Be kind to parents, enjoins the Quran

How many of us Malaysians, both Muslim and non-Muslim, can say that we have heard about what the Quran and the Prophet say about our responsibility to our parents in most of the national discourse concerning Islam? 

In the past few decades, the national discourse about Islam by “Islamic” political parties and some non-governmental organisations (NGOs) has been about so-called criminal laws in Islam which the scholars choose to call as “hudud”. Granted there are a few criminal penalties that have been mentioned in the Quran. Sadly however, many other injunctions and commandments in the Quran that not only have a universal appeal but actually improve the quality of life of all human beings, both Muslim and non-Muslim, are hardly highlighted. 

With respect, the public may misperceive that only the enactment and implementation of these “hudud” punishments is what makes up an “Islamic” society. This cannot be so as the concept of Islamic justice is much more than that and goes beyond secular understanding of “criminal justice”. There are greater noble ideas of social, natural, economic and “human” justice in the Quran.

How much of justice have we done for the aged, the senior citizens, single mothers and the neglected parents in our society? Would it not be refreshing for Malaysians if some Islamist NGOs or political parties canvass these issues in the name of “Islamic mercy”?

Malaysia has long left being a dominant agricultural country. We have moved into modernised living and the functioning of the family unit as we knew many decades ago has considerably altered. The nature of economic activities that citizens indulge in has changed, cost of living has gone up and in turn family values too have changed. In fact, the occupational circumstances of our capitalist economy bring forth realistic challenges to take care of parents especially those who require constant care and attention.

If we were to honestly appraise the development of our towns, cities, buildings and roads, can we say that we have made it user-friendly to the older folks? I humbly state that much of our town planning and construction efforts, whether residential or commercial, does not express the compassion factor the Quran repeatedly emphasises. Even in China you can find parks and places specially built for senior citizens to mingle and exercise. 

Our economy is very much biased towards the youth and in the process, the value of senior citizens has diminished. I am afraid that our national policymakers have not given proper attention to the maintenance of the family unit, especially the care and respect for senior citizens and parents. 

We have simply left it to the individuals and communities to sort it out according to their own values. However, this overlooks the fact that drastic transformation of the economy has changed our values. The State has a duty to balance this anomaly because much of the economic and social changes are brought about by the State’s approval and many times, by its designs.

The Quran explicitly places great importance of being good to parents. In fact in surah Al Baqarah verse 83 (Quran 2:83), the Quran says, among other things, “worship none save Allah and be good to parents”. 

There are many other verses in the Quran with the same theme of being kind and caring of one’s parents. Furthermore, the Quran in many instances also appeals to logic as to why we have to be kind to them. One reason being that it was our parents that have taken care of us and dedicated parts of their life to raise us. 

While the Quran speaks of kindness to both parents, it gives special attention to mothers. Every time I read these verses, I ask myself: What have we done for the single mothers who are fated to live the life they never chose? Why are the Islamist political parties and contemporary Muslim scholars not championing their plight? 

When parents reach old age, this presents the greatest opportunity to the Muslim to care for his parents to earn the pleasure of Allah (Quran 17: 23-24). 

Muslims are reminded that parents have a right over their children for care and love as they have been showered with when they were children. The love, care and respect for parents specifically and aged citizens generally ought to be evolved into a natural, national value until it becomes a norm. 

It is with shame that I see many parts of England are more senior citizen-friendly than Malaysian economic development! And yet, political Islamists unashamedly keep giving sermons on the “mercy of Allah” while not choosing to champion the same injunctions in the Quran.

I do hope that Islamists will be in the forefront to champion the cause of senior citizens’ care and push for legislation and State assistance for children who are unable to provide for their parents. These are the good things that I want political parties that claim to represent Islam to do. 

I can understand the challenges, financial, psychological and physical, faced by children who have to care for their aged parents. I have a sister who has been caring for my very old mother for years and I simply am moved by her love, patience and dedication. 

However, I also know some children who are unable to do so or cannot provide the quality care due to various constraints. I urge the contemporary Islamic scholars to debate on how best the individual citizen together with the State can provide for quality care for old folks and parents. 

If there is a need for legislation and policies to be made, then it needs to be done if we call ourselves a caring society, what more some claim that we are an “Islamic State”.  

I believe such a move, even in the name of Islam will be supported by the non-Muslims as it will provide benefit to all, irrespective of religious differences.

* Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos is a senior lawyer and founder of Rapera, a movement which encourages thinking and compassionate citizens. He can be reached at rapera.jay@gmail.com

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/be-kind-to-parents-enjoins-the-quranjahaberdeen-mohamed-yunoos#sthash.ZnyeXAGN.dpuf

Finding middle ground between secularists and theocrats?

MAY 29 — It is not only in Malaysia but in many parts of the world where there is a contest between the secularist and the religionists with regards to shaping the nature of society. There are many academic discussions on secularism and theocracy.

Essentially, secularism does not want any one scripture to be the sole determinant or source of laws in the nation. On the other hand, theocrats believe that scriptures or religious sources should be the primary source of laws and conduct in society because they believe it is divine.

Putting aside the opportunists on both side of the divide, I try to understand with compassion, giving the benefit of the doubt and emphatically as possible their respective objectives and positions. One thing becomes clear: Both mean well and believe that their respective positions will serve humanity well.

If we are willing to move away, at least for the sake of deliberation, from our dogmatic or fixed positions, we might be able to see the picture and debate more clearly.

I believe the secularists’ greatest fear with a theocratic government is the loss of human being’s free will in the general sense. They imagine a government that is ostensibly speaking, not in the name of the people, but in the name of God. Hence, they fear that any dissent of government’s policy or implementation of laws will be construed as an opposition to God’s will.

If this happens, their “crime” of opposition becomes not only a state offence but a religious offence which may be severely dealt with because of the emotive element attached to it. In a secular state, legitimate opposition to government views are welcomed as an act of citizen contribution to the betterment of the state.

On the other hand, theocrats believe that the will of human beings must be subjected to the will of God as evidenced in the respective scriptures. They fear that if human beings’ will is not controlled by God’s will, society may, in the long run, be subsumed by values that are contrary to the scriptures.

It is clearly the priority of theocrats that religious considerations precedes any other considerations in the functioning of the state.

Secularists, I believe want to uphold and protect what they see as the inherent right of citizens to shape the destiny of the state as they deem fit. They do not want this right to be limited purely by religious dogmas especially those that they consider personal.

In fact, secularists believe that religion is a purely private matter which the citizens should be allowed to practice without imposing the same publicly on others. This position will understandably collide with the stand of the theocrats, especially the Islamists.

This is because to every mainstream Islamist there is no division of religion and life on earth. Every single act, thought and behaviour is a religious act to them. Islam is both a personal and a community religion and therefore, the Islamists will want to redesign the community into the “Islamic mould.”

It is therefore clear that this mindset will move the Islamist to influence and shape society to adhere to the “Islamic parameters” when he has the opportunity to do so.

While the secularists, for example, may be shocked to view Muslim adults being “compelled” into certain kinds of religious behaviour, these very same Muslim adults view it as voluntary adherence to an “Islamic government”! Clearly, therefore, the same act has two complexity opposing perceptive.

With respect, I humbly view the matter rather differently. I believe that both a secular and an “Islamic” government has its own set of problems. This is largely because it is interpreted and implemented by men with power and wealth.

We are not living in the age of the righteous, wise, compassionate, and humble sage who runs the state for the pure benefit of the greater good of the citizens.

If I am correct, then I believe that we have to move away from being trapped by the labels of “secularism” and “Islamism” when we want to deliberate on what is beneficial for the greater good of society. We have to now learn to embrace the substance of the matter rather than be caged within dogmatic egoism or sense of piety.

I know that this a tough call for me to make as both sides, especially the elites among them, may be resistant and adamant in their positions.

Therefore, I see that the change that can occur in this regard, if we want the change, is for ordinary citizens to start thinking about the nature, situation and future of their lives. It must be a bottom-up kind of change and I have long given up in believing that changes will come top-down.

I repeat: We have to learn to start the culture of discussing the substance of things — such as employment opportunities, ability to live as a dignified human being, responsible freedom, just laws that do not dishonour the human, equality as God’s children and citizens of one state and so on.

Really, it is pointless for the ordinary citizen to be caught up with the elitist arguments of secularism or Islamism. You are powerless in this regard and you may only experience a momentary syok sendiri feeling. It is not going to put food on their table nor is it going to ensure that their children will have a good future.

The real power is to have a “look at the substance of the matter” mindset and hopefully, changes will happen bottom-up.

* Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos is a senior lawyer and founder of Rapera, a movement which encourages thinking and compassionate citizens. He can be reached at rapera.jay@gmail.com.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/finding-middle-ground-between-secularists-and-theocrats-jahaberdeen-mohamed#sthash.cE9wU555.dpuf

What is a ‘just’ justice system?

IT is pointless to call a system a justice system if it is not just. If that is the case, then it is merely oppression by powerful institutions.

There are several features that most of us can agree that a just justice system must have. It is often said that the most pivotal part of the justice system is the administration of justice by the courts of law.

Firstly, it must be accessible to everyone in the country regardless of income levels, status, religion, ethnicity and even nationality. Every citizen and anyone resident in the country, including tourists, should be able to go to the courts to seek justice. The doors of justice must open to everyone without discrimination.

Secondly, justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done. The fashionable word today is “transparency”. This involves many things. The court proceedings should be public and the contestants in the case should be given liberty to chose the lawyers of their preference.

Reasonable time should be given to the litigants or the accused to prepare their case and mere administrative expediency should never be used to hurry cases.

At the same time, justice should not be delayed too. The judge must conduct himself in an impartial manner and should be careful that his judicial behaviour does not give a perception of prejudice. The Rules of Court 2012, the Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code help to ensure that justice is seen to be done.

Thirdly, the judges must be people of high integrity, intelligent, patient and compassionate. They must have a good grasp of the law and the ability to understand facts.

They must decide in accordance with the law and should give reasons for their judgments as concisely and as clearly as possible. Grounds of judgments are important because, among other things, it will reflect upon our court’s ability to arrive at a just decision on a particular case.

Fourthly, there must be mechanisms put in place to ensure that litigants or even the prosecution do not abuse the legal process to oppress other people. In civil cases, there are various mechanisms by which a baseless suit can be struck out through Order 18 Rule 19(1), Order 14A or even the inherent powers of the courts as provided for under the Rules of Court.

In criminal cases, there is a recourse for malicious prosecution and defective criminal charges may be struck out.

Fifthly, access to justice should be made affordable to the average citizen and to those in the low incomes bracket. I believe that the duty to dispense justice is a divine duty and hence the society should ensure that justice is affordable to those who need them.

In our country, while we do have legal aid bureaus and so on, I feel that much more could be done to lower the cost that has to be incurred by the poorer sections of the community. It has always bothered me when I think of the possibility that many of those accused, who may have been innocent, plead guilty because they are unable to afford lawyers to represent them.

I also feel that magistrates and Sessions Court judges should probably be more compassionate and patient with accused persons who are not represented by lawyers. I am not saying that the current crop of judges are not compassionate but I am merely reemphasising the point.

To me, I am always mindful that we are dealing with human beings with similar fears and hopes. I am of course not talking about the hardcore criminals but people like illegal immigrants, first time youthful offenders who may have slipped their way and such.

Sixthly, in criminal cases, the principle of innocent until proven guilty should be upheld by the courts. This is one area where I feel that sufficient attention has not been given, possibly due to various practical constraints and other reasons.

I am humbly of the view that this principle of “innocent until proven guilty” is largely compromised when a bail that is excessive relative to the ability of the accused to raise is set. The primary function of bail should always be to sufficiently secure the attendance of the accused at the trial.

When a bail is set too high, and the accused is unable to raise it, he is often remanded together with other prisoners. When this happens, even before he is found guilty he has already lost his liberty, has to live under deplorable conditions in the remand cell and suffer psychological consequences. With respect, this does not augur well for the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”

Seventhly, there should be uniformity and consistency in sentencing. Crimes under like circumstances should attract like punishments. Wide disparities in sentencing will not only upset the public but may also result in loss of confidence with the justice system.

A person stealing RM200 and a person stealing RM1 million should not receive the same punishment. In fact, a person charged for the theft of RM200, there may be valid reasons not to punish him with a custodial sentence.

While the judges ought to be firm in sentencing they should also exercise compassion based on the circumstances and facts of the case before them. Justice and revenge are two distinct things altogether and a harsh sentence need not necessarily be a good thing in certain circumstances.

Eighth, the courts should be mindful of a sociological fact, namely that social cohesion is often achieved through common values, morals and culture of the society. Courts which ignore this will inevitably invite the wrath of the people and the people themselves may lose confidence in the justice system.

Ninth but not the least, the law itself must be flexible to adapt to changing social and technological circumstances of the times. If the laws do not adapt, then it will be difficult for judges to dispense justice in accordance with the needs of the times. Judges, after all, are generally tied to the laws passed by parliament.

I would argue that our civil law courts comply largely with the features discussed above. Our country is blessed that we generally have a fair and just justice system in the civil courts and we should be able to tweak it to make it even better.

* Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos is a senior lawyer and founder of Rapera, a movement which encourages thinking and compassionate citizens. He can be reached at rapera.jay@gmail.com.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/what-is-a-just-justice-system-jahaberdeen-mohamed-yunoos#sthash.duKITyqp.dpuf

Why and what is opposition to Act 355?

There are many aspects of the Private Member’s Bill or Rang Undang-Undang Persendirian (RUU355/Act 355), brought by PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang in Parliament, that have interested me.

I have already written and spoken on different occasions on my views about the Act. I am now trying very hard to understand the crux of the opposition to the amendments sought. 

A few things are clear about the arguments by the proponents of the Act 355 if I understand them correctly. Firstly, they say that increasing the sentencing powers will empower the Shariah courts. Secondly, they feel that as Muslims the Shariah law must be implemented by all Muslims.

It is a must according to their understanding of being a good Muslim. Furthermore, they argue that the amendments will only affect three offences; namely that of zina, offence of falsely accusing someone of zina, and alcohol consumption, with their respective punishments of 100, 80 and 40 lashes. These are offences which are already part of the Shariah law in the country.

There is clearly support for the punishment of 100 lashes for the offence of zina in the Quran while the punishment of 80 and 40 lashes is found in other sources accepted by the majority of Muslim legalists. 

The indisputable fact is that the Act 355 itself concerns the jurisdiction of the Shariah courts and what is sought to amend is the sentencing powers of the Shariah courts. It is perfectly constitutional to seek to amend any Act. 

Then why are some Muslims opposing the amendments to increase the powers of the Shariah courts? Why are also non-Muslims opposing the amendments since Shariah laws will only affect the Muslims?

The simplistic response would be that these Muslims who are opposing are ignorant, liberalists, western influenced or agents of some anti-Islam force. I am not convinced by these simplistic responses. I believe the opposing Muslims are concerned whether or not such enhanced powers in the hands of the Shariah courts as existing today will be justly carried out. 

The other concern that I believe these opposing Muslims may have is their understanding of what is justice in Islam and priorities of the Shariah. If this is so, then they should come out more explicitly and clearly what their understanding is so that it can be the subject of useful dialogue with the view to develop Islamic understanding in the country. 

However, these opposing Muslims should not forget that much of the offences that they now appear to oppose are already part of the Shariah law in the country. Why then the opposition now? This is the part that is still unclear to many.

I doubt if these opposing Muslims oppose Shariah laws per se. I believe both sides will agree that the ultimate aim of Shariah must be justice. The proponents of Act 355 argue that justice can only be served when the Shariah as enshrined in the Quran and developed by the jurists are implemented. What is the counter argument, if any, that can be advanced by the opponents? 

I have also heard arguments that this is a backdoor to implement hudud laws in the future. It could very well be. However, what may happen in the future cannot be a valid objection to what is constitutionally permissible today. 

The other argument often heard is that this may give rise to a dual legal system. Such an argument is a separate matter altogether and cannot be a valid objection to the amendments sought.

I have often argued for a single Malaysian legal system but I do not position this argument as an objection to Act 355. What I envision is a total reform of the Shariah system in the country and a possible fusion with the civil law system. Admittedly, this will require a long-term reform of the justice system in the country.

I may have my own fundamental disagreements with the interpretation of what constitutes hudud and I have written elaborately on this on various occasions. I also disagree that merely increasing sentencing powers leads to empowering the courts. However, on the debate relating to the amendments to Act 355, I believe that constitutionally and on the basis of mainstream juristic views, the proponents of the Act have a stronger case. 

For the non-Muslims, as the law now stands, they have nothing to fear in terms of the application of Shariah laws on them. Hence, the opposition by some non-Muslims is difficult to fathom as it appears to be founded more on fear rather than facts. 

I would be surprised if the amendments sought are not passed in Parliament when they are debated.

END 

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/why-and-what-is-opposition-to-act-355-jahaberdeen-mohamed-yunoos#sthash.ks2okYlc.dpuf

Our unifying national philosophy

OCTOBER 3 — A nation without an ideology is like a teenager without a direction. A direction of some sort, even a broad and general one, for example, to appreciate life and its gifts is essential to determine the quality of life.

It also acts as a fence that reminds the teenager to be wary of influences that may make him unappreciative of life’s gifts, such as indulgence in drug abuse. 

Likewise, a nation will just float along aimlessly and in conflicting directions if the people lack a national ideal they can use as a yardstick. I have written many times before, asking what is our national dream and philosophy, keeping in mind we are a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-lingual, multi-cultural and cosmopolitan nation.

We require a common national philosophy and a set of national values that can unite us as Malaysians and guide our Malaysian spirit to evolve and grow. Like nurturing a child, a nation requires constant nurturing, too.

Today, we perceive our nation to be in a state of ethnic, religious, social and economic tatters. Madness in behaviour and speeches, and mediocrity in work and productivity appear to have become a national norm.

Our leaders have to be proactive to reverse this trend and correct the perception. If the leaders are able to remove the political cataract blinding their eyes, they will see the nation is crying out for a direction and a national philosophy all Malaysians can identify with. 

As a nation that achieved independence, we were learning how to co-exist as Malaysians due to our diverse backgrounds.

We had our first racial clash, albeit politically originated, in May 1969. That was our first and I am sure our last bitter experience of a civil clash. 

As a result of this bitter experience, our past leaders were wise to recognise the need for a national philosophy which can be a guiding force to unite and provide a national direction for the people.

The National Consultative Council, headed by the late Tun Abdul Razak, had the unity and “soul” of the nation in mind when the principles of the Rukunegara were formulated.

What is so special about the Rukunegara? Firstly, everyone seems to have forgotten it was formalised as a national ideology through a declaration by none other than the Yang diPertuan Agong on  Aug 31, 1970.

I learnt the Rukunegara in school and I recall reciting it at school assemblies. It represented our national values.

It has five main principles namely, belief in God, loyalty to the King and the country, upholding the Constitution, rule of law, and good behaviour and morality.

The purpose of instilling these five principles is explained by the preamble to the Rukunegara. 

The preamble provides Malaysia aspires to achieve a greater unity for all her people by:

• Maintaining a democratic way of life;
• Creating a just society in which the wealth of the nation is equitably shared;
• Ensuring a liberal approach to her rich and diverse cultural traditions, and;
• Building a progressive society which shall be oriented to modern science and technology;

The Rukunegara contains not only universal values so relevant to a diverse society like ours, but it also sets a clear direction which we all can share to make this nation great.

We really need to be united by common values before we are pulled apart by mischief makers in our society who are bent on dividing us.

What is urgently required now is the rebirth of Razak’s political will to give life to the principles of Rukunegara. 

I support the increasing call that the Rukunegara is made as a preamble to the Constitution of Malaysia.

This will allow the courts to interpret the Federal Constitution within the context of the national philosophy particularly with regards to the protection of the fundamental liberties of the citizens as enshrined in the Constitution.

It will also enable the protection of the constitutional monarchy and the parliamentary democratic political structure of our country. 

If our current leadership has Razak’s wisdom, foresight and courage, I foresee discussions, conversations and the political will to promote the Rukunegara to the position it was meant to be.
However, as Just International president Dr Chandra Muzzafar recently pointed out, since the 1980s, the Rukunegara seemed to have been systematically put aside. Is it any surprise then there is a feeling today that our nation seems to have lost its soul while we may have generally achieved major material progress? 

I appeal to our current leadership to put back the soul in our nation. 

* Jahaberdeen is a senior lawyer and founder of Rapera, a movement which encourages thinking and compassionate citizens. He can be reached at rapera.jay@gmail.com.

This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.

I am a Muslim

JUNE 20 — The month of Ramadan and the abstinence from food does put you in a more self-reflective mood than other months. Of course, self-reflection should be a routine exercise as it spring cleans the mind and the heart.

I am a Muslim or, more accurately, I try to be as good a Muslim as I possibly can. It is both easy and difficult as all contest between good and evil is.

Though genealogically, I am supposed to be a seventh generation “born Muslim”, if there is such a thing. I like to think that I am a Muslim by my own choice from the age of 30 when I finally “came” to the Quran.  How God judges me is His prerogative.

I had a typical Malay upbringing where you are sent to Quran reading classes by the time you are five years old. By the time you are 10, you already know how to read the Quran, pray and fast. You know the basic five pillars of Islam.

However, when I was 12 years old, for an unknown reason, the question of God’s existence bothered me. I became increasingly bored with the sermons of hellfire in our neighbourhood mosque. 

Instead of frightening me into submission, it started to disgust me. The ustad around me also could not answer many of my teen questions and often I was scolded for asking blasphemous queries. But the yearning to know God was very strong in me and almost unstoppable.

This yearning led me to study various scriptures and even go into the church to learn the Bible, talk to Hindu priests about the Bhagavad Gita, and study some sudras of Buddhism. As a teenager, I spent a lot of time reading, debating and thinking about God and religion. I read and debated about atheism too.

I met as many priests, ulamak, swamis and atheists who would want to discuss and debate with me. It was not enough for me to just accept a religion or a scripture. Having come from Penang, I now recall Penang as a liberal and open-minded society, where such discussions are generally allowed or at least no one condemns you to immediate hellfire for enquiring.

That was my journey as a teenager throughout adulthood. I made a conscious decision to be a Muslim from my own evaluation of the Quran, Hadith and scholarly views. I am convinced that the Quran is the most reliable source of revealed scripture but I will not insist that anyone else must believe so too.

I am only too happy if someone wants to discuss the Quran with me because I want to share the wisdom and mercy of Allah with anyone who wants to. 

If someone disagrees with me, I am humble enough to know that my interpretation and understanding is not absolute. Furthermore, I have no wish to usurp the jurisdiction of Allah when it comes to guidance. I simply refuse to play the role of a demi god on earth though I know that many religious “leaders” and experts have absolutely no compunctions behaving so.

When I came to the Quran, I realise that the prophet Abraham also took the road of enquiry and seeking. His own father excommunicated him merely for enquiring. There are many instances of prophets reflecting and meditating to understand the world.

I am happy that today there are more and more Muslims beginning to make an effort to understand the Quran instead of merely reciting it. However, it saddens me too that there is also an increasing trend towards coercion by a minority but dominant and loud groups.

This religious coercion takes various forms from extremist statements, extremist and fascist behaviours and to even legalising certain “religious laws” on the sly. I say on the sly because these laws are enacted without my actual consent. Thus, being legally a Muslim, I am compelled to be subjected to it. 

However, those that impose those laws will not be present before Allah with me to defend me if they are wrong.

Does not this compulsion, to accept the views of others regardless of how learned they claim to be, an oppression? 

Muslims may, sooner or later, ask how do they reconcile the Quran’s clear principle that no one else is responsible for our actions and belief except ourselves with the insistence on forcibly accepting so called learned views?

Feelings of guilt or deluded sense of piety does not help to resolve the conflict between compulsion and personal responsibility in matters of faith. I may be wrong but the problem could very well be in the fact that being a Muslim, which is a journey, had been turned into a set of behaviours which is forced upon you even if you are not spiritually ready. 

In other words, in the interest of uniformity, you are compelled to be a hypocrite to avoid worldly punishments. Administrative and political expediency seems to override the individual’s right to have a personal relationship with his Creator.

Muslims attend prayers at Masjid Wilayah in Kuala Lumpur. The writer says compulsion to accept the views of others could be regarded as oppression. — Picture by Azneal IshakI also note that politics cannot seem to keep away from the religion of any majority in any country. In India, for example, Hinduism seems to creep in and in Malaysia, Islam. The Christian world had already undergone its share in political history. This is actually a malady because politics being what it is, may very well interfere with the free practise of one’s faith as he deems fit.

This interference becomes effective with the cooperation of some of the religious class who likes the power that comes with cooperating with politicians.

As a Muslim, I believe that so long as there are mere humans who insist on monopolising the interpretation of Allah’s words, there will be strife, tension, disunity and oppression in the name of Islam. 

I pray that the Muslim spirit is allowed to be developed as enjoined in the Quran through beautiful preaching and polite discussions and not by coercion or force. Happy Ramadan.

* Jahaberdeen is a senior lawyer and founder of Rapera, a movement that encourages thinking and compassionate citizens. He can be reached at
rapera.jay@gmail.com

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.

Ramadan a month of self reflection

June 6 — The Ramadan month is here again as it does every year. Every Sunni Muslim knows that fasting is required during the month of Ramadan, it is one of the five pillars of his faith. He knows how to fast, when to break fast and what to do during the fasting month so that his fast fulfils the requirements of the fast.

This is the time when Muslims undergo disciplinary training of abstinence from food, drinks, lust and management of emotions for the love of Allah. The month is also filled with nightly ritual prayer of terawih, a special prayer which is much longer than the normal five times per day prayers.

Correctly practised, Ramadan is capable of being a month that transforms the caterpillar into a butterfly, change of bad habits into good ones. It can cause the hijrah or migration of  a person from a lower state into a higher state, a poor character into an exemplary one.

Whether Ramadan serves the purpose of transforming a person into a better human being or it only serves as a mere religious ritual depends on many factors, primarily how the individual Muslim sees it. It will be a sad state if good character emerges only for one month to be replaced by poor character for the next 11 months.

One of the significance of the Ramadan month is that Muslims believe the Quran was first revealed during this month. The first verse revealed was said to be the following in Surah Al Alaq: Read (O Muhammad!) in the name of your Lord who created (96.1). He created man from a clot (96.2). 

“Read, and your Lord is the Most Honorable (96.3) who taught with the pen, (96.4) taught man what he did not know.’’

Hence, the month of Ramadan is also a month of learning and relearning. In line with the first verse of the Quran, Muslims can use this month to revisit the contents of the Quran and to reach out to its messages. To read in the name of the Lord who teaches humans what they know not. This will be the best opportunity to evaluate how far we may have moved away from the teachings in the Quran and accepted other teachings of men as divine.

To the believer, there are many pearls of wisdom in the Quran and guidance for mankind in many areas of our life, particularly how to be a human being useful to His creations and to ourselves. The most basic and fundamental teachings of Islam comes from the Quran.

If a Muslim takes the trouble to allocate a mere one hour a day in the month of Ramadan to study the Quran, he may emerge more knowledgeable about Islam as contained in the Quran at the end of the Ramadan month.

Reading sincerely leads to self-reflection and hopefully, leads us nearer to Allah in our actions and we become useful human beings on earth so that those who do have the benefit of the Quran can see its mercy through our actions of kindness and industry. 

Reading the Quran will make us aware that there are many approaches of peace that Allah has taught us when we are faced with potentially hostile situations.

Reading the Quran also teaches us to preempt potentially aggressive or hostile situations in our dealings with other fellow human beings. As I mentioned earlier, reading the Quran will lead to self-reflection which is very important in life, like spring- cleaning our house or our cupboard. There could have been many mental cobwebs and dirt that may need to be dusted in our minds and our hearts.

Allah has clearly stated in the Quran that he will not change our state until we change what is within us. In other words, He requires those who want to improve to take stock of themselves — their diligence level, their mindsets, their thirst and quest for knowledge and so on.

I would invite my Muslim brothers and sisters to look inwards at ourselves during this Ramadan and see whether we are responsible for the state and condition that we are in. I find that too often we are busy blaming everyone from the Jews to anyone else who does not sound like us for our woes.

The story of Prophet Yunus in the Quran is an excellent example to critically evaluate myself when things go wrong. More likely than not, I must have erred in some way for me to receive “negative” response from the world.

“And remember Zun-nun (Yunus), when he departed in wrath: He imagined that We had no power over him! But he cried through the depths of darkness. There is no God but You: glory to You: I was indeed wrong! 021.088. So We listened to him: and delivered him from distress: and thus do We deliver those who have faith.” (Al Anbiya 87 – 88).

Salam Ramadan to all and may you each be blessed with what you sow.

*Jahaberdeen is a senior lawyer and founder of Rapera, a movement that encourages thinking and compassionate citizens. He can be reached at rapera.jay@gmail.com.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Malay Mail Online.

- See more at: http://m.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/ramadan-a-month-of-self-reflection-jahaberdeen-mohamed-yunoos#sthash.TfLX3UGg.dpuf

Hadi’s Private Member’s Bill and its implications

Private Member’s Bill sought to be passed by PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang, which the government graciously allowed to jump queue in the list of matters to be debated in Parliament.

First is the political dimension where PAS is clearly trying to achieve a political score with the Malay voters.  It has been widely publicising it is willing to work with anyone to achieve its “Islamic goal”.  In this case, if the Bill succeeds, PAS will have the “glory” in political history as the party which was responsible for “enhancing the status of Shariah courts” and for paving the way for further implementation of  Islamic criminal law.

If it does not succeed in passing the Bill, Umno MPs will be accused of being insincere and “opposed to Islamic laws”.  Clearly, in this game, PAS gets the credit either way with the general Malay voters.

Politically, Umno therefore is “snookered” unless it can bring the issue up to another completely different intellectual and political level which I am afraid Umno is incapable of due to misconceived fear and other reasons.

Secondly, the Constitutional dimension.  As a matter of parliamentary courtesy, it is admirable the government has given way to a Private Member’s Bill from the Opposition to be heard before government business, which always takes precedence. I believe this is the first time and as the Parliament speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin repeatedly tried to educate the opposing members from the Opposition, this is a precedent.

I respect and admire Pandikar’s patience in educating the opposition members on the clear provisions of the Standing Orders. It really baffled me the opposition members are opposing their own Private Member’s Bills being heard first. Painfully amusing.

Constitutionally, any Act can be amended or even repealed by Parliament in accordance with the law and the Constitution. Hadi’s Bill ostensibly seeks to amend the Shariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 in relation to enhancing their punishment provisions.

Currently, under section 2 of the aforesaid Act, Shariah courts can only impose punishment with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or with any fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or with whipping not exceeding six strokes or with any combination thereof. This is the so-called “356” punishments which Hadi’s Bill hopes to enhance. Obviously Hadi wants to enhance the penal powers of the Shariah courts to be able to implement Kelantan’s Shariah Criminal Enactment Code of 1993, through which they hope to impose hudud punishments. 

Hence, we are back to PAS’s version of hudud which they want to compel Muslims to follow by force of law. Put it another way, PAS’s “noble aim” of “serving Islam” is to ensure Muslims are subjected to greater punishments and despite what is provided for under the civil law system.

The long-term effect of enhancing the penal punishments will be to allow more criminal offences perceived to be offences against the “precepts of Islam” and within List II of the State List of the Ninth Schedule to the Federal Constitution to be passed. Hence, we will see a situation where there will be two sets of criminal laws for Muslims — the Shariah and the civil law system. Obviously, this will give rise to various complex constitutional issues such as equality before the law and so on. I believe even a challenge under Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution may be mounted by a Muslim who does not want to be subjected to it though this would require a court which would decide without “fear or favour”.

I do not know why the government has never thought of evaluating whether the existing criminal laws under the federal laws are already consistent with the Quran and authentic Sunnah and hence “Islamic” or not. Surely, the federal government is not taking the position the existing criminal laws under the civil justice system do not achieve “justice” as enjoined by Islam and therefore, un-Islamic?

It truly baffles me why as a nation we are keen on creating two parallel legal systems in the country. Apart from the injustice which may ensue, aren’t the policy makers concerned this would lead to disunity and enmity between the Muslims and non-Muslims? I hope I am just being over worried about the fate of my country.

Thirdly, the faith and theological dimension.  Muslims, especially those who with knowledge and take their faith seriously, will not like imposition on their faith and servitude to Allah. There have been tremendous debate and differences of views, even among scholars, on what constitutes “hudud” and “takzeer”.  Despite the fact most scholars agree the term “hudud laws” refer to only those offences for which punishments are clearly prescribed for in the Quran, some other scholars and politicians insist on including various other offences as hudud offences even though they are not mentioned in the Quran. Furthermore the word “hudud” in the Quran does not even refer to any penal offences. It simply means “limit” and the relevant verses refer mostly to matrimonial matters.

Many notable scholars, including the renowned Prof Dr Hashim Kamali, are of the view for every punishment, the Quran also provides for forgiveness to the offender. However, this provision of forgiveness is absent in PAS’s version of hudud. There are many theological debates and issues concerning “hudud laws” that are still unsettled to this very day. I fear imposing such laws on Muslims, which are very tied to their faith and servitude to Allah, may give rise to disunity among the Muslims.

I would like to repeat my call to the government to seriously study the possibility of a “fused” legal system to maintain only one legal system in the country which can cater to the peculiar needs of each religious community while ensuring general justice for all Malaysians.

* An error in the print version of this article has since been rectified here.

** Jahaberdeen is is a senior lawyer and founder of Rapera, a movement that encourages thinking and compassionate citizens. He can be reached at rapera.jay@gmail.com

*** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.

- See more at: http://m.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/hadis-private-members-bill-and-its-implications-jaharberdeen-mohamed-yunoos#sthash.xwLVpfFI.dpuf

Who or What is "Government"

The word “government” appears about 450 times in the Federal Constitution and understandably, it is not defined.

In our country today, there is an increasing demand for accountability and transparency from the government. Citizens want to know what the government is doing, how they are doing it and why.

Obviously, the citizens seem to want to play a greater and more significant role in the direction and evolution of the country. A simple enough desire but a complex quest as life is complex with many aspects to it.

On the other hand, if we do not know what a “government” is, how do we know what role to play in shaping the destiny of our nation?

We have heard about the separation of powers between the executive, judiciary and legislature, the three branches of government that are supposed to “check and balance” each other through their perceived independence from each other. In reality, however, the so-called independence may not be absolute due to overlaps between the three branches. 

For instance, the executive is made up of Cabinet members who are also members of Parliament, the legislature. These are the elected members of Parliament and at the state level, the elected state representatives — the so called people’s representatives in a democracy.

In theory, the members of the legislature are required to pass laws that would curb any abuse of power by the executive and to pass “good laws” that would benefit the nation generally. However, in reality, since some of the members of the legislature are also members of the Cabinet, how would the citizens ensure laws are not passed to perpetuate the power of the existing executive members?

Some of the laws passed by Parliament may contain what is known as “ouster clauses”. 

These “ouster clauses” aim to oust the jurisdiction of the courts to review the executive’s exercise of discretion in certain matters. In other words, the courts may be precluded, for example, from reviewing a minister’s decision thus effectively removing the theoretical “check and balance” objective of the separation of powers doctrine.

In my view, a more effective “check and balance” mechanism is a mature, responsible and united opposition in Parliament, which our country sorely lacks. I observe a greater role has been played by non-governmental organisations, pressure groups and organised concerned citizens that consists of opposition members in many cases.

Our discussion has not even touched on what exactly is a “government”.  It is not easy to come up with a comprehensive definition of “government”.  Merriam Webster dictionary defines it as  “ the group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc, a particular system used for controlling a country, state, etc, the process or manner of controlling a country, state, etc.  This is a useful simple definition because it sets out three important areas that concerns government — the people involved, the system used and the process of governance used.

Once the ordinary citizen understands these three areas, then it becomes easier for them to decide which of these areas they want to be involved in or concerned with. 

In the context of Malaysia, our system of government is made up of the federal, state and local governments. It is often forgotten Malaysia is a federation made up of thirteen states and three federal territories (Labuan, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya). It is not like a situation where there is one country governed by one body of government in all aspects. The states have their own legislature and executive bodies. While the federation has the Federal Constitution which is the “supreme law” of the land, the 11 states also have their own state constitutions.

At the same time, while we have a constitutional monarchy and a King at the federal level, we also have nine state monarchs (Sultans) who have certain powers as given to them by their State Constitutions.

It is for this reason, for example, we do not have a codified uniform Shariah law for the whole country because Islamic law is a matter for the state to legislate. There are some matters the federal government can decide and there are certain matters only the state government can decide. Hence, in a system such as this, close cooperation between state and federal governments becomes crucial.

The process by which the country is governed is also determined by both Parliament and state assemblies that pass the necessary laws. This is an extremely important process as it will determine the behaviour of citizens in terms of what they can and cannot do in the broadest sense possible.

For example, some states have made it an offence for any Muslim to skip Friday prayers three times in a row, which is punishable either by fine or jail term. 

In other instances, the kinds of laws passed by both the state and federal legislatures can have a major impact on how and how much the ordinary citizen can earn his living or what kind of life he may lead.

What about the people involved in the three branches of government? Obviously, we would broadly hope it is made up of competent, honest, diligent, compassionate and “good” people. However, hope alone will be insufficient and we have to put in place the best possible mechanisms that can reduce the chances of our hopes being dashed.

* Jahaberdeen is a senior lawyer and founder of Rapera, a movement that encourages thinking and compassionate citizens. He can be reached at rapera.jay@gmail.com

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/definition-of-government-jahaberdeen-mohamed-yunoos#sthash.gJSzTWi9.dpuf

Do not underrate importance and freedom of thought.

 One of the most important distinguishing features between humans and animals is our ability to think and reason.  

Due to our thinking faculties, we are able to be the dominant species on the planet. We have heard words and ideas such as “intelligence”, “cleverness”, “creativity”, “innovativeness” and so on. All these ideas relate to the various ways in which the brain functions.  

The brain if you like, is in a sense like the computer — garbage in garbage out.  In other words, the usefulness of your brain to you and others will depend largely on what you put inside your brain and how actively you use its potential and capability.

Many people think that simply because they live or are able to survive, they are using their brains. I have no better answer than to quote the Quran:

“Many are the Jinns and men we have made for Hell: They have hearts with which they understand not, eyes with which they see not, and ears with which they hear not. They are like cattle, nay more misguided: for they are heedless (of warning)” (Quran 7:179)

In the above verse, Allah compares some human beings to cattle and says that these human beings are worse off than cattle. Allah says clearly that many human beings are lower than cattle. Why cattle?

Cattle is guarded, fed, and its direction and life is determined by the cowherd. Cows have a heart, eyes and ears and so do human beings. Cows cannot use them to better their lives. Cows do not think and see or hear like humans. Humans have been given the privilege by Allah to use their hearts, their eyes and their ears. Those who do not, Allah says, are worse than cows.

The educated, well-off and powerful among us who follow their “animalistic instincts” for their own desires need ''cattle'' around them to make their desires a reality. They spurn lies albeit sometimes couched in intellectual, religious, and even nationalistic terms. Sometimes they use sentiments. When this fails, they use power and fear and threats. They do all they can to wreck society and the basis of human nature as Allah created to satisfy their selfish ends.

But why must we fall in their trap?

Are we like the cattle being led by the nose by the cowherd? Merely for the miserable hay that is thrown in our way and the cow shack that we are allowed, we are willing to live a life lower than the cattle? 

Even though we know that the cowherd’s main purpose is to milk us and slaughter us? 

If so, why did Allah give us hearts, eyes and ears that are different from the cow if He intended that we should only be led by the selfish cowherd? Why do we insist on degrading ourselves when Allah has elevated us?

Allah has given a way out. He holds us personally accountable. He reminds us:

“And pursue not that of which you have no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning)”. (Quran 17.36)

It is now entirely our choice. We can choose to be the human beings that Allah created or we may continue to be lower than the cattle that Allah forbade us to be. 

I believe the weak remain weak and become weaker when they dispense with the powerful blessing given to us by the Creator — the ability to think and reason. An entire society becomes doomed when it collectively frowns upon thinking and diversity of thought. 

It is worse when a minority of powerful men dictate that the bigger majority of ordinary citizens should not be given freedom of thought. The entire society becomes like the cattle in the cowshed totally dependent on the minority cowherd. 

We have to learn to read books beyond our little kingdom that we sometimes wrongly tend to think is the universe.  The world of knowledge is far bigger than what we think or know. 

It may be difficult for some to believe but it is broader than the so called knowledge we think is possessed by the cleverest among us. In current times, it is already difficult to identify who are the truly intelligent ones or geniuses due to the nature of our formal education system and the patronage system that allows only individuals with mainstream-friendly ideas to prosper. 

Anything else is trampled upon and the true thinker may find himself ostracised to languish in solitude. In the land of fools, the thinker is usually treated like a mad man — dangerous to society. 

We fail to recognise the historical truth because we have deliberately been led to deny its significance. Why do great civilisations become great? A study of civilisations — the Roman Empire, Ancient Egypt, Greek Empire, British Empire, the Islamic Golden Age, Chola Dynasty — demonstrates that knowledge, the freedom of thought and discipline played a key role in bringing about their greatness. 

When little men rise to big positions through a flawed, oppressive and corrupt system, society as a whole suffers. Like all other civilisations that fade when the rot sets it, such a society too will fade into oblivion. 

Future generations will naturally become worse because the children now see the little men as icons and idols to be emulated. This vicious cycle will continue unless we understand and recognise oppression of thought and say no to it.

* Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos is a senior lawyer and founder of Rapera, a movement that encourages thinking and compassionate citizens. He can be reached at rapera.jay@gmail.com

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/do-not-underrate-importance-and-freedom-of-thought-jahaberdeen-mohamed-yuno#sthash.jYq4WNOZ.dpuf