1. Saya sebenarnya sudah lama tergerak hati untuk memberi komen berkenaan ulasan Ketua Dewan Pemuda Ulama PAS, Nasaruddin At-Tantawi dalam tulisanya berkenaan Undang-undang Islam dalam menyelesaikan kes pembunuhan Sosilawati (baca di sini). Pertama saya juga sependapat dengan Raja Petra bahawa Nasaruddin sebenarnya telah gagal menjelaskan keindahan hukum Allah dengan tepat dan jelas. Tulisan beliau, jika diamati dengan sungguh-sungguh, tidak hanya menyebabkan kekeliruan, bahkan ia seakan-akan tidak menyelesaikan masalah utama rakyat di negara ini, iaitu -IMAN. Tulisan beliau yang meleret-leret itu, lebih banyak berbicara tentang teori hukum Islam dan jauh sekali dari aspek praktikalnya.
2. Kedua, saya berasa malu dan semacam mahu menangis sahaja, apabila Raja Petra menyindir dan seakan-akan menghina Ketua Dewan Pemuda PAS tersebut dengan tajuk rencananya berbunyi, "Is The Best Type of Leader That PAS Can Offer?". Saya malu dan sedih kerana, Nasaruddin ialah orang Islam dan orang Melayu, seperti saya juga, tetapi diperkotak-katik oleh Raja Petra yang kita semua tahu tahap ilmu agamanya setakat mana. Saya malu, kerana terbukti PAS gagal menjelaskan persoalan dan keadilan Hudud kepada Pakatan Pembangkang dengan tepat, jelas dan berkesan. Soalnya, apakah setakat ini sahaja ilmu Islam yang dimiliki oleh para pemimpin PAS? Bagaimana mungkin PAS mampu menyelamat dan mempertahankan orang Melayu, Islam dan negara ini, sekiranya ilmu mereka begitu lemah dan tahap pemikiran mereka terlalu ceteknya sehingga dihina dan diperleceh oleh Raja Petra?
3. Saya juga rasa malu, kerana sejahil-jahil Raja Petra berkenaan hukum-hakam Islam, tetapi argumannya banyak juga yang betul, khususnya berkenaan kehairanan beliau terhadap konsep hukum Hudud PAS yang dikatakan hanya untuk orang Islam sahaja. Sedangkan, keadilan itu sifatnya menyeluruh.
4. Saya rasa, Nasaruddin perlu belajar lebih mendalam berkenaan ilmu logik, mantik dan berdebat, agar hujah-hujah beliau lebih kemas dan tidak memalukan dirinya sendiri dan umat Islam. Mungkin ilmu agamanya tinggi, tetapi malang, kecerdikannya sangat rendah. Saya fikir, jika Nasaruddin berdebat dengan Raja Petra berkenaan hukum Hudud, beliau mungkin tergagap untuk menjawab, bahkan tidak mustahil dimalukan sahaja.
5. Tidak semua hujah Raja Petra saya terima, contohnya point no 9 dan 20 di bawah, jika silap haribulan, aqidah Raja Petra boleh sahaja tergelincir, apa sebenarnya maksud Raja Petra dengan kata-kata bahawa masalah yang sebenarnya dalam hukum Allah adalah hukum Allah (hukum Hudud) sangat mudah dimanipulasi oleh manusia. Pada hemat saya - bukannya hukum Allah yang bermasalah atau mudah dimanipulasi, hukum Allah sudah lengkap dan sempurna dan sama sekali tidak boleh didakwa bahawa "salah satu kecacatan hukum Allah adalah ia mudah dimanipulasi oleh manusia"- ini satu kenyataan yang salah lagi bathil! Tiada cacat-cela dalam hukum-hukam Allah termasuk Hudud, yang cacat-cela ialah manusia yang tidak dididik terlebih dahulu dengan iman, ikhlas dan akhlak.
6. Ada satu perkara yang seharusnya kita perhatikan dalam tulisan Raja Petra di bawah , iaitu PAS terbukti lebih mengutamakan perjuangan merubah sistem yang ada, sedangkan asas Islam yang utama ialah merubah jiwa manusia daripada syirik kepada beriman kepada Allah. Dakwah PAS selama ini terbukti gagal mendidik jiwa manusia di Malaysia agar beriman bersungguh-sungguh dengan Allah, Rasul dan kitab-kitabnya, maka sebab itulah Raja Petra menyindir kefahaman Nasaruddin berkenaan hukum Hudud dan cara beliau membuat penjelasan bagi menyelesaikan kes Sosilawati dari kaca mata hukum Islam.
7. Islam dilihat lemah kerana pemimpin PAS sendiri yang tidak faham apa yang sebenarnya mereka perjuangkan. Baca Tulisa Raja Petra di bawah, terutama point yang sudah saya tandakan dengan warna merah - mari kita fikirkan bersama-sama, bagaimana Raja Petra membongkar ketidakmatangan Nasaruddin sebagai pemimpin masa hadapan PAS. Oleh kerana Nasaruddin telah gagal menjelaskan keindahan hukum Hudud kepada Raja Petra dengan tepat dan jelas, InsyaAllah saya akan memikul tanggungjawab ini bagi menebus kekeliruan tersebut dalam posting saya yang akan datang.
"Inikah Jenis Pemimpin Terbaik Yang Boleh PAS Tawarkan?"
1, The PAS Youth chief, Nasrudin Hassan, wants the Islamic criminal laws known as Hudud to be implemented in the country. “The existing legal system has not been successful, so there is a need for an alternative system,” he said -- and he cited the gruesome murder of businesswoman Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya and three others as an example of the failure of the current system.
2. The issue here is not whether I support or oppose the enactment of Hudud. The issue is the quality of the PAS Youth leader’s argument. And if this is the best that PAS can offer in terms of leadership then I do not have much hope for this party.
3. First of all, PAS told us that all Islamic laws, Hudud included, would not apply to non-Muslims but only to Muslims. If this is true then why quote the example of the murder of Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya? This woman was allegedly killed by Indian Hindus, not by Malay Muslims. And since Hudud applies only to Muslims then it does not matter whether Malaysia does or does not implement these Islamic laws. It would not have deterred these Indian Hindus from killing Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya because they would have been exempted from these laws anyway.
3. Now, if Hudud, an Islamic law, will also apply to non-Muslims, then why only Hudud? There are many Islamic laws, Hudud being just one of them. If Hudud will apply to non-Muslims as well, then all the other Islamic laws must also apply to non-Muslims.
4. Will non-Muslims get arrested for drinking beer? Will non-Muslims get arrested for not attending the Friday prayers in the mosque? Will non-Muslims get arrested for bonking a woman who is not his wife? And so on. If the answer is ‘no’, if non-Muslims are exempted from all these Islamic laws, then they should also be exempted from Hudud, which is one of many Islamic laws.
5. Is this fair? Non-Muslims can commit serious crimes and get exemption from Islamic laws. Muslims who commit serious crimes get punished under Islamic laws. So Muslims who commit murder get dragged into the public square after Friday prayers and get beheaded. Non-Muslims relax in jail.
6. So, if I get arrested and charged for murder, all I need to do is to tell the court that I had in fact renounced Islam a long time ago and then I escape punishment under Hudud. Or will I instead get charged for apostasy and get put to death for leaving Islam? So, I escape the punishment for murder under Hudud but I still die for apostasy.
7. So you see, PAS leaders like Nasrudin Hassan need to think things through carefully before they open their mouths or else people might start forming an opinion that all PAS leaders are outdated and narrow-minded country bumpkins. “The existing legal system has not been successful, so there is a need for an alternative system,” said Nasrudin Hassan.
8. Ah, so now he whacks the system and blames that for the problems facing the country. The system is not working so we abolish the system and we replace it with another more workable system. Is it really a system failure or an implementation (human) failure? Any system, when badly or wrongly implemented, or implemented with mala fide intent, will fail. So is it a system failure or a human failure?
9. A Constitutional Monarchy is good. There is nothing wrong with this system. But when it is used to topple a legitimately elected state government, like what happened in Perak, then what do we do? Do we remove the Monarchy and change Malaysia into a Republic? Do we blame the system or the manipulation of the system?
10. Why is the present legal system bad? And how can Hudud improve things? This is where Nasrudin Hassan needs to present his case and convince Malaysians that things would improve by removing the British system in favour of an Islamic system. By just quoting the murder of Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya as an example of a failed system without further explanation on how Hudud could have prevented her murder is a stupid argument not befitting someone of the status of a PAS Youth leader.
11. The failure of the present system is not because it happens to be a British system and that by abolishing it in favour of an Islamic system all our problems would be solved. The failure of the present system is because the so-called Muslims managing the system are corrupt to the core.
12. The Muslim political leaders are corrupt. The Muslim civil servants are corrupt. The Muslim judges are corrupt. The Muslim police officers are corrupt. The Muslim MACC officers are corrupt. The Muslim public prosecutors are corrupt. The Muslim lawyers representing criminals are corrupt and they bribe judges to fix their clients’ cases.
And so on.
13. It is not that there are no corrupt non-Muslims as well. There are. In fact, there are as many corrupt non-Muslims as there are corrupt Muslims. But it is the Muslims and not the non-Muslims who are asking for Hudud to be implemented so I am focusing my argument on the so-called righteous Muslims who are actually very corrupt and not righteous at all.
14. You mean to say that every single PAS leader and member is above corruption? Come on! Some PAS people are also corrupt. As what Ibrahim Ali said: the only difference between PAS and Umno is that the PAS people utter ‘Bismillah’ before they take a bribe whilst Umno people do not.
15. Malaysia can abolish the present legal system. Malaysia can adopt Islamic laws such as Hudud. But if Muslim judges, police officers, MACC investigators, lawyers and public prosecutors can be bribed to rig cases then no system in the world will work.
16. You mean to tell me that corrupt Muslim judges, police officers, public prosecutors, lawyers, and so on, who are involved in Hudud-related cases will not take bribes? If they normally take bribes then they will take bribes notwithstanding what the occasion is. It does not matter whether the case is under Hudud laws or common laws.
17. Hudud is merely the punishment. But before the criminals can be punished they must first be put on trial. For a fee the AG’s Chambers can declare that the case is NFA (no further action) because of ‘lack of evidence’. For a fee the police can declare that they investigated the case and found no evidence of guilt. For a fee the judge can declare that no prima facie case had been made against the accused and discharge the accused without the defence being called. Can Hudud solve the crime problem when cases can be rigged and criminals can bribe Muslim officials to get off?
18. What about if they fabricate evidence against a political enemy of those who walk in the corridors of power and an innocent man is punished? An innocent person can face punishment if the police, AG and judge say that the person is guilty even if that person is not. Can Hudud prevent this from happening? How can Hudud ensure that the system remains free of corruption and abuse?
19. Nasrudin Hassan, please study history. Once upon a time the western world also implemented God’s law. But the church was so corrupt that injustice prevailed. The church eliminated the enemies of the many kings of Europe by using God’s laws as the weapon. Innocent people suffered because they opposed the church and/or the kings. In the name of God religious people killed those who did not kowtow to the powers-that-be. We have gone down this road before. And life began to improve only when the people revolted and overthrew their corrupted leaders and got rid of God’s laws in favour of democratic republics.
20. So no, the answer does not lie in God’s laws. In fact, God’s laws were actually the problem because it was so easy to manipulate the so-called Word of God and no one dared question the injustice lest they be accused of being anti-God. If the system is not working then don’t change the system. Get rid of the people who are manipulating and corrupting the system.
21. For that matter, the Westminster system of government also does not seem to be working. The opposition Pakatan Rakyat garners 50% of the popular vote but can’t win 50% of the seats. Barisan Nasional can still form the federal government even if they garner only 45% of the popular vote. Pakatan Rakyat would have to garner 60% of the popular vote to be able to form the federal government.
22. This means, under the present system, Pakatan Rakyat can never form the federal government because it is impossible for it to garner 60% of the popular vote with the election fraud, phantom voters, postal voting, gerrymandering, and so on, going on. So what do we do? Do we abolish general elections? If we do then how do we choose our government? Or do we just let the military run the country?
23. What we must do is to get rid of the corrupt Muslims heading the Elections Commission (SPR). It is the Muslims in the SPR who are the problem. And no Islamic system can improve things if the Muslims who are supposed to be the implementers are corrupt.
24. “We have opened up our doors to everyone including our partners in Pakatan for a discussion. I don’t think that goes against the spirit of Pakatan Rakyat that aims to form a just government,” said Nasrudin Hassan.
25. My dear Nasrudin Hassan, justice cannot be achieved this way. Justice, which is supposed to be the foundation of Islam, can only be achieved when Muslims can understand what the word justice means. Currently they do not. Muslims talk about justice. But there is no justice in their hearts. Their hearts are black with injustice. This is where the problem lies.