Sunday 28 April 2013

KASSIM SA comment on Karpal demand for PKR stand on PAS's Islamic Agenda.

  • So, Karpal is demanding Anwar to declare PKR's official stand on PAS' Islamist agenda. Karpal regretted that PAS had once again raised the issues of hudud and Islamic state.

    During the GE12 campaign back in 2008, Karpal had raised concern that PAS would turn the country into an Islamic state. I had then sought an answer as to where PAS would gather the 148 votes needed to amend the Constitution to delete Islam as the official religion and instead declare the country an Islamic state. Until today, I have not received any, even a stupid reply. While waiting for that reply, I now wait anxiously for Anwar to once again ignore Karpal's demand on him to state PKR's official stand. Just so that we understand the response from Anwar's silence, we first need to define, not just state, the issues before us.

    1. I will first need Karpal, or those sewaktu dengannya, to explain what hudud is and why he is against it (as he has made that sentiment known too often). Having explained what hudud is, he should then share with us, especially those yang sewaktu dengannya, what he finds grotesque about hudud, particularly in relation to Act 574 Penal Code under the Laws of Malaysia.

    2. As he has reservations about an Islamic state, it would greatly help me, and especially those sewaktu dengannya, to explain what makes an Islamic state. Then he should share with us, and especially those sewaktu dengannya, what he finds grotesque about an Islamic state, particularly in relation to the current Malaysian constitution which has been amended by BN more than 700 times. This is of particular interest to me as I am not convinced that there is such a thing called Islamic banking. Using Arabic to describe a financial instrument is as Islamic as uttering Alamak!! On the other hand, I know that there are banks in the middle-east that operate based on Islamic principles. And Islamic principles are what most Muslims do not practice in their lifestyle, leave alone understood by non-Muslims.

    In view of the ongoing GE campaign, I do not expect Karpal to favor me with a reply. Perhaps those sewaktu dengannya may care to do so?

    • Hashemi Albakri In full agreement on the issues raised. I too cannot comprehend what it all mean other than perhaps laws that are now applicable in Saudi Arabia. But it can only apply to citizens who in his ic stipulate that his religion is Islam, a grouping that does not have freedom of religion, other than that imposed on him by the authorities.
    • Kassim S.A. The Make Chinese Angry boss have been going around telling his members that he shares Karpal's views about hudud and ''Islamic state''. Considering that this boss is also Umno's housemate, it's only appropriate for Umno to explain to other Muslims why non-Muslims do not want hudud and ''Islamic state''.
      10 hours ago · Like · 1
    • Kassim S.A. Hashemi Albakri, I thought hudud refers to the bounds of acceptable behaviour and the punishments for serious crimes which are theft, highway robbery & plunder, illicit sexual intercourse, false accusation of zina and drinking alcohol. There are also punishments defined in Act 574 Penal Code under the Laws of Malaysia. Under S392, for example, the punishment for robbery is imprisonment plus fine. It further defines that if the robbery be committed between sunset and sunrise. the punishment includes a fine or whipping. So, why is Act 574 crafted by man and passed by Parliament acceptable to Malaysians but not hudud which is derived from Al-Quran?


  1. 1. Although there will be no racial discrimination in an Islamic State, it will be replaced by religious discrimination. Non-Muslim cannot be Prime Minister and many heads of important institutions.

    2. Non-Muslims are subject to additional tax compared with Muslims.

    3. Justified or not, an Islamic State will result in investors and tourists shunning Malaysia.

    4. Other countries which become Islamic State, eg. Pakistan, has largely failed.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. No Islamic State, as you repeated or made reference to 'Islamic State' in all your 4 statements, it is fair to conclude that you acknowledge there is such a thing called 'Islamic State'.

    Before I analyse each of your 4 points, could you elaborate just what is this 'Islamic State' so that we have a common criteria of definition.

  4. Islamic State apparently is a relative modern concept as explained in Wikipedia: Islamic State and it appear that there are many versions and not all Muslims believe/support an Islamic State?

    What I think some Muslims' concept of Islamic State? is:
    1. Ruled by a Council of Ulamas who obviously cannot be non-Muslims nor nor are they elected as in a secular democracy
    2. non-Muslims in an Islamic State are referred to as dhimmis
    3. subject to the Sharia law in which court a non-Muslim cannot be a witness
    4. conflicting opinions about whether the Sharia law could also be applied to non-Muslims. If yes, it is unfair to subject a non-believer to the laws of a religion they do not believe in.

    Hopefully after May 5 I may have more time to research more for a better response so over to you Nana Kassim.