Noor™

Our Federal Constitution provides Freedom of Religion as embodied in Article 11. Thus, we hear voices from some corners which want the process of leaving Islam to be made easier-since it is believed that people are free to choose their own religion.

Those who asking for these are not Muslim, or they may be Muslim, but ignorant one. Let me stress this - the law says that you are free to profess any religion, but the law doesn’t permit you to alter the religion.

Once you are Muslim, there are rules to be followed, same like when you enter a country, there are laws to be observed. Breach the laws, and there shall be consequence (Ubi culpa est, ibi poena subesse debet- Where the crime is committed, there ought punishment to be undergone). Before professing other religion, please deal with the one which you had previously chosen to submit to.

You are free to be Muslim, no compulsion, but thinks wisely before being a Muslim as renouncing Islam might not be a choice later on. The Prophet once met a person who wish to be a Muslim and he was asking for 3 days to think and The Prophet gave 3 months to him. It shows that no compulsion and no hurry in being a Muslim. After all Hidayah is from Allah, even the Prophet couldn’t bring his beloved uncle to Islam.

But I observed that some people, shielding themselves with the universal principle of human rights try to meddle with the issue of apostasy. They urge that conversion should be allowed and be made easier, as people are free to profess any religion of their choice.

In Islam, those who are leaving the religion is an apostate. Apostasy is a great sin and a punishable offence in Islam. That is a rule, which every Muslim believes to be an integral part of the religion.

Now what I find disturbing is that people who urge that conversion should be allowed and more gruesome when they want the process to be made easier, they are not talking about personal right, they are urging for changing in a system of a religion.

Lets take a look at the special position of Islam in the Federal Constitution. Yang Dipertuan Agong is empowered to enact any law in the state of emergency (darurat) EXCEPT things which concern the religion of Islam -article 150 (6A) of Federal Constitution.Impliedly it shows that Islam has a very special position in the supreme law of the land. Even YDPA cant mess with Islam in the state of emergency, what more a layman, a non-believer who is a stranger to Islam or the one who choose to be ignorant of his own religion.

The non believers who are asking for changes as regards to the issue of conversion, I take them as strangers, who is coming to my house and try to show me how to live in my own house. Muslims who are in the same camp with those people, i rather call them ignorant believers and may Allah forgive them for their ignorance (ignorantia facti excusat- ignorance of fact is an excuse).

As I can’t ask a Hindu or Buddhist to change his rituals, I expect the same from non Muslim to respect the rule we have in Islam. This mutual respect should be observed to maintain harmonious relationship in a multi racial society. [Unto you, your religion and unto me, my religion-Al kafirun:6]

Speaker of Dewan Rakyat, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia has shown his credibility in his early days as the speaker of the honorable Dewan.

On the first day, he seems to be tested by thunderous peculiar behaviors of the MPs. Today (5th May 08), he made an announcement that he will not entertain anyone raising Point of Order, unless it is meant to accelerate the proceeding of the honorable Dewan.

Responding to the decision, a veteran Mp and a renown lawyer, Karpal Singh try to show off by questioning the legality of such decision, as it impedes MPs from raising Point of Order (that can be expected from a lawyer).

The Answer given by the Tan Sri Speaker should hit the very conscience of Karpal. He said that Point of Order shouldn’t be used to cover up mischieves done by the MPs. He then cite a legal maxim “He who seeks equity must do equity”- an answer I wouldn’t expect from a politician, which serves Karpal right.haha

After 10 days of hibernation in UIA, on April 19th 2008, i went home. I packed up my stuff (my little home) and arranged it in my car.

At noon, one of my friend then came to my room, calling me to have lunch together. We then agreed to have our lunch at KLCC. I made such decision so my friend could meet his girlfriend, the girl i heard about almost every time i met him.

The girlfriend looked shock when my friend and I reached the entrance of the place we chose to eat. We then ate together and it was a pleasant lunch, with two wonderful persons.

We only leave KLCC at 10pm, after almost 5 hours, for my friend want to wait for the girlfriend, so we can go back together.

I wasn’t that sad to go home initially. Only after hours in KLCC with two wonderful persons, then the atmosphere changed. I was embraced by deep sorrowfulness.

One of them is my friend. We usually met during the working hours as lifeguard at IIUM swimming pool. The other one is his girlfriend,whom i met only once, but i feel like i knew her already because of the excitement of my friend telling me their joyful stories together.

Some troubles had befallen upon me early this year. The days were gloomy and nothing cheered my up. During those time, this very friend of mine listened to my sad stories and in exchange, he told me his joyful stories. The story cheered me up and it helped a lot in healing my deep wound. I am happy for my friend, as he doesn’t share the same unfortunate fate of mine.

After months of hearing stories, finally on 19th April i met his girl. Indeed, she is just like how my friend described. Only God knew how happy i was seeing them together.

Only then i found leaving UIA to be a tragedy. Leaving my room, leaving my mahallah-where i stayed for 5 years, leaving AIKOL-my studying and teaching place, leaving swimming pool-my soul, leaving my friends and the most hurting, leaving two wonderful persons-whom i spent my last day with.

Apocrypha said “A faithful friend is the medicine of life” and Homer once said “A sympathetic friend can be quite as dear as a brother.” I find these two statements to be so true. It is also said “We’re born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Only through our love and friendship can we create the illusion for the moment that we’re not alone.”

I believe that I’m blessed to know this person who is willing to share his joyful stories with me. I’m then honoured to meet the girl i always heard of, before my own eyes.

I thank God and I’m so grateful, for His compassion and benevolence, letting me know these two wonderful personalities. I pray may Allah bless both of them always, vest upon them love, happiness and joyfulness. May they always be together.

My friends,I promise that the memories will never perish as I will always cherish it

Thank You Nickos, Thank You Nisa. Thank You my friends.

The above Latin maxim is often quoted to stress the importance of having justice to be done, as “fiat justitia” means “let justice be done” and it further complimented with “ruat coelum” which means “though the heaven should fall” which is to show the importance of justice to be done disregard of what ever consequence that might await later.

The story behind the maxim is far more interesting, as Lord Denning told us in his book “The Family Story”.

The story goes as someone named PISO passed a death sentence on a soldier for the offence of murdering a person named GAIUS. He ordered a CENTURION (Rome army officer) to execute the guilty found soldier. When the soldier was about to be executed, GAIUS came forward himself and he happened to be alive and well. The CENTURION reported the news to PISO.

PISO instead of discharging the innocent soldier, passed death sentence unto GAIUS and the CENTURION, while maintaining the death sentence on the soldier.

The reason of sentencing the all three to death is because the soldier had already been sentenced, the CENTURION is because he disobeyed the initial order and GAIUS for being the cause of death of two innocent men. PISO then gave excuse “Fiat Justitia, Ruat Coelum-let justice be done, though the heaven shall fall”.

It can be seen that the maxim was originally used as an excuse for a grave injustice and outrages case that had taken place, yet it is often be quoted when people want to emphasis the grave need of having justice to be done.

The above maxim has been quoted by our court in several cases, namely in Merdeka University Berhad v Government of Malaysia [1981] 2 MLJ 356, State Of Kelantan v The Government Of The Federation Of Malaya [1963] MLJ 355 and Asia Pacific Parcel Tankers v The Owners of the Ship ‘Normar Splendour’ [1999] 6 MLJ 652.

Datuk Seri Samy Vellu is a veteran in Malaysia political arena. He is undisputed Minister. He always defends himself all out, transferring liabilities to others, even to God.

He once replied to criticism made by Datuk M Kayveas by saying “Who is him to criticize me? He is not even a minister.” and indeed, Kayveas is only a deputy minister.

He once said “Mereka kata saya kafir, saya mana ada kafir..”

When Datuk Shahrir Samad, PAC Chairman made adverse comments againts Samy’s ministry, he replied “Let Shahrir do it, he is a big man, he can do anything.”

He once said “Keadilan can go to hell!.” and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Keadilan Advisor replied “Samy Vellu himself is hell, where else to go?”

The most outstanding comment made by him is when he was asked about one of the landslide case that took place, where he replied “Ini terjadi bukan Samy Vellu punya kuasa, Tuhan punya kuasa.” Not even God can escape the blaming of Datuk Seri Samy Vellu.

I recall the reign of ancient Chinese Emperors, where an emperor will be overthrown once the country is doomed with natural disaster, as it is believed to connote the wrath of “The Heaven”.

Nevertheless, Datuk Seri Samy doesnt share the same fate.Despite of the land slide, water burst at the Putrajaya buildings and the latest (at the time this article is written) the crack of the wall of justice (court house of Jalan Duta) and the roof of justice falls down (Magistrate Court No 4 of Kompleks Mahkamah Jalan Duta), Datuk Seri Samy Vellu still at his seat as Work Minister.

According to Wikipedia, He is the second longest serving minister in the country after Dato’ Seri Rafidah Aziz.

Maybe its time for Datuk Seri Samy Vellu to follow the footstep of the former Prime Minister. I recall the remarks made by Raja Azlan Shah (as His Majesty then was) in the case of Pengarah Tanah dan Galian, Wilayah Persekutuan v Sri Lempah Enterprise Sdn Bhd. [1979] “Every legal power must have legal limits, otherwise there is dictatorship”…

Exordium

One couple went to seek justice as to who should have the custody of their child, the husband is a Muslim and the wife is a non muslim. The question is which court they should go?

a) Civil court

b)Syariah court

the answer seems to be = none of the above.

Article 121(1A) of Federal Constitution prohibits High Courts from interfering the matters which fall under the jurisdiction of Syariah Court. Whereas Syariah Court can only try those who are Muslim.

The husband would argue that the case of custody of a Muslim child is Syariah Court matter,whereas the wife cannot initiate an action in Syariah Court as she is not a Muslim, as Syariah court only tries Muslim parties.

Solution??

In my humble opinion, the only way this problem can be solved is to give Syariah Court the same status as the 2 High Courts. It means that Syariah court should be merged with the civil court and it shall become part of the civil court. With that, should an alien who is Muslim from Mars comes to Malaysia with his Non Muslim spouse,and they want to dissolve their marriage, no jurisdictional problem would arise.

How to do this? Our Art 121 reads "they shall be 2 High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, namely High Court of Malaya and High Court of Sabah & Sarawak. The problem is simply solve by changing it to "there shall be 3 High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, namely High Court of Malaya, High Court of Sabah & Sarawak and Syariah High Court…"

Problem?

Religion of Islam is a state matter, which means each and every state in the Federation of Malaysia governs Islamic law in the way they like.To merge the Syariah Court jurisdiction with the Civil court would require consent of Sultans as they are the Head of Islam in their respective States. Would they consent to give up their power to the Federal Government…?

Suatu malam, jauh sepeninggal Rasulullah, Bilal bin Rabbah, salah seorang sahabat utama, bermimpi dalam tidurnya.Dalam mimpinya itu, Bilal bertemu dengan Rasulullah. "Bilal, sudah lama kita berpisah, aku rindu sekali kepadamu," demikian Rasulullah berkata dalam mimpi Bilal."Ya, Rasulullah, aku pun sudah teramat rindu ingin bertemu," kata Bilal masih dalam mimpi-Nya. Setelah itu, mimpi tersebut berakhir begitu saja. Dan Bilal bangun dari tidurnya dengan hati yang gulana. Ia dirundung rindu.

Keesokan harinya, ia menceritakan mimpi tersebut pada salah seorang sahabat lainnya. Seperti udara, kisah mimpi Bilal segera memenuhi ruangan kosong di hampir seluruh penjuru Madinah. Hari itu, Madinah benar-benar terbungkus rasa haru. Kenangan semasa Rasulullah masih bersama mereka kembali hadir, seakan baru kelmarin saja Rasulullah tiada. Satu persatu dari mereka sibuk sendiri dengan kenangannya bersama manusia mulia itu.

Menjelang senja, penduduk Madinah seolah bersepakat meminta Bilal mengumandangkan adzan Maghrib, padahal Bilal sudah cukup lama tidak menjadi muadzin sejak Rasulullah tiada. Seolah, penduduk Madinah ingin menggenapkan kenangannya hari itu dengan mendengar adzan yang dikumandangkan Bilal. Akhirnya, setelah diminta dengan sedikit memaksa, Bilal pun menerima dan bersedia menjadi muadzin kali itu.

Senjapun datang mengantar malam, dan Bilal mengumandangkan adzan. Tatkala, suara Bilal terdengar, seketika, Madinah seolah tersekat oleh berjuta memori. Tak terasa hampir semua penduduk Madinah menitiskan air mata. "Marhaban ya Rasulullah," bisik salah seorang dari mereka.

Sebenarnya, ada sebuah kisah yang membuat Bilal menolak untuk mengumandangkan adzan setelah Rasulullah wafat. Waktu itu, beberapa saat setelah malaikat maut menjemput kekasih Allah, Muhammad, Bilal mengumandangkan adzan. Jenazah Rasulullah, belum dimakamkan. Satu persatu kalimat adzan dikumandangkan sampai pada kalimat, "Asyhadu anna Muhammadarrasulullah." Tangis penduduk Madinah yang mengantar jenazah Rasulullah pecah. Seperti suara petir yang hendak membelah langit Madinah.

Kemudian setelah, Rasulullah telah dimakamkan, Abu Bakar meminta Bilal untuk adzan. "Adzanlah wahai Bilal," perintah Abu Bakar. Dan Bilal menjawab perintah itu, "Jika engkau dulu membebaskan demi kepentinganmu, maka aku akan mengumandangkan adzan. Tapi jika demi Allah kau dulu membebaskan aku, maka biarkan aku menentukan pilihanku". "Hanya demi Allah aku membebaskanmu Bilal," kata Abu Bakar. "Maka biarkan aku memilih pilihanku," pinta Bilal. "Sungguh, aku tak ingin adzan untuk seorang pun sepeninggal Rasulullah," lanjut Bilal. "Kalau demikian, terserah apa kehendakmu," jawab Abu Bakar.

Bilal bin Rabah, terakhir melaksanakan tugasnya sebagai muadzin saat Umar bin Khattab menjabat sebagai khalifah. Saat itu, Bilal sudah bermukim di Syiria dan Umar mengunjunginya. Saat itu, waktu shalat telah tiba dan Umar meminta Bilal untuk mengumandangkan adzan sebagai tanda panggilan shalat.

Bilal pun naik ke atas menara dan bergemalah suaranya. Semua sahabat Rasulullah, yang ada di situ menangis tak terkecuali. Dan di antara mereka, tangis yang paling kencang dan keras adalah tangis Umar bin Khattab. Dan itu, menjadi adzan terakhir yang dikumandangan Bilal, hatinya tak kuasa menahan kenangan manis bersama manusia tercinta, nabi akhir zaman. Sama2 kite merenung sejauh mane kecintaan kite kpd Rasulullah S.A.W.

*This is a reproduction of a bulletin posted by my learned friend Khalid. I find it very interesting and it should not be wasted as it will be replaced by new bulletins and I hope it will be well read by my fellow Muslim Brother and Sister and also by others

I watched Hijrah Remaja on Astro Ria, a discussion was made on Solat Tarawih : 8 or 20? Among the panelists, whom I know one of them, my former classmate in Qawaid Fiqhiyyah class by Prof Razali Nawawi.

The discussion went to scrutinizing the legality of 20 rakaat of Solat Tarawih. The issue here is whether the panelists are the right person to discuss this. Except for the one they call ustaz, I beg to differ from the assumption that others are qualified. They cited mafhum of various hadiths, stating that the Prophet only perfomed 8 rakaat of Tarawih. I still can go with that. But another guy, played the role which seems to belong to the Muktazilah, by saying “We look this matter from logical side, after 8 rakaat we will no longer able to listen carefully the verses cited by the imam.” Now logic plays its role in determining matters of ta’abbudiyyah.

First of all, Im not to deny the legality of the hadith. I accept it by it is and it binds me. However, when discussing a hukm, we ought to refer to 4 main sources, Al-Quran, As-Sunnah, Ijmak and Qiyas. The 20 rakaat of prayer was initiated by Umar Al-Khattab R.A, and it was not reported that any of sahabat r.a opposed it. It then became IJMAK, as it was agreed to by all muslim at that very time. Furthermore, the ijmak of Sahabah can be considered as the best Ijmak, as they lived and were nurtured under the hand of the Holy Prophet himself. Besides that, no hadith prohibits such practice. This is the legacy of Sahabah, and was affirmed by thousands of Ulama, rahimahumullah.

The odd took place as several panelists (ulama?) criticising this practice. Who on earth are they? To my former classmate, I believe you didnt ever fulfill 80% requirement of the attendance for Prof Razali class and I believe u didnt even pass the subject. For logic guy, why dont you pray 1 rakaat for Tarawih, as it is more easy to be done and you will be able digest better the verses cited by the imam.

After all, look back to ourselves. The ability is not given, but must be earned. I once wrote about increadible kid name ASLAM, who amazed me that he can stand for 20 rakaat tarawih, where every rakaat consists of one page from the holy Quran. Even this kid could do it. We are used to the easy, but dare not to go with the hard. Allah mentioned in the holy Quran “And seek help with patience and Solat, and indeed that (solat) is hard except to those who khusyuk.”(al-Baqarah)

Hijrah remaja for me is good, as long as it does not discuss topics which do not suit their age, such as the legality of 20 rakaat of tarawih, divorce and other nonsense thing. A lot more can be discussed, such as how to pass exam with flying colors or how to kick mat rempits asses.

They called themselves Salafi. They practiced what they find that in compliant with the practice of the Prophet and if it is otherwise, they called it bidah and keep themselves away.

This is for sure good, to do what they feel in line with the tradition of the Prophet and to abstain from what is not. The Prophet said “And every new invention is bidah, and every bidah is astray and every astray is in the hellfire”. This very verse is the core of their belief, to abstain themselves from what is new in religion.

Bidah is not a hukum. There are five hukum, consist of wajib, mandub (sunat), mubah (permissible), makruh (abominable) and haram. Some added Sah and Batil to make it seven in number.

Bidah is defined as new thing. Every new thing must be measured, whether it is inline with shariah or against the shariah. An-Nawawi classified bidah into Bidah Hasanah (good bidah) and Bidah Qabihah (bad bidah). Every new thing which is incompliance with shariah is bidah hasanah, whereas if it is against the spirit and the principles of shariah, then it is bidah qabihah.

What are examples of bidah hasanah? As-Syafie as an example opined that to utter the niat before takbir is sunat, and this was never been practiced by the Prophet. Other examples are, to recite talqin to the dead, to learn and explain the attributes of Allah, to compile the Quran, to do zikir after prayer in jamaah etc.

The notion that Bidah is classified into bidah hasanah and bidah qabihah is supported by numbers of ulama, even thousands of them. The most outstanding are An-Nawawi, Syeikh Izzuddin Abd Salam, Ibn Qudamah and the writer of kitab Fathul Bari Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani. These are undisputed outstanding jurists of all time.

Salafi on the other hand, regards all bidah as the same, whether it is good or not, based on the abovementioned hadith. It’s their right to have such view and their view is much respected by others. However, the tolerance goes one way, as they attack and curse those who do not share the same view as them. They call people who utter the niat when praying as doing bidah, they curse Syafie for some of his views. They go and divide people, as can be seen in Malaysia nowadays. I have legal authorities from Quran and sunnah which support the legality of those things which are called bidah by Salafi, but to state it here consumes lots of time and will be an opening for a further attack by Salafi.

In Islam, we are allowed to differ and we should respect other who do not share the same idea as us, as long as the differences have its root in Shariah. I recalled the act of As-Syafie who adored his very teacher, Imam Malik, when he went to Egypt and found that people there are fanatic with Malik. As-Syafie adored Imam Malik very much, as he used to say “I use this Muwatta of Imam Malik as hujjah between me and my Lord”. However, when he found people were doing things which should not be done in praising Malik, he then wrote a book “Critics to Malik”, to indicate that Imam Malik is not perfect as the people think he is.

In another situation, When As-Syafie traveled to Kufah, the place of Abu Hanifah, the founding father of Hanafi School of thought, he prayed Subuh and he omitted the recitation of Qunut, which he found that to be mandub (sunat). The people there asked him “Sir, why didn’t u recite Qunut?”. He then replied “I dare not to differ while Im beside Abu Hanifah” , and at that very time , Abu Hanifah was not even alive, as he died on the date of the birth of Syafie. These stories connote the importance of respecting other opinions.

Salafi is lack of that spirit, the spirit of tolerance in facing differences. They keep cursing others and discredit the honorable jurists who were having different opinion than what they believe.

On the night of Friday 13^th of October, I was late for isya` prayer at the masjid. Missing a rakaat and on my way to the saf, I could see children, some are praying and some are playing and I spotted a boy in brown jubah, aged around five to six years old, performing the former. After eight rakaat, as usual, I departed from the jamaah and did my witir. Then I proceed to recite the Holy Book, with a hope that I manage to finish it in the very month of Ramadhan.

My attention then was directed to the boy in brown jubah, who I saw when I was to join the congregation of Isya` prayer. Unlike other kids (and me), he was the only one of his kind who stayed behind performing the remaining terawih. It surprised me that this boy performed his prayer well, flawless, without any sign of dreary or depress in his face, as if he understood the verses recited by the imam. I didn’t see anyone instructed him to pray. He did it just by himself.

I must note here that at the Masjid of UIA, a full page will be recited in a rakaat, and this kid bared it without any sign of boredom. He was the only kid there in his saf. After salam, before going into another two rakaat, he moved around a little, then get back to his saf and did his prayer as he did aforementioned, until the very last rakaat of witir. In a rakaat, when the imam prostrated for Sujud Tilawah, some makmum did confuse but not this little guy. He did it as if it was not strange to him, to prostrate without bowing for rukuk first.

After finishing a juz of the Holy Book, I remained in the masjid, instead of going back. I had tons of reasons to get back to my room, but I decided to be there in His house. And that just because I wanted to see this little kid who managed to fascinate and amaze me.

I saw Dr Said Bohraoua and later I saw the boy walking with some old fella, his father i assumed and the old guy headed to Dr Said, shook their hand and hugged each other. They then proceed to the exit of Masjid, which situated besides me. Dr Said greeted me and said to the old guy in arabic,”I teach this barakah ulama usul-fiqh”. Then I shook his hand.

What came to my mind when I saw this little guy, was the holy verse, Al-Furqan : 74 which reads [And those who pray, "Our Lord! Grant unto us wives and offspring who will be the comfort of our eyes, and give us (the grace) to lead the righteous."]. Indeed, deep in my conscious I felt that this boy matched with the criterion, “comfort of our eyes”. I soothed my eyes to have him in my sight, on that very night of Ramadhan. I wish someday I will have someone like him to be my son. Amin

Back to the story, after shaking hand with Dr Said, I then shook hand with the boy’s father. I later forwarded my hand to the boy to shake his hand. He shook my hand and I asked him, “Siapa nama?” and I will never forget his reply, “Aslam”.

It is disappointing to hear that the government would not review the sacking of three Supreme Court judges which took place in 1988. The de facto law minister, Datuk Seri Nazri had spoken his unwelcome decision. He further mentioned that unless there is “new fact emerges”, no review will take place.

Responding to that, Tun Salleh pointed out five reasons of which he argued to be important facts to be the basis to review his case, and later, the learned minister had rejected the reasons and alleged those reasons did not merit a review. In furtherance to that, he defined the “new fact emerges” as, if any of the member of the tribunal comes forward to declare that he was told to sack Tun Salleh. In absence of that, no review will be made.

What amazes me is that the one who initiated the disgraceful act of sacking those judges, the former Prime Minister Tun Mahathir was reported to admit that he told Tun Salleh “to go”, on the basis of “to prevent any scandal” (NST, 27/9/06). What I have in mind is whether it is stated in the Federal Constitution that a judge can be removed from his office on the ground of preventing scandal. Article 125(4) of Federal Constitution provides that a Federal (it was then read as Supreme) Court judge would only be removed on the ground of misbehaviour or inability to discharge the function as a judge, and should a scandal amount to misbehaviour or inability to perform his duty as a Federal Court judge, such thing was yet to happen and unfortunately had not happened. It is a well known notion that a man shall be presumed to be innocent until otherwise proven and to convict a person before he committed the wrong is prejudice. The admission made by the former Prime Minister should be looked as “new fact emerges”, as it reveals the intention behind the constitution of the tribunal and going by the maxim of which “equity looks into intention rather than form”, we can conclude that the tribunal was used by the former prime minister to accomplish his intention of which he claimed as “to prevent scandal” rather than the Lord President himself had misbehaved.

Another amazing fact is that Datuk Nazri had pointed out that the five incidents mentioned by Tun Salleh have no merit as it took place before the tribunal was formed (NST, 28/09/2006). I recall what Tun Salleh had mentioned a day before, in the same newspaper, where he mentioned the fifth incident is his first audience with Sultan of Johor, the concerned Yang Dipertuan Agong, after his dismissal, as he acted as advisor to the Rulers when the government was to curb the immunity of the Rulers. He mentioned that His Highness regretted for what happened to Tun Salleh and realized that He had been “made use of”. To include this as incident before the tribunal was formed is an unforgivable error and as such, the contention made by the minister shall not survive. The minister ought to properly read the reasons put forward by Tun Salleh before making any comment, which had caused humiliation against the minister himself. I must agree with Tun Salleh when he said the minister had made his decision impromptu or in haste once the minister was asked about reviewing the 1988 case, and again he had done the same mistake, when responding to the reasons put forward by the former Lord President.

Besides the aforementioned mistake, the minister had confined the meaning of “new fact emerges” to what he believes as if any of the 5 judges of the tribunal admits that he was told to remove Tun Salleh. Impliedly, the basis of which the case will be reviewed had been narrowed down to only one basis and that one is admission of the member of the tribunal that they were told to remove Tun Salleh. It will never be just if tons of evidences are put forward and it become wasteful just because of non-compliance with the only reason that had been put forward by the minister.

To put it in Tan Sri Azmi’s words, it is not millions ringgit of compensation is demanded, nor to reinstate those judges back to their position as they were too old for that. What is demanded is restoration of the judges’s honour and hopefully with that, the bench will regain public confidence and appear to be more independent and transparent compared to what it is today, and public confidence is the only strength and force that the court has in discharging its duty to uphold the law and to do justice without fear and favour.

I quote the words of  Lord Hewart in Rex v Sussex Justices, where the learned law lord observed that “A long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should undoubtedly and manifestly be seen to be done”. What happened in 1988 had shown that justice was not seen to be done and it is doubtful whether justice was done in the first place. And I believe that everyone who indulges themselves in legal world, be it lawyers or judges or law lecturers or law undergraduates like me, and even those who are not in the legal community, are eager to see the judiciary to be put at its proper place, as it was before the 1988 judicial crisis.

A judge was sacked from the top position of judiciary 18 years ago. With him, another 2 apex court judges were also sacked from their office. The event was so controversial as it is still being debated, whether the judges were rightly and justly sacked from their office.

Responding to this matter, a retired Chief Judge Of Malaya, Tan Sri Anuar is of view that the matter shall be reviewed, for the benefit of the public, so the public confident on our court can be revived.

A retired Court of Appeal judge, Datuk Shaik Daud Ismail,is of opinion that the epidemic of non confidence in judiciary emerged after the sacking of the 3 judges of the apex court. Datuk Shaik Daud in his farewell speach in 2002 said,

‘It used to be that the tinting of judges’ cars was for my security but now I say it is to hide my embarrassment.’

Such feeling emerges as result of public non confidence on the judiciary.

The victim of the vexious action himself, Tun Salleh Abas had broke his 18 years silence by his call for the matter to be reviewed. He called for amendment of article 121 of the Federal Constitution, where the vesting clause shall be reinstated, as it was before the article is amended in. The hardest thing to hear is the fact that this person who was the Head of the judiciary is disillusioned with the law. Worst than that, a very learned and notable person who his passion about law is widely known and once a Supreme Court judge, Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader was also disillusioned with the law and such had cost his life.

One of the greatest architects of our legal system, the late Tun Suffian Hashim once expressed his view that the 1988 crisis had destroyed the values that was embedded in the judiciary, which had prop up the prominent reputation of the judiciary as it was before the crisis. Many people refer to the pre 1988 judiciary as the golden age of the judiciary, where the organ was led by Tun Syed Sheikh Hassan Barakbah, Tun Suffian Hashim, Raja Azlan Shah (as His Majesty then was) and lastly Tun Salleh Abas.

Why must we look at the past? It is because the past had made what we are today…

Six years have passed. I am still agonized by the past, which has given major impact to my life. The betrayal I faced long time ago by my first student, whom I place high trust upon, tormented me so much, to the extent that I start to wonder whether I am being treated justly and fairly for what I have done. I try to find out the justification for undesired things which emerge in my life but still I can’t. The Creator’s plan is out of my reasoning faculty to reach.

Justice and fair in my perspective is not the setting bar to what is justice and fair in the eyes of The Creator. I tend to forget that, but with His guidance, I manage to tell myself that The Creator plays role more than what we think we are capable of. The final words and decision rest in His Hand and submitting to that fact I must.

March 13^th 2006 was like other ordinary typical days. SPM result was announced and I curious to know the result of my so called student. I initiate the move by sending him a message, and I got a reply that his result was not so good. I tried to be nice by replying to the message and I managed to get the result, and he was right about his result. I also asked him whether he has any idea about whom is the person sending the message, yet no reply.

On the 16^th, early in the morning I got a message asking who am I and I reply accordingly. To be polite, I posted simple questions about his choice for UPU and about his PLKN. He then answered accordingly. On that very night at 11.14 p.m., I received a phone call and it was him. I cannot believe what happened on that night and I think that it might only be a missed call. Luckily I was wrong. He really called me.

The first thing, he asked whether he is bothering me or not and I give him positive answer. After few words, he proceeded with an apology. I waited 6 years for this event to come and it has finally come at the time when I don’t really bother about it anymore. I had even regretted for being his mentor. The guilt emerged out of frustration and dissatisfaction of seeing my student going against my teaching. But then, the sincerity expressed is one thing that I cannot resist. When people start being honest and polite, I am no longer that lionhearted as I used to be, though the thing might be bitter to be gulped down. My anger and frustration were gone by the wind. After all, he is my student, whose my pray goes to, prayer of his well being in this worldly life and hereafter.

He then confessed about his wrong doings, which he had made against me. He told me to ignore his rudeness in the past though it was done blatantly yet ignorantly. I was totally touched by such admission. I replied that I also apologized for any wrong doings on my part and he rebutted by saying that I had committed no wrong. He pointed out that he is the one who had committed wrong in the first place. After all, he said that I was his teacher and he is the one who refuses to follow my teaching. I was deeply touched by that line. At last, he expressly recognized me as his teacher, an honorable recognition I assume.

Then the discussion proceeded with questions on choices for UPU and again, words of apologize came out. I told him that I had no heartfelt for what had been done against me, which in fact had forced out all of my dreadful side of mine into pictures.

I had once promised that I will help him in what ever circumstances, and such promise will be honoured accordingly. I talk to talk and I walk to walk. My promise is a lifetime promise and it is in force at any time as the blood runs through my veins.10 minutes of phone call makes me so relief, as now, no one is against me, especially my dearest student. I feel like if I am to face death, I can face it tranquilly. The past 6 years of suffering and agony shall only be part of my history. This will be the beginning for me. This incident gives me a little hope to believe and to trust more people, which I have for a long time refuse to.

Issue on Islamic law in Malaysia emerges again. Article 121(1A) of Federal constitution is urged to be amended. This very article of our constitution puts a veil between the civil court and Syariah court, in cases where a matter fall under the jurisdiction of Syariah court, the civil court namely the High Court shall not interfere.

The case of Moorthy has created commotion between devotees of religions. The vital part of the case is when the wife was claimed to have no remedy in law, which means she can’t seek justice in either of our court, namely the Syariah court and civil court. This is a big loop hole in our legal system. Lacunae (or loop holes) in law can be filled in by referring to the common law as stood in England up to the specified dated as provided by section 3 of Civil Law Act 1956, but loop holes in legal system needs the attention of the MPs of our Parliament, by way of amending or enacting law, to set right the matter, OR maybe our judges can be more creative in interpreting the legislation itself, by finding way to do justice by manipulating the word of the law. After all, that’s what the lawyers and judges do. The language rule of interpretation shall play its role, as had been practiced by Lord Denning, where he introduce a very rule of interpretation which was famously known as Purposive approach, where a judge shall look behind the rigidity and literal meaning of the provision of law to infer the intention of the legislature.

But still, this power to interprete the constitution and law is vested to the civil superior courts, namely the High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal court. When a matter comes before the Syariah court, the similar power was not given to the superiors of Syariah Court and they by hook or by crook have to go by the literal wording of the law. This is another loop hole which needs attention of the legislature, i.e. the Parliament.

Thus, I humbly believe that all of these issues can only be set right by the executive and legislature, (or their other name- the cabinet and the parliament). Why cabinet? A law is passed by the parliament after a bill is introduce either by government or private member of parliament, and in the history of Parliament of Malaysia, non of private bill (issued by other than government) has been successfully passed. In other word, the reality is that only the cabinet has such power to enact law. Play your role, MPs, as you live on our vote.

Nyonya Tahir was held to be buried as buddhist. She was raised by her muslim grandmother, but lived as buddhist all the time.

What is needed to come to such decision? GUTS.

We muslims concern with those who want to convert, and it becomes emotional when one of our brother or sister in Islam want to leave our beloved religion. Saving them is our responsibility but saving ourselves takes priority over our concern. Beside of the emotion, there are rules and laws. A judge shall go by the rule and laws, not the emotion. Those who want to convert, the fuqaha (Muslim jurists) say they can, but subject to punishment and unfortunately such punishment does not exist yet. We follow the practice of Shafii school and Shafii r.a is famous with his saying "we judge what can be seen and Allah governs the unseen".

Those who want to converts, they are disgrace to the Muslim. By expressing their intention to convert is a clear sign that they are no longer a muslim, (syirik jali) by way of saying. They should be declared as non Muslim, at the same time, lose their right as Muslim, which also dissolves a marriage, prevents inheritance from his muslim kins and punishable with death. This is what the fuqaha say. The punishment, if there isnt any should not be a question to be answered by the Syariah court judge.

An idiot may be the name given to the ordinary man, who consistently misinterprets what happens to him, what he does, or what is brought about by others. He does this so completely plausibly that - for himself and his peers - large areas of life and thought seem logical and true.

An idiot of this kind was sent one day with a pitcher to a wise man, to collect some wine. On the way the idiot, through his own heedlessness, smashed the jar against a rock. When he arrived at the house of the wise man, he presented him with the handle of the pitcher, and said: "So-and-so sent you this pitcher, but a horrid stone stole it from me." Amused and wishing to test his coherence, the wise man asked: "Since the pitcher is stolen, why do you offer me the handle?" "I am not such a fool as people say," the idiot told him, "and therefore I have brought the handle to prove my story."

The Triple Filter Test

During the golden Abbasid period, one of the scholars in Baghdad, the capital of Muslim caliphate at that time, was reputed to hold knowledge in high esteem.

One day an acquaintance met the great scholar and said, "Do you know what I just heard about your friend?"

"Hold on a minute," the scholar replied. "Before telling me anything I’d like you to pass a little test. It’s called the Triple Filter Test."

"Triple filter?"

"That’s right," the scholar continued. "Before you talk to me about my friend it might be a good idea to take a moment and filter what you’re going to say.

That’s why I call it the triple filter test.

The first filter is Truth. Have you made absolutely sure that what you are about to tell me is true?"

"No," the man said, "actually I just heard about it and.."

"All right," said the scholar. "So you don’t really know if it’s true or not.

Now let’s try the second filter, the filter of goodness. Is what you are about to tell me about my friend something good?"

"No, on the contrary…"

"So," the scholar continued, "you want to tell me something bad about him, but you’re not certain it’s true. You may still pass the test though, because there’s one filter left: the filter of usefulness.

Is what you want to tell me about my friend going to be useful to me?"

"No, not really."

"Well," concluded the scholar, "if what you want to tell me is neither true nor good nor even useful, why tell it to me at all?"

"O ye who believe! Let not some men among you laugh at others: It may be that the (latter) are better than the (former)" … (to end of surah) Hujurat 49.12

"And spy not on each other behind their backs…" (to end of surah) Hujurat 49.13

Praise be to Allah that we are Muslims…