The demise of PAS’ resoluteness

Every Sunday, I will always grab a copy of News Straits Times just to read Shamsul Akmar’s column. In my opinion, his column delivers accurate analysis on current political issues that are plaguing the nation.

Last Sunday, he produced a great piece chastising Karpal Singh, Nik Aziz and the whole gamut of political hypocrisy institutionalised in a loose term we call ‘Pakatan Rakyat’. All in one simple and brief use of facts.

Pasted below is the article in full.

HUDUD AND KARPAL’S FAUX PAS

It seems Democratic Action Party chairman Karpal Singh’s favourite word when chastising Malay leaders who cross him is asking them to taubat or to repent.

Insisting that others taubat in the context of the Malay language places the person on a high moral ground. The person on the receiving end is nothing less than a sinner.

If such a demand had come from a respected Muslim it would have been an attempt to salvage a lost soul but from anyone lesser, it would be a tad arrogant if not outright uncouth.

Given that Karpal is not a Muslim and would only allow an Islamic state over his dead body, his demand for the taubat of Malay leaders should be nothing more than a choice of word by a politician seeking maximum impact in the public sphere.

Ironically, his latest demand for taubat from Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad is over the issue of Pas’ reneging on its struggle to form an Islamic state. Dr Mahathir had commented on the recent Pas elections that the biggest winner in the party polls was Karpal because Pas had decided to drop its pursuit for the formation of the Islamic state that would ensure the implementation of the hudud (Islamic penal code that includes amputation of limbs and stoning to death). The statesman had written that Karpal did not have to die for Pas to walk over his body to realise their Islamic state since Pas has decided to drop it.

Obviously Dr Mahathir’s posting had chagrined Karpal who did not only demand that the former repent but also spewed vitriol that Dr Mahathir is in the twilight of his years and over the hill.

While the same could also be said of Karpal, this is not the first time he had asked a Malay leader to taubat.

In 2009, Karpal had asked for opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to taubat for creating trouble and to stop betraying the people and their trust. He went further to state that the opposition pact needed another leader, a good leader and Anwar had to go.

Whether Anwar has taubat or not, with the knowledge of Karpal or otherwise, it is not on public record.

But Anwar is still the opposition leader and Karpal is still his lawyer. As such, Karpal’s demand for Malay leaders to taubat is probably something that should not be taken too seriously, as in his case with Anwar; it is merely an outburst, out of frustration or maybe a cry for attention. But in the case of his outburst against Dr Mahathir, it should be taken that the former prime minister has touched a raw nerve.

His postings had drawn not only strong reactions from Karpal but also from the staunchest advocate of Islamic state and hudud previously, Pas’ Mursyidul Am (spiritual adviser) Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat.

Nik Aziz went on to state that Dr Mahathir was the one who opposed Pas’ implementation of the hudud and wrote a letter to the Kelantan state government against it.

Sarcastically, Nik Aziz said, Dr Mahathir and not Karpal signed the letter. The Kelantan menteri besar gave a new twist to the whole issue; accusing Dr Mahathir as being anti-Islam.

Dr Mahathir’s reply to it was consistent: “What I oppose is Pas’ hudud.”

Given the recent development where Pas president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang declared that the Islamic state is not specifically stated in the Quran and that hudud is not a priority, such inconsistencies underscored what Dr Mahathir had been saying. If Pas today says that the Islamic state is not a requirement and hudud is not a priority, then why were they so bent in demanding that the government accede to their implementation then?

If then it was tantamount to be kufur or unIslamic to not pursue or support the hudud and Islamic state, does dropping the struggle for them today not tantamount to the same?

Is Pas today going to admit that its interpretation then on the need to pursue the Islamic state and hudud was flawed? Or is Pas today going to admit that their interpretation of the Islamic state and hudud was flawed?

Whether Pas admits it or not, or comes up with some new religious-sounding justification to their reneging from their earlier pursuits, Pas can be questioned on whether their earlier pursuits are Islamic requirements or otherwise.

If Pas says today that it is not stated in the Quran, then it means that what they had insisted on earlier was a Pas thing.

All this brings to the conclusion that the religious edicts on the need to pursue the Islamic state and hudud by Pas in the past were wrong and misleading.

So which is which? Maybe Karpal can help the Pas leaders. After all, Karpal seems to be an expert on taubat for Malay leaders. But there’s no need for it. After all, Karpal and the Pas leaders are now of one mind.

I have always stated that PAS is never serious in their Islamic Agenda. What you see  about PAS; the kopiahs, the jubahs, the arabic phrases thrown here and there, have always been skin deep.

I find it ironic that Nik Aziz defended Karpal Singh in this matter. We must not forget that Karpal Singh had openly rebuked PAS’ goal for an Islamic state.”Over my dead body” was the famous line uttered by the DAP man.

Nik Aziz, Karpal Singh, Hadi Awang

It came about when PAS, in the effort to win the malay votes had promised to set up Hudud Laws should they become Federal Government. This had irked the DAP and in order to appease their non-Muslims voters, Karpal made that statement.

Nik Aziz and his ilk had always maintained that, failure to implement Islamic laws in Malaysia, will make you un-Islamic and become infidels. The apparent insinuation towards Umno is not lost there. Until this day, PAS deems Umno as un-Islamic and all of its members and supporters are not true Muslims.

Thus when the highest spiritual leader of PAS bent over backwards in defending Karpal, who is not only a non-Muslim but also one who is hostile towards PAS’ goals and objectives, one can safely assume that PAS’ raison d’être was never about Islam or Hudud. It is about attaining political power.

Nik Aziz, in protecting PAS’ belligerent political partner had overtly condemned his nemesis, Tun Mahathir Mohamad stating, illogically that it was Tun Mahathir Mohamad who had opposed PAS’ Hudud laws. Instead of chastising Karpal, he chided Tun Mahathir.

Tun Mahathir did not oppose the Islamic laws, what he opposed was the PAS’ version of the Hudud laws. This can be read in the letter sent to Nik Aziz back in 1994 as produced below:

PERDANA MENTERI MALAYSIA

YAB Tuan Haji Nik Abdul Aziz bin Nik Mat
Menteri Besar Kelantan

Y.A.B. Tuan Haji,

PENGUATKUASAAN KANUN JENAYAH SYARIAH II 1993 DI NEGERI KELANTAN

Rujukan : MB(KN)(S)16/6/(26)
Bertarikh 8 Jun 1994

Pihak kerajaan pusat sentiasa berpandukan kepada kebijaksanaan (al-Hikmah) yang telah ditunjukkan oleh baginda Rasulullah SAW. dan juga para sahabat baginda khususnya al-khulafa ar-Rasyidun dalam melaksanakan ajaran Islam lebih-lebih lagi yang berkaitan dengan hukum-hukum jenayah.

1. Jalan yang diambil oleh Kerajaan Pusat ini adalah juga berpandukan kepada kaedah yang terdapat dalam sistem pemerintahan Islam iaitu “tindakan pemerintahan adalah sentiasa bergantung kapada kepentingan ramai (muslihat umum).” Penguatkuasaan kanun jenayah yang digubal oleh Kerajaan PAS di Kelantan, menurut kajian sehingga setakat ini tidak menampakkan dan tidak menyakinkan pakar-pakar perundangan Islam yang tidak mempunyai sebarang kepentingan politik bahawa ia selari dengan ajaran dan kehendak Islam sebagaimana yang telah diuruskan dengan bijaksana oleh Rasulullah SAW. dan para sahabat.

2. Sepertimana yang Amat Berhormat sendiri sedia ketahui, KEADILAN adalah ASAS yang paling utama ditekankan oleh agama Islam apabila melaksanakan sesuatu perkara. Penekanan mengenai dengan keadilan adalah sangat terserlah dalam ajaran Islam lebih daripada penekanan yang terdapat dalam ajaran-ajaran yang lain dalam sejarah agama. Baginda Rasulullah SAW sewaktu mengembangkan agama Islam ialah usaha menghapuskan ketidakadilan yang menjadi sebahagian daripada budaya di zaman itu.

3. Tidak perlu bagi saya menyatakan disini betapa banyaknya terdapat ayat-ayat Al-Quran yang menegaskan tentang pentingnya keadilan dan lebih banyak bagi ayat-ayat yang mencela sebarang jenis kezaliman. Disamping itu al-Quran juga sentiasa menggesa supaya dielak daripada terjadinya huru-hara dan Allah sendiri sangat tidak gemarkan kapada mereka yang menyebabkan huru-hara berlaku. Kita hanya bertindak balas terhadap sikap permusuhan dan serangan yang dilakukan terhadap kita. Di Malaysia, orang bukan Islam bukan sahaja tidak memusuhi kita tetapi mereka memberi kerjasama bahkan membantu kita dalam urusan-urusan yang bersangkutan dengan kegiatan dan amalan ajaran Islam.

4. Khusus mengenai undang-undang jenayah PAS di Kelantan, kajian awal menunjukkan dengan jelas bahawa undang-undang itu yang disediakan menerusi perjuangan sebuah parti politik ternyata bukan sahaja menyebabkan ketidakadilan aakan berlaku tetapi, sebaliknya ia akan membawa kezaliman. Kebenaran kenyataan ini adalah berdasarkan kapada keterangan berikut:

(i) Dakwaan bahawa undang-undang ini akan dikuatkuasakan hanya di kalangan orang Islam sahaja dan tidak digunapakai untuk orang bukan Islam akan menyebabkan ketidakadilan dan kezaliman yang ketara berlaku. Memang benar di zaman Nabi Muhammad SAW., orang Yahudi biasa dihukum di bawah undang-undang yang berada di dalam kitab Taurat mereka tetapi kitab Taurat mempunyai hukuman yang tidak berbedza dengan hukum-hukum dalam al Quran. Mereka yang berzina umpamanya, akan dihukum rejam sama seperti hukuman terhadap jenayah yang sama bagi orang Islam. Justru itu tidak ada perbedzaan sama ada penjenayah dihukum di bawah undang-undang Islam atau Undang-undang Yahudi di zaman Nabi Muhammad SAW. Tetapi terdapat perbedzaan yang amat ketara di antara hukuman di bawah undang-undang yang ada sekarang dengan hukuman di bawah undang-undang jenayah yang dicadangkan oleh kerajaan PAS di Kelantan.

Menghukum orang Islam dengan lebih berat tetapi orang bukan Islam dengan amat ringan untuk jenayah yang sama atau jenayah dilakukan bersama amatlah tidak adil dan merupakan satu kezaliman, sedangkan undang-undang PAS akan menyebabkan ketidakadilan dan kezaliman berlaku, maka undang-undang PAS tidak boleh diterima sebagai undang-undang Islam atau secucuk dengan undang-undang Islam ataupun selaras dengan ajaran Islam. Ia sebenarnya tertentangan dengan agama Islam.

(ii) Masaalah kesalahan merogol wanita, berdasarkan kapada undang-undang PAS, jika seseorang wanita yang belum kahwin melahirkan anak maka ini adalah bukti ia telah berzina dan akan dihukum mengikut undang-undang PAS, sedangkan apa yang sebenarnya berlaku ialah wanita itu adalah mangsa rogol. Mengikut undang-undang PAS jika ia menuduh perogolnya, tuduhan hanya boleh diterima sah jika terdapat empat orang saksi (yang terdiri daripada orang-orang yang baik, yang tidak melakukan dosa besar) yang menyatakan bahawa telah melihat dengan terang dan jelas bahawa yang dituduh telah merogol wanita berkenaan.

Seperti kita ketahui, melainkan dalam keadaan perang seperti di Bosnia diwaktu mana orang Serb merogol beramai-ramai wanita Bosnia, tidak mungkin jenayah merogol dilakukan di hadapan saksi-saksi yang terdiri daripada orang-orang yang baik. Jika saksi ini melihat dan mereka tidak menolong wanita berkenaan, mereka boleh dianggap sebagai bersubahat seperti penjenayah-penjenayah Serb bersubahat dengan perogol daripada kaum mereka. Jika ada pun saksi, dan mereka tidak membuat apa-apa untuk menolong mereka tidak boleh dianggap sebagai terdiri daripada orang yang baik, tetapi disebaliknya dianggap sudah bersubahat. Dengan itu tuduhan mangsa rogol akan ditolak dan perogol akan terlepas.

Keadaan di mana mangsa rogol dihukum salah kerana melahirkan anak di luar nikah dan perogol dilepaskan sebagai tidak bersalah kerana tidak ada saksi adalah sama sekali tidak boleh diterima oleh sesiapa pun sebagai sesuatu yang adil, bahkan aia adalah satu kezaliman yang dahsyat.

5. Hukum Hudud Islam bertujuan untuk memberi keadilan kapada semua pihak. Ia bukanlah bertujuan untuk melakukan kezaliman. Undang-undang PAS jelas menunjukkan ketidakadilan dan kezaliman yang ketara akan berlaku. Justeru itu undang-undang yang disediakan oleh PAS bukanlah undang-undang yang menepati ajaran Islam. Ia hanyalah undang-undang ciptaan PAS yang bertentangan dengan penekanan oleh agama Islam yang menuntut supaya menghukum secara adil dan menolok sebarang kezaliman. Kerajaan Pusat akan sentiasa berpandu dan menerima ajaran-ajaran dan amalan Islam dari semua aspek tanpa diheret oleh kehendak organasasi politik yang mempunyai kepentingan yang lain daripada Islam dan kepentingannya.

6. Jika undang-undang PAS yang jelas mengandungi unsur-unsur ketidakadilan dikuatkuasakan dinegara ini, dan jika ia dikatakan itulah Hukum Hudud Islam maka umat Islam dan juga anggota masyarakat bukan Islam akan hilang kepercayaan Islam membawa keadilan untuk penganutnya. Ia juga memberi gambaran yang buruk terhadap agama yang suci ini dan menjejaskan imej orang-orang Islam di kalangan penganut agama-agama yang lain. Ia tetap akan menyebabkan penganut agama lain menjauhkan diri daripada agama Islam dan menyebabkan orang yang berminat memeluk Islam menolaknya.

7. Kerajaan Pusat tidak berhajat untuk bersubahat dengan PAS bagi melaksanakan ketidakadilan semata-mata untuk kepentingan politik dan sokongan oleh orang yang telah diabui matanya. Kerajaan Malaysia yang sentiasa dan terus mempertahankan ajaran dan nilai-nilai Islam tidak dapat membenarkan Kerajaan Pas menjalankan sesuatu yang bercangah dengan prinsip keadilan dalam Islam, maka Kerajaan Pusat akan mengambil tindakan yang sewajarnya terhadapKerajaan PAS demi menjaga maruah dan ketinggian martabat Islam dan penganut-penganutnya.

DR. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD
15 Julai 1994

There is a term where people can change their principles just to suit their objectives. Do you know what it is? PAS had always told its audience that the party is not about protecting Malay rights. The philosophy of politics by race is shunned by PAS. In doing so, they had actually labeled any effort to uplift the standard of living via racial identification as ‘assabiyah‘.

For them, this is against the teachings of their version of Islam. For them, Islam should be the number one cause in any of your political struggle.

But only recently PAS had made resolutions to protect Malay rights and championing the Malay cause. In other words, they are becoming more like Umno.

Gone were the struggle to have an Islamic state . It has been diluted into ‘Welfare State’.

Best friends forever

All in the name to appease your partners and not losing the non-muslim votes. All in the name of attaining power.

To further confuse its supporters, PAS is saying that they had to retreat into this style of politics so that they can easily achieve power as the Federal Government. Once this is achieved, only then they will implement the Islamic state manifesto.

This sort of trickery is not only unfair to their non-muslim voters, it is also malicious on the fact that Islam do not teach its leaders to be deceitful. Just like how Tun Mahathir reprimanded PAS on the unjust approach of its Hudud laws, this abuse of justice in the name of religion  has been the modus operandi of PAS all these years.

Recently, PAS’ President, Hadi Awang lambasted Anwar Ibrahim’s sex video saying that in any sexual allegations to be brought forward, Islam requires 4 witnesses.

To me it is simple. If he wants 4 witnesses, then thousands upon thousands of people who had seen the video are deemed as witnesses. I am sure CCTV can be used as evidence. Unless of course, Hadi Awang wants the impossible. Whereby any sexual acts will automatically have witnesses standing by.

This merely the case of political survival. If a wrong has been committed, then PAS must condemn it. What Hadi Awang should have said in order to protect PAS’ integrity and Islamic credentials was to leave the matter to the authorities to investigate and opt for a wait and see attitude. After all, Islam do not condone punishment before any investigation has been made. Nor should it absolve anything prematurely.

Not only had PAS abused justice in the name of religion, now they are abusing religion in the name of power. I find it hard to believe that PAS, where the name itself signifies an Islamic party, would actually be so unIslamic in its effort to attain power.

Who would believe that PAS, who is fighting so strongly in the name of Islam could be so irresolute when it comes to a fleeting, temporary, worldly thing we call ‘politics’?