DAP Muslim MP waves off PAS’ hudud move


Malaysiakini
Apr 26, 2014

Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz, one of only two DAP Muslim MPs, says he is obligated to support hudud law because of his religion but will still not back PAS’ private member’s bill on the matter.

The Raub MP said regardless of personal views, the reality is the country’s secular constitution and if PAS wants to implement hudud law it must first push for a new Islamic constitution.

Until then, Ariff Sabri said PAS should not force other Muslims to back it’s hudud plan by questioning their faith.

“PAS must do the right thing first – secure parliament and change the constitution

“Unless they do this, they can’t push through a bill hoping to capitalise on some sort of religious blackmail.

“I don’t support your bill therefore I am not a good Muslim or even an infidel? I don’t agree with you does not mean I lack faith ,” he said in a blog posting today under his pen name Sakmongkol.

Ariff Sabri said he would not wear his opposition like a “badge of honour” but neither would he be “spineless” like Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s apparently ambiguous stance.

Najib had yesterday declared Umno was “not opposed” to hudud law but said there were several obstacles that needed to be scrutinised.

‘Don’t engage in religious blackmail’

“I hope PAS isn’t going to lower its esteem of other Muslim MPs who will not support PAS even though we are from the same political grouping. There are also Muslim MPs in PKR.

“As PAS does not have majority control of parliament, it should not propose this bill,” said Ariff Sabri.

He added that if PAS is adamant, then it should consider DAP national organising secretary Anthony Loke’s suggestion that PAS leave Pakatan Rakyat.

Ariff Sabri stressed his stance on hudud law was not “entirely” because of DAP’s official stand.

“I want to make it clear to DAP that personally as a Muslim I am obligated to support hudud by trying to be as good a Muslim as I can be.

“As a party member, I stand by what the party stands for. I believe DAP accepts my personal stand,” he said.

Print Friendly

  1. #1 by Bigjoe on Sunday, 27 April 2014 - 8:05 am

    Using religion as blackmail is no different than Mahathir’s twisted blaming of everyone else of his failures and problem – the root of anti-Semitism, racism, crony capitalism, abuse of power, destruction of institutions and our yes our educational system.

    While PAS is the main force behind the Hudud problem (and its a problem, not an issue), what adds to the real worry is that ALL of UMNO/BN is lying through their teeth about Hudud – from those who voice fake support such as Najib, to those opportunist who sees power to abuse like Zul Nordin, Ridhuan Tee, Nawawi Ahmad, to include MCA and MIC who solely blame PAS for it, the truth is its UMNO (and BN) that allowed its first step which is at the root was Mahathir destruction of the judiciary in 1988 and added Article 121(1a).

    The truth is unless PAS’s issue with Hudud is dealt with with great and responsible minds around it, this country is going to adopt it under UMNO rule. Based on our history under UMNO rule, it will cosmetically be called Hudud but look pretty much like existing penal system – but the wall of secularity will have been broken and only a disaster will reverse it

  2. #2 by pulau_sibu on Sunday, 27 April 2014 - 9:01 am

    I do not see what is wrong with hudud law. Malaysian society is quite sick with serious problems such as corruption, serious gambling, serious drinking, among others. No body can fix this society; not the democracy. I can see it just getting worse.

    I am a Chinese and I am not a muslim, but I support the hudud. I would be happy to see it also applying to the non-muslim. If you do not commit crimes, why are you afraid of such a law? The first ones to be brought to hudud law should be the corruption against the politicians. That is why the muslim u mn o politicians do not support implementation of hudud laws. The chicken is out!

    On the other hand, poeple believing in religions are good people, or would become good people. Then why we need the hudud law to punish the people?

    Have good discussion and come with a modified version of hudud law punishing all the bad guys.

  3. #3 by winstony on Sunday, 27 April 2014 - 9:50 am

    As it is, no matter what laws are implemented, whether secular or religious, the rich and powerful or well connected will not be affected by them.
    Are we so naive that we don’t know how the laws are applied in this country???

  4. #4 by worldpress on Sunday, 27 April 2014 - 10:45 am

    Don’t think so simple the hudud law is apply only to muslim only..it is the extremist first step to break the federal constitution protecting the non-muslim
    Once they have the laws they can use what is written to obey turn modest Muslim to extreme

    slowly non-muslim will be oppress prohibit to spread other religions

    prohibit to wear indecent clothing -short-sleeves, trousers

    Extreme Muslim look at non-muslim as enermy

    It definitely destroy the federal constitution and harmony

    jangan main-main

  5. #5 by worldpress on Sunday, 27 April 2014 - 11:29 am

    Once they have the laws they can use what is written tell moderate to obey turn moderate Muslim to extreme

    They claim all those written from the almighty..can not reason…can not question…but to OBEY…or face the laws

    Oppress to obey willing or unwilling…like an army solider…no question ask

  6. #6 by digard on Sunday, 27 April 2014 - 7:02 pm

    I sympathize with many of the hudud advocates. I sympathize with those, who feel desperate at the obvious truth: there is no justice done in this country. I sympathize with them, because I know the feeling of desperation.
    I may as well ask if desperation is a good basis for sound reasoning? From my own experience, it is not. Feeling cornered in a dead-end road, anything looks like a tool to escape.
    Is hudud a valid answer to lawlessness? Alas it isn’t. Because, looking at the real issues, it is not the secular laws failing us. The failure is not the lack of stringent rules against corruption, and other kinds of vices. The failure is the even and just application and handling of the existing laws. As long as a beer-drinking woman is whipped, but a wine-drinking minister made ambassador, no law – including hudud – can rectify the unevenness.
    Introducing hudud does not change the personnel in the legal system, nor the police officers on their rounds. It would only modify the sentences meted out, and add some more sentences.
    What is needed, however, is an overhaul of the human system in between the offence and the punishment. Changing the latter does not improve anything on the weaknesses of the former. As long as an immigration record can be ‘recommended’ to be deleted, the system is unjust. As long as a traffic offence can be ‘settled’, the system is unjust. Even if adultery is punished by stoning, or theft by amputation.

    If one can guarantee, I mean total guarantee here, that all, and I mean all, ministers, including the PM, will be treated totally fair and equal, and have their limps amputated for stealing from the rakyat, and tax money, and be stoned for adultery, I might support hudud. But this has never happened in any country, in any moment in the time since the Prophet, at any place.
    A sound study of history, and more sociology, will rather reveal that those in power introduce new laws, worldly as well as religious, only to foster their grip on the people.
    And the situation in Malaysia in 2014 is by no means any different.
    This is why actually I sympathize with many of the hudud advocates, and at the same time I must totally reject its implementation.

You must be logged in to post a comment.