MM Online - Death penalty opponents have no humanity, says Hadi (extracts):
KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 21 — In his harshest condemnation yet of the move to abolish the death penalty, PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang declared that its supporters lack humanity.
In a lengthy statement today, he said Islam upheld the practice of Qisas (retaliatory) punishment for crimes, including that of murder.
“The priority to preserve human life is a living principle to which even dietary laws are rendered secondary, permitting the consumption of prohibited foods rather than death by starvation,” Hadi said.
He said that according to Islamic teachings, the death penalty meted out to criminals gives life, as it saves the lives of countless others by eliminating said criminals who could have gone on to become a disease upon society.
I consider the above statement by Hadi Awang as nonsense and a deceitful twist of the instructions of Allah swt. But then Hadi Awang has been known to tok-kok.
While the above 2nd last paragraph of his 'extracted' speech, that regarding the permitting [of] consumption of prohibited foods rather than death by starvation is correct Islamic commonsense dictate, Hadi Awang has been very naughty to follow that up by slipping in a following paragraph in which he has the brazen thick-skin to say the death penalty meted out to criminals gives life, as it saves the lives of countless others by eliminating said criminals who could have gone on to become a disease upon society.
That's a BIG FAT LIE as a jailed criminal (eg. murderer, and those who would be convicted with capital punishment under current unamended laws) would be lawfully incarcerated (if necessary) for life, and not necessarily under the touted 30 years imprisonment.
How can then such a criminal jailed for life go on to become a disease upon society?
Hadi Awang himself lacks humanity in insisting on the state executing-murdering a convicted killer who could be confined under humane conditions so as to protect society from such a criminal.
I propose that the jail-term for a convicted killer to range from 20 years to real-life-imprisonment.
For example, a serial killer or a cold blooded murderer should be jailed for life and never to be paroled. OTOH, a person who kills someone in a moment of passion, like retaliating excessively against a robber who has just killed a 'loved one', could merit only a 20-year sentence depending upon the circumstances and mitigating factors.
There should NOT be a 'one size fit all' jail term like 30 years.
But back to my point, namely that it is Hadi Awang himself who lacks humanity to tok-kok and twist religious instructions into a single avenue of 'an eye for an eye', meaning the convicted criminal must be executed (state murder).
Mind you, it's not a monstrous mafulat-ish mentality exclusive to the religious clergy like hadi Awang in wanting to slay back at a criminal a la 'an eye for an eye'. There are all sorts of people who have that mentality, namely, Chinese, Indians, Malays, clergy, laypersons, and even an ex-IGP, etc.
I once had a Chinese FB acquaintance who dismayed, disgusted and sickened me with his very virulent venomous insistence on the death penalty.
He invited me to view some rightwing YouTube vidoes on serial killers to win over my support for retaining the death penalty. But alas for him, I have read and appreciated numerous neutral-sourced institutionalised criminology articles including statistics which show otherwise, namely, that the death sentence does not affect serious crime rates.
As a Chinese, there is an appropriate Penang Hokkien term to describe his venomous mentality, to wit, 'sim sare moh' (the word 'sare' is pronounced like 'care' but with a typical Penang nasal sound between 's' and 'are', something like 'snare').
'Sim sare moh', translated literally, means 'his heart grows hair' or more correctly 'hair grow from/on his heart'.
The figurative meaning for such a person described means 'he himself is murderous'.
And I wasn't surprised that he turned ugly against me when I did not agree with his poisonous attitude towards executing criminals.
And I wasn't surprised that he turned ugly against me when I did not agree with his poisonous attitude towards executing criminals.
Wei...Don't stab your fellow Penerima Dedak Naj in the back....
ReplyDeleteHAHAHAHAHAHA......that's a good one, Monsterball....had my first goood laugh of the day !
DeleteI support Hadi because Qisas (equal retaliation) is mentioned by Allah in the Quran. I would also support Diya (financial compensation) paid to the heirs of a victim in the cases of murder, which is an alternative punishment to Qisas, which is also mentioned by Allah in the Quran.
ReplyDeleteI thought all the followers of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) believe life is given and taken away by their God/God's. So, why the exceptions that men decides who lives and who should die?
ReplyDeleteIsn't that a contradiction for death penalty meeted out to suicide bombers, killers, murderers, drug smugglers, desertors in war, treason etc?
Does it not show all those rules/laws laid out thousand of years ago were instead thoughts and thinking of men living in those times which are less civilised? Slavery, having harems and concubines, homosexuality, lesbianism and LGBTs were also an accepted cultural thing and so were stoning to death, cutting and chopping of hands, legs,and heads,crucification etc.
So, why the need for punishments for Hell when men like their God/Gods can equally dish out Hell for those living now?
What nonsense are all these spoken by so called holy/pious men esp of the Abrahamic faith?
Why turn back the clock to live in those uncivilised and inhumane times of past civilisations?
On this subject, I very grudgingly Sokong the Holy Hadi.... wakakakaka..
ReplyDeleteLike visiting a dentist for a Tooth Extraction....eakakakaka..
stop BS. You don't support hadi per se but the death penalty - hair do grow from your black heqart, wakakaka
DeleteDeath penalty as punishment is valid for another life taken by an assailant whether intentional or unintentional eg manslaughter or murder. This is the only way to discipline amongst adults.
ReplyDeleteWhen a life is not taken eg drug pushers, then death penalty is not justified. It should be replaced with jail, hard labour and confiscation of drug pushers' property and assets. The funds are then put into rehabilation programmes for their victims.
Death penalty is also not justified for mere possession of firearms. Such people should be forcibly conscripted into military service at the low end of regulars' pay for a fixed period of detention. Since they love firearms they can join the military and live out their fantasies and at the same time do so good for the country.
It is about rehabilitating people who commit crimes by placing them in the right places to serve the country and not filling up the jails and feeding them....
We give doctors the power to decide if an abortion is warranted, like when the mother’s life is in danger from the pregnancy, but it is a known fact that many abortions are terminated because of (in)convenience or simply because the baby is not wanted These abortions are performed in total secrecy and are not questioned or reviewed by anyone. Unborn babies with no voices are being murdered.
ReplyDeleteBecause abortion (ie the murder of babies) is legal.
But we question the same life and death power given to our learned Judges. We want to remove this power, despite the fact that every death penalty conviction is made in a court of law, the defendant has the right and voice to defend himself in public, the conviction is always documented, reviewed and can be appealed at higher courts etc.
So why do doctors have this life & death power but not judges? Who will defend the innocent voiceless babies?