The origins and obligations of Sharia law
Sharia is the body of Islamic religious law based on the Koran and the words and actions of the prophet Mohammed and his followers.
In the West, Sharia has become synonymous with the brutal punishments meted out in Islamic states, but the majority of laws are to do with everyday issues, ranging from personal hygiene to banking.
Hard line Muslim leaders claim that Sharia is eternal and can never be changed, while moderates argue that it is not a strict set of laws but should be open to interpretation.
Sunni and Shia Muslims follow different schools of thought in interpreting the Sharia laws, but all Muslims are required to live according to Sharia wherever they are.
Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran have implemented Sharia as the legal system of the country, but in Britain it has no legal standing, despite the introduction of Sharia-compliant banking and food.
Examples of obligatory laws
• Earnings must be lawfully obtained
• Food must be halal
• Personal hygiene must be of a very high standard
• Couples must have a full bath in flowing water after intercourse
• The body must be covered modestly
• Prayers must be said five times a day
• Believers must fast during Ramadan
By Clare Dwyer Hogg and Jonathan Wynne-Jones, The Telegraph
*******************************************
Sharia is an Arabic word meaning "the right path". The Sharia comes from the Koran, the sacred book of Islam, which Muslims consider the actual word of God. The Sharia also stems from the Prophet Muhammad's teachings and interpretations of those teachings by certain Muslim legal scholars.
Muslims believe that Allah (God) revealed his true will to Muhammad, who then passed on Allah's commands to humans in the Koran.
Since the Sharia originated from Allah, Muslims consider it sacred. Between the seventh century when Muhammad died and the 10th century, many Islamic legal scholars attempted to interpret the Sharia and to adapt it to the expanding Muslim Empire.
The classic Sharia of the 10th century represented an important part of Islam's golden age. From that time, the Sharia has continued to be reinterpreted and adapted to changing circumstances and new issues. In the modern era, the influences of Western colonialism generated efforts to codify it.
Following Muhammad's death in A.D. 632, companions of the Prophet ruled Arabia for about 30 years. These political-religious rulers, called Caliphs, continued to develop Islamic law with their own pronouncements and decisions. The first Caliphs also conquered territories outside Arabia including Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Persia, and Egypt.
As a result, elements of Jewish, Greek, Roman, Persian, and Christian church law also influenced the development of the Sharia.
Islamic law grew along with the expanding Muslim Empire. The Umayyad dynasty Caliphs, who took control of the empire in 661, extended Islam into India, Northwest Africa, and Spain. The Umayyads appointed Islamic judges, kadis, to decide cases involving Muslims. (Non-Muslims kept their own legal system.) Knowledgeable about the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad, kadis decided cases in all areas of the law.
Following a period of revolts and civil war, the Umayyads were overthrown in 750 and replaced by the Abbasid dynasty. During the 500-year rule of the Abbasids, the Sharia reached its full development.
Under their absolute rule, the Abbasids transferred substantial areas of criminal law from the kadis to the government. The kadis continued to handle cases involving religious, family, property, and commercial law.
The Abbasids encouraged legal scholars to debate the Sharia vigorously. One group held that only the divinely inspired Koran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad should make up the Sharia. A rival group, however, argued that the Sharia should also include the reasoned opinions of qualified legal scholars. Different legal systems began to develop in different provinces.
From this very brief history of the Islamic empire and the development of the Shariah, some scholars argue that the Shariah evolved over time and transformed to meet the needs to society during their respective times. In other words, the Shariah was not static but dynamic.
Other scholars argue that the Shariah was already present during the time of the Prophet and was already fully developed by the time the Prophet died. In other words, this was what was laid down by the Prophet and merely continued after the Prophet died (meaning, the Shariah did not evolve or transform over time). This argument is to support the theory that the Shariah came from God and was not ‘invented’ by man over hundreds of years following the death of the Prophet.
In an attempt to reconcile the rival groups, a brilliant legal scholar named Shafiee systematized and developed what were called the "roots of the law". Shafiee argued that in solving a legal question, the kadi or government judge should first consult the Koran. If the answer were not clear there, the judge should refer to the authentic sayings and decisions of Muhammad. If the answer continued to elude the judge, he should then look to the consensus of Muslim legal scholars on the matter. Still failing to find a solution, the judge could form his own answer by analogy from "the precedent nearest in resemblance and most appropriate" to the case at hand.
This clearly shows that even the scholars themselves could not agree on whether the Shariah is God’s law or man’s creation based on interpretation of the Koran and the teachings (examples) of the Prophet.
There are five laws under the Shariah law. Basically, these are:
1. ibadah (ritual worship)
2. mu'amalat (transactions and contracts)
3. adab (morals and manners),
4. i'tiqadat (beliefs)
5. 'uqubat (punishments).
There are three categories of crimes in Sharia law. These are:
1. qisas
2. hudud
3. tazir.
Qisas involves personal injury and has several categories: intentional murder (first-degree), quasi-intentional murder (second-degree), unintentional murder (manslaughter), intentional battery, and unintentional battery.
A qisas offense is treated as a civil case rather than an actual criminal case. If the accused party is found guilty, the victim (or in death, victim's family) determines the punishment, choosing either retribution (qesas-e-nafs), which means execution in the case of intentional murder, imprisonment, and in some cases of intentional battery, the amputation of the limb that was lost; or compensation (diyya) for the loss of life/limb/injury.
The sharia judge (or, in modern sharia systems like those of Iran or Iraq, the state) can convict for and legally punish only qesas crimes on his own authority. However, the state itself may prosecute for crimes committed alongside the qisas offense. If the victim's family pardons the criminal, in addition to the sharia punishment he would normally receive a tazir prison sentence (such as ten to twenty years in prison) for crimes such as "intentional loss of life", "tazir assault and battery" "disturbance of the peace", and so forth.
The second category of crimes is hudud (or hadd). Hudud crimes are crimes whose penalties were laid down by the Quran and are considered to be "crimes against God". The hudud crimes are:
1. adultery (zina), which includes adultery, fornication, incest/pedophilia, rape, and pimping
2. apostasy/blasphemy
3. defamation (meaning false accusation of any of these things)
4. sodomy/lesbianism (or sodomy rape)
5. theft
6. use of intoxicants (alcohol/drug use)
7. "waging war against God and society" (rebellion)
Hudud, therefore, is merely one part of the very broad laws that come under the Islamic Shariah. However, this appears to be the only focus for debate, in particular in Malaysia.
Thus, the current brouhaha about Hudud is only a small part of a very vast Shariah system. In reality, we already have the Shariah in Malaysia. The only thing we do NOT have yet is the Hududpart of Shariah.
Upon closer inspection, the ISA is worse than Hudud. Under the ISA you can be detained BEFORE you commit a crime. That is why the ISA is called a 'preventive law'. Under the Shariah you CAN'T be punished for a crime you have not committed yet. The Sedition Act, Criminal Defamation, etc. are more draconian than Hudud by far.
If we compare apples to apples, there are many elements of the Shariah which are fairer than common laws, and vice versa of course. So we can't say Hudud is better or common law is better. It all depends on specifics. Maybe the one bone of contention is the punishment for theft (hand cutting). If we resolve that one needling issue then the rest is not that much an issue.
Are we opposed to Hudud because it is 'ISLAMIC LAW" OR BECAUSE IT IS UNJUST?
What if it was not called Hudud or Shariah but called 'Common Law'? Would it be acceptable then? For instance, if the Parliament amends laws that decree the punishment for the crime of corruption is firing squad (like China) but it is not called Shariah/Hudud would that be acceptable?
What if Parliament passed a law that the punishment for rape is castration? But this is NOT Islamic law and the word Hudud would not appear. Would many support it then? I would!
Can we disagree that rapists and murderers should not be punished? In fact, many feel Hudud is not even severe enough and they want it more severe. But what many do not realise, the hand cutting punishment is not an automatic thing. The criminal must first be assessed as to why he or she stole. And if it is because of poverty, then instead of cutting off the thief's hand, he or she has to be put under welfare and be taken care of by the state. In fact, the head of the welfare department instead would be punished for neglecting the poor and destitute that resulted in them having to steal to survive.
The issue is the word ISLAM in that law of Hudud, which, as you can see, is a SMALL part of the Sharia.
So what is really happening in the debate? Is hudud being used again by DSAI to curry favor with PAS and as a leverage against DAP to bargain for seat allocation? He expresses his PERSONAL opinion, and then claims he will consult PKR on it later (read more here).
We cannot afford to be battling on such issues and lose sight of the REAL BATTLE before us - winning the next GE! Politics and religion do not mix. Religion should not be used as a subject for political debates or policy decisions. Nip the problem in the bud before this issue brings about the downfall of PR! Let's keep our focus and fight the real enemy!
I suppose, this is Malaysia for you. Malaysians would debate till the cows come home about the Internal Security Act (ISA) whereas the ISA is just one small part of many things that is wrong with the Malaysian justice system and the Malaysian judiciary.
Sharia is the body of Islamic religious law based on the Koran and the words and actions of the prophet Mohammed and his followers.
In the West, Sharia has become synonymous with the brutal punishments meted out in Islamic states, but the majority of laws are to do with everyday issues, ranging from personal hygiene to banking.
Hard line Muslim leaders claim that Sharia is eternal and can never be changed, while moderates argue that it is not a strict set of laws but should be open to interpretation.
Sunni and Shia Muslims follow different schools of thought in interpreting the Sharia laws, but all Muslims are required to live according to Sharia wherever they are.
Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran have implemented Sharia as the legal system of the country, but in Britain it has no legal standing, despite the introduction of Sharia-compliant banking and food.
Examples of obligatory laws
• Earnings must be lawfully obtained
• Food must be halal
• Personal hygiene must be of a very high standard
• Couples must have a full bath in flowing water after intercourse
• The body must be covered modestly
• Prayers must be said five times a day
• Believers must fast during Ramadan
By Clare Dwyer Hogg and Jonathan Wynne-Jones, The Telegraph
*******************************************
Sharia is an Arabic word meaning "the right path". The Sharia comes from the Koran, the sacred book of Islam, which Muslims consider the actual word of God. The Sharia also stems from the Prophet Muhammad's teachings and interpretations of those teachings by certain Muslim legal scholars.
Muslims believe that Allah (God) revealed his true will to Muhammad, who then passed on Allah's commands to humans in the Koran.
Since the Sharia originated from Allah, Muslims consider it sacred. Between the seventh century when Muhammad died and the 10th century, many Islamic legal scholars attempted to interpret the Sharia and to adapt it to the expanding Muslim Empire.
The classic Sharia of the 10th century represented an important part of Islam's golden age. From that time, the Sharia has continued to be reinterpreted and adapted to changing circumstances and new issues. In the modern era, the influences of Western colonialism generated efforts to codify it.
Following Muhammad's death in A.D. 632, companions of the Prophet ruled Arabia for about 30 years. These political-religious rulers, called Caliphs, continued to develop Islamic law with their own pronouncements and decisions. The first Caliphs also conquered territories outside Arabia including Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Persia, and Egypt.
As a result, elements of Jewish, Greek, Roman, Persian, and Christian church law also influenced the development of the Sharia.
Islamic law grew along with the expanding Muslim Empire. The Umayyad dynasty Caliphs, who took control of the empire in 661, extended Islam into India, Northwest Africa, and Spain. The Umayyads appointed Islamic judges, kadis, to decide cases involving Muslims. (Non-Muslims kept their own legal system.) Knowledgeable about the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad, kadis decided cases in all areas of the law.
Following a period of revolts and civil war, the Umayyads were overthrown in 750 and replaced by the Abbasid dynasty. During the 500-year rule of the Abbasids, the Sharia reached its full development.
Under their absolute rule, the Abbasids transferred substantial areas of criminal law from the kadis to the government. The kadis continued to handle cases involving religious, family, property, and commercial law.
The Abbasids encouraged legal scholars to debate the Sharia vigorously. One group held that only the divinely inspired Koran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad should make up the Sharia. A rival group, however, argued that the Sharia should also include the reasoned opinions of qualified legal scholars. Different legal systems began to develop in different provinces.
From this very brief history of the Islamic empire and the development of the Shariah, some scholars argue that the Shariah evolved over time and transformed to meet the needs to society during their respective times. In other words, the Shariah was not static but dynamic.
Other scholars argue that the Shariah was already present during the time of the Prophet and was already fully developed by the time the Prophet died. In other words, this was what was laid down by the Prophet and merely continued after the Prophet died (meaning, the Shariah did not evolve or transform over time). This argument is to support the theory that the Shariah came from God and was not ‘invented’ by man over hundreds of years following the death of the Prophet.
In an attempt to reconcile the rival groups, a brilliant legal scholar named Shafiee systematized and developed what were called the "roots of the law". Shafiee argued that in solving a legal question, the kadi or government judge should first consult the Koran. If the answer were not clear there, the judge should refer to the authentic sayings and decisions of Muhammad. If the answer continued to elude the judge, he should then look to the consensus of Muslim legal scholars on the matter. Still failing to find a solution, the judge could form his own answer by analogy from "the precedent nearest in resemblance and most appropriate" to the case at hand.
This clearly shows that even the scholars themselves could not agree on whether the Shariah is God’s law or man’s creation based on interpretation of the Koran and the teachings (examples) of the Prophet.
There are five laws under the Shariah law. Basically, these are:
1. ibadah (ritual worship)
2. mu'amalat (transactions and contracts)
3. adab (morals and manners),
4. i'tiqadat (beliefs)
5. 'uqubat (punishments).
There are three categories of crimes in Sharia law. These are:
1. qisas
2. hudud
3. tazir.
Qisas involves personal injury and has several categories: intentional murder (first-degree), quasi-intentional murder (second-degree), unintentional murder (manslaughter), intentional battery, and unintentional battery.
A qisas offense is treated as a civil case rather than an actual criminal case. If the accused party is found guilty, the victim (or in death, victim's family) determines the punishment, choosing either retribution (qesas-e-nafs), which means execution in the case of intentional murder, imprisonment, and in some cases of intentional battery, the amputation of the limb that was lost; or compensation (diyya) for the loss of life/limb/injury.
The sharia judge (or, in modern sharia systems like those of Iran or Iraq, the state) can convict for and legally punish only qesas crimes on his own authority. However, the state itself may prosecute for crimes committed alongside the qisas offense. If the victim's family pardons the criminal, in addition to the sharia punishment he would normally receive a tazir prison sentence (such as ten to twenty years in prison) for crimes such as "intentional loss of life", "tazir assault and battery" "disturbance of the peace", and so forth.
The second category of crimes is hudud (or hadd). Hudud crimes are crimes whose penalties were laid down by the Quran and are considered to be "crimes against God". The hudud crimes are:
1. adultery (zina), which includes adultery, fornication, incest/pedophilia, rape, and pimping
2. apostasy/blasphemy
3. defamation (meaning false accusation of any of these things)
4. sodomy/lesbianism (or sodomy rape)
5. theft
6. use of intoxicants (alcohol/drug use)
7. "waging war against God and society" (rebellion)
Hudud, therefore, is merely one part of the very broad laws that come under the Islamic Shariah. However, this appears to be the only focus for debate, in particular in Malaysia.
Thus, the current brouhaha about Hudud is only a small part of a very vast Shariah system. In reality, we already have the Shariah in Malaysia. The only thing we do NOT have yet is the Hududpart of Shariah.
Upon closer inspection, the ISA is worse than Hudud. Under the ISA you can be detained BEFORE you commit a crime. That is why the ISA is called a 'preventive law'. Under the Shariah you CAN'T be punished for a crime you have not committed yet. The Sedition Act, Criminal Defamation, etc. are more draconian than Hudud by far.
If we compare apples to apples, there are many elements of the Shariah which are fairer than common laws, and vice versa of course. So we can't say Hudud is better or common law is better. It all depends on specifics. Maybe the one bone of contention is the punishment for theft (hand cutting). If we resolve that one needling issue then the rest is not that much an issue.
Are we opposed to Hudud because it is 'ISLAMIC LAW" OR BECAUSE IT IS UNJUST?
What if it was not called Hudud or Shariah but called 'Common Law'? Would it be acceptable then? For instance, if the Parliament amends laws that decree the punishment for the crime of corruption is firing squad (like China) but it is not called Shariah/Hudud would that be acceptable?
What if Parliament passed a law that the punishment for rape is castration? But this is NOT Islamic law and the word Hudud would not appear. Would many support it then? I would!
Can we disagree that rapists and murderers should not be punished? In fact, many feel Hudud is not even severe enough and they want it more severe. But what many do not realise, the hand cutting punishment is not an automatic thing. The criminal must first be assessed as to why he or she stole. And if it is because of poverty, then instead of cutting off the thief's hand, he or she has to be put under welfare and be taken care of by the state. In fact, the head of the welfare department instead would be punished for neglecting the poor and destitute that resulted in them having to steal to survive.
The issue is the word ISLAM in that law of Hudud, which, as you can see, is a SMALL part of the Sharia.
So what is really happening in the debate? Is hudud being used again by DSAI to curry favor with PAS and as a leverage against DAP to bargain for seat allocation? He expresses his PERSONAL opinion, and then claims he will consult PKR on it later (read more here).
We cannot afford to be battling on such issues and lose sight of the REAL BATTLE before us - winning the next GE! Politics and religion do not mix. Religion should not be used as a subject for political debates or policy decisions. Nip the problem in the bud before this issue brings about the downfall of PR! Let's keep our focus and fight the real enemy!
I suppose, this is Malaysia for you. Malaysians would debate till the cows come home about the Internal Security Act (ISA) whereas the ISA is just one small part of many things that is wrong with the Malaysian justice system and the Malaysian judiciary.
I would like to commend Mr.Bernard Dompok. Mr.Bernard Dompok is President of UPKO, a Sabah based political party. Mr.Bernard Dompok, a Christian, had clearly stated that UPKO is not afraid of being branded an opposition party even though UPKO is currently a component party of the Barisan Nasional coalition. My understanding is that UPKO is willing to oppose UMNO on certain issues if it is for the benefit of the Sabahans. I’m not Sabahan or Sarawakian and therefore it is not for me to struggle on behalf of Sabah and Sarawak. Sabahans and Sarawakians must fight for themselves. The non-Muslims of Sabah and Sarawak have to protect their own interests. It may be possible that the demographics of Sabah has been changed by the KL government to benefit Muslims. May be. I do not know. It is for Sabahans and Sarawakians to ponder and decide what their future would be.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, the indigenous/aboriginal population of Malaya are the Orang Asli, not the Malays.
As far as I am concerned, the non-Muslims of Malaya have their own government in George Town, Penang. Non-Muslims of Malaya should become increasingly Penang oriented.
Global geo-politics is changing and with every passing day, China and India are rising social, political, and economic powers. Amidst all these changes, Penang has to find its niche. With every passing day, both China and India are growing stronger socially, politically, and economically. Both China and India are non-Muslim nations. We have to keep Penang as a non-Muslim majority state. Both the Nanyang Chinese and the Indians in Malaya should, if they can, relocate closer to Penang/North West Malaya. With good cooperation between China and India, the Indians and Nanyang Chinese in Malaya can benefit. Penang should be the spot where the Chinese and Indian communities co-exist; and using Penang's co-existence model, both China and India can also co-exist. When the YING and the YANG coexist, there is harmony; and similarly, when China and India co-exist there will be harmony. The co-existence of China and India is the co-existence of two predominantly dharmic nations which will bring harmony.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Some people from Kelantan want to turn Kelantan into a hudud law saturated state. I could live with a welfare state or mixed economy. A welfare state or a mixed economy is not too bad but public assistance should be based on need, not race or religion. Watch out, but hudud laws will encourage politics of separatism from non-Muslims in Malaya; and once it starts, it would be hard to stop politics of separatism. In short, emphasis on an Islamic state will promote the politics of separatism among non-Muslims. If some Muslims like a hudud law state, then let’s divide them into Muslims and non-Muslims. After dividing them into Muslims and non-Muslims, I will recommend that the non-Muslims move away from Kelantan. Even Muslims who do not favor the hudud laws can move away from Kelantan. A hudud law saturated Kelantan will slowly become de-populated. Once a state de-populates, then it will be entitled to fewer and fewer electoral constituencies. A state that manages to attract Malayans to itself will be entitled to more and more electoral constituencies; and a state that fails to attract citizens to itself will be entitled to fewer electoral constituencies. For non-Muslims I recommend that they become more Penang oriented because we do have a non-Muslim government in Penang.
Furthermore, Islam does allow people to leave Islam. Changing faith is an inviolable human right and Islam as a faith does not prevent Muslims from leaving Islam. An increase in political Islam will almost drive the non-Muslim Malayans into politics of separatism; and you cannot really blame non-Muslims for that.
I went to the Post Office to register to vote; and upon checking my identity card, the Post officer asked which religion I belonged to. Why? I do not know. Therefore, we must reform the Department of Religion in Malaysia. Right now, only Islam is recognized as the sole and only religion in the Department of Religion in Malaysia. What do you mean by that? You mean that there is only one religion in Malaysia. The ground reality is that there are several religions in Malaya. Therefore we need reforms. We need to divide the Department of Religion into two branches: one branch to deal with Muslim Affairs, and another branch to deal with non-Muslim Affairs. Both branches must be separate but equal.
ReplyDeleteAnother alternative is to persuade the Malays to separate Penang Island from Peninsular Malaya. It may be that non-Muslims are the majority in Penang. More and more non-Muslims from Peninsular Malaysia should be encouraged to relocate to Penang. Once Penang becomes a non-Muslim majority state, then the Penangites can ask for greater autonomy from KL. Penang should be allowed to make its own laws for itself. I think the Malays should be happy if more non-Malays relocate closer to Penang/North West Malaya. An increase in non-Malays in Penang will result in a decrease in non-Malays in Peninsular Malaya; and therefore Malays should be happy. Malays should encourage non-Muslims to relocate to Penang/North West Malaya. Since Singapore is a non-Muslim majority nation, Penang should also become a non-Muslim majority state. The non-Muslim citizens need a hub and space of their own; and the hub and space would be Penang/North West Malaya. Those non-Muslim citizens who are unwilling to accept a second class citizen status inside Peninsular Malaya should relocate to Penang Island/North West Malaya.
If you are non-Muslim Malayan citizen and do feel socially, politically, or economically shortchanged, then stop complaining and fretting. Do something. Instead of fretting and complaining, please make arrangements to relocate to Penang/North West Malaya. If you have non-Muslim friends who fret and complain, then immediately persuade them to relocate to Penang/North West Malaya.
If you are non-Muslim Malayan and do feel socially, politically, or economically shortchanged, then stop complaining and fretting. If non-Muslim taxpayers feel shortchanged, then stop the sweating, brooding, complaining, and having nightmares. There is a solution to the nightmares and depression. Do something. Please relocate to Penang/North West Malaya.
If non-Muslims feel that Muslim Malayan, as taxpayers, are having a parasitical relations with non-Muslim Malayans, then the non-Muslims must do something. What should non-Muslims do to thwart the parasitical relations with Muslim Malayans? If you are non-Muslim, please relocate to Penang Island. The solution is relocating to Penang Island; and the Muslim Malayans also should encourage non-Muslim Malayans to relocate to Penang/North West Malaya.
If the non-Muslims are opposed to the "ketuanan Melayu" ideology, then they should relocate to Penang/North West Malaya.
Firstly, I have utmost respect for the many Malays who are so kind. However, there are some Malays who feel that the Malay forefathers made a big mistake about 100 to 150 years ago by allowing Chinese and Indian immigrants into Malaya in large numbers. What happened about 100 to 150 years ago is irreversible. That's the Malay perspective. Well, there are Malayan citizens of Chinese and Indian ancestry who feel that their forefathers also made a big mistake relocating to Malaya. What happened about 100 to 150 years ago is irreversible. Now, just as the Malays have to tolerate non-Malays, the non-Malays have to tolerate the Malays too. There is a solution. The non-Muslims in Peninsular Malaya should relocate to Penang/North West Malaya. The Muslims should encourage non-Muslims to relocate to Penang. It's a win-win.
Firstly, I have utmost respect for the many Malays who are so kind. However, there are some Malays who feel that the Malay forefathers made a big mistake about 100 to 150 years ago by allowing Chinese and Indian immigrants into Malaya in large numbers. What happened about 100 to 150 years ago is irreversible. That's the Malay perspective. Well, there are Malayan citizens of Chinese and Indian ancestry who feel that their forefathers also made a big mistake relocating to Malaya. What happened about 100 to 150 years ago is irreversible. Now, just as the Malays have to tolerate non-Malays, the non-Malays have to tolerate the Malays too. There is a solution. The non-Muslims in Peninsular Malaya should relocate to Penang/North West Malaya. The Muslims should encourage non-Muslims to relocate to Penang. It's a win-win.
ReplyDeleteNanyang means South Seas, a reference to the South East Asian region. The Nanyang Chinese are those Chinese who relocated from China to South East Asia about 100 to 150 years ago. The contribution of the Nanyang Chinese is well documented. In parts of South East Asia the Nanyang Chinese founded many, if not most, of the towns and urban centers. The Nanyang Chinese have served South East Asia for about 100 to 150 years and are entitled to a hub and space of their own which will be Penang. (We also have the Straits Chinese). The Chinese from Peninsular Malaya, if they can, should relocate closer to Penang so that Penang will always be a Chinese majority state. The Penang Chinese should seek greater autonomy for Penang. Global geo-politics is changing and with every passing day China is a rising social, political, and economic power. Amidst all these changes, Penang has to find its niche. We have to keep Penang as a Chinese majority state.
The Indians, as non-Muslims, in Malaya too have contributed to the growth and development of Malaya for 100 to 150 years. Global geo-politics is changing and with every passing day, China and India are rising social, political, and economic powers. Amidst all these changes, Penang has to find its niche. With every passing day, both China and India are growing stronger socially, politically, and economically. We have to keep Penang as a non-Muslim majority state. Both the Nanyang Chinese and the Indians in Malaya should, if they can, relocate closer to Penang/North West Malaya. With good cooperation between China and India, the Indians and Nanyang Chinese in Malaya can benefit. Penang should be the spot where the Chinese and Indian communities co-exist; and using Penang's co-existence model, both China and India can also co-exist. When the YING and the YANG coexist, there is harmony; and similarly, when China and India co-exist there will be harmony. The co-existence of China and India is the co-existence of two predominantly dharmic nations which will bring harmony.
We can say that the forefathers of the present Muslims in Malaya made a big mistake allowing Chinese and Indians to settle in Malaya more than 100 years ago. We can also say that Muslims benefitted enormously from the Chinese and Indian communities in Malaya. It is all about other people's money or OPM. OPM means other people's money. Over the last few decades the Muslims have benefitted by using OPM, namely taxes collected mostly from non-Muslim Malaysians. OPM has given the Muslims a free ride. Using OPM, Muslims have lived the good life in Malaya. Therefore, it is time for the non-Muslim Malayans to be increasingly Penang oriented. We do have a predominantly non-Muslim government in Penang; and therefore the Chinese and Indians in Malaya should become increasingly Penang oriented. The Muslims have their own government in KL; and the non-Muslims have their own government in Penang. States, districts and municipalities that have non-Muslim majority should demand greater autonomy.
We can say that the forefathers of the present Muslims in Malaya made a big mistake allowing Chinese and Indians to settle in Malaya more than 100 years ago. We can also say that Muslims benefitted enormously from the Chinese and Indian communities in Malaya. It is all about other people's money or OPM. OPM means other people's money. Over the last few decades the Muslims have benefitted by using OPM, namely taxes collected mostly from non-Muslim Malaysians. OPM has given the Muslims a free ride in Malaya. Using OPM, Muslims have lived the good life in Malaya. Therefore, it is time for the non-Muslim Malayans to be increasingly Penang oriented. We do have a predominantly non-Muslim government in Penang; and therefore the Chinese and Indians in Malaya should become increasingly Penang oriented. States, districts and municipalities that have non-Muslim majority should demand greater autonomy.
ReplyDeleteWhere did the Malays come from? If you ask me, I’d venture to say that Malays come from Hindu/Buddhist influence. It all depends on how far back in history we want to go back to. If you care to go further back in history, then there is strong evidence that all 6.5 billion of us come from Africa. It is not too good to look back too much, anyway. We have to move forward. There are many new things we have to learn in this competitive world of ours; and there is no end to the learning process for non-Muslims. In any case, I have nothing against the Malays who are kind; and I assure you that many Malays are kind. (Incidentally, the indigenous/aboriginal population of Malaya are the Orang Asli, not the Malays.)
Historically, the Non-Alignment Movement(NAM) has always been hijacked by Muslims to fulfill their own personal agenda. It would be downright stupid of India and China to allow Muslims to use the new gained strength of China and India to fulfill the Muslim agenda. There is no NAM; the coexistence of China and India is the non-Muslim NAM. NAM and non-Muslim NAM are not the same. Will China and India be stupid enough to allow Muslims to use them again? We will wait and see. Time will tell.
Historically, the Muslims invaded and ruled India, Europe, and parts of Africa for a few hundred years. Muslims have a history of attacking Westerners and India. There is Muslim terrorism in China. Now, with the new gained strength of China and India, the Muslims want to befriend China and India to attack the Westerners. Would China and India be stupid enough to be used by Muslims? We will wait and see.
There is a need to understand that Straits Settlements, Federated Malay States, and Unfederated Malay States were slightly different from each other. Penang is part of the Straits Settlements and deserves greater autonomy. The goal of Penangites should be GREATER AUTONOMY. Malays should encourage non-Muslims to relocate closer to Penang/North West Malaya because an increase in non-Muslims in Penang/North West Malaya results in a decrease in non-Muslims in other parts of Malaya. It’s a win-win.
We have KL on the one hand, and George Town Penang on the other hand; and we will wait and see who can get more support from most non-Muslims, George Town or KL. We will wait and see.
Please make sure you go to the nearest Post Office to register to vote. Please exercise your right to vote.
If you do agree with me, please copy and remail it to whom it may concern. Those who receive it must in turn copy and remail it to whom it may concern. Let’s get the word around to as many people as possible. Let’s see what happens.