Shariah Law has no Consequences on Non-Muslims? HUMBUG (HAM-BAK)

** You may be interested to visit  www.krisispraxis.com to read full post and comment it:

Shariah Law as no Consequences on Non-Muslims? HUMBUG (HAM-BAK).

UMNO will be lending a helping hand to PAS to push a Bill through Parliament which would amend the Shariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965, also known as Act 355. The amendments would extend power to the Islamic courts to enforce heavier punishment for Islamic offences. PAS President Abdul Hadi Awang and UMNO leaders assure non-Muslims that the proposed amendments will not affect non-Muslims. Re: Hadi to Make More Amendments to Shariah Bill] [FMT 23 Nov 2016]

Non-Muslims are naturally skeptical towards the assurances from PAS and UMNO. Both the local and international media have sounded the alarm that the amendments would encourage further imposition of Islamic regulations onto non-Muslims.

The reality is that the Civil services and shariah authorities have periodically taken the liberty to impose Islamic scruples and regulations onto non-Muslims, even though they are technically not empowered to do so. Having been victimized by ‘over-zealous’ officials from both the Civil services and shariah authorities (who are never taken to task for their abuse of power), non-Muslims can only regard the assurance from Hadi and UMNO leaders to be both hollow and disingenuous.

It is sobering to recall some of these alarming incidents.

A. NON-MUSLIM COUPLE CHARGED IN COURT FOR HOLDING HANDS IN A PARK

B. ISLAMIC DRESS CODE IMPOSED ON NON-MUSLIMS: The Spectre of Sarong-gate

C. TRADITIONAL NON-MUSLIM FOOD STIGMATIZED AND VENDORS QUARANTINED

D . TRADERS MUST LABEL NON-HALAL PRODUCTS TO AVOID CONFUSING MUSLIMS

It seems to be the case that  Civil and Shariah authorities have no respect for the privacy and private morality of non-Muslims when they violate their Constitutional rights. We fear that such violations will become increasingly blatant should Parliament pass the Bill to enhance the scope and power of the Shariah Courts.

To repeat, the assurance from Hadi Awang and UMNO leaders can only be seen to be disingenuous.

** You may be interested to visit  www.krisispraxis.com to read full post and comment it:

Shariah Law as no Consequences on Non-Muslims? HUMBUG (HAM-BAK).

———–

Added on 10 Feb 2017:

Archaic Jurisprudence Behind Swine Kerfuffle, says Preacher [MalayMail Online 9 Feb 2017]

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 9 ? Swine products are only “haram”, or forbidden, when ingested, according to all Muslim schools of jurisprudence except for the Shafie school widely practised in Malaysia, independent preacher Wan Ji Wan Hussin said today.

The PKR Islamic Council leader said “archaic jurisprudence” has resulted in the sensitivity regarding the issue, and that it would never have happened if there was more openness in interpreting Islamic laws.

“All school of jurisprudence except Shafie states that pigs are only haram when eaten. When touched, not haram,” Wan Ji said in a public post on his Facebook profile.

“This thing became sensitive, only because of the archaicness of jurisprudence. Therefore, the issue of swine leather shoes is not an issue in societies with jurisprudence openness. The ones where it is sensitive, is with societies that are archaic in jurisprudence.”

Muslims are strictly forbidden from eating pork and products derived from pork, with the origin coming from a Quranic verse 2:173 which prohibits “dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah”.

The same verse states that there is no sin for those who do so when forced by necessity.

In Malaysia, only the Sunni denomination of Islam and its Shafie school of jurisprudence are considered official.

Wan Ji, however, contended that despite the claim that Malaysia follows the Shafie school, it does not follow that school in other matters, such as the issue of zakat, or alms, where the Shafie school specifies that it is invalid to use cash for alms.

For example, the Shafie school specifies that the “zakat fitrah” paid during the holy Ramadan month, should be made in the form of staple food within the specific community.

The national fatwa council has since decreed in 2003 that the payment can be made with cash equivalent to a specified value of local rice.

“My reminder is for Malaysia to not play sentiments on these issues. Instead, they have to educate the society on the openness, not the archaicness, of jurisprudence,” said Wan Ji.

“Parties who brought this issue up, I remind them that their actions will cause non-Muslims to hate Islam, they will be cynical towards Islam.”

National news agency Bernama reported Tuesday Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism Minister Datuk Seri Hamzah Zainudin saying that his ministry seized 2,003 paintbrushes made with pig bristles worth almost RM11,000 in a nationwide “crackdown”.

He reportedly said the brushes were confiscated under the Trade Descriptions (Goods Made from any Part of Pig or Dog) Order 2013, which states that such products must be labelled and separated from other goods.

Punishments for violations of the minister’s order are RM100,000 fines, three years’ jail or both for individuals, while corporations face fines of up to RM250,000.

Subsequently, Muslim Consumer Association of Malaysia (PPIM) called for a logo to differentiate items containing pig-derived parts to inform the “not that smart” Muslim consumers.

 

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this: