Setiap Artikel Malaysiawaves ke Email Anda.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Dipersilakan untuk Like Facebook Page T. Besi

Search Malaysiawaves

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Kes Kartika Membuktikan Betapa UMNO Selama Ini Mengabaikan Serta Tidak Menghormati Mahkamah Syariah

Kenyataan Musa Awang, Timbalan Persatuan PEguam Syariee menunjukkan betapa UMNO ini lidah bercabang. Di Pahang, panel Rayuan Syariah pun UMNO tidak mampu untuk memastikan kewujudannya. Banyak prasarana Mahkamah Syariah tidak pernah diambil kesah oleh UMNO sehingga lah ianya terdedah dengan kes Kartika Sari ini. Jikalau UMNO ambil kesah berkenaan mahkamah syariah, nescaya Kartika tidak perlu dihantar ke Penjara Karjang untuk disebat. UMNO ini di depan mengaku berjuang Islam, tapi hakikatnya mereka lidah brecabang, telunjuk lurus kelengkeng berkait. Mahakamah Syariah mereka abaikan selama ini dan tidak kesah langsung kecuali yang perlu sahaja. Ikutilah kenyataan Musa Awang yang dipetik dari Malaysiakini

komentar Rentetan kekecohan yang berlaku dalam isu sebatan Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, Persatuan Peguam Syarie Malaysia (PGSM) memandang serius perkara tersebut kerana ia telah menjejaskan reputasi Mahkamah Syariah, Jabatan Agama Islam dan pihak-pihak berkaitan.

PGSM dengan ini menyatakan pendirian dan mengeluarkan kenyataan seperti berikut:

PGSM kesal dengan apa yang berlaku kerana akhir-akhir ini menampakkan unsur campur tangan pihak kerajaan dalam proses kehakiman di negara ini terutama kehakiman syariah semakin menjadi-jadi.

Bermula dengan unsur campur tangan kabinet dalam menentukan agama anak pasangan yang memeluk Islam dan terbaru dalam isu sebatan Kartika Sari. Perkara ini tidak sepatutnya berlaku dalam era 1Malaysia, Pencapaian Didahulukan, Rakyat Diutamakan.

Campur tangan kerajaan dalam sistem pentadbiran kehakiman syariah perlu ditamatkan segera. Persoalan timbul, mengapa menteri-menteri kerajaan terlalu gemar memberikan komen terhadap kes-kes di Mahkamah Syariah sedangkan terdapat kes-kes di Mahkamah Sivil yang lagi teruk dan dangkal.

Sebelum ini terdapat kes di Mahkamah Sivil ada seorang hakim yang memutuskan bahawa dia sendiri yang akan menghukum pesalah, tetapi kes tersebut tidak pula dipolemikkan, dan tidak ada pula menteri yang memberikan komen.

Pihak kerajaan termasuk menteri-menteri wanita Islam tidak sepatutnya memberikan komen terhadap hukuman yang telah dijatuhkan oleh hakim Mahkamah Syariah.

Ia suatu tindakan biadap mencabar, mempertikaikan dan menghina keputusan yang telah dibuat oleh mahkamah. Sebarang ketidakpuasan hati dengan keputusan Mahkamah hendaklah dibuat melalui tatacara dan prosedur yang telah ditetapkan oleh undang-undang.

Penghakiman yang dibuat oleh Hakim Abdul Rahman Yunus adalah atas dasar menjalankan tugasnya berdasarkan undang-undang sedia ada, dan atas dasar melaksanakan undang-undang yang telah diluluskan oleh kerajaan.

Menurut peruntukan Seksyen 136 Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islam dan Adat Resam Melayu Pahang 1982 dan dibaca bersama Seksyen 4 Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islam dan Adat Resam Melayu Pahang (Pindaan) 1987, mahkamah mempunyai bidang kuasa menjatuhkan hukuman ke atas pesalah yang melakukan kesalahan meminum minuman yang memabukkan, iaitu dengan hukuman denda tidak melebihi RM5,000 atau penjara tidak lebih 3 tahun dan disebat tidak melebihi 6 sebatan.

Kerajaan sepatutnya memberi perhatian dan menumpukan usaha ke arah memperbaiki infrastruktur, pentadbiran dan proses pelaksanaan Penghakiman Mahkamah Syariah, seperti ketiadaan tukang sebat Syariah, ketiadaan penjara khusus untuk menempatkan pesalah Syariah, ketiadaan panel rayuan di beberapa buah negeri dan sebagainya.

Telah 52 tahun negara merdeka dan telah 52 tahun Perlembagaan Persekutuan wujud, namun perkara-perkara ini tidak diberi perhatian oleh kerajaan.

Mahkamah Syariah dianaktirikan sedangkan Mahkamah Syariah adalah tempat di mana orang Islam yang sebahagiannya mengundi kerajaan semasa pilihanraya, berurusan dan mengadu masalah rumahtanga, harta dan lain-lain.

Masalah ketiadaan tukang sebat bukanlah suatu isu yang besar kerana kerajaan boleh melatih tukang sebat sivil untuk melaksanakan sebat menurut syariah.

Kartika Sari adalah sebahagian masyarakat Islam yang menjadi mangsa akibat sikap anak tiri dan sikap kerajaan yang tidak sensitif dan tidak boleh dijangka terhadap kehendak dan keperluan masyarakat Islam di negara ini.

Kerajaan perlu mengambil tindakan drastik dan segera, dengan memberi penjelasan kepada masyakarat bahawa:

Hukuman yang dijatuhkan ini adalah masih rendah berbanding hukuman sebenarnya menurut Hukum Syarak yang mana pesalah boleh dijatuhkan hukuman sehingga 40 sebatan hingga 80 sebatan sebagaimana yang pernah dilakukan oleh Rasulullah SAW dan sahabat-sahabat.

Dalam Islam tidak ada beza antara pesalah lelaki dan wanita. Hak dan tanggungan mereka apabila melakukan kesalahan Syarak adalah sama di sisi Hukum Syarak dan di sisi Tuhan.

Golongan aktivitis wanita lantang memperjuangkan hak dan keistimewaan wanita dan kesamarataan taraf antara lelaki dan wanita. Mengapa dalam isu ini hendak dibezakan pula taraf antara lelaki dan wanita dari segi pelaksanaan hukuman jenayah?

Pelaksanaan hukuman sebat menurut undang-undang Syariah amat berbeza dengan pelaksanaan hukuman sebat menurut undang-undang Sivil.

Enam kali sebatan menurut syariah tidak sama dengan hatta satu sebatan menurut undang-undang sivil. Alat sebatan yang digunakan untuk kes syariah hendaklah diperbuat dari rotan atau ranting kecil yang tiada ruas atau buku dan panjangnya tidak melebihi 1.22 meter dan tebalnya tidak melebihi 1.25 sentimeter.

Kalau pesalah itu hamil, hukuman itu hendaklah dilaksanakan selepas dua bulan dia melahirkan anaknya. Pesalah hendaklah diperiksa tahap kesihatannya oleh pegawai kesihatan kerajaan. Hukuman sebat itu hendaklah dengan kehadiran pegawai perubatan kerajaan.

Sebatan tidak boleh kena muka, kepala, perut, dada atau bahagian sulit. Pesalah lelaki disebat berdiri, manakala perempuan dalam keadaan duduk. Sebatan hendaklah dijalankan dengan kekuatan sederhana iaitu tukang sebat itu tanpa mengangkat tangannya melebihi kepala supaya tidak melukakan kulit pesalah.

Pegawai perubatan kerajaan akan memperakukan sama ada pesalah itu masih boleh menerima sebatan atau ditangguhkan untuk baki sebatan.


Artikel ini diterbitkan daripada kenyataan media Musa Awang, timbalan presiden Persatuan Peguam Syarie Malaysia (PGSM)

96 comments:

Samwan said...

Salam,

Terharu memerhatikan cerita ini. Sudah 52 tahun negara merdeka. Tapi kita yang beragama Islam belum merdeka dalam erti kata yang sebenarnya. Semuanya disebabkan kejahilan pemimpin terdahulu dan bertambah lagi sekarang.

Kalau dah sah jahil, bagaimana nak memimpin. Selagi mulut boleh bercakap dan tangan masih memegang tampuk kuasa. Perlakukan lah sesuka hatimu.

Apa yang pasti, janji Tuhan ku yang Maha berkuasa keatas sesuatu itu adalah benar. Sekarang pihak yang benar (Islam) sudah nampak jelas tanda-tanda kejahilan pemimpin kita.

Isu demi isu berkaitan Islam tidak ditangani dengan ilmu yg seharusnya. Biarkan mereka, supaya mereka bertaubat dan sedar diri dari mimpin dunia yg tak kekal.

Mungkin mereka sudah menempah tiket ke syurga? Hehehe.. mungkin kah? Harus.

Wassalam

Anonymous said...

This is the MOST STUPID issue I've ever heard & read.

KARTIKA should be freed. Islamic Laws should be relaxed or even amended as to suit the Modern World lifestyle. Why bring-in STONEAGE rules which makes Malaysia sound like some EXTREME ISLAMIC country???

Unless all Islams in Malaysia are forced to cover themselves up like NINJAS, then, I can understand such ruling. However, I believe most Malaysian Muslims who adpots modern lifestyle mentality will disregard those ketinggalan zaman ruling by now. So, what's the BIG HOO HA over Kartika's case???

She only drank BEER & didn't kill/harm anyone. Ligthen up, please!!! Lu ingat sini AFGHANISTAN atau SAUDI ARABIA kah???

Tulang Besi said...


KARTIKA should be freed. Islamic Laws should be relaxed or even amended as to suit the Modern World lifestyle. Why bring-in STONEAGE rules which makes Malaysia sound like some EXTREME ISLAMIC country???
.

Stone aged? Didn't human use to drink intoxocants since before the time of Prophet Mohd?

Before addressing the age of the punishment, u should start by asking the age of the offense.

Believe me, people have been drinking long before the canning punishment was prescribed.

Tulang Besi said...

She only drank BEER & didn't kill/harm anyone. Ligthen up, please!!! Lu ingat sini AFGHANISTAN atau SAUDI ARABIA kah???.

What she did happens to be a felony. Do u expect Muslims to change their religion just because of modernity? Is that what you're advocating?

Anonymous said...

Utmost ABSURB, STUPID & FUNNY!!!

If we were to go to any nightspot, clubs, KTVs & lounges around the city during the night, we're sure to see abundance of Muslims commiting the same offence as poor KARTIKA.

If KARTIKA's punishment is to stand, we can be sure Malaysia will soon run out of whip & whippers. Moreover, the entire place designated for the whipping will be crazily congested. Not surprising if the queues for whipping are as long as from Cambodia to Singapore.

It's really SAD to notice there are still some crazy individuals who hold-on to those outdated laws. These dudes are either KAMPUNG FOLKS or they're still living in a world whereby they're totally shut-out from today's world.

Sad, huh???

Azhar said...

Adakah hukuman sebat itu hukuman zaman batu? Sedarlah hukuman di dalam Islam adalah bertujuan untuk mendidik dan tidak sepertimana hukuman mahkaman sivil. Jika dibiarkan mereka ini mabuk dan suatu hari nanti memandu dengan keadaan mabuk dan melanggar mati salah seorang dari keluarga kamu? Apakah kamu fikir tidak apa mereka mabuk? Di dalam Islam pembunuh dihukum bunuh jua. Di mahkamah sivil belum tentunya hukuman bunuh. Pembunuh diberi makan, dijaga supaya tidak lari. Kerajaan berbelanja berjuta-juta ringgit supaya pembunuh dapat hidup selesa di dalam penjara dengan alasan perikemanusiaan. Boleh tidur lenakah kita jika pembunuh berjaya lari. Yang pastinya si pembunuh tidur lena dibuai mimpi bagaimana hendak lepas lari. Inikah kemodenan yang kita bangakan ? Bagi yang ada ASTRO saksikan dokumentari 'LOCKUP' di NatGeo dan perhatikan betapa bimbangnya kerajaan yang serba moden dan kaya untuk mempastikan banduan-banduan ganasnya selesa.
Fikir-fikirkan lah.

Wong Ka Wai said...

Kalau tak silap, menurut Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia, undang-undang sivil merupakan undang-undang utama.

Maka tidak mustahil jika perlaksanaan dan pengurusan undang-undang syariah ini tidak selengkap undang-undang sivil.

buka kedai online dengan RM100

Anonymous said...

Well said commentator WONG KA WAI!!!

However, I don't think these KAMPUNG living Islamic dudes understand what you're trying to say. It's becos they isolate themselves in their Kampung Hut reading only Jawi (nothing more).

Don't be even surprise that these dudes are fully covered with cloth like ninjas on the prowl.

Anonymous said...

They're turning this piece of JUNK NEWS into Mr.Bean cartoon. Bladdy hilarious!!!

There are certain individuals who completely doesn't understand what Islam teachings are all about. Moreover, it's these stupid wanking dudes who are giving Islam a bad name.

These idiots should be whipped, while, Kartika should be freed.

Tulang Besi said...

Blogger Wong Ka Wai said...

Kalau tak silap, menurut Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia, undang-undang sivil merupakan undang-undang utama.
.

True for laws after 1957.

THe Shariah laws enacted in various states long before 1957.

Also, Article 121 (A) of the constitution maintains the sovereignity of the Shariah courts.

Anonymous said...

Oh my gosh!!!

Can't believe Malaysia still have JUNGLE LIVING Muslims.

I bet these poor creatures have never seen a car before (let alone aeroplane). I bet they'll run hysteria if they are ever to see one. However, I won't be surprise if they label CARS as GIANT ANTS & AEROPLANES as GIANT FLYING INSECTS.

Can someone help these needy creatures???

Anonymous said...

This what they call "KATAK DIBAWAH TEMPURUNG"

Katak tak keluar dari tempurung, mana boleh tahu apa itu kolam. Pasal ni, katak masih ingat tempurung itu kolam. Betul-betul OUTDATED!!!

Ah Lim said...

Malaysia will be soon known as "THE LAND OF WHIPPING".

It's damn embarrassing for Malaysia & Malaysians.

Anonymous said...

Most of my fellow Muslim friends also find this piece of saga stupid.

They said the punishment bestowed on Kartika is an embarrasment to Islam but I suspect it's actually those illiterate & lack of wisdom Muslims who are making Islam look bad.

We're in 2009 & NOT 1009. Get it???

Anonymous said...

No joke....when I read this piece of news, I thought I was transpoted back to 600 B.C. somewhere between Afghanistan & Saudi Arabia.

Hell...this is surely spooky!!!

Tulang Besi said...

No joke....when I read this piece of news, I thought I was transpoted back to 600 B.C. somewhere between Afghanistan & Saudi Arabia.

Hell...this is surely spooky!!!
.

Maybe u living among the Vikings during the dark ages where alcohol flows freely.

Tulang Taufu said...

This dude by the nick of TULANG BESI surely fit the defination of an "IDIOTIC CAVE LIVING MUSLIM" who happened to lock himself out from the real world by reading only Jawi.

I bet this wanker haven't seen a mobile phone, fax machine & computer before. Perhaps, his TULANG (bone) is really made from BESI & that's is why he's so heavy till he doesn't bother getting out from his Kampung Hut to understand what the genuine Islam teachings are all about.

Tulang Besi is NOT a lost soul. He's just slow to adapt to today's world becosw' he simple can't accept reality. Go ask him what't the date today & don't be amused iff he answer you "1009".

Tulang Besi said...


They said the punishment bestowed on Kartika is an embarrasment to Islam but I suspect it's actually those illiterate & lack of wisdom Muslims who are making Islam look bad.
.

I think those questioning the punishment is stupid.

Why? Because at least there's someone interested in controlling the problem of alcoholism?

For one.

Anonymous said...

The verdict is unusual to non muslim because this country is a secular state ruled by secular UMNGOK and its Bin Nawe.

Tulang Besi said...



Tulang Besi is NOT a lost soul. He's just slow to adapt to today's world becosw' he simple can't accept reality. Go ask him what't the date today & don't be amused iff he answer you "1009"
.

You mean a world that tolerates intoxicants, fornications, adultery, homosexuality etc?

Tell me if that doesn't sound similar to the habits and culture of uncivilized people of the Dark Ages.

You remind me of the Vikings who spent their lives pillaging, drinking, womanizing and not to mentions being uncivilized.

so, let me ask you, who is the civilized one now?

Tulang Besi said...

Anonymous Ah Lim said...

Malaysia will be soon known as "THE LAND OF WHIPPING".

It's damn embarrassing for Malaysia & Malaysians.
.

Where have you been all this time? Living under a shell?

Whipping has been around since Independence, dude.

Go check your facts

Anonymous said...

the verdict seen to be unusual to non muslim is a proof this country is a secular state ruled by UMNGOK and its Bin Nawe who think the law based on their logics. Oh..poor UMNO

Wong Ka Wai said...

Minta maaf, off topic sikit.

cegah selesema A (H1N1) dengan minuman herba (resipi lengkap disediakan)

Anonymous said...

Wahai saudara Tulang BESI,
Fikiran lu mungkin dah BASI,
Mungkin lu ingat nasi itu TAHI,
Otak kamu memang macam BABI.

Islam memang agama yang CEMERLANG,
Tapi salah difaham oleh si BANGGANG,
Adakan si banggang itu bernama TULANG??,
Tulang Besi nama sebenar DIPEGANG.

Fikiran Tulang Besi seumpama JAKUN,
Hidup di kampung tak pernah tengok SABUN,
Asyik baca Jawi dan tidur kat KEBUN,
Memang kelakar dia anggap Islam macam CARTOON.

Bukan saja Jepun ada NINJA,
Bahkan jugak di Afghanistan dan Saudi ARABIA,
Adakah Tulang Besi juga seorang NINJA?,
Tak minum arak tapi makan babi SAHAJA.

Orang macam Tulang Besi memang PUKIMAK,
Buat malu kepada keluarga dan AGAMA,
Kasihan betul betina nama KARTIKA,
Fikiran modern pun kena di BELASAH.

Anonymous said...

Nice pantun, bro!!!

Ninjas can also be found outside Japan??? Hahahahahahahaha...good one!!!

I bet Tulang Besi is living in a family surrounded by ninjas then. Tulang Besi's mentality surely resembles those Hardcore Islams such as Osama bin Laden.

Anonymous said...

Thank God I ain't a Muslim!!!!

My religion allows me to "YAAAAAMMMMM SEEEENNNNGGGG!!!!". Syiok betul!!!

Anonymous said...

Hey, me too.

I love Wine, Brandy, Whisky & Beer. It's ironic how one can make a BIG SHIT out of small issue.

Tulang Besi said...

gee i dunno. isnt drinking what barbarians use to do? i guess the real jakun are those who bear resemblence with those barbarians. since when are barbarians modern?

Tulang Besi said...

people nowadays hide their barbaric habits by calling themselves modern. even jakun in the jungle have their own liqour

Anonymous said...

OK, OK, OK....stop debating.

Honestly, it's NOT a BIG THING drinking alchohol. I really got no clue why this wanker by the nick of TULANG BESI is getting souped-up over a beautiful thing called "ALCHOHOL"

Hmmm....I suspect it has nothing to do with Islam.

Instead, it's becos Tulang Besi's father was caught, tied-up & drowned in a pool filled with Alchohol....that's why he's so much against Alchohol. Perhaps, his mother was raped by drunkards....that's why he hates Alchohol.

Tulang Besi ain't no ANTI-ALCHOHOL. He's just paranoid with it. Keluarga semua dah mampus mati oleh Alchohol...."No wonder lah"

Hahahahahahahahaha

Anonymous said...

Aiyoh brada Tulang Besi!!!

Jangan takut alchohol lah. Cuba sekali, pasti nak lagi. You want beer, whisky, brandy, wine or Todi???? I belanja you.

Muakakakakakakaka

Tulang Besi said...

orang2 minum arak perasan moden, tapi bila mabuk perangai mcm kena sawan, marah bilan org ambik tindakan, sebab dah kemaruk tonggang kencing setan. ke hulu ke hilir mengaku ikut zaman, tapi tak sedar perangai serupa mcm jakun dlm hutan, cuba nak tunjuk konon pandai dan bijak, tapi sbb dah lama minum arak hancur dah otak, sekali perangai mcm beruk dah bila dah mabuk, jgn mengaku moden la, kalau dah mabuk, ungka kat zoo lagi baik perangai. tak sedar diri bodoh nak panggil org lai nvbodoh.

Tulang Besi said...

all i know is that people have been getting drunk looong before the caning punishment is prescribe. in short, caning is a modern punishment for a meadival habit we have come to know as drinking liqour. thats a fact.

Tulang Besi said...

all i know is that people have been getting drunk looong before the caning punishment is prescribe. in short, caning is a modern punishment for a meadival habit we have come to know as drinking liqour. thats a fact.

Anonymous said...

You fellas guessed it wrongly.

Tulang Besi hates alchohol becos his mother was once a prostitute. Her charges was 1 can of beer = 1 hour service. 1 bottle of whisky = 1 nite booking.

This whore used to bring her son along with her while she sells her pantat to the public. When this poor boy grew up, he hated alchohol cos everytime see sees alchohol...it would remind him how his poor prostitute mother was banged by all walks of life for a can of beer.

Who is this son of a prostitute??? Sssssshhhhh....please whisper the answer "Tulang Besi" softly. He had enough trauma.

Anonymous said...

OK...times up!!!

Continue banging Tulang Besi tomorrow.

Ciao!!!

Tulang Besi said...

am not surprised at the types of comments im getting from a bunch of drinkers. i dont blame you for writinf garbage considering your braiins are probably damaged from years of drinking

Bala said...

My father never touched alcohol all his life and yet feels disgusted with this issue. Apparently Muslims need to control their fellow Muslims personal behaviour.

I don't mind whatever punishment if someone actively harmed someone (murder, theft, etc). Preventive punishment is also okay, I guess (like drunken driving).

Yeah, if one drinks, one can POSSIBLY get drunk. POSSIBLY be stupid enough to drive and be in a position to cause accident. So I guess lets also ban overworked pizza hut delivery boy work for surely they might get into an accident.

What am I saying? You cannot stop a rolling mountain or a Muslim majority nation on a path of control-mania. They cannot be stopped until they reach Afghan levels (not Saudi level since petroleum reserves are limited here)

Bala said...

By the way, it has been years since I drank in the university days. I don't like to drink but it is a matter of defending other's privacy.

Anonymous said...

Where you going bro???

ok lah...catch u tomoro then. This place is certainly fun & bashing Tulang Besi is even more fun. Will be in the lookout for you.

This place is fantastically fun to be in. I bet Tulang Besi will moderate all posting before publishing but I hope not.

If he does...he's surely a mother fucking coward whose mother is a whore. Hahahahahaha!!!

Anonymous said...

Before I go....

To BALA...are you a keling??? Shock to hear Keling doesn't drink. Infact, they love TODI more than their own mother but the sad thing is that they end-up going home bashing their wife & kids.

You must be 1 of a kind.

Anonymous said...

Well, so non-muslim people who worked at inventing the Internet, mobile phones, cars, planes etc. were all brain-damaged barbarians, if we asume they might have been occasionally drinking alcohol as well. hmmmm.... calm down guys

Bala said...

Yeah, me Keling allright. (While UMNO rules, we are less than shit in this country. And we will continue to be so if the likes of Hassan Ali succeed them).

I know a lot of people who over-drink and also abuse their family. I guess they shouldn't do so. That is why even in developed countries they have "Alcoholic Anonymous", etc.

It doesn't mean you can invade into people's privacy. But then, I am not Muslim and if your religion mandates peeping and moral-policing ...

nur mohd nidzam said...

I am a keen reader of this blog and mostly enjoy the postings and agree with most of the comments.But I must say that I am shock to read most of the comments here today.They are some of the the most insensitive,intolerant,vindictive,abusive and god knows what else.I have never read such negativity here.Those responsible whoever they are should realy be ashamed of them selves for posting all this garbage.
May god forgive you in this holy month.

Anonymous said...

August 27, 2009 6:18 PM
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You fellas guessed it wrongly.

Tulang Besi hates alchohol becos his mother was once a prostitute. Her charges was 1 can of beer = 1 hour service. 1 bottle of whisky = 1 nite booking.

This whore used to bring her son along with her while she sells her pantat to the public.
.


At least she doesn't have to pay people to have sex. Unlike your mother, she's so butt ugly, people wont even sleep with her even when she pays.

I guess the reason why you drink so much is to make u forget the fact that you probably came from animal semen.

You're an example of a Melayu Hampas, good for nothing melayu who thrives on stupidity and oabject ignorance.

Bodoh punya melayu.

Tulang Besi said...

August 27, 2009 5:15 PM
Delete
Anonymous Tulang Taufu said...

This dude by the nick of TULANG BESI surely fit the defination of an "IDIOTIC CAVE LIVING MUSLIM" who happened to lock himself out from the real world by reading only Jawi.
.

At least i can read , compared to an illeterate melayu like you. You probably don't know your ABC, let alone your alif, ba, ta.

That's why hang ni melayu tak guna.

Benci Melayu Bacul said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wahai saudara Tulang BESI,
Fikiran lu mungkin dah BASI,
Mungkin lu ingat nasi itu TAHI,
Otak kamu memang macam BABI.
.

Berani maki orang tapi bacul, nama tak berani bagi.

Kau ni la bangsa melayu bacul keturunan binantang.

Mak kau ke bapak kau anjing?

Melayu macam kau ni melayu bangsat, bacul, bodoh.

Minum arak sampai mabuk lepas tu buat perangai macam beruk. Itu moden sangat lah tu.

Balik kampung la, kao ni jenis melayu makan babi. Kau ni layak jadi pencacai angkat najis/.

Aku konfiden keturunan kau semua bangsa pencacai angkat najis.

Sebab tu bodoh nak mampus.

Tulang Besi said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where you going bro???

ok lah...catch u tomoro then. This place is certainly fun & bashing Tulang Besi is even more fun. Will be in the lookout for you.
.

Go ahead, i have fun bashing cowards like you too.

U can't even give your name, shows that you're from keturunan bacul and penakut.

Hehehehehe i love bashing idiots like u people.

Tulang Besi said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This what they call "KATAK DIBAWAH TEMPURUNG"

Katak tak keluar dari tempurung, mana boleh tahu apa itu kolam. Pasal ni, katak masih ingat tempurung itu kolam. Betul-betul OUTDATED!!!
.

That's right. For those who are not katak bawah tempurung, they will know that caning people who drinks came thousand of years after man started drinking.

In other words, the caning punishment came into being to correct the medieval and barbaric habit of intoxication.

Tulang Besi said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh my gosh!!!

Can't believe Malaysia still have JUNGLE LIVING Muslims.
.

So drinking until u get drunk and acting like a total idiot after you're drunk is the mark of a modernism?

How i cry for your lack of reason.

Tulang Besi said...


It doesn't mean you can invade into people's privacy. But then, I am not Muslim and if your religion mandates peeping and moral-policing .
.

Don't worry Bala because only those drinking in public places that will be arrested.

It's not going to invade anyone's privacy.

Tulang Besi said...

Behold the signs of modernism:

"Menurut statistik rasmi di United Kingdom, Alcohol-related crime adalah seperti berikut :-

* Hampir 45 - 46 % kejadian jenayah, mangsa meyakini bahawa penyerangnya di bawah pengaruh alcohol (arak).

* Angka tadi naik kepada 58% dalam kes serangan oleh individu yang tidak dikenali.

* 39% keganasan dalam rumahtangga melibatkan alcohol (arak)

* Hampir sejuta serangan ganas yang berlaku dalam tahun 2007-2008, dipercayai dilakukan oleh mereka yang sedang mabuk atau separa mabuk.

(Source: British Crime Survey 2007/08) "

So much for being modern. You tend to be more barbaric.

I can't wait to get the responses of the cowards who are trying to bash me.

Bash this first.

Bala said...

Thanks TB. Actually, I don't even mind if such things are prohibited to be in public for everyone (especially kids). After all, smoking is prohibited in many places.

The problem is, we are all paranoid about where it will lead to. As your article indirectly admitted, this whole syariah thing is in a mess and not planned properly. Everything is ad-hoc and possibly done by emotion. Maybe we all should pause until we get rid of the govt. that excels in the art of using hatred and emotions.

What I see is more of one-upmanship rather than logic and fairplay. For example, UMNO probably thought Kartika would appeal. (I assume even syariah judges can be 'persuaded' by UMNO). The appeal will cancel the caning. Thus UMNO can claim both 'menegakkan Islam' and also compassion.

As sincere as we are, isn't it a sin to throw oil onto a burning house? Personally, that is what I feel of the Muslims who use this matter as an excuse to hit at UMNO (and also the non-muslims who insinuate Muslims as barbaric).

I feel this is the critical time where we should be moderate. After all, the woman paid a hefty fine of RM5000. It is not like being compassionate is a sin.

Tulang Besi said...


The problem is, we are all paranoid about where it will lead to. As your article indirectly admitted, this whole syariah thing is in a mess and not planned properly. Everything is ad-hoc and possibly done by emotion. Maybe we all should pause until we get rid of the govt. that excels in the art of using hatred and emotions.
.

I am sorry if i had given you the wrong impression. But, never had i intended to say anything remotely close to showing that the Shariah system is in disarray.

Anonymous said...

hey anonymous kat atas tu.... kalau lu boleh hina Islam dan hukum Islam.. gua boleh balasa balik...

Apala lu orang Cina dan Hindu sembah batu tokong.. sendiri bikin sendiri sembah... bodoh kah????

Anonymous said...

its sooo sad that in Malaysia the non Muslims still dont understand syariah laws. Guys its only for Muslims, why r u guys so worried u can tunggang as many gallons as u like u wont get whipped.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like a whole lot of bashing going on here!

I do think the punishment meted out on Kartika was overzealous. First time wrong doers should be counseled, then reprimanded before punishing them. Anyway, the issue has put Malaysia in a spotlight on both BBC and CNN for days! Yes, it sounds like Malaysia is moving towards Talibanism, and I can understand the worry that all non-Muslims and even liberals Malays will have. Can't Kartika be sent to Islam / Quran classes to re-learn the teachings of Islam? Isn't that more appropriate and compassionate? More importantly, that will open her heart to embrace Islam as it was preached by the Prophet (SAW).

In a way, the case has also highlighted the underlying inadequacies in our Sayriah courts. First, there's no court of appeal (???). There's also no appropriate staff to cary out the duty/sentence. I think all these needs to be looked at before the sentence can be carried out. And because of this inadequacies, the sentence MUST be suspended/withdrawn.

Now on the bashings: the blogger maintains his rights to write about the issues as he sees it, its his blog. We, the commentators, should rebutt it in a more intelligent way, and not resort to using such foul languages and swearing. Worst, only Sc#*s will curse someone elses mother. The Malays believe that 'syurga di bawah tapak kaki ibu'. The Indians also have a culture to touch the Mother's feet. So, please people, don't use such foul languages here. It's also the holy month of Ramadhan, and it's a time to reflect and forgive.

Anonymous said...

IF this is a true Islamic punishment, then every muslim man and woman should be dealt that way-if the Muslims want so. But why only this woman?
Are there not many other seroiuos problems amongs muslims needing more urgent attention since it involves children? For example a very high number of incest cases and drug addiction amongst muslims? Why paint a negative picture by advocating the Islamic rules using a poor woman only and not the rich and famous who are doing everything including distroying the nation by robbing the wealth of the nation.

Tulang Besi said...


I do think the punishment meted out on Kartika was overzealous. First time wrong doers should be counseled, then reprimanded before punishing them.
.

I agree. That's why Kartika should have appealed.

But, she refused and i believe she regrets her act and consider the lashing as a form of atonement.

Tulang Besi said...

! Yes, it sounds like Malaysia is moving towards Talibanism, and I can understand the worry that all non-Muslims and even liberals Malays will have..

More like Saudinism. Since all that the Taliban practice, is practice in Saudi.

I mean ALL.

Anonymous said...

Found something quite informative in perak express..

Antara Hukum Pemerintah Dan Hudud
Aug 27th, 2009 | By webmaster | Category: nash ar-rawy, utama
Oleh: Nash Ar-Rawy

Hukum hudud adalah hak Tuhan yang merangkumi ; sariqah ( rompakan bersenjata ) , hirabah ( mencuri ), zinah /liwat ( 4 orang saksi yang bukan fasik), qazaf ( Penuduh zinah/liwat tanpa 4 saksi yang bukan fasik ) , syurb ( arak ) dan murtad ( di hukum bunuh jika enggan taubatan nasuha setelah dinasihati berkali-kali ).

Jenayah syariah di atas tiada bisa di laksanakan di Malayisa samada di mahkamah tinggi ‘syariah’ ( yang sebenarnya adalah mahkamah UBN) apalagi di mahkamah sivil yang dipaksakan ke atas umat Islam. Yakni, ‘English Common Law” di perturunkan kepada anak emas dan anak didik British ( UBN) yang mengekang kebebasan perlaksanaan hukum hudud , kisos dan ta’azir ; oleh pemerintah thoghut nasionalis sekular: SMS ( Satu Malaysia Sekular ) yang berkuasa di era mutakhir ini.

Sementara Qisos adalah hak manusia yang bersabit kes pembunuhan dan pencederaan ( ‘battery’) ke atas mangsa. Ini adalah kerna si pembunuh bisa dilepaskan jika mendapat keampunan daripada pewaris si mati berserta dengan pembayaran ganti rugi yang setimpal dengan penyaraan keluarga si mati. Di sinilah keadilan Islam bukannya pemerintah ( atas nama Agung) yang berhak memberi keampunan kepada si pembunuh tetapi waris yang sebenarnya yang berhak.

Namun hak tuhan, yakni, hudud tiada bisa di buat rayuan kepada pemerintah untuk meringankannya kerna itu hak Tuhan dan hukumannya adalah qat’ie ( mandatory) . Dalam kes Kartika , penghakiman tiada berdasarkan syariat Islam kerna hukuman yang jatuhtuhkan ke atas beliau ; bukannya hukum hudud, atau kisos atau ta’azir tetapi hukuman syariat parti pemerintah ( UBN ) yang di ubahsuai sendiri dengan tangan-tangan pemerintah. Di dalam Al- qur’an dalam suratul al- maidah, secara terang-terangan dan jelas ( ‘crystal clear’) tanpa sebarang keraguan langsung bahawa pemerintah yang berhukum dengan bukan syariat Islam di kategorikan oleh Yang Empunya Hukum ( ‘The Absolute Law Giver’) sebagai samada : kafirun, zolimum atau fasikun; satu di antara tiga ini tidak bisa terlepas...utk maklumat selanjutnya sila masuk ke sini
http://perakexpress.com/www/2009/08/27/antara-hukum-pemerintah-dan-hudud/

Anonymous said...

//Anonymous said...
Oh my gosh!!!

Can't believe Malaysia still have JUNGLE LIVING Muslims.//

Yes,Bush,Cheney are perfect "muslims"..u know,water board treatment,torture tactics? Yesterday,CNN has reported a 12 year ol muslim boy was detained in Gitmo,and now is sueing the US goverment..yes,Europe and USA is the epitome of everything civillisd..world war1,and 2,the holocaust,atrocities in vietnam,latin america,the middle east,bosnia..yes,the eurpeans and ameriacans are perfect muslims..u agree?

Anonymous said...

Muhammad, the Quran, and Prohibition
Islam’s punishments for drinking and gambling

James M. Arlandson

As early as 1978, Saudi Arabia sentenced nine Britons to flogging for drinking alcohol. The webpage has a photo of how the police carry out the sentence.

In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging not only for illicit sex (see Quran 24:2 and this article analyzing the verse). They were also flogged for drinking alcohol.

In 2003 in Saudi Arabia, an Australian was sentenced to be flogged and imprisoned for smuggling alcohol.

In 2004, the Canadian Islamic Congress recommends banning alcohol from college campuses, even for the faculty.

In 2005, an Iranian judge sentenced another drinker to eighty lashes. Fortunately, the sentence was commuted to one lash with eighty twigs bound together. The man was sick, so the judge changed his sentence to this one hit instead of eighty different lashes.

In 2005 in Nigeria, a sharia court ordered that a drinker should be caned eighty strokes.

In 2005, in the Indonesian province of Aceh, fifteen men were caned in front of the mosque for gambling. This was done publicly so all could see and fear. Eleven others are scheduled to undergo the same penalty for gambling.

Why do these judges and imams impose such a severe penalty for drinking alcohol and for gambling?

The answer is found in the Quran first and in the hadith second (the hadith are the reports of Muhammad’s words and deeds outside of the Quran). Later legal rulings also explain the source of this punishment.

This article explores Islam’s and Christianity’s views on alcohol and gambling. Needless to say, Islam flogs the offenders, whereas Christianity helps them change from the inside out.

Anonymous said...

Islam

Islam imposes corporal punishment on drinkers and gamblers. Is this the best policy to help them?

The Quran

The translations are all done by MAS Abdel Haleem, who was educated at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, and Cambridge University, and is now professor of Islamic Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Overall, his translation is excellent, though he occasionally whitewashes some of the harsh wording found throughout his sacred book.

Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi (d. 1979) was an Indo-Pakistani who tried to establish a theocracy in Pakistan through the Jamaat-i Islami Party, but he failed in his political ambitions. Nevertheless, he is a highly regarded commentator on the Quran (The Meaning of the Qur’an), representing traditional Islam.

Sayyid Qutb was an Egyptian radical, prolific author, and godfather of an assortment of modern jihadist movements today. He was executed in 1966 for trying to overthrow the Egyptian government. He wrote a valued and sometimes insightful multivolume commentary on the Quran, In the Shade of the Qur’an.

We let these three highly qualified and devout Muslims speak for their own religion and the Quran in this section. We also examine the historical and literary contexts of the Quranic passages in order to get some clarity and to prevent the standard, reflexive "out of context" defense of Muslim apologists (defenders).

First Prohibition (of sorts): yes and no

Maududi says that most of Sura 2 was revealed shortly after Muhammad’s Hijrah (Emigration from Mecca to Medina) in AD 622. The following verse in Sura 2 shows that Muhammad partially or confusedly permitted or condemned drinking and gambling at that time (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 161, note 235).

2:219 They ask you [Prophet] about intoxicants and gambling: say, "There is great sin in both, and some benefit for people: the sin is greater than the benefit." They ask you what they should give: say, "Give what you can spare."

In no way is this verse a clear and uncompromising edict on the two personal practices of drinking alcohol and gambling. (Islam teaches that all intoxicants are criminal; cf. Bukhari, Drinks, vol. 7, nos. 5579-5589; Muslim no. 7186.) It seems contradictory to call the two acts mostly sinful but partially beneficial. It may be argued that alcohol is sinful in its morality, but beneficial in its health for the body (e.g. helping digestion). However, Allah will later prohibit it completely, so either it is sinful morally regardless of the year on the Muslim calendar, or it is not.

Anonymous said...

Second Prohibition: only during prayer

According to the historical evidence and the content of Sura 4, Maududi says that the sura was revealed between the timeframe of AD 625 and 627, because various verses indicate different events. For example, vv. 1-28 speak of the Battle of Uhud in AD 625. Verse 102 indicates a military expedition in AD 626 during which Muhammad taught his Muslims how to pray while out on campaign. Verse 43 takes place during another military expedition in AD 627 when he taught his holy military warriors how to perform ablutions (washings) with pure dust if water was not available.

Maududi speculates that the target verse 43 came at the chronological beginning of the entire sura and therefore early in AD 625 because many Muslims showed up intoxicated for public prayers "and made blunders in their recitations" of Quranic passages. So Muhammad had to correct the problem. However, some hadith passages (the hadith is the reports of Muhammad’s words and actions outside of the Quran) say that some Muslim warriors showed up at the Battle of Uhud intoxicated and died, but this was before Allah had prohibited it, so they were not held responsible (Sura 5:93; see Bukhari, Oppressions, vol. 3, no 2463; Jihad, vol. 4, no. 2815; Commentary, vol. 6, nos. 4618, 4620).

Regardless of the exact timeframe, for our purposes all we need to know is that Sura 4 was revealed between Sura 2 (see above) and Sura 5 (see below). Thus, Allah’s "eternal" revelations on the morality of drinking intoxicants are changing according to external circumstances.

4:43 You who believe, do not come anywhere near the prayer if you are intoxicated, until you know what you are saying . . .

Because the Muslims showed up intoxicated for public prayer, "they changed the timings of their drinking so as not to clash with the timings of their prayers," says Maududi (vol. 1, p. 337, note 65). So Muhammad prohibited drunkenness only during prayers. This means that Muslims were permitted to drink some alcohol in between the times of prayers, though the number of prayers per day would limit drunkenness. However, this further means that after the nighttime prayer, the final one, Muslims could even get drunk. How were the early Muslims supposed to sort this out? Was alcoholism so bad in the Muslim community that Muhammad had to tell them to stay away from prayers, but not prohibit alcohol? It is one thing if he had told them not to show up for prayers drunk, and then to allow them mild drinking without intoxication. (After all, the Bible distinguishes between mild use of alcohol and drunkenness, as we will see, below.) But he already said in Sura 2:219 that intoxicants have sin in them. Also, Sura 5:90-91 will prohibit intoxicants completely. It is quite odd that in this confused state of affairs Muhammad did not completely and absolutely prohibit intoxication at this time, when the Muslim community needed it most. Quranic revelation on this matter falls short. How is this guidance?

Anonymous said...

Prohibiting alcohol (and gambling) is a religion’s prerogative, so we should not quibble too much over this. The real issue is how Muhammad and his early companions dealt with drunkenness—excessively, as the sections on the hadith and classical legal rulings show us.

Third Prohibition: final and absolute

Maududi says that Sura 5 was revealed in the timeframe of AD 628 and 629, so it is a late sura (Muhammad dies of a fever in AD 632). It lays down rules for a growing community after the Treaty of Hudaybiyah in AD 628 in which Muslims were promised a free and unmolested pilgrimage to Mecca a year later, which took place. So it was important for Muslims to prepare themselves and to give up all intoxicants. Hence, these two verses came down from Allah:

5:90 You who believe, intoxicants and gambling, idolatrous practices, and [divining with] arrows are repugnant acts—Satan’s doing: shun them so that you may prosper. 91 With intoxicants and gambling, Satan seeks only to incite enmity and hatred among you, and to stop you remembering God and prayer. Will you not give them up?

It must be conceded that these verses have a certain common sense backing them up. A small community getting drunk and gambling in between prayer times would probably suffer from "enmity" and "hatred" against each other. This would happen in any small community whether it were Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, secular, or fill-in-the-blank. So v. 91 is an accurate description. However, a shortcoming has burrowed into the Quran because this description could not be discovered earlier in the ten years Muhammad lived in Medina (AD 622-632), especially when the Muslims showed up drunk for prayer and battle.

The best expositor and defender of the gradual revelation in the matter of drinking and gambling is Sayyid Qutb, who divides the problem up in four areas in his commentaries on Suras 2:219, 4:43, and 5:90-91, in his volumes 1, 3, and 4, respectively: the theological, the social, psychological, and historical. For each he writes a seemingly plausible explanation for the gradual revelation, but each falls short and contradicts the other.

First, as to the theological wisdom found in the Quran, Qutb says that "in matters of faith or abstract belief, Islam gives specific and definite pronouncements" . . . (vol. 1, p. 332). He offers the example of the Islamic ruling on God’s oneness, which was laid down at the outset, "without any hesitation or room for compromise" (p. 332). This is important because he contrasts the theological with the social and psychological, which need a gradual approach if people are to change.

In reply, however, the historical reality behind the words in Sura 5:90-91 contradicts Qutb’s reading of human nature. In this mid- or late Medinan sura, Allah has to remind the Muslims not to indulge in idols (Qutb’s translation of v. 90). This can only mean that some Muslims were engaged in idolatrous practices when this verse was sent down. Yet according to Qutb, the oneness of Allah and the evils of polytheism must be commanded at the first without compromise. Something is wrong here. This shows that human nature is slow to obey divine commands even in abstract matters like the oneness of Allah—especially in abstract matters. Then how much more are average humans slow to obey practical commands against drinking and gambling, which are "well-entrenched social habits" (vol. 1, p. 332)? Therefore, in the progressive revelations of Allah and his prophet and in Qutb’s defense of them, they misread human nature, which needs firm commands from the outset, as Moses demonstrates, coming down from Mt. Sinai, enveloped by smoke and fire, visible for all the ancient Hebrews to see.

Anonymous said...

Qutb’s second and third defense of these three progressive Quranic revelations analyzes the social and the psychological aspects. He says, for example, ". . . when it comes to matters of tradition or complex social practices, it [Islam] takes a more pragmatic and measured approach, preparing the ground for smoother adoption and implementation" (vol. 1, p. 332). He then discusses Sweden and the US, which had their troubles with alcohol. Sweden had to limit it by government takeover. The US passed an amendment to the Constitution in 1919 that prohibited alcohol completely. However, the black market sprang up overnight, so the flow of alcohol was never shut off completely. This shows, says Qutb, that this intoxicant is deeply rooted in society and in the human mind and that American law moved too quickly, whereas Islam moves gradually as seen in the First to Third Prohibitions (vol. 3, pp. 151-52; cf. vol. 4, pp. 243-46; see Bukhari, Virtues of the Quran, vol. 6, no. 4993).

Therefore, so goes Qutb’s reasoning, Islam’s way is better than either the religious or the secular way in the West.

Before we analyze this dubious second and third defense, Qutb informs us that the historical results (his fourth explanation) of the Islamic way of prohibition were miraculous. "Islam, on the other hand, was able to successfully eradicate this well-entrenched habit, deploying only a few verses of the Qur’an to do so" (vol. 2, p. 152). His words "on the other hand" mean in opposition to Sweden and the US.

Also, when the final revelation came down in Sura 5:90-91, Qutb reports on the miraculous results in these words:

All the Muslims stopped drinking. Once the command was given, all wine containers were emptied and broken throughout Madinah [Medina]. Indeed, those who were in the process of drinking did not swallow what was in their mouths when they were informed of the prohibition. It was, thus, a great triumph for the Qur’an and its approach. (vol. 3, p. 155).

Qutb writes further: "How did it all happen? How was this miracle, unparalleled in human history, achieved?" (vol. 3. p. 155; cf. vol. 4, pp. 247-50; see Bukhari, Sales, vol. 3, no. 2226, Oppressions, vol. 3, no. 2464; Drinks, vol. 7, nos. 5582-5583).

Thus, history demonstrates that the Quranic approach to human frailty is far better than Western (read: Christian) answers.

The reply to Qutb’s utopian description is not difficult. These last three defenses (the social, psychological and historical) of the Quran’s progressive revelations are contradicted by the brute facts. It may be true that some Muslims stopped drinking instantaneously after Sura 5:90-91 was sent down (though these reports seem exaggerated and counterfactual), but all of the Muslims? Indeed, the hadith and later classical legal rulings (the next two sections) demonstrate that the results were not always and exclusively positive. Muhammad had to whip alcohol drinkers, and so did the first generations of Muslims, that is, the companions of Muhammad, like Abu Bakr, Umar, and Ali. Later jurists then followed their example and decreed the penalty of whipping drunkards and even light social drinkers. Thus, Islam follows the less-than-ideal results in the US during Prohibition, after all.

Anonymous said...

Therefore, Qutb exaggerates the results with his talk of miraculous obedience once Sura 5:90-91 was announced in the mosque in Medina. More significantly, he misreads human nature. But why should we blame him too harshly if the original Muslims, including Muhammad, misread human nature as well, as we will see by their corporal or bodily punishments of alcoholics or social drinkers, in the hadith and classical legal rulings.

But Qutb’s idealistic beliefs that are disconnected from hard facts are also false according to the Quran and other historical realities. Qutb’s "wise" sacred book bluntly and swiftly lays down the law in one verse about theft: a male or female thief must get his or her hand chopped off if he or she steals an object of a certain monetary amount (Sura 5:38). Where is the gradual approach in this severe punishment? If any punishment needed a measured pace of which Qutb boasts about drinking and gambling, it is this one because it is irreversible. It is true that more people drink than steal, but that only describes a social fact.

Besides the sociological, Qutb also divides the subject into the theological, psychological, and the historical. How is it that Allah knows that theft is wrong in only one revelation, whereas he seems not to know this about drinking and gambling? Indeed, at the end of Qutb’s analysis of the three verses in three different volumes, he retreats into the "mystery of Allah" on why the deity left intoxicants permissible for a while: "God must have had a good reason for leaving it permissible for a while" (vol. 4, p. 252). Thus, Muslims must not question this or seek an answer. This retreat demonstrates confusion. Also, how does this non-gradual revelation about theft accurately read human psychology? It does not.

As to other historical oversights that Qutb engages in, he misses the fact that Islam is an expansionist religion, and history demonstrates that it marched out of Arabia with armies in the background or in the foreground. Wherever it went, it imposed sharia or Islamic law on the newly conquered territories because it allegedly expresses the best for humankind or the will of Allah. How is this conquest and imposition of the law about drinking and gambling a measured approach for the newly conquered who converted to Islam? Even if a judge were to give the guilty a second chance before he imposes the sentence, the prohibition is still in the Quran. Therefore, another judge may not show mercy. Moreover, dhimmis or People of the Book (Jews and Christians) who were treated as second-class citizens may have been exempt from Islamic law in this matter, depending on the region. So why do they get to drink and gamble? Regardless, surely Muslims do not believe that converts to Islam reach sinless perfection instantaneously. Yet, the law against drinking and gambling is not imposed on them in stages; it is already in the Quran, and they are supposed to obey its final form. In fact, the hadith and the classical legal rulings (the next two sections) indicate that Islamic societies had to deal (and have to deal) with these problems, just as western societies did (and do). The links in the introduction to this article demonstrates this. Such is human nature world over. The Quran for them is not "sensitive" and "gentle" towards their psyche or society, as Qutb erroneously would have us believe.

Anonymous said...

In short, Qutb overlooks too many facts, so his defense of progressive revelations by dividing the subject up into the four fields of theology, sociology, psychology, and history fails to make a sound case. The Quran and its divine inspirer misread human nature, and so does its commentator, Qutb.

Egypt was Qutb’s homeland. Here is a webpage that advertises an Egyptian casino in Cairo. This page advertises one too, with a fully stocked bar. This page also tells foreigners where to go for bars and pubs. Though these places are designed for foreigners, do all Egyptian Muslims avoid these establishments? As we will see in the section "Classical legal rulings," below, drinking alcohol during Umar’s reign (a companion of Muhammad) became "excessive."

To conclude this section, the Quran takes the long route in the sandy desert to decree that intoxicants and gambling are sins. Sura 4:43 seems to imply that a Muslim is allowed to get drunk, but not during forced prayer times. This means that after he says his last prayers in the evening, he can open a container of alcohol. Qutb argues that this shows the wisdom of his sacred book because it gradually imposes divine law on recalcitrant humans, but he fails to factor in historical reality, and he misreads human psychology and society. Theologically, this gradual, changing revelation puts the deity who inspired the Quran in a difficult position. He too misreads human nature. What does this say about Muhammad’s capacity to be rightly guided? It is better to lay down the law immediately so that humans can know where they stand and obey or disobey the standard. It should not float around in the air, confusing people. However, it must be said that Sura 5:90-91 does come down strong, though belatedly, on two potential vices, and that many Christians, especially in the American South, would agree with these two verses.

But no one of a sober mind would agree with the Islamic punishments for alcoholism and one punishment for gambling, seen in the hadith and classical legal rulings.

Anonymous said...

The Hadith

The hadith are the reports of Muhammad’s words and actions outside of the Quran. The three most reliable hadith collectors and editors are Bukhari (d. 870), Muslim (d. 875), and Abu Dawud (d. 875). The Quran and the hadith are the foundations for later legal rulings. This section deals first with drinking and then with gambling.

Statements on intoxicants are found throughout the hadith. For example, Muhammad announced the prohibition in the mosque, presumably Sura 5:90-91, or perhaps all three Quranic passages at different times (Bukhari, Prayers, vol. 1, no. 459; Sales, vol. 3, no. 2226; Commentary, vol. 6, nos. 4541-4543).

Also, Ali, Muhammad’s cousin, recounts a hadith that shows him about to marry Fatima, Muhammad’s daughter by his first wife Khadija. Hamza, Muhammad’s uncle, was drunk, and a singing girl egged him on to go after Ali’s two fat she-camels. Hamza cut off their two humps and cut their flanks open. Ali told Muhammad, and the prophet scolded his uncle. But when Muhammad realized that "Hamza was drunk, he retreated, walking backwards, went out and we left with him" (Bukhari, Military Expeditions, vol. 5, no. 4003). Muhammad backpedaled. Ali and Fatima were married about two years after the Hijrah, so did Muhammad decree in Sura 2:219 that intoxicants were sinful / beneficial at that time? Since he seems reluctant to enforce this verse against his uncle, it may have been revealed after this embarrassing episode. Or maybe Allah’s revelation in Sura 2:219 was too unclear to interpret firmly, if it was revealed before this shameful behavior of a Muslim hero.

These and other anecdotes have an interesting character all by themselves, but we instead focus on the punishments for intoxication and gambling, though the hadith and later classical rulings do not have as much to say on gambling as they do on drunkenness.

Bukhari’s hadith collection says that in beating a drunk, palm leaf stalks and shoes can be used. But Abu Bakr, a close companion of Muhammad, uses another implement, the lash.

The Prophet beat a drunk with palm-leaf stalks and shoes. And Abu Bakr gave (such a sinner) forty lashes. (Bukhari, Punishments, vol. 8, 6776)

Abu Bakr uses a lash. The words "such a sinner" are not original in Arabic, but are supplied by the translator Muhammad Muhsin Khan and his team. But Islam wrongly punishes the alcoholic as a criminal, even a light drinker who does not get drunk (this is possible).

This poor "criminal" was brought to Muhammad who became angry:

The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drunkard dragged into Muhammad’s presence]. (Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774-6775)

Thus, we see no offer of help for the alcoholic, when he is dragged before Muhammad. Later traditions say that Muhammad could perform miracles—though the Quran never mentions a miracle apart from the existence of Quran itself, a miracle, but which is a weak criterion, as this article demonstrates. Why could not a miracle transformation take place for this and other drunks? Why does he not offer rehabilitation? Why does he always seem to go immediately to corporal punishment?

Next, this passage says that Umar raised the number of lashes from forty to eighty if the drunkard becomes mischievous and disobedient. Along with Abu Bakr, Umar no longer used makeshift instruments like shoes and clothing, but a lash.

. . . We used to strike the drunks with our hands, shoes, and clothes (by twisting it into a rope in the shape of lashes) during the lifetime of the Prophet, Abu Bakr [ruled 632-634] and the early part of Umar’s caliphate [ruled 634-644]. But during the last period of Uthman’s caliphate [ruled 644-656], he used to give the drunk forty lashes; and when drunks became mischievous and disobedient, he used to scourge them eighty lashes (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6779)

Anonymous said...

Sometimes the hadith contradict each other. This one misses the fact that Abu Bakr used a lash (see no. 6776, above).

Muslim is the second hadith collector and editor discussed in our analysis.

In the section titled "Prescribed Punishment for (Drinking) Wine," he begins with the prophet and Abu Bakr whipping a drunkard forty times with two lashes:

He [Muhammad] gave him forty stripes with two lashes, Abu Bakr did that, but when Umar (assumed the responsibilities) of the Caliphate, he consulted people and Abd al-Rahman said: the mildest punishment (for drinking) is eighty (stripes) and Umar prescribed this punishment. (no. 4226)

It is easy to see how the traditions in Bukhari overlap somewhat with this one in Muslim. It seems Muhammad would not use only hands, shoes, or wound-up clothes, but a special lash or whip. See Muslim no. 4228, which parallels Bukhari more closely, still concluding that eighty stripes is an acceptable penalty.

Finally, Abu Dawud is the third hadith collector and editor.

He agrees with Bukhari and Muslim, so we do not need to repeat his traditions here. However, he does record the decree that if a drunkard repeats his crime four times, Allah will make him drink the "[D]ischarge of wounds flowing from the inhabitants of Hell" in the afterlife (no. 3673). He also says that if a man dies who is addicted to drink, he will not taste wine in Islamic heaven (no. 3671; cf. Bukhari, Drinks, vol. 7. no. 5575). Islamic heavenly wine does not impact the head with inebriation, so apparently the earthly drunkard is missing quite a heavenly treat. Would he be willing to give up his earthly delights for a heavenly gain? It is a lot better than drinking hellish pus.

However, Abu Dawud finds the early Muslims raising the penalty to the ultimate degree:

The Apostle of Allah [said]: If they (the people) drink wine, flog them, again if they drink wine, flog them. Again if they drink it, kill them. (no. 4467; cf. 4468-4470)

The translator of Abu Dawud provides a footnote that says this ultimate punishment was abrogated by a tradition recorded by Tirmidhi (d. 892), a student of Bukhari, presumably in a passage like the following from Tirmidhi:

Jabir reported the Prophet as saying: "Beat anyone who drinks wine, and if he does it a fourth time kill him." He said that after that a man who had drunk wine four times was brought to the Prophet and he beat him, but did not kill him. (Miskhat al-Masabih, trans. James Robson, vol. 1, Punishments, Chapter 4, p. 771.)

Does this text give permission for the death penalty or not? The words say yes, but the example says no. Abu Dawud offers four passages that allow the death penalty (4467-4470); however, no. 4470 says in one clause that "the punishment of killing (for drinking) was repealed." As we saw in the three stages of Quranic revelations, what does this change in the hadith say about Muhammad’s capacity to be rightly guided? Should a major religion even "flirt" with the death penalty for the sin of drinking wine four times? Any sober-minded observer, whose mind has not been drunk on a lifetime of devotion to Islam, must answer no.

According to Abu Dawud’s report, intoxicants are prohibited in even small amounts:

Jabir . . . reported the Apostle of Allah . . . as saying: If a large amount of anything causes intoxication, a small amount of it is prohibited. (no. 3673)

Anonymous said...

This reasoning may be accurate for an alcoholic who must not touch a single drop if he is to stay sober. But extreme cases make bad policy for the rest of humanity. If a little wine is enjoyed, for example, during a meal, and does not at all intoxicate the drinker (this is possible), then the sin of drunkenness is not committed. We will see in the next section that some Islamic jurists make the distinction between taking in a little fermented beverages and drunkenness. But generally Islam takes things to extremes, especially in punishing people. So why should we be surprised if Islam prohibits even a single drop of fermented beverages? This extreme is its own version of holiness. However, we do not need to quibble over this, when the bigger problem in Islam is how it punishes drinkers—excessively, which is never just.

Before leaving this section, we should mention gambling, which the hadith does not deal with in detail, compared to intoxication. Not even the conservative scholar Maududi, who knew Islamic law well, offers us hadith passages or later legal rulings on gambling.

We should note carefully the wording in this hadith edited by Bukhari:

. . . and whoever says to his companions, "Come let me gamble," then he must give something in charity (as an expiation of such a sin). (Good Manners, vol. 8, no. 6107; cf. Oaths and Vows, vol. 8, no. 6650; Asking Permission, vol. 8, no. 6301, which says, "Come, let us gamble!")

As we will see, a later jurist notes that a man is required to give to charity to expiate for his sins even for uttering the words, "Come let me (or us) gamble!" What if he and his friends actually engage in gambling?

Muslim repeats Bukhari’s hadith (no. 4041), and Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, the translator of Muslim, adds this footnote, in the context of a man swearing by two Arab gods Lat and Uzza and telling his friends to gamble with him. He must repent in this way:

[He] should give Sadaqa [charitable gift] making amends of the wrong done by him. According to Imam Abu Hanifa [a major jurist; see next section], it is imperative to expiate his sin as laid down in the Shariah by feeding ten poor men, or clothing ten deserving persons or observing three fasts. The other jurists are of the view that Sadaqa is enough, no matter what its amount or measure is. (note 2087)

One of the deficiencies in Islam is that a Muslim must pay for his own sins. Where does this end? How can he be assured of getting into heaven? Taking a trip to Mecca? What about all the Muslims who are unable to do this, especially before modern transportation? In Christianity, per contra, Jesus pays for the sins of his followers by his death on the cross. All they have to do is believe in him, and then they are on their way to heaven. However, it is one thing to make material restitution for one’s sins, say, in the case of theft (restitution is good), but it is quite another to "expiate" one’s sins by self-effort to ensure access to heaven.

Anonymous said...

But we should not complain too loudly about this practice of giving charity for merely suggesting gambling, apart from actually doing it. Charity is a lot better than corporal punishment, getting whipped forty or eighty stripes. But is the gambler totally exempt from a beating? The next section answers this question.

Anonymous said...

To sum up this section, Muhammad and his companions in the hadith punished wine drinkers with forty to eighty lashes. At first, hands, shoes, or wound-up clothes were used, but they were quickly replaced with a lash—and perhaps a lash was used at the same time that hands, shoes or clothes were, but lashes or canes seem to be the implement of choice today. Next, Muhammad even decreed that if the drunkard violated the Quran four times or more, he should be killed. Fortunately for wine drinkers in those days (and all of them today), this decree was repealed. The change from the death penalty for alcoholics to whipping them questions Muhammad’s wisdom and capacity to be rightly guided. Finally, the hadith does not detail how to penalize gambling. It says that the gambler should expiate his sins by giving to charity, for merely suggesting that he and his friends should play games of chance, quite apart from actually playing them. How should he be punished if he actually commits this sin? Unclarity, not clarity, rules Islam on this. Consequently, the legal rulings will be sparse and unclear, as well.

Classical legal rulings

Sharia means the body of Islamic law rooted in the Quran and the hadith; fiqh means the science of interpreting and applying this law, done by qualified Islamic judges and legal scholars. Over the first two centuries after Muhammad’s death in AD 632, four main Sunni schools of fiqh emerged, led by these scholars: Malik (d. 795), who lived in Medina, Arabia; Abu Hanifa (d. 767), who lived in Kufa, Iraq; Shafi (d. 820), who lived mostly in Mecca, Arabia, but who was buried in Cairo, Egypt; and Ibn Hanbal (d. 855) who lived in Baghdad, Iraq. They base their legal opinions and rulings on the Quran and the hadith. We examine the opinions of some of these schools in law books and manuals that summarize earlier opinions.

A brief law book from the Medieval Age, A Sunni Shafi Law Code (trans. Anwar Ahmed Qadri, Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1984), says the following:

If any persons drinks wine or any other intoxicating thing, its hudd [legal punishment] is forty stripes, and it is lawful that by means of tazir or discretionary punishment, to bring it to eighty stripes. The hudd becomes obligatory upon the drunkard, by two causes: if proved by witnesses [translator’s note: by one man and one woman’s evidence and by only two women witnesses . . .], or by confession (p. 119).

Thus, this ruling agrees with the hadith: forty stripes. It is revealing of women’s rights even today that two female witnesses count for only one male witness. Can Islam reform and rewrite classical fiqh?

Anonymous said...

Another Shafi law book, Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, (rev. ed., trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Beltsville, Maryland: Amana, 1994), compiled in the Medieval Age, says that the following criteria must be obtained before imposing the punishment of forty to eighty stripes: (a) he drinks; (b) he has reached puberty; (c) he is sane; (d) he is a Muslim; (e) he does so voluntarily; (f) and he knows it is unlawful (p. 617, o16.0). The manual also notes that if the offender dies from forty stripes an indemnity is due for his death. If the caliph increases the penalty to eighty stripes and the offender dies, the ruler is required to pay an indemnity (p. 617 o16.0) According to this report, in Iran a teenage boy broke his Ramadan fast, so a judge sentenced him to be lashed with eighty-five stripes. He died from the punishment. This shows that lashing can be fatal.

As for gambling, this same Shafi manual says that "every game played by two or more people that relies on luck, conjecture, and guessing is unlawful, no matter whether money is stipulated or not." However, if the games assist in jihad, such as target practice with bows and arrows, then they are legal (p. 453, k30.0). How can anyone deny the depth of jihad in classical Islam? But the manual is unclear as to the punishment for gambling. It recalls the hadith passages that say that if a man merely suggests with words that he and his friends should gamble, he is to expiate for his sin by giving to charity. The manual in turn asks rhetorically: "If merely saying this is a sin that calls for charity in expiation, what must one suppose about actually doing it?

Anonymous said...

It is a form of consuming others’ wealth through falsehood" (p. 697, p72.0). The category of taking people’s property through falsehood includes highway robbery, which can be punished by crucifixion or mutilation, and theft, which is punished by mutilation (p. 666, p20.0). The gamblers who got caned in Indonesia should be grateful for their punishment. It could have been a lot worse.

Imam Malik composed a law book that is also considered a collection of reliable hadith: Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas: The First Formation of Islamic Law (rev. trans. Aisha Bewley, Inverness, Scotland: Madina Press, 1989, 2001). He reviews the hadith (see previous section) and concludes that forty to eighty lashes should be administered. Malik cites a hadith that says that when a drunk talks confusedly, he tells lies. So Umar, Muhammad’s close companion, imposed eighty lashes on the analogy that a slanderer got eighty lashes. Finally, a Muslim receives the punishment for drinking "whether or not he becomes drunk" (p. 355, 42.1). This fails to distinguish between moderation and drunkenness.

Anonymous said...

Malik prescribes a beating for games of dice: "Yahya related to me . . . from Abdullah ibn Umar that when he found one of his family members playing dice, he beat him and destroyed the dice" (p. 402, 52.2.7). This punishment here is imposed within a family, but apparently it can also be imposed on the general populace, as this article in the introduction demonstrates.

For the other schools of law, we use the compendium of Ibn Rushd, known in the West as Averro√ęs (d. 1198). By far he is the most thorough compiler and editor of legal opinions. He was a judge, medical doctor, and scientist, but he pursued his career mostly as a judge in Spain, where Islam ruled from the eighth century to the fifteenth. He was buried in Cordova. His two-volume work, The Distinguished Jurist’s Primer, (trans. Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization, Reading, UK: Garnet, 1994-1996), took over twenty years to write. Bringing together the first three schools of law and an assortment of other legal opinions, Ibn Rushd provides a foundation in Islamic law for judges and legal scholars throughout the Islamic world, where it is still used today.

Ibn Rushd follows the hadith closely in his summary of jurists, so we do not need to repeat them here. But he notes two interesting tidbits. First, the jurists of Iraq (the schools of Abu Hanifa and of Ibn Hanbal) say that in the case of other intoxicants (fermented beverages) besides wine "only the act of intoxication is prohibited" . . . (vol. 2, pp. 534-35). Though this disagrees with a hadith that says even a little intoxicants are prohibited, this permission is reasonable and implies that at least a few jurists make a distinction between drinking moderately and drunkenness. This is exactly how the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, come down on the issue of alcohol—making a distinction between moderate drinking by which a person may still retain all of his faculties, and drunkenness. Second, Ibn Rushd says that the majority of jurists cites the rulership of Umar during which "the drinking of khamr [wine] in his times became excessive" (vol. 2, p. 535), so eighty stripes were imposed. This rejects Sayyid Qutb’s ridiculous claim that Islam enjoyed a miracle of prohibition as soon as the third decree in Sura 5:90-91 was read from the mosque. This also denies the unsupportable belief that Islamic societies are pure and holy in the matter of intoxication. It is simply impossible to absolutely stop human vices by outside force, ultimately. See "Supplemental material," below.

Anonymous said...

To summarize this section, the classical jurists followed the hadith closely for intoxication. One school distinguishes between drinking moderately and drunkenness. This is a reasonable distinction because if someone drinks only a little drop of fermented beverage, he will not become inebriated, so the sin does not take place. However, this reasonable ruling disagrees with an excessive and irrational hadith that says that even a little wine is a sin, whether or not it causes drunkenness, so it elicits forty stripes at least. Gambling was not dealt with thoroughly and clearly, except that an uncertain amount of charity expiates an offender’s sins, even if he suggests only verbally that he and his friends should gamble. Malik says that a member of a family was beaten in early Islam. This family member had a light sentence. On the analogy that gambling is like taking property through falsehood, which in some cases could bring death or mutilation, he could have been severely punished. He should be grateful for merely a beating.

Anonymous said...

Before moving on to the Biblical view on alcohol and gambling, we should take stock of the last three sections. The Quran goes through confusing stages before it reaches the conclusion that the two practices are sinful. First it says that alcohol is sinful and beneficial (Sura 2:219). Then it allows drunkenness, but not during forced prayer times (Sura 4:43). Finally it prohibits drinking and gambling (Sura 5:90-91). However, it is one thing for a religion to prohibit these two practices—that is a religion’s prerogative. But it is quite another if it punishes sinners with whippings. Then it goes too far. Islam seems always to go for physical punishments in order to transform society, but Islamic societies are still not pure and pristine. Why does it not offer help for the sinner in its origins and in his heart?

Anak Perelih said...

"But it is quite another if it punishes sinners with whippings. Then it goes too far. Islam seems always to go for physical punishments in order to transform society, but Islamic societies are still not pure and pristine. Why does it not offer help for the sinner in its origins and in his heart?"

it's because Syariah law is a PREVENTIVE law.. not PUNITIVE LAW like our civil law...
Islamic societies is still not pure and pristine because here in Malaysia he have a 365 Syariah Law, not a trur Islamic Hudud, Qisas takzir law... 365 - 3 years or 6 lashes or Rm5k....

shahrul said...

Tukang Besi,
hukuman sebat ke atas kartika itu,ana rasa ia bertentangan dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan.Sebab perlembagaan negara kita tak benarkan kaum wanita utk disebat.

Jadi,sebarang undang2 yg bercanggah dgn perlembagaan negara kita adalah tidak sah,

Oleh itu,boleh dirumuskan bahawa hukuman sebatan ke atas kartika adlh tidak sah dan tidak boleh dilaksanakan kerana ia bertentangan dgn perlembagaan negara kita.

Tulang Besi said...

Anonymous shahrul said...

Tukang Besi,
hukuman sebat ke atas kartika itu,ana rasa ia bertentangan dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan.Sebab perlembagaan negara kita tak benarkan kaum wanita utk disebat.
.

Tidak sebab Artikel 121 (A) memberi status khas kepada Mahkamah Syariah.

Lagi pula Islam adalah agama Persekutuan

shahrul said...

Tukang Besi,

Jadi TB berpendapat bahawa pemberian status khas ni bermakna mhkmh syariah blh mengenakan apa2 jenis hkmn walaupon ia bertentangan dgn perlembagaan??

Tukang Besi harus ingat Perlembagaan Persekutuan adlh undg2 tertinggi negara dan sebarang undang2 yg bercanggah dengannya akan terbatal stakat mana undg2 tersebut berlawanan dgn Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Sekian.

Wong Ka Wai said...

Kepada Tulang Besi,

pendapat shahrul memang betul,

sila baca di sini (http://myzaidibrahim.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/jawapan-saya/)

Secara ringkas:

Dalam soal rotan wanita yang minum beer itu, banyak komen saya terima. Kesemuanya penuh emosi tetapi jelas banyak yang tidak memahami isu sebenar. Sebagai contoh, pertubuhan NGO yang menggelar diri mereka Pembela Islam telah dengan bongkaknya memberi amaran kepada Peguam Negara dan Kerajaan Pusat supaya tidak masuk campur dalam soal Mahkamah Syariah. Mereka juga marah-marah kepada pihak yang tidak setuju dengan hukuman itu dengan menuduh orang yang berbeza pandangan dengan mereka sebagai orang yang tidak menghormati Islam. Pada masa yang sama, mereka konon nya merujuk kepada undang-undang dan Perlembagaan Persekutuan sebagai asas hujah mereka itu. Jadi saya terpaksa memperjelaskan isu ini sekali lagi. Ingat ya, saya menyentuh mengenai undang-undang yang ada di negara kita.

Undang-undang Syariah adalah undang-undang negeri, iaitu digubal oleh Dewan Undangan Negeri. Mengikut Perkara 75 Perlembagaan Persekutuan, undang-undang negeri, termasuk enakmen agama Islam, mestilah tidak bercanggah dengan undang undang Persekutuan dan Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Kalau bercanggah, maka ia tidak sah. Jadi bila kita katakan hukuman rotan Mahkamah Syariah Negeri Pahang itu tidak sah, ia adalah kerana undang-undang Persekutuan atau “Federal law” di Malaysia melarang wanita dirotan. Jadi hukuman rotan itu dalam kes khusus itu tidak sah. Ini bukan bererti kita menolak Islam atau undang-undang Islam. Undang-undang Syariah Negeri Pahang mestilah tak lari dan bercanggah dengan Muslim Court (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 dan juga Criminal Procedure Code (rujuk Seksyen 289). Oleh kerana ianya bercanggah, maka hukuman rotan terhadap wanita itu tidak sah. Saya harap Pembela dan penyokong mereka, terutamanya peguam-peguam di kalangan mereka, selalu membaca dan terus membaca supaya dapat mengeluarkan pandangan yang jujur, benar dan tepat.


p/s: Minuman herba (resipi lengkap and percuma) bagi mencegah selesema A (H1N1).

Sila layari http://bukakedaionline.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/minuman-herba-bagi-mencegah-selesema-a-h1n1/

(dikemaskini dengan gambar dan langkah penyediaan)

Tulang Besi said...

Anonymous shahrul said...

Tukang Besi,

Jadi TB berpendapat bahawa pemberian status khas ni bermakna mhkmh syariah blh mengenakan apa2 jenis hkmn walaupon ia bertentangan dgn perlembagaan??
.

How can mahkamah syariah be dispensing ultra vires opinions when the federal constitutions guarantees mahkamah shariah's sovereignity?

Tulang Besi said...

Blogger Wong Ka Wai said...

Kepada Tulang Besi,

pendapat shahrul memang betul,

sila baca di sini (http://myzaidibrahim.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/jawapan-saya/)
.

Funny, Zaid Ibrahim refers ZERO times to Article 121(A) of the Federal Constitution in which the sovereignity of the Shariah Court is guaranteed.

Not to mention, Islam is the religion of the Federation.

shahrul said...

Tulang Besi,

Jadi TB berpendapat bahawa pemberian status khas ni bermakna mhkmh syariah blh mengenakan apa2 jenis hkmn walaupon ia bertentangan dgn perlembagaan??

Tulang Besi harus ingat Perlembagaan Persekutuan adlh undg2 tertinggi negara dan sebarang undang2 yg bercanggah dengannya akan terbatal stakat mana undg2 tersebut berlawanan dgn Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Sekian.

Tulang Besi said...

Anonymous shahrul said...

Tulang Besi,

Jadi TB berpendapat bahawa pemberian status khas ni bermakna mhkmh syariah blh mengenakan apa2 jenis hkmn walaupon ia bertentangan dgn perlembagaan??
.

Bear in mind that all state enacments are signed and approved by the respective Sultans.

To questions such enacment is tantamount to treason.

It explains despite so many enacments not in line with Federal laws, none has even been brought to court.

The Kelantan and Terengganu "hudud" enacment is legal and valid and only waiting for enforcement. The Kelantan dan Terengganu Shariah courts can dispense hudud punishment and the Federal Constitution cannot do anything about it.

Wong Ka Wai said...

Tulang besi kata

Bear in mind that all state enacments are signed and approved by the respective Sultans.

To questions such enacment is tantamount to treason.

It explains despite so many enacments not in line with Federal laws, none has even been brought to court.


Aisehman, Tulang Besi.

Rasional lah sikit. Kerja semua ADUN dan MP ialah bagi membuat dan mengubah undang-undang yang sesuai pada masa kini.

Semua undang-undang yang diubah juga disign oleh sultan/YDN

Ini tidak membawa maksud "treason". Mereka hanya berkhidmat untuk negeri/negara.

Undang-undang yang bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia adalah tidak sah.

Jika ada yang sudah tercanggah tetapi belum diperbetulkan kerana masa belum tiba atau tiada usaha bagi membuat demikian. Ini tidak bermakna yang bercanggah itu betul.

Kalau nak buat hudud, kena buat referendum. Saya percaya biarpun 2/3 MP setuju buat hudud, cara yang paling betul ialah buat referendum.

p/s: Minuman herba (resipi lengkap and percuma) bagi mencegah selesema A (H1N1).

Sila layari http://bukakedaionline.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/minuman-herba-bagi-mencegah-selesema-a-h1n1/

(dikemaskini dengan gambar, langkah penyediaan dan nama saintifik)

Tulang Besi said...


Aisehman, Tulang Besi.

Rasional lah sikit. Kerja semua ADUN dan MP ialah bagi membuat dan mengubah undang-undang yang sesuai pada masa kini.

Semua undang-undang yang diubah juga disign oleh sultan/YDN

Ini tidak membawa maksud "treason". Mereka hanya berkhidmat untuk negeri/negara.
.

Why dpo u think not many state enacments have been challanged in terms of constitunality in court?

U go against the state enactment, you're going against the Sultan.

Simple as that.

Tulang Besi said...


Undang-undang yang bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia adalah tidak sah.

Jika ada yang sudah tercanggah tetapi belum diperbetulkan kerana masa belum tiba atau tiada usaha bagi membuat demikian. Ini tidak bermakna yang bercanggah itu betul.
.

Correction, undang2 AFTER MERDEKA yang bercanggah dengan perlembagaan adalah tidak sah.

All shariah enactments are enacted BEFORE the Federal Constitution

Wong Ka Wai said...

Tulang Besi kata:

U go against the state enactment, you're going against the Sultan.


Poin satu: Saya teringat kes Karpal Singh yang disebabkan oleh perkataan-perkataan "ultra vires"

Poin dua: Saya dapati perhimpunan anti-ISA pada 1 Ogos, ramai dihadiri oleh ahli-ahli PAS dan juga boleh diringkas sebagai majori yang hadir pada hari itu merupakan Melayu Muslim.

Bukankah segala undang-undang disign oleh Agong/Sultan, maka mereka juga "against the Agong/Sultan"?

Tulang Besi said...

the isa is misused because the sultan passed it on the assurance of tun razak that it will only be used for communists

Orang Tak Berat Sebelah said...

Ha ha PAS and Tulang Besi have commited treason for agreeing to protes against ISA!

SPM 6A1 said...

Encik Tulang Besi,

Saya ini berpendidikan sehingga SPM biarpun keputusan yang cermelang kerana kemiskinan.

Menurut Sejarah Malaysia Tingkatan 5 (SPM), undang-undang yang diluluskan oleh dewan rakyat akan menjadi undang-undang biarpun DYMM Agong bantah.

Agong hanya boleh tangguhkan perlaksanaan undang-undang selama (kalau tak silap ingat) 2 bulan, tetapi undang-undang yang diluluskan oleh dewan rakyat akan menjadi sah selepas tempoh itu.

Kuasa Agong memang setakat ini menurut Sejarah Malaysia Tingkatan SPM.

Ini bukan rahsia atau tulang besi tidak bernasib baik untuk mendapat pendidikan. Jika Tulang Besi tidak mendapat pendidikan akibat kemiskinan, saya boleh maafkan kamu.

Anonymous said...

thanks exchange for this tips
pmu
turf

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

ARiF merupakan jentera utama Harapan Baru di dalam membantu kelancaran gerakerja semua peringkat.

Kami ARiF Melaka memerlukan sumbangan dan bantuan kewangan daripada tuanpuan untuk kami melakukan gerakerja berkenaan. Oleh kerana kami masih baru, sumbangan diperlukan untuk menampung kos pakaian, membeli peralatan komunikasi, peralatan lalulintas dan sebagainya.

Kami amat berbebsar hati jika tuan/puan dapat menghulurkan sumangan kepada kami. Segala sumbangan diserahkan kepada pemegang amanah ARiF Melaka.

MOHD AZWAN AHMAD
a/k Maybank : 104013154427

Hantarkan makluman bank-in melalui SMS/WA ke 016-981 1315 (H.ANUAR)

Semuga Allah membalas segala jasa baik tuan/puan semua.