PRESIDEN PAS Abdul Hadi Awang menyelar para hakim yang menurutnya tidak mengambil kira sensitiviti agama dalam membuat keputusan kes melibatkan perundangan Islam.
Malah sikap para hakim berkenaan berbeza dengan hakim bukan Islam yang menurutnya lebih berhati-hati dalam kes melibatkan sensitiviti agama Islam.
Beliau turut membandingkan sikap hakim tersebut dengan para hakim yang terlibat dalam pindaan perlembagaan bagi peruntukan mengenai agama Islam pada waktu pramerdeka.
“Duli Yang Maha Mulia Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong dianggap sebagai ketua agama Islam tidak berani disentuh oleh penjajah British dengan cara yang berhati-hati,” katanya.
Hadi berkata, para hakim dari kalangan orientalis tersebut malah mengkaji ajaran Islam dan mengakui Islam bukan semata-mata agama sahaja.
“Hal-hal ini menjadikan sebahagian daripada hakim-hakim British pada zaman penjajahan dahulu, membuat keputusan secara berhati-hati apabila melibatkan hal ehwal Islam.
“Mereka tidak berani melanggar sensitiviti umat Islam, apabila tindakan itu dianggap sebagai menghina agama Islam,” katanya.
Hakim seperti Salleh Abbas, Harun Hasim dan Abdul Hamid juga digolongkannya sebagai para hakim amat arif dalam budi bicara dan mempunyai sensitiviti agama.
Namun lain pula halnya dengan hakim tertentu dalam era lebih kontemporari yang menurutnya tidak lagi membuat penghakiman dengan sensitiviti agama.
“Malangnya terdapat dalam kalangan para hakim yang baru, hilang sensitiviti agama.
“Mereka membuat keputusan berasaskan buku yang dibaca, bukan mengikut pertimbangan akal yang mempunyai budi bicaranya,” katanya yang tidak menamakan hakim berkenaan.
Kenyataan itu muncul susulan penghakiman Mahkamah Persekutuan minggu lalu mengenai satu penghakiman Mahkamah Syariah ke atas satu kes seks luar tabii.
Penghakiman itu ke atas permohonan seorang lelaki, Iki Putra Mubarrak yang didakwa melakukan seks luar tabii dengan seorang lelaki lain pada November 2018.
Lelaki berusia 35 tahun yang didakwa di Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Selangor pada 21 Ogos 2019 atas tuduhan cuba melakukan seks luar tabii.
Panel sembilan hakim memutuskan penetapan seks luar tabii sebagai jenayah di bawah Seksyen 28 Enakmen Jenayah Syariah (Selangor) 1995 tidak mengikut Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan tidak sah.
Ketua Hakim Negara Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat sewaktu menyampaikan penghakiman berkata, Seksyen 28 tidak digubal oleh badan perundangan negeri Selangor secara sah.
Undang-undang mengenai perkara yang dibahas dalam seksyen berkenaan hanya boleh digubal melalui Parlimen, katanya.
Mahkamah Persekutuan pada 25 Mei tahun lalu membenarkan permohonan lelaki tersebut untuk mencabar Seksyen 28 tersebut.
Mahkamah Persekutuan bersetuju bahawa negeri dan Mahkamah Syariah tiada bidang kuasa terhadap jenayah liwat kerana kesalahan itu termaktub bawah Kanun Keseksaan.
Penghakiman itu menimbulkan semula persoalan ke atas komitmen PAS dalam kempennya untuk meminda perlembagaan bagi meningkatkan kuasa Mahkamah Syariah. – 4 Mac, 2021.
Malaysia 5G rollout hits new snag, says report
Tidak perlu boikot PRK KKB, cuma jangan undi Pakatan, kata Ramasamy
Banyak pihak tertekan dengan perintah tahanan rumah Najib
DAP yet to pick Kuala Kubu Baharu candidate
Komen
Monday, 28 Jul 2014 08:03 PM MYT
Subscribe to our Telegram channel for the latest updates on news you need to know.
________________________________________
JULY 28 This is what a Muslim defendant told the court in a case decided by former Chief Justice (CJ) of Malaysia Abdul Hamid Mohamad in the Court of Appeal in 1996. It was the case of a bank suing two business partners, a Malay and an Indian, who were the guarantors for a loan. The Malay defendant, to convince the court of the truth of his statement, told the court that a Muslim would not tell lies and Abdul Hamid is said to have taken that as the gospel truth and admitted his statement as the truth and nothing but the truth.
This was recently revealed by retired Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram, two days after Abdul Hamid Mohamad had made a racist speech at a buka puasa event accusing the Penang State government of being anti-Islam and anti-Muslim by not providing funds for Islamic religious purposes in the state. He warned the listeners that Islam was under threat in DAP led Penang and that the threat to Islam would spread throughout Malaysia.
The source of his information, he claimed, was a former Penang mufti. As a judge, surely he must know that such information is hearsay and not acceptable. He could even have had occasion during his days on the bench to tell off lawyers and litigants trying to present hearsay evidence in his court. But here, he took hearsay as the truth and nothing but the truth and used it to create ill-will among his listeners against those he accused. He was driving wedges between the Muslims and non-Muslims based on unverified information.
As far back as 1996 his legal mind had accepted that a Muslim would not tell lies. Thus he created case-law on hearsay anything that a Muslim says in court is not hearsay or a lie. It must be taken at face value and given full weight of truth and nothing but the truth.
So when the former Penang mufti informed him of the threat to Islam in Penang, he had to accept the word of the mufti (a Muslim) as being the truth and nothing but the truth. He was bound by his own case-law that a Muslim would not tell lies. In how many more judgments did he concur that a Muslim would not tell lies? How many lower court judges followed this precedent as they are required to follow the Appeal and Federal Court judgments?
Now it makes me wonder whether the story of the former Penang mufti itself is true? When a person in high position feels that the lesser beings than him, having high regards for him or his position, should swallow line, hook and sinker anything he says, he can easily create stories to give legitimacy to his arguments to create the perception of truth spoken with authority. The former Penang mufti could just be a product of his creative mind, non-existent in person, just a character in a story and not someone actually walking about.
In the infamous Asian Rare Earth (ARE) case in Papan near Batu Gajah in the 80s, Dr Mahathir had, without visiting the site, kept repeating that the trenches built on a hillock to bury the radioactive waste complied with international standards. But they were condemned as unfit for the purpose by his deputy who visited the site while acting for him during his absence.
Sometime in the mid 90s heavy rains in Tenom in the interior of Sabah had caused flooding and washed down a lot of cut logs which had damaged houses along the Padas river and people were blaming illegal logging for the calamity. By co-incidence I was there and saw the washed down timber and the damage it had caused. The then prime minister, Dr Mahathir, turned investigator and took a helicopter ride over the hills and upon landing told the reporters that he did not see any sign of illegal logging. Coming from the PM himself, could the people not accept that as the truth and nothing but the truth? So where did all the cut logs come from?
To refresh memories, in the early years of his reign, Dr Mahathir had with tongue-in-cheek stated that if you tell a lie and repeat it often enough, people will believe it is the truth. He made it the basis of his administration government could do anything and everything it did was right as would be proven by repeated statements claiming so, as in the ARE case. Even though the lies backfired, it was the deputy that resigned and not the one who had been pulling a fast one on the whole world.
This formula of turning lies into the truth by repeating them over and over again has become culturised in Malaysia. There is no shame in telling lies and covering them up with more lies. For some Muslims it is not an anti-Islamic value to tell lies if the purpose is to enrich oneself illegally or to preserve oneself politically. In fact, some quarters have made it a religious duty for Muslims to protect Islam by ensuring Umnos hold on power, for to them only Umno can ensure the continuity / survival of Islam in Malaysia. To achieve this, they create a lot of smoke where there is no fire, and some are fooled by the smoke to run shouting fire. The CJ was the latest to create smoke where there is no fire.
Once, discussing a trade unions lie about an issue, a Muslim teacher said that it was legitimate for union leaders to tell lies if it was for the good of the union, i.e. to save the union embarrassment for not standing up to something. Then we have the case of Pak Man Telo who collected RM90.09 million by lying about his investment scheme that promised high dividends in a short time. About 50,000 people, mostly Malays, were cheated by him.
I still hear low-income Malays lamenting how they lost thousands of Ringgit to Muslims operating investment schemes and businesses promising them quick and good returns only not to see their money anymore. Could the police, Bank Negara Malaysia and the Companies Commission confirm there are no reports lodged with them of Muslims engaging in business activities that cheat Muslims through deceit? Tables are turned onto those cheated by claiming that they entered business deals and should know all businesses carry risks. What is covered up is that these business deals were entered into based on misrepresentations, i.e. lies. So dear Judge, do all these show that a Muslim would not tell lies?
Could some pious Muslims please give us a lesson on what the Prophet really taught his followers on telling lies, on enriching oneself through deceit and fraud, on living harmoniously or disharmoniously with and among those of other beliefs, on condemning others based on hearsay, on accepting as the truth and nothing but the truth whatever the leaders say, on respect for others, on using religion for political purposes, on forced conversions, on body snatching, etc.
Is the worth of a religion to be seen in the words and actions of its adherents, or in the loud exhortations of a few behaving as if they have extraterrestrial knowledge of the religion that the silent majority do not have, and as if they have been specially anointed to represent God on earth?
Dimuat naik 3 tahun yang lalu oleh Ravinder Singh · Ulasan