Pages

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Islamisation of the Civil Courts

Annuar Zainal Abidin, former chief judge of Malaya and former Suhakam commissioner, talks to Malaysiakini about creeping Islamisation in the courts. This was what he said:

... This is why I said that some judges are influenced by Islamic teachings or feelings, which is more dangerous. If they are influenced by Islamic teachings then they must be knowledgeable. They must really know the subject matter. Otherwise, you don’t apply (Islamic teachings in your judgment) because you are sitting as a civil judge. You are not sitting as a syariah court judge. You are not qualified in syariah law. How can you apply according to the syariah law in making your ruling ... especially when you are qualified as a civil (judge)?

There is this story of a magistrate who qualified from an Islamic university. I was the chief judge when I was looking through the records and I noted (his decision in sentencing) offenders who had driven under the influence of alcohol.

The non-Malays were fined about RM2,000 while the Muslim offenders were fined around RM4,000. So I asked him (the magistrate) why these offenders were treated differently? He told me, ‘You know sir, under the Road Traffic Act the fine is RM2,000 but he is a Muslim, he can’t drink. That is why I took him to task.’ But I told him, ‘You are now in a civil court, forget about your Islamic university.’

It would seem that Islamisation has disadvantaged the Muslims more, well, at least in one case.

3 comments:

  1. How can a judge be allowed to fine more than the law allow? Was the decision overturned? Our justice system is a mockery due to Dr. M messing around with it. Its full of conflicts made up of 'half past six' legal minds.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gone are the days when judges were truly amanah in carrying out the duty given to them. Civil court judges must remember they do not represent any particular kind of Malaysians, such as Muslim Malaysians, Hindu Malaysians and so on, but all Malaysians. By trying to apply Islamic law principles (which is not provided for by civil laws), these judges have breach the amanah entrusted to them. If they are biased towards one community's laws, how are they to protect and give a fair hearing to the rest (non-Muslims in this case). To whom shall the non-Muslims of Malaysia go to seek redress? Moreover, most Muslim civil judges are trained in civil law and not Islamic law and as such, by attempting to apply laws which they are not trained for is terribly unjust. The way our civil and syariah judges act in the murtad cases have been ridiculous. Some days ago, a syariah judge held that Kamariah Ali, the follower of Ayah Pin could not be certified a murtad as there was no evidence to proof that she has apostasised. I mean, the woman freaking worships Ayah Pin. Is that not evidence enough? Is that not menyekutukan Allah at the highest degree? Is that not syirik of the highest degree? And don't forget, many people have been labelled murtad and kafir for much less. Have we forgetten the amalan kafir-mengkafir between UMNO and PAS?

    ReplyDelete
  3. This kind of things exist when you allow Muslim BS to cloud your judgements. By the way this Muslim BS can also be found in Pakistan, Saudi Arab, Afghanistan and the latest example can be found in Somalia over the ban on watching the world cup football games.
    Look closely at these Muslim BSs
    and you will find that they are used to divide a population along religious, racial and political lines. So much for the much touted unifying aspects of Muslim
    thinking.

    ReplyDelete