Saturday, 15-Nov-2003 0:14 AM

Why the non-Muslims oppose PAS’ Islamic State concept

If the non-Muslims reject PAS’ blueprint for introducing Islamic laws in Malaysia, then PAS has only itself to blame. The fact that PAS has labelled its blueprint “Islamic State” turns, not only the non-Muslims, but many Muslims as well off.

In the piece FAC News wrote on 7 August 2003, ‘Judging the book by its cover’, this is what we had to say:

“While many argue that PAS made a great mistake “bulldozing” Hudud, it is equally a mistake to propose the new opposition alliance as a secular alliance. No self-respecting Muslim, or even the “not so good” Muslims for that matter, would want to be associated with such a thing lest he be branded anti-Islam.

The Hudud “fiasco”, if I may be permitted to label it so, was all because of the Islamic label. Islamic labels frighten people. The secular opposition front label will do the same. Why can’t we bury all these labels and propose a common platform acceptable to all races and religions? If we must label this new alliance, or even restore the old one with a new label, why can’t it be something like “justice”, which is something all religions and communities endeavour to achieve?

After all, Islamic law and Hudud are primarily about achieving justice. Therefore, if we strive for justice, then we automatically fulfil the Islamic requirement. Once we unanimously agree on the new and better system, which is a just system, without labelling it an Islamic system, then we can get down to sorting out the other more important aspects of justice such as better and just laws, and the implementation method -- which, in the end, is what it is all about.”

Islam is the new “bad boy” of the Western world. In the old days it used to be Communism. However, since the “death” of Communist Russia, Islam had now become the new Communism. Therefore, anything with an Islamic label, especially since 9-11, is considered negative.

PAS needs to do some hard selling if it wants the non-Muslims to support what they see as its version of Islam; compared to Umno’s version. On 29 September 2001, the then Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, very cleverly announced that Malaysia is already an Islamic State and has, in fact, been so since independence in 1957.

This is both right and wrong, but it has enabled the non-Muslims to now compare “Umno’s version” of an Islamic State with the “PAS version”. The fact that this is misleading is lost in the perception that Umno’s version of an Islamic State means no change; maintain status quo.

This was probably one of Dr Mahathir’s most brilliant political moves and it has left PAS in a lurch. PAS has been forced into a situation where it now needs to “compete” with Umno. If it remains quiet, it would have lost the “Islamic race”. If it too announces its version of an Islamic state, it certainly has to be different from Umno’s version -- and thereby seen as more radical and intolerant compared to Umno’s so-called version.

The bottom line is, PAS wavered, and Dr Mahathir stole the thunder from under it while it blinked. In a gunfight, he who shoots first wins, and Dr Mahathir shot first.

The non-Muslims do not care whether Malaysia is a secular state, Islamic state, capitalist state, or Communist state. The only concern is that their lives remain the same, they would not become victims of an unjust legal system, their rights would be protected, and they can continue to practice their religion, customs and traditions, plus would be free to earn their livelihood and do business. Most important of all, they would not be subjected to Islamic rules, regulations or laws and will not be forced into any Islamisation program -- like having to convert to Islam or change their names to Muslim names like what happened in Indonesia some time ago.

The non-Muslims need to be assured what their religion allows, Islam will also allow. If their religion makes it kosher to drink, gamble, dance, eat pork, commit adultery, commit incest, or whatever the case may be, even if Islam forbids this for Muslims, non-Muslims must not be forbidden from continuing with their practices.

PAS needs to explain to the non-Muslims that, during the time of the Prophet, incest was not banned for those communities where it was allowed. If incest can be allowed, what more the other acts?

PAS needs to explain that, under Islamic law, the property of the non-Muslims must not be touched and that liquor is considered the property of the non-Muslims. Therefore, any Muslim who spills even one drop of the non-Muslim’s liquor will be punished and will be made to pay compensation to the non-Muslim whose liquor he spilled -- which means confiscating the liquor of non-Muslims is a big no-no.

Non-Muslims must be allowed to be educated in their mother tongue, dance, and do anything at all which their religion, customs or culture allows. PAS needs to conduct dialogues with leaders of the other religions to find out what is allowed in Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and so on, so that it does not ban anything that these other religions allow. For example, is robbery, theft, embezzlement, rape, incest, adultery, sodomy, rebellion, etc., allowed by these other religions? If not, then what should be done about these crimes. How will the non-Muslims be punished for committing these crimes? If the Muslims will be punished under Hudud, under what legal system will the non-Muslims be punished?

The examples the non-Muslims use in opposing Islamic law are the incidences in the State of Terengganu where the non-Muslims were not allowed to dance or bring liquor into a government-owned hotel. PAS needs to explain to the non-Muslims that this has nothing to do with Islamic law but merely the state government exercising its right.

The non-Muslims argue that the state is denying the non-Muslims their rights by not allowing dancing or liquor in its hotels. PAS needs to explain that the state too has rights, and the right of refusal is also a right that needs to be respected. Liquor and dancing are not banned in the state, only in the two government-owned hotels, so the non-Muslims are still free to dance and get drunk elsewhere.

Many other hotels all over the world also do not allow its patrons to bring liquor onto its premises. And these hotels are not even Muslim-owned. And what about pork? Pork is also not available in the state-owned hotels. Why have the non-Muslims not protested about this? In fact, even in many Chinese-owned hotels, pork is not available. Is this not also denying the non-Muslims their rights?

Hindu shops do not sell beef. Why is it okay for Hindu establishments to refuse to sell beef while Muslims who refuse to sell pork or liquor are accused of being radical, extreme, and so on?

Hotels also do not allow pets to be brought into its premises. We can understand dogs, which the Muslims consider unclean, but why are cats also not allowed into these hotels?

Then there is the Malaysian “king of fruits”, the durian -- the fruit with the “taste of heaven, the smell of hell”. Durians too are not allowed in hotels, or on planes for the matter. The first Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman, once brought some durians onto a Malaysian Airlines plane. The flight captain refused to take off until the durians were removed from the plane. Even the Prime Minister did not get an exemption to this rule.

Durians have nothing to do with religion. It is that the smell may offend some people. Liquor and pork too may offend some people, so it cannot be allowed in hotels where almost the entire staff is Muslim. How can one expect the Muslim staff to handle the glasses and plates that have been contaminated with liquor and pork? And, for that same reason, Hindu shops do not serve beef -- yet no one complains.

PAS must explain that rights work both ways. While the non-Muslims protest that their right to dance and consume liquor in state-owned hotels is being denied, PAS must make it clear that the state, as owners of the hotels, also have the right of refusal. And this is practiced all over the world, even in non-Muslim hotels. In Islam, your property is your right. You, and only you, can decide what is done on your property. You have the right of refusal. And this right of refusal is not only confined to dancing, liquor and pork, but can extend to durians, cats, dogs, half-naked people, shouting, swearing, necking, fondling, spitting on the floor, pissing on the floor (which one drunk did once in the Terengganu state-owned hotel), and anything at all that may offend the other patrons of the hotel.

In short, the right of refusal is not an Islamic thing but a universal practice.

The arguments against Islamic law are sometimes very petty. Examples used to oppose Islamic law are dancing and liquor being forbidden in state-owned hotels. PAS must explain that Islamic law extends beyond just forbidding dancing and liquor drinking in state-owned hotels. Islamic law is about justice.

Hudud, the Islamic law that has stirred the controversy, covers seven serious crimes. (see: Let’s blame it on the Jews - Seruan Keadilan Editorial Nov 12). The good thing about Hudud is that all these seven crimes are pardonable, even murder. The first option is to allow the criminal to repent. Only when he or she refuses to repent after three chances are given will the punishment be meted out. In the case of murder, the immediate family of the deceased can choose to pardon the murderer or demand compensation. If the family forgives the murderer, then he or she cannot be punished further.

PAS must make the people understand that Islamic law is about compassion and forgiving, not about punishment. Punishment is the last resort when all else fails and the perpetrator is openly defiant and unrepentant.

Take the case of theft. If the thief stole because he or she is destitute and did it out of necessity, then he or she cannot be punished. Instead, he or she must be put on welfare and the state now becomes his or her guardian. Islam has a tithe system called zakat where every wage-earning male Muslim must pay 2.5% of his property value, income, investments, savings, etc, to the state. With this money, the state then looks after the sick, poor, crippled, unemployed, etc. If anyone is caught stealing, and the reason he or she stole is because he or she is poor and is not a recipient of zakat, then the person in charge of dishing out the zakat would be brought to book instead.

Islamic justice is such that rather than punish the penniless thief, the welfare officer is punished instead if it is proven he was negligent in not distributing the zakat properly. What if the thief is rich, say a millionaire? Then the millionaire thief will be allowed to ask for forgiveness, give the money back to whomever he stole it from, and all will be forgotten. In fact, the state will suggest that the thief and the victim settle the matter out of court. If an amicable solution can be reached and the victim is satisfied with the settlement, the state will not interfere in the matter.

In the case of adultery, if someone peeps through his neighbour’s window and makes a report that his neighbour is having an adulteress affair, the squealer will instead face punishment for spying on his neighbour. Islam forbids you from spying on your neighbour.

There are many more things under Islamic law that have not been properly explained, in particular its implementation and how it works. Take liquor as an example, the bone of contention amongst the non-Muslims. As explained earlier, liquor is the property of the non-Muslim and no one can deny the non-Muslim his property.  If a Muslim confiscates the non-Muslim’s liquor, the Muslim will face punishment and will have to pay compensation to the non-Muslim. Denying the non-Muslim his liquor is forbidden under Islamic law.

PAS’ Islamic State document should avoid quoting verses from the Koran and sayings of the Prophet. Not only the non-Muslims, but Muslims as well find this too complicating. Instead, the documents should get down to basics and speak in laymen’s terms. Maybe rather than an Ulamak (spiritual leader) handling this matter, a layman should instead write the document in the language other laymen understand. Then let the non-Muslims judge whether Islamic law is a threat to their fundamental liberties and rights or whether they would in fact be getting a better deal, the NEW DEAL.

PAS must erase this mentality that only the Ulamak knows best. Sometime the patient knows better where it hurts and not the doctor. PAS will face its greatest test come the next election. This Islamic law thing can either take PAS to new heights or spell its doom. Leaving this matter in the hands of the Ulamak may invite serious repercussions.

Check your voter registration here