Friday, 26-Sep-2003 11:59 AM

PAS says it yet again: No Islamic State

Yet again, the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) says, no Islamic State and no Islamic laws for non-Muslims. And PAS is facing a great risk for saying so. Yet they say it, in the interest of pacifying the non-Muslims, and at the detriment of their electoral success come the next election.

And how many times must PAS keep repeating this pledge to make the non-Muslims (and some Muslims as well) happy? When they say they will implement Islamic law, there is an uproar. But, when they say they will not, the critics say PAS is not sincere or that they are being two-faced. This is a classic case of ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’.

On Wednesday, PAS’ President, Abdul Hadi Awang, declared that even if the party were to win a two-thirds majority in Parliament, it would not amend the Constitution to turn Malaysia into an Islamic State.

Hadi assures Malaysians that the party no longer stands by its Islamic State ideology and that the setting up of Islamic State involves a constitutional amendment. However, he added, certain laws (passed by Parliament) that go against Islamic teachings need to be reviewed. And Hadi must certainly be commended and not chastised for this bold declaration.

Let us take just one ‘simple’ issue, the Internal Security Act or ISA. The ISA allows for indefinite detention without trial. Islam does not allow this.

The ISA allows for detention on the mere suspicion that one may, in some distant future, commit a crime, even if no crime has actually been committed yet, and even if there is no evidence that one is actually contemplating committing a crime. Islam does not allow this.

Common law allows for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. Islam does not allow this.

Common law allows for a conviction without clear evidence and based on witnesses whose testimonies are uncorroborated. Islam does not allow this.

Common law allows for a conviction based on testimonies of witnesses who commit perjury. Islam does not allow this.

And so on and so forth - everything that human rights groups oppose are equally opposed by Islam.

Anyhow, all these arguments are purely academic. We must note that PAS cannot amend the Constitution or amend any laws, never mind how bad these laws may be, unless it first has a two-thirds majority in Parliament. PAS knows this and has declared so.

But how can PAS have a two-thirds majority in Parliament when it only contests one-third of the seats and, on top of that, wins less than half these seats? Clearly PAS will never have the two-thirds majority it needs to amend the laws, let alone turn Malaysia into an Islamic State.

Why then did it propose Islamic laws for Terengganu?

Simple, that was its election promise to the voters. It promised, if it won the elections, it would introduce Islamic laws.

When PAS won Kelantan State in 1990, it tabled a bill in the State Assembly to introduce Islamic laws in the state. It, however, could not implement these laws without the approval of Parliament and Parliament did not approve it. So, Islamic laws could not be implemented in Kelantan and it had to remain a mere proposal.

So, why do it? So that PAS would be seen to have fulfilled its election promise. The fact that Parliament blocked its implementation was no fault of PAS. PAS has fulfilled its duty. If anyone were going to look bad it would be the Barisan Nasional (BN) led Federal Government for frustrating Islam. This would be further evidence that Umno, the dominant partner in BN, is anti-Islam, a statement PAS had been making for decades. Now, by Umno’s own action, it had proved that PAS was correct and the statement was no fitnah (slander).

Then, nine years later, when PAS also won Terengganu State in the 1999 general election and, again, based on its election promise to implement Islamic law if it came to power, it had to do what it did earlier in Kelantan.

PAS, in fact, was in no hurry to implement Islamic laws. However, Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad goaded PAS and accused it of being a hypocrite. PAS, said Dr Mahathir, had promised the people Islamic laws. Now that it was in power it did not implement the promised Islamic laws.

So, Pas had no choice but to push forward the proposal for Islamic laws. But it knew it would need approval from Parliament. However, with only 27 Parliament seats out of a total of 194; which means it has only 13.9% whereas it needs not less than 66.6%; how could it get Parliament’s approval?

But that was not PAS’ problem. It had fulfilled its promise to the voters. It had also accepted Dr Mahathir’s challenge and put to rest the allegation that it was hypocritical by not implementing Islamic laws. Now, again, Umno has been proven an enemy of Islam.

PAS is in a win-win situation here. It has fulfilled its election promise yet need not go all the way into actually implementing it. The Muslim voters are happy that their Islamic duty has been fulfilled. The non-Muslim voters, on the other hand, if they are smart, can see that PAS is just making a brilliant political move and that they are in no danger of being subjected to Islamic laws or having to live under an Islamic system of administration.

The non-Muslims must ask themselves this question; can and will PAS contest EVERY seat come next election and can it, ON ITS OWN, win not less than two-thirds of these seats? If the answer is ‘no’, ‘impossible’, ridiculous idea’, ‘a fantasy’, and so on, then the whole issue is a non-issue.

So, what, therefore, are we arguing about? And why do you think the National Justice Party (keADILan) sees no reason in making any statement on the matter (which the critics accuse it of ‘taking no stand’)? Because it is a non-issue and the fact that keADILan’s main focus is ‘equality for all races and the creation of a Malaysian race’ is self-explanatory as to what its ideology is.

Or are we too dense to even figure this one out?

Check your voter registration here