On October 13, 2016, Free Malaysia Today published a report titled, “It’s not about the middle finger, says lawyer Siti Kasim”. The title itself is very interesting although misleading. The entire fiasco happened because Siti flashed her finger. So now she wants to shift the blame to something else. Had she been patient and/or silent that day, no one would have lodged a police report against her.
She says it was not about her finger but about a Malay woman who dared to question a certain idea of Islam and the intent to Islamise Malaysia. Siti refers to this idea as “their idea”. So Siti basically has her own thoughts on “Islam” and rejects the mainstream version. Probably because it is too “mainstream”.
So Siti has somehow obtained Islamic scholarship and is qualified to give views on Islam. A very questionable scholarship indeed. We do not know what her version of Islam is like. The most probable rule is, there is no such thing as a head cover. At least we know the direction of her thoughts.
The inclination is to be free of restrictions. Restrictions imposed by The Almighty are not to her liking. Since it would be rude to deny God, she says that these rules are man made and not from Him. Very clever indeed. Blame the people on something that they have been instructed to do. This way you can fool yourself to think that you have a chance of getting away.
So that’s that, her beliefs are not from Mainstream Islam and her arguments on the headscarf have been answered. So Siti went on to tell a reporter that “The man who has lodged the report is trying to pin on me that I have insulted Islam, a serious offence in this country”.
Now this is interesting, Siti is insinuating that her finger insulted Islam. It sounds really far fetched that anyone would think she insulted Islam with her finger. But yes, in her opinions in various other places she has insulted Islam and Muslims many times. Personally I think Siti is trying to shift the blame and change the topic. We call this red herring.
Siti showed her “finger” to someone in the crowd. So unless that person represents all the Muslims on this planet, then we can safely assume she merely insulted that person and not Islam in its entirety. Let’s move on to another point, this one is even more interesting. Siti says, “If they really want to introduce shariah, then be specific about the penalties they are seeking.” So here it is, specific penalties can only be mentioned after the Parliament has agreed on the amendment. That is how it works Siti.
And secondly coming from a lawyer it is even more hilarious. We will get to hilarious part later. According to the news, amendment to the Bill would allow amputation. Somehow amputation will be under the jurisdiction of Syariah Courts. So now we have this marvellous claim from Siti. You see, amputation is a punishment for robbery and/or theft.
So what’s the problem? The only issue is that, the punishments for robbery and theft are under the Civil Courts. The Syariah Courts are limited by the punishments mentioned under the first order of the state list in the ninth schedule of the Federal Constitution. And the list of punishments is exhaustive. So let us have a look at these punishments,
1. Except with respect to the Federal territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and putrajaya, islamic law and personal and family law of persons professing the religion of islam, including the islamic law relating to succession, testate and intestate, betrothal, marriage, divorce, dower, maintenance, adoption, legitimacy, guardianship, gifts, partitions and non-charitable trusts; wakafs and the definition and regulation of charitable and religious trusts, the appointment of trustees and the incorporation of persons in respect of islamic religious and charitable endowments, institutions, trusts, charities and charitable institutions operating wholly within the State; Malay customs; Zakat, Fitrah and baitulmal or similar islamic religious revenue; mosques or any islamic public place of worship, creation and punishment of offences by persons professing the religion of islam against precepts of that religion, except in regard to matters included in the Federal List; the constitution, organization and procedure of Syariah courts, which shall have jurisdiction only over persons professing the religion of islam and in respect only of any of the matters included in this paragraph, but shall not have jurisdiction in respect of offences except in so far as conferred by federal law; the control of propagating doctrines and beliefs among persons professing the religion of islam; the determination of matters of islamic law and doctrine and Malay custom.
So, there is no mention of robbery and/or theft anywhere. The amendment to Act 355 is not the same as the amendment to the Federal Constitution. Amendment to an Act requires simple majority where as an amendment to the Federal Constitution requires a two thirds majority.
As far as the Private Member’s Bill by Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi is concerned, the amendment is only to the Act and not the constitution. In simple words, it is not possible to introduce Hudud in Syariah Courts without an amendment to the Federal Constitution. This would require an amendment to the first order in the state list of the ninth schedule in the Federal Constitution.
This amendment would have to remove the limitations set by the Federal Constitution on the Syariah Courts. I really hope this quells questions pertaining the introduction of Hudud via amendments to this Act. We have said countless time that this amendment is not about Hudud.
The amendment merely seeks to elevate the ceiling for punishments under the Syariah Courts. Honestly it is okay to ask questions. It is also okay to be wrong, no one is perfect for that matter. However to reiterate the same thing over and over again, is a sign of obstinance.
Explanations about this alleged relationship between the amendment to Act 355 and Hudud have been provided many times. Amendment to Act 355 will not allow the implementation of Hudud.
It seems that the effort is not to understand the amendment but to misguide others. Explanations have been elaborated a few too many times, and even then Siti insists on her views. What can one say about her attitude? She does not want to listen. Siti is diligent on misguiding the less informed.
No matter how many times the same thing has been explained to her she keeps repeating herself. It should be easier to understand now, why the crowd heckled her in the first place. With an attitude like this who would tolerate her? She does not want to listen. Siti only wants her voice to be heard albeit being wrong.
She can’t tolerate differences. She can’t stand being corrected. This behaviour was not tolerated by the crowd. The crowd did not start to provoke her. Siti provoked the crowd with her exploit. She was not going to listen to the panel, she wanted the panel to hear her opinion. I would know I was there.
If Siti wants respect she has to earn it. When she failed to earn the respect from others, that says a lot about her. When she went on to show the finger, what was she expecting in return? A bouquet of flowers? If you can’t respect others, you can’t earn respect. When you disrespect others you only earn their disgust.
Rehan Ahmad Bin Jamaluddin Ahmad
Research Fellow, Institut Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia (IKSIM)
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of ismaweb.net.
