Why does Mat Sabu refuse to state his stand on the Syariah?

The Third Force

DAP Secretary-general Lim Kit Siang expressed shock today when he learnt what MCA had recently told Kuala Kangsar voters. According to him, the electorate was informed that the late Wan Mohammad Khair-il Wan Ahmad, if alive, would have opposed a Bill that PAS president Dato Seri Haji Abdul Hadi Awang had tabled in Parliament a little over two weeks ago.

Earlier today, Kit Siang settled into his usual routine of striking fear in the hearts of Chinese. He implied once again that Hadi’s Bill, which he incorrectly referred to as the ‘Hudud Bill’, was a conscious attempt by PAS to infuse Islamic fundamentalism into Malaysian law and served as a requisite to the widespread implementation of the Islamic penal code, or Hudud.

Just to muddle the water, the senior Lim went on to ask if the late Member of Parliament’s (MP’s) wife, Datin Mastura Mohd Yazid, would oppose the ‘Hudud Bill’ should she be voted into office in Kuala Kangsar. But truth be told, that really is a question Kit Siang should be asking his running dog of a mate, Mat Sabu.

Last Friday, Mat Sabu (Mohamad Sabu) had this to say to reporters who had approached him for a comment on Hadi’s Bill:

“I don’t want to talk about it as I am not an expert.”

Sure, he’s not an expert. I mean, don’t you think that it would require a PhD in Islamic theology to tell you that Hadi’s Bill had nothing whatsoever to do with Hudud and was intended only to grant the Syariah Court greater jurisdiction? By that token, you would also need to agree that it would take a PhD in constitutional law to tell you that the Bill only concerned persons practising the religion of Islam and no one else.

Now, neither do I have a PhD in Islamic theology or constitutional law, nor did I meet a PhD in any of these fields who explained the Bill to me in any detail. Yet, I understood its provisions and am able to explain them to you or anyone else willing to listen.

As a matter of fact, I am a Polymer Technologist by qualification and am currently completing my PhD in the same field. It goes to show that perhaps we Polymer Technologists know a lot more about Hadi’s Bill than leaders of Islamist parties do, because, as you know, we Polymer Technologists synthesize Bills in our labs daily and are well versed with matters that relate to the Federal constitution and the Islamic Syaria.

Isn’t Mat Sabu the mother of all morons?

I mean any Tom, Dick or Harry who is reasonably acquainted with constitutional matters would surely have known that Hadi’s Bill related directly to the Islamic Syaria and in no way infringes on the rights of non-Muslim or their articles of faith.

And that’s the whole problem with Mat Sabu – the disgraced former PAS deputy president actually believes that people buy into his drivel and cockamamie babble. He thinks that Malaysians are fools and are oblivious to the fact that he is Kit Siang’s minion in the greater scheme of things, and that his party, Parti Amanah Negara (Amanah), is being funded wholesale by the DAP.

But just for the sake of argument, let’s give Mat Sabu the benefit of the doubt and ruminate on the Islamic Syaria and the Federal Constitution to some detail. The objective of this exercise is to see if Hadi’s Bill is really a first-stage requisite, as implied by Lim, towards the infusion of Islamic fundamentalism into Malaysian law, such that non-Muslims would one day come under the purview of the Islamic penal code.

Now, the Islamic Syaria is a body of moral and religious laws which is derived from religious edict as opposed to human legislation. Some scholars argue that its tenets are meant only to govern members of the Islamic faith and do not concern those who aren’t Muslims. By virtue of this reasoning alone, none of the laws dictated by the Syaria appertain to non-Muslims in societies where such laws are practised and regulated.

However, some Islamic scholars also argue that the Syaria was derived from the Holy Quran and the Sunnah, and as such, pertain to all mankind. According to them, the very essence of the Syaria as a form of governance was reflected through the life and times of the Prophet Muhammad and was descended to mankind through divine revelations bestowed upon His Prophets. They argue that since mankind is His (God’s) creation, the laws must therefore apply to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

The back and forth on the issue has been never-ending in some parts of the world, which is why, there are two sets of opinions swirling around Syaria jurisdiction. It goes to show that when discussing Hadi’s Bill, one has to be clear of the PAS president’s position on the matter with regards to the Islamic Syaria and the Federal Constitution.

For the record, Hadi has expressed in no uncertain terms that his Bill was relevant and appurtenant only to the Muslims. If that isn’t clear enough, then, let me put it to you another way – the Syariah Court’s (Criminal Jurisdiction) amendment Bill 2016 is in no way a matter of concern for the non-Muslims and, might I add, in no way related to the Islamic penal code, or Hudud. Period.

As per the Federal Constitution, the supreme law clearly distinguishes between Islamic and Federal jurisprudence in terms of their jurisdiction. More to that point, nothing in the Federal Constitution even remotely implies that the Syariah Courts are of equal standing to the Civil Courts, and neither does it say anywhere that non-Muslims can be tried under Islamic law.

As a matter of fact, the Federal Constitution clearly dictates that the Syariah Courts can only exercise jurisdiction “over persons professing the religion of Islam” and in respect of matters that are listed in the Constitution. For example, if a Muslim eats in public during the fasting month of Ramadan and is apprehended by religious authorities, he or she is liable to be charged by an Islamic Tribunal.

Let me give you another example – if a Muslim couple were to seek for the annulment of their marriage, they would have to file for divorce with the Syariah Court and not a Federal Court. The point is, it is absolutely true that Malaysian Muslims are subject to the Islamic Syaria in matters that relate to the functioning of a family unit or religious observances.

However, if a Muslim were to, say, misappropriate company funds or commit murder, he or she would not be liable for punishment under Syaria laws. That said, come what may, none of these laws would ever apply to non-Muslims. A priori, the Federal Constitution guarantees that non-Muslims would be subject only to federal jurisprudence as it has been derived from the common law legal system. To Dato’ Seri Liow Tiong Lai and Lim Kit Siang – you fooking clowns got that? In case you didn’t, let me put it to you another way – pick up a copy of the Federal Constitution, and read it over and over and over again, until it dawns upon you that you need learn when to shut the fook up.

Coming back to the mother of all morons – Mat Sabu – it seems that everyone who is anyone wants to know where he stands on Hadi’s Bill – or rather, the Syaria. Last Friday, Mat Sabu told us he wasn’t adequately informed on matters that related to the Bill, which is just as good as saying this – “I’m not that much of an expert on the Islamic Syaria and the Federal Constitution to be able to comment on Hadi’s Bill.”

That’s just plain dumb, isn’t it?

I mean, this is coming from a guy who claims to be the leader of an Islamist front that is supposed to serve as a progressive platform for disgruntled PAS members, who believe that the party (PAS) has been infiltrated by groups out to push Islamic extremism into mainstream policy planning.

So shouldn’t the leader of such a progressive front know enough about the Islamic Syaria, or at the very least, the Federal Constitution, to dispel rumours that non-Muslims would be adversely affected by the Syariah Court’s (Criminal Jurisdiction) amendment Bill 2016? What is holding Mat Sabu back? Is he hiding something from us?

I’ll come back to you tomorrow and tell you what it is that frightens Mat Sabu, so stay tuned. That said, do you now agree with me that Mat Sabu is a moron of the highest order?