Tuesday, 23 December 2008

Kuala Trengganu By-Election on 17 January 2009: PAS Should Be REJECTED for its Arrogance in Pakatan Rakyat

Related article: PAS Youth Becoming Thugs Going into the Streets to Deny the Freedom of Muslim Youths in Malaysia

We Say,

PAS, as we have opined before, is now becoming more and more an unreliable and recalcitrant partner in Pakatan Rakyat.

Its leaders are unable to rein in the indisciplined behaviour of its youth wing and its many parochially-minded younger leaders. Its constant engagement in one-sided religious issues in the media is destabilising for the Pakatan Rakyat state Governments.

Worse, PAS creates genuine concerns for Muslim and non-muslim voters.

Prior to the March 2008 election, Malaysian voters, particularly non-Muslim voters had thought PAS had turned the page; away from its radical and fundamentalist Islamic stance which affects not only Muslims but non-Muslims.


Instead, PAS as a political party has only changed its clothes but not its character.

Ever since PAS tasted power outside Kelantan after March 8 election, it has behaved more like a poorer version of UMNO in trying to enforce distasteful racial and religious policies.

It is our view that PAS is playing a double-headed game with its partners in Pakatan Rakyat.

It wants power in Government yet it is willing to marginalise its partners with its uncompromising stand to enforce some of the outmoded medieval and Middle Eastern rituals embedded in Islam on to a multi-religious and multi-racial society living in a 21st century.

We ask, should Malaysian voters wait for the next remaining four years to deny PAS the kind of magnitude of power it has gained from the March 8 election? We say NO.

With the present attitude developing in PAS, especially the tendency of its present leadership to play "push and pull" politics and engaged in "fork-tongued" language in the media on policies affecting Malaysians in general, we say it is time that Malaysian voters tell PAS they have gone too far in destabilising the Pakatan Rakyat state governments and they have taken voters who voted PAS for granted.

As such, there is little reason for voters, especially non-Muslim voters in the Kuala Trengganu constituency in the coming by-election on 17 January 2009 , to vote for the PAS candidate.

We say, PAS SHOULD BE DENIED the seat in the Kuala Trengganu by-election on 17January 2009.

-Malaysian Unplug

KUALA TRENGGANU PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY

The Kuala Terengganu seat fell vacant following the death of the incumbent, Deputy Education Minister Datuk Razali Ismail.

The constituency has 80,325 voters of which 79,194 are ordinary voters and the rest as postal voters.

  1. Malays (87.4 per cent),

  2. Chinese (11.6 per cent),

  3. Indian (0.7 per cent) and others (0.3 per cent)

Covering an area of 60,528.1ha, the Kuala Terengganu constituency is one of eight parliamentary constituencies in Terengganu.

It houses the state and federal administrative centres and is the seat of the state capital, Kuala Terengganu, which gained city status on Jan 1 this year.

16 comments:

concerned citizen: said...

I'm an avid reader of this blog and I like many of its stances. That said, some of the language used here is immoral and hurtful. It is a fundamentalist language that can't be accepted at all.

To call Islamic laws as "ugly head" is definately hurtful. You have got the freedom to disagree with Islam or any other faith for that matter (I know your stance on religions), but I believe you can state your position without lampooning the faith of millions of people. It is not a question of PAS when you write such immoral things. Maintain a language of decency when it comes to religion because how people feel about their faiths is not like how they feel about their food/clothing being insulted for example.

Secondly, when you say PAS should be denied the KT seat, you are giving it unto who? Unto MCA? UMNO has already called for the Hudud implemenation and even Khairy was the one who preceded Husam in calling for its implementation, but bernama chose otherwise in highlighting this matter and only focused on Husam's explanatory statement. Today, Umno Kelantan has called for the implementation of Hudud, so if you deny PAS the seat, are you giving it to any "lesser evil"? While PAS' call is an issue that is related to Islam and Muslims, Umno's call is one that's related to non-Muslims and their strangulation. PAS has never sought happiness in humiliating the non-Muslims unlike Umno which takes pride in spitting at the Chinese and Indians, for you to say that Umno should be given the seat (that's what it will in reality) is an act motivated either by hatred or naivety. PAS may be wrong or right in its prouncements, but those who feel 'good' about lambasting it should also look down at themselves and evaluate their own situations. The fact is Husam's statement was 'political' and it is only the naive who can't see through. The KT seat is a Malay heartland seat and the political prouncements tend to be different and that's excellent way of communication. A stupid person doesn't lead his people but an intelligent man who pretends to be stupid.

Malaysian Unplug said...

In response to "concerned citizen" (23 December 2008 13:49)

Islamic laws are known as "Sharia laws". We do NOT generalise that ALL Sharia laws are ugly. However, the espoused "huddud laws" ie the set of punishments for crimes such as stoning to death, chopping of the hands for theft are "ugly" when practised in modern times. Such laws, including the abhorrent and sickening burning at stakes practised in Christianity, might have been popular in the stone-age or medieval times.

No not in this 21st century.

Humanity and human civilisation must progress not only technologically and spiritually , but MORALLY too.

Human society has a responsibility to set out as a moral example to its members.

In this modern age, especially in our beloved country called Malaysia, we cannot justify, on any grounds, the stoning to death of women for adultery. It makes a complete joke of divine justice and compassion and a mockery of our secular constitutional laws.

Huddud laws such as stoning to death, chopping of hands, are abhorrent and ugly. Its dispensation of justice, to say the least, is simply barbaric.Period.

Read this case of an 13 year old girl stoned to death in Somalia under the huddud law. And she was a RAPE VICTIM. Such justice is traumatising in any decent human mind.

Malaysia cannot be allowed to be run under huddud laws. Decent minded Malaysians MUST NOT allow it to happen.

If PAS decides to go ahead with its huddud laws, then UMNO is a better devil to live with.

Malaysian Unplug

Malaysian Unplug said...

The stoning to death of a 13 year old girl, who is a RAPE VICTIM... dispensation of justice under the Islam's huddud law:

Read here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27484976/

MOGADISHU, Somalia - A 13-year-old girl who said she had been raped was stoned to death in Somalia after being accused of adultery by Islamic militants, a human rights group said.

Dozens of men stoned Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow to death Oct. 27 in a stadium packed with 1,000 spectators in the southern port city of Kismayo, Amnesty International and Somali media reported, citing witnesses. The Islamic militia in charge of Kismayo had accused her of adultery after she reported that three men had raped her, the rights group said.

Her father told Amnesty International she was 13. Some of the Somali journalists who first reported the killing later told Amnesty International that they had reported she was 23 based upon her physical appearance.

"This child suffered a horrendous death at the behest of the armed opposition groups who currently control Kismayo," David Copeman, Amnesty International's Somalia campaigner, said in a statement Friday.

Read more on huddud law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudud

Quote:

"... Muslim reformers have argued that "these punishment were appropriate within the historical and social contexts in which they originated but are inappropriate today and that the underlying religious principles and values need to find new expression in modernizing societies."

There is a movement among some modern liberal Muslims to "re-interpret Islamic verses about ancient punishments," in the words of Professor Ali A. Mazrui. He states that the punishments laid down fourteen centuries ago "had to be truly severe enough to be a deterrent" in their day, but "since then God has taught us more about crime, its causes, the methods of its investigation, the limits of guilt, and the much wider range of possible punishments."

Malaysian Unplug said...

The stoning to death of a 13 year old girl, who is a RAPE VICTIM... dispensation of justice under the Islam's huddud law:

Read here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27484976/

MOGADISHU, Somalia - A 13-year-old girl who said she had been raped was stoned to death in Somalia after being accused of adultery by Islamic militants, a human rights group said.

Dozens of men stoned Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow to death Oct. 27 in a stadium packed with 1,000 spectators in the southern port city of Kismayo, Amnesty International and Somali media reported, citing witnesses. The Islamic militia in charge of Kismayo had accused her of adultery after she reported that three men had raped her, the rights group said.

Her father told Amnesty International she was 13. Some of the Somali journalists who first reported the killing later told Amnesty International that they had reported she was 23 based upon her physical appearance.

"This child suffered a horrendous death at the behest of the armed opposition groups who currently control Kismayo," David Copeman, Amnesty International's Somalia campaigner, said in a statement Friday.

Read more on huddud law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudud

Quote:

"... Muslim reformers have argued that "these punishment were appropriate within the historical and social contexts in which they originated but are inappropriate today and that the underlying religious principles and values need to find new expression in modernizing societies."

There is a movement among some modern liberal Muslims to "re-interpret Islamic verses about ancient punishments," in the words of Professor Ali A. Mazrui. He states that the punishments laid down fourteen centuries ago "had to be truly severe enough to be a deterrent" in their day, but "since then God has taught us more about crime, its causes, the methods of its investigation, the limits of guilt, and the much wider range of possible punishments."

Tinta DUTA said...

dear Malaysian Unplug

Your comparison Malaysian Muslims to MOgadishu Islamic Militants is insulting... The fact that you would write such a long post regarding something you know nothing about proves just how ignorant you are....

Here is a story of Huddud law in Islam. The Prophet Muhammad was once faced with a pregnant woman who admitted to adultery after marriage (A sin punishable by stoning to death) She was pregnant so the prophet asked he to go back home until she gives birth to her child. After giving birth she comes back admitting the same sin, and the prophet turn her away telling her to breastfeed her child for 9 months before returning, and the third time she came again admitting to the same sin and the prophet turned her away again telling her to raise her child for the next two years.

This story is used to prove how Huddud law is considered in islam to be the last resort that the prophet would turn away a confession.

There is a lot of issues that needs to be taken into consideration when it comes to huddud... Stealing in a situation where you have to steal in a state of emergency does not constitute a hand chopping. If you steal from a farm because there is a war and because your family has nothing to eat, it does not constitute a hand chopping...

this is true for all manner of sins (no pun intended) it needs to scrutinized and evaluated and judged and again scrutinized and evaluated and judged and again scrutinized and judged and evaluated before turning to huddud. 3 times process of everything before even CONSIDERING huddud law.

Malaysian Muslims have lived without Huddud law and most already feel that it is out of date like you have said. However, it is still no reason for you to react so negatively towards the religion just because you have found PAS to be unreliable...


You know nothing of Huddud law and your comparison of Malaysian Muslims to Mogadishu Millitants proves just that....

Now tell me... if i compared chinese to the violence that the Komunist did in Tanah Melayu would it be fair to say all Communists were chinese... there fore all Chinese are violent....


Tinta DUTA (GGMM Blogger)

The Malaysian Explorer said...

While I do not agree to every proposal by PAS, nevertheless I feel it is still a much better alternative to BN. We should not deny them the vote just to "teach" them a lesson. This will not work. It is just a matter of differences of believes.

However, with BN, everything is about corruption and cronyism. I say we should give PAS and Pakatan a chance.

Malaysia deserves at least that.

The Malaysian Explorer

Filibuster said...

While I do not share fully the author's sentiments towards the floating of implementing hudud laws by PAS, I believe the main point he is trying to convey is how PAS has been in a way irresponsible by bringing it up instead of engaging in proper forums of discussion with their Pakatan Rakyat contemporaries. Although this is certainly not considered "breaking ranks", it may in some ways damage the reputation that PR is trying to build, particularly in the newly controlled states.

Personally, I believe that hudud laws merit further discussion. As Tinta Duta explained, there is a common-sense side to how it can be implemented. However, once again I would stress that proper forums of discussion be formed so that both Muslims with knowledge of how hudud laws are enforced, and non-Muslims (who may otherwise assume its implementation) be brought together to discuss their views on the issue.

I'm sure it's agreed that such an approach would work better than simply using hudud laws as political rhetorics.

Malaysian Unplug said...

In reponse to Tinta DUTA (GGMM Blogger)23 December 2008 15:58


To suggest that we had compared Malaysian Muslims to MOgadishu Islamic Militants with regard to the application of the huddud law is firstly misleading and taken out of context of our viewpoint with regard to the huddud laws.

No, we are NOT comparing Malaysian muslims with Islamic militants.

The point we intended to emphasize is that there IS in existence the huddud law which enables justice to be meted out via stoning to death for adultery, was being used by these muslims in Somalia to apply that huddud law to cause the death by stoning of a 13 year old girl who happened to be a rape victim.

Whether one knows in depth the huddud law is not at all relevant to the fact that a 13 year rape victim was indeed stoned to death by the application of a huddud law.

We are not suggesting here that Malaysian muslims will or will not apply the stoning to death justice in a case of an adultery except for the fact still remains that such cruel justice is allowed in the huddud law.

The example that was given of the pregnant woman admitting adultery to the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) does not address at all the issue we are highlighting: that is there is still the huddud law that enabled justice to be meted out by stoning to death for adultery by the powers-that-be for adultery.

We are saying THE huddud LAW that called for the stoning to death for adultery is ugly, cruel, a slow and torturing death for the victim, and it goes against divine compassion, whether or not it is a case of last resort or through the predetermined process to confirm the adultery hd taken place.

We say the same for the case of the chopping of hands for stealing.

The debate here is NOT on the circumstances for adultery or for stealing. The debate is on the magnitude of cruelty of JUSTICE meted out for the crime.

Having said that, the only heartening note we take on board is that there are liberal and reformist Muslims today (some are still hiding in the closet) who believe that such cruel and inhumane justice under the huddud law is outdated, outmoded and irrelevant in modern times.

Coming back to PAS: Is PAS a reformed Islamic political party, when it even deemed dancing in the street is bad for muslim youths? The jury is still out on this question.

wong said...

it my concern and my family concern ove r pas..chaning clothes remaining same nature..should pas be denied ? yes,,with a majority this time..

Anonymous said...

Choosing between the present corrupt and arrogant BN government and PAS Hudud laws, I would glad trade in for a stringent law that keeps evil and corruption at bay than the present administration which changes law to suit its evil intention as well as changes the present law or misinterprete the law for its selfish aim.

Anonymous said...

So committing adultery is not ugly? Stealing other people money is not ugly? Corruption is beautiful?

What if our wife commit adultery with another guy? What if you get robbed and the robber kill your family?
When you get robbed later, dont tell me that you happy that the robber robbed you. You just want him to be prison n once he get out, he'll robbed you again.

Many robber don't bother about going to prison. Free food more what.

-turest

Tinta DUTA said...

by: Tinta DUTA (GGMM Blogger)

Noted. On your point.

The 13-year old stoned to death were done by Islamic extremists. Those who have misinterpreted or rather should i say took from the holy book a bit TOO LITERALLY.

Whether or not you did or did not make the comparison... as a writer you should be well aware that your writing might well offend others (citing of course concerned citizen) You first went on to discuss huddud law and how you are against PAS if they are going to implement Huddud law.

Further iterated in your comments you highlighted the stoning to death of a 13 year old girl. With all due respect as a writer and debator your arguments are valid and i commend you on that.

However as a writer as well, you must have known the extent or the impact your writing will have. You know that people will find it offensive to talk about something so vital in a religion and suggest that violence such as that which has happened in mogadishu to be the pillar of your argument.

Your argument is that you disagree with the implementation of huddud... but your example is that of an extremist radical and fanatic association. Thats like saying NO to American Ideas and citing KKK as my main example.

Now tell me, how did you expect people to react when you used such an example as an argument point in your writing.

Whether you like it or not. You DID compare malaysian Muslims and the Mogadishu Militants by citing them as an example to the current status quo of discussion which is PAS/Malaysian Muslims......

You did say NO to Huddud by citing a violent example. Without taking into consideration of any kind of due process or even take into consideration the feeling of the emotions of the moderate Liberal Muslims (such as myself)

There is anger in the tone of your writing and that anger is directed towards Huddud when it should be directed at at PAS for politicizing it.

I also note that in the beginning you did that, you explained the problems PAS had brought up in PR. The moment you cited Mogadishu as your example, thats where you crossed the line.

zanpakutou said...

non muslims has no right to talk about islam...
u just dunno what the hudud is
u never read quran and understand it
u never read hadith
u dont know what sunnah is
u never know what ulama' is
and u dont know there is something called ijma' ulama'
if u know nothing bout islam, dont u ever talk about islam n hudud or whatever about our faith
just do ur work silently

Malaysian Unplug said...

In response to Tinta Duta
24 December 2008 09:22

A critique of any religion is par for the course.

Our posting was on PAS. But, one reader questioned our views with regard to the huddud laws and we defended our views. And we had clearly defined the parameters of our argument so that it is not taken out of context. We felt it is necessary we clarify what we have said when one of our readers had questioned us on the huddud issue. This is because the huddud issue is now the main talking point in the country.

Whether our views are insulting to others are subjective opinions.If others are emotionally hurt,that is something beyond our control. We are here not to babysit other peoples' fragile emotions when we debate on issues of public interest. They should go to other forums to protect their emotions.

You are absolutely right that we are opposed to PAS politicising the huddud issue and that is why we say PAS should be denied the vote in the coming byelection. We would have preferred the discussion is on PAS.

Because PAS has raised the political stake in putting upfront its stand on huddud laws, there is no reason why it should not be discussed frankly and unemotionally in the public interest.

There is no such thing as a line being crossed when one gives an example when debating on issues. Examples will be quoted where relevant and appropriate.

We believe that Islam will be better served if muslims especially and non muslims in particular are able to debate UNEMOTIONALLY on matters of concern to both sides.

A better appreciation of Islam by muslims and nonmuslims is best achieved through frank debate, instead of the tendency of some poorly informed muslims (many in Malaysia) putting up a firewall around Islam when their emotions got entangled so much so they cannot handle the issues at hand objectively. If you read the writings of great Muslim scholars in the past, you will realise that there were debates during the glorious days of Islam and through that, Islam was being made known to the world properly and in the way it meant to be.

Only fundamentalist muslims ie the blind believers, who because they cannot handle the truth, resort to name calling, inciting death to others and becoming hysterical, running amok.

Islam is not served well by those who, when losing an argument, falls back to say others don't understand or ignorant of Islam. Instead of attacking message, they attack the messenger.

Such attitude by those who profess they are Muslims is sheer cowardice and a total betrayal to Islam.

No one, we mean no one, can profess they know everything about Islam, not even our muftis in Malaysia.

We still say we are still not swayed by any counterpoint argument so far to what we have said. We still stand by what we had posted.

Nonetheless, we do appreciate your time to share your thoughts to engage us in this issue.

Tinta DUTA said...

Malaysian Unplug....

The context of debate you are referring to does not apply to a malaysian society. OUr constitution is not one that is based on Human rights alone. No one reading your blog wants you to babysit. However, there are just certain things in Malaysia you simply do not talk about.


I agree that some react rather "irrationally" however, when belief is questioned, you are destined to get that kind of reaction.

I have read the comments that you referred to. A good debate is a good debate. It doesnt mean we cannot be decent and civil. That was the issue being highlighted. decency.

You believe that people resort to name-calling etc etc because they know less. And you understand the concept of subjectivity in terms of opinions as well as emotions. Do you not have the capacity to even be a little decent>?

All that is ask from your writing is that you practice a little bit of chivalry. Im sure being the writer or writers of this blog, youd be able to come up with another term insted of settling for "UGLY HEAD"

Saying that no example can be considered crossing the line is rather "untrue" do you not think? Because;-

1) the example being used portrays a religion in a very negative light.

2) There are other examples to be used

3) because saying no to discussing religion would have eluded this situation

Discussing whats wrong with Islam is similar to muslims discussing whats wrong with other religion. A debate should never focus on whats wrong dont you think so???

If you had given statistics such as (More than 67% of Muslims today, think that the huddud law is not suitable with todays world)

it would have made a much more subjective tone to it.

I would probably face this same confrontation if i were to question christianity, or buddhist and even Hindu.

"A debate should not offend faith" - Aristotle.

is decency too much a price to pay in the name of public debate? Is it okay to discuss other peoples religion and blame them later for their reaction? For their inability to accept the darker parts of their belief??

If you refer to the GGMM blog you will find the name zanpakutou commenting against racism of the GGMM.... Now he/she is against what you have written. Is it too much to ask that you do not discuss our religion because for us it is sacred, it is sensitive?

I say nothing of your religion, so can you please say nothing about mine?

"But I believe you can state your position without lampooning the faith of millions of people" - Concerned Citizen

Malaysian Unplug said...

In response to Tinta Duta
24 December 2008 22:07

We respect fully your views and empathise your concerns. And we will agree to disagree.

We have said enough and we will not prolong any further the polemics on this topic.

We will only conclude our viewpoint via this last post by restating our view that "A critique of ANY religion, Islam included, is par for the course, sentiments aside".