BILL REVIEW

The post Arab-Spring scenario has created more street protests and heated debates in parliaments of some Muslim countries including Pakistan and Malaysia. The calls to review or to repeal the earlier Bills that were found inadequate to address the growing despair among the well-articulated and highly wired population is generating healthy debates that aimed at reviewing some erstwhile Muslim understanding of their Shari'ah.

In Malaysia the recent outcry to give both parents the right over their children without one parent deciding to convert his children to Islam is seen as injustice and has painted Islam in a bad light. The fact of the matter is that Islam demands that the children be given the choice of conversion when they reach their age of discretion. In the case of children below this age they are required to follow the father, given the fact that the child bears his name as such he is held responsible for the well-being of his children, including the religion his children follows. This does not mean the mother has no access to them. What has happened recently is the sudden surge in the empowerment of women who feel that they have been on the receiving side of male dominated patriarchal society where women are placed at the periphery of the society with no equality. This may be true in respect of other religion, but is not the case with Islam. Sadly some muslims have unwittingly fallen into the same pit by denying their women their basic rights placing the blame squarely on the faultless religion. Examining the case closely I found that in many cases conversion has been taken as a convenient escapade from responsibility and to break away from their family life. There is no doubt the bill must be given a new reading to reflect justice.

In the case of Pakistan I welcome the decision to make use of DNA test to confirm rape and to take appropriate punitive action against the perpetrators of such disgusting act. I can understand the ulama objection on its usage. If they insist on bringing four witnesses, such conformation could be done four times by four different agencies instead. I was wondering why four and who on earth will commit such an act in public. But then given the modern day perversion there are people who will do it consensually on camera in the presence of world audience. However, the usage of such scientific method should be considered sufficient to take action against those rapists. Ulamas should not stand in the way for the effective use of modern technology to decide on shari'ah violation. Shari'ah should not be misused as a tool of oppression that denies basic justice.  But the call to interpret shara'i provision in the light of UN convention on conversion is unacceptable. That should not be the yardstick to judge matters Islamic. There are ample provisions in shari'ah that meet all these exigencies, but then the interpretation of it need to be revisited in the spirit of justice and not in the spirit of any UN dictates.

READ: RAPE BILL; CHILD CONVERSION BILL

STOP ABUSING ALLAH

The new envoy of Vatican to Malaysia has landed himself in the same controversy concerning the Christian usage of the term Allah in their Malay translation of Bible. This is a deliberate attempt by the Christian church to win more converts and to confuse Muslims. The term "Allah", a pre-Islamic concept that connotes an Indivisibly Unique and Unknowable Being Worthy of Service, is retained in Islam as a perfect description that befits the Islamic concept of God. This is not the same He as described by the Christians. Their description of a divisible God does not fit the Islamic description of Allah. As such Christians must stay away from engaging in such deliberate attempt to confuse others. If this is allowed than votaries of other religions also will come up with different descriptions of Him and call that description as Allah. This is a clear case of abuse and blasphemy. Let the Vatican emissary confine himself to the diplomatic niceties and refrain from muddying his reputation in worthless polemics.   

READ: VATICAN ON ALLAH

One cannot blame the Vatican emissary for his remarks when own donkeys are talking the same way. In a recent article the sheepish Khalid Samad of PAS says that "Allah" was used by non-Muslims since Prophet's time meaning that it is not a new word and that non-Muslims can make use of it to refer to or to describe Him. I wonder this joker really understand the full import of the term "Allah" can he define Him theologically? There were many words used before Islam which are still in vogue in Islam such as Salat, Zakat, Riba, etc. Do the non-Muslims use them to describe their version of these words in similar sense? It is important politicians must not meddle in religion. Otherwise such nonsense will come out from their mouth.

READ: KHALID SAMAD ON ALLAH

I am really surprised that now politicians are coming to the aid of Allah. When did they become so religious? My sincere advise to all those who want to defend Allah is that the Almighty does not need your help. Let the scholars, particularly the Theologians from both Islam and Christianity sit and discuss this matter. Let not the dirty politicians pollute His Holiest Name by their dirty mouths. Now that the learned court has ruled in favor of the matter, let the matter go through the full process of the law and let the court seek the kind indulgence of the concerned theologians to outline their arguments and then make a conclusive stand on this. I remember this matter was raised in my country in the late 80's and it was settled as the definitions of Allah as comprehended by the two groups differed greatly.

READ: IBRAHIM ALI ON ALLAH