27 July, 2007

Between Law and Religion.

There is a sudden realization now in the Malaysian courts. There is a realization that boundaries of jurisdiction are very blurred. But only after such a critical case has been dealt and the verdict given that this realization comes. I know religion is a touchy issue. Because when we say religion in general there are many that is practices amongst the rakyat. But when the government mentions religion it very seldom concerns any other religion but Islam.

Now, since the courts know there is a big problem. What is the next step? Clearly the deficiencies of the Malaysian courts are getting to be one too many. All eyes and ears are now silently waiting to hear and see which way will the judiciary mechanics will lean or bend to. But it's not the bending that matters or the fact that Between the Syariah courts and the the other courts.

But the Federal court has spoken and anything concerning Muslims between Non-Muslims are to be judged in the civil court. Now here is the embarrassing and confusing thing... with the statement made from Judge Abdul Hamid Mohamad and this is reported in NST as well being carried forward to Reuters that Non-Muslims are not allowed to be in Syariah courts and now cases involving Muslims together with Non-Muslims are to be dealt in the Civil courts and at the same time the fact that TPM made a claim that Malaysia is indeed an Islamic state it is a bit confusing in relation to which Law precedes the other. Is it the Civil law reigns higher than the Shariah Law? Or is it the other way around?

How can an Islamic state have any court higher than the Shariah court? To prove my point lets take the example of the judicial system of Saudi Arabia. It is stated in the source that I have found that
The Saudi Arabian legal system in 1992 was based on the sharia, or Islamic law. The sharia was applied throughout the kingdom in strict accordance with the interpretation of the Hanbali school of Sunni Islam.

On top of that the judges of Shariah courts are to be of very specific qualifications as also stated in the source...
Because pious Muslims believed that the sharia was sacred law, they accepted as judges, or qadis, only men who had spent a number of years studying the accepted sources of the sharia: the Quran and the authenticated traditions (hadith) of the Prophet Muhammad's rulings and practices. So it is not rocket science to make the equation.

So which is which? In my best judgment, what the TPM claims cannot be used. Since he himself is not above the law which means the say of courts is higher. But that is to my own logic. I may be wrong but hey the court say one thing and the TPM claims another. How can a rakyat be certain in the first place?

Owh bother, for all I know the further I continue this post the more implications it serves me. But simply said...to be in a state of confusion will further worsen things and could be very dangerous to everyone. Just decide on one and be done with it can we? If Malaysia is indeed an Islamic state than enforce the correct judicial system that goes with it. If it is not than the TPM should just say sorry for the mistake he has made and spare the rakyat any further headaches.

No comments: