam is unjust and discriminatory. Surely to give such an image of Islam is a sin.” Previous posts Malaysia Muslim Women Caning – Cane First, Talk Later yessir posted this in Difficult Questions on March 4th, 2010
Last month Datuk Abdul Manan Abdul Rahman, director of the State Religious Department said that Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno will be caned after her meeting with Tengku Mahkota of Pahang, Tengku Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah. Well, this meeting took place yesterday, and now it seems that Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno could well receive an unsolicited royal pardon. Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno had requested this royal audience. Before the meeting, Shukarno Mutalib, father of Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno said: ““Kartika will be accompanied by her lawyer. We are not sure yet of the meeting agenda but the prince has reportedly said they will discuss the case, so there may be a decision whether or not to cane my daughter.” That statement was somewhat wishful, for it raised the possibility that Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno may not be caned. Seen in the light of the February 9 caning of 3 Muslim women for having illicit sex and giving birth out of wedlock, Shukarno Mutalib’s hope of her daughter being let off from caning seems very slim indeed. But now, after the royal audience with Tengku Mahkota of Pahang, Tengku Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah, the possiblity exists for a royal pardon for Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno. However, the family is not talking. Almir Ayat, spokesman for Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno said: “Kartika had an audience with the Pahang crown prince for about 30 minutes this morning but we are not in a position to make any comment on what transpired. Any decision or announcement will be made by the palace. Kartika is still firm with her stand.” And what is her stand? Eversince she was convicted by the Syariah Court of drinking alcohol, Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno has pleaded guilty, paid her fine and was all ready to receive the caning punishment. She has refused to appeal against the caning sentence, despite being urged to do so by many people and organizations. She has consistently asked to be caned, and pleaded for the caning to be expedited. However, her caning was postponed, and in the meantime, 3 other Muslim women became the first women to be caned in Malaysia. So what did Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno tell the Tengku Mahkota of Pahang, Tengku Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah at her royal audience yesterday? Tengku Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah said that Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno told him of the stress that she had undergone because of the postponement of the caning. Then he added: “This case will be settled as soon as possible. It just needs scrutiny in terms of the implementation of the penalty.” But Tengku Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah, who is also president of the Pahang Islamic Religious and Malay Customs Council (MUIP) added that even though Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno did not appeal against the caning sentence, the Sultan of Pahang has the power to reduce the 6 strokes of the cane meted to her by the Syariah Court, or to pardon her. He said that this power is given to the Sultan of Pahang under Section 133 of the Pahang Syariah Criminal Procedure Enactment 2002. Tengku Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah then said that he would present the case to the Sultan of Pahang for a decision soon. He urged all parties to respect and not dispute the Sultan’s decision. Think about it. This case has dragged on for so long and the stress has caused Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno’s marriage to breakdown. She is now divorced from her husband. The caning has already been postponed for 6 months. Government ministers had earlier commented that the caning sentence was too harsh, which is understandable given that Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno was a first offender who pleaded guilty and had not opposed the sentence and had not appealed against it. So is the royal pardon the way out of the Kartika caning dilemma? What if instead of 6 strokes of the cane, the sentence is reduced by royal decree to a lower number of strokes? Will this end the disquiet on the Kartika caning case? Tengku Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah certainly hopes so, for he urges all parties not to dispute the Sultan’s decision, whatever that may be. Previous posts Kartika Caning – No Hope For Historic First yessir posted this in Difficult Questions on March 3rd, 2010
For years, Muslim extremist groups like al-Qaeda justify sucide bombings cum mass murders from their own self-serving interpretation of the Quran. Every male suicide bomber is sure that he is going to paradise and be rewarded there with a bevy of 70 virgins. Now an internationally respected religious scholar has issued a 600-page fatwa that countered this view. The fatwa describes suicide bombers as heroes of hellfire, and instead of going to paradise after death, these suicide bombers are said to be leading towards hellfire. The fatwa was written by Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri of Pakistan , founder of Minhaj-ul-Quran which promotes a nonpolitical and tolerant Islam. The fatwa calls for the absolute condemnation of terrorism. It seeks to ban suicide bombing “without any excuses, any pretexts, or exceptions.” This fatwa was proclaimed at an event organized by UK government-funded anti-extremism think tank, the Quilliam Foundation. It effectively condemns terrorism and suicide bombings as “un-Islamic” and such perpetrators as being destined for Hell. The fatwa calls suicide bombings that destroy innocent lives as “absolutely against the teachings of Islam and that Islam does not permit such acts on any excuse, reason or pretext”. A spokesman for Quilliam Foundation said: “This fatwa has the potential to be a highly significant step towards eradicating Islamist terrorism. Fatwas that demolish and expose such theological innovations will consign Islamist terrorism to the dustbin of history.” Shahid Mursaleen, spokesman for Minhaj-ul-Quran UK, said: “He has hit hard on the terrorists as it prevents Islamists from considering suicide bombers as ‘martyrs’. This fatwa injects doubt into the minds of potential suicide bombers. Extremist groups based in Britain recruit youth by brainwashing them that they will — with certainty — be rewarded in the next life and Dr Qadri’s fatwa has removed this key intellectual factor from their minds.” Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri said: “They can’t claim that their suicide bombings are martyrdom operations and that they become the heroes of the Muslim Umma, no, they become heroes of hellfire, and they are leading towards hellfire. There is no place for any martyrdom and their act is never, ever to be considered Jihad.” Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri also said: “Terrorism is terrorism, violence is violence and it has no place in Islamic teaching and no justification can be provided for it, or any kind of excuses or ifs or buts.” The fatwa has been billed as “arguably the most comprehensive” theological refutation of Islamic terrorism to date by the Quilliam foundation. Think about it. What impact, if any, will this fatwa have on terrorism and suicide bombings? Why should there be conflicting fatwas in the first place? And which fatwa should the average Muslim obey, if at all? Related posts Saudi Arabia Grand Mufti – “Terrorism Is Criminal” yessir posted this in Insights & Views on March 2nd, 2010
While Saudi Arabia is only now considering allowing women lawyers to argue cases in court, Egypt has gone further in judiciary reform in this respect. In 2003, Egypt appointed Tahani El Gebaly as its first female judge. In 2007, another 31 female judges were appointed. But on February 15 this year, 334 out of 376 judges from the State Council voted to ban female judges on this influencial Council. This has caused a heated debate in Egypt. Egytpian Cleric Wagdi Ghoneim said recently: “I am a man. Anything you women can do, I can do better, because I am a man, and I am stronger than you. My body is stronger. You are weak. You’re a female. You are startled if a mouse gets near you.” Cleric Wagdi Ghoneim went on to say: “There are jobs you women cannot do – like being judges. You cannot be a judge, because your heart will not allow you to sentence someone to death. Can you sentence someone to death? As a man, I can sentence a person to death – even by hanging. But you – if a murderer brings his children to court, and he holds his newborn child in front of you… If you sentence him to death – who will raise this child? Your soul will not let you sentence him to death.” Adel Farghaly, president of The Administrative Courts of Justice said: “The judicial work in Egypt is not suitable for women, as they cannot pay attention to their family and social duties based on their nature and on the social traditions, unlike men.” Is it any wonder that with views like these, that the ban on female judges sitting on the State Council came about? The State Council advises the Egyptian Government. Hossam Bahgat, an expert on human rights law and director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights said: “I’m disappointed to see that there is a deep-seated bias prevalent among judges against women. Today’s vote is a disappointment. It shows opposition to the government’s accumulative approach to ending discrimination against women in the judiciary.” Gaber Asfour wrote an article in Al Ahram entitled “A new discrimination against Egyptian women” in which he said: “This recent decision of the Assembly actually prevents the rights of many people, a right that was already permitted by our Grand Mufti and senior scholars, not to mention that it is already practiced in so many Muslim countries. Taking women’s constitutional right to board the platform of the State Council is a decision that should be rejected by every citizen who believes in the true sense of citizenship in a civil state not a religious one.” Dr Salwa Bayomi, a member of the Shura Council said: “This is step backwards that is incompatible with the era we live in and achievements of women in the past ten years. It has no legal justification, not to mention being unconstitutional and against human rights without any legal basis.” Gaber Asfour wrote: “How can a poor, illiterate woman be liberated when a Ph.D. supreme lawyer can’t take her full rights in the fair opportunity of a job promotion? How do we expect a nation to categorize rights? I am not against prioritizing, but the fact the one segment of the highly educated and fully privileged women are not yet able to gain their full rights is nothing but a serious sign that there’s an even bigger problem with women with less empowerment.” Adel Farghaly tried to justify the ban, saying: “The refusal to appoint women to senior judicial positions has always been based on the fact that Egyptian women don’t perform the military service and pay their blood as a price like men do. And women occupy judicial functions in Western countries because they perform military service, and run all the jobs held by men, including acts of physical labor.” This story however, has a happy ending. On February 22, Egypt’s Supreme Judicial Council overruled the February 15 decision barring women from judicial positions on the State Council. Think about it. In this day and age, why is there still discrimination against women in the workplace? Why do Egyptian clerics so strongly oppose the appointment of female judges to the State Council? |
||
|
Copyright © 2010 A BIG MESSAGE for an upside down world - All Rights Reserved |
||
Recent Comments