Nurul Huda Abdul Gani's Rape and Murder Case - Accused Acquitted of Murder

My posting herein may draw unhappiness and unsatisfactory feeling but I do hope that you read my posting with open mind and do not cloud yourself with emotion feelings.
.
On 16/10/2008, the Federal Court acquitted Mohd Abbas Danus Baksan of murdering a 10-year old girl, Nurul Huda Abdul Gani. The Federal Court’s decision draw mixed feelings and reactions among the people with many quarters are not happy with the decision. To better understand what happened, let me take you to revisit the case.
.
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/legal/general_news/nurul_huda_murder_case_acquitted_on_grounds_of_insufficient_evidence.html
.
On 17/1/2004, the whole nation was shocked to learn that a cute 10-year old girl by the name of Hurul Huda Binti Abdul Gani of Gelang Patah Johor was brutally gang raped, sodomised and strangled to death. Police's investigation brought to the arrest of a Security Guard by the name of Mohd Abbas Danus Baksan who, at the time of the alleged crime was manning the security booth of Tenaga Nasional Berhad’s main substation in Kampung Pekajang, Tanjung Kupang, Johor Baru. The heinous crime was said to have been committed by Mohd Abbas on 17/1/2004 between 9.20am and 1.00pm. Police’s investigation also revealed the presence of two (2) other persons who were unnamed. In fact, when Mohd Abbas was first charged in court (for murder), he was charged of committing the offence with two (2) other persons who were unnamed.
.
In this case, Mohd Abbas was charged for rape and murder. In his trial for rape in the Sessions Court, he admitted to committing the offence, thus was sentenced accordingly. However, during his trial for murder at the High Court, he did not admit to committing the offence but putting the blame on two (2) other persons namely Suyaimi and Jojo. While Suyaimi was made a prosecution's witness, Jojo's whereabout could not be established. After hearing 26 witnesses and producing 29 items as evidence during the 21-days trial, the High Court found him guilty for murder, hence he was sentenced to death.
.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2004/8/28/nation/8775746&sec=nation
.
He filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal against his conviction (on murder). In the Court of Appeal, the appellant’s (Mohd Abbas) main argument was that the Judicial Commissioner at the High Court had failed to sufficiently appreciate the prosecution’s evidence and the appellant unsworn statement when arriving at his findings. In particular, there was insufficient appreciation of the circumstantial evidence relied on by the prosecution. The Court of Appeal, in dealing with the issue raised by the Appellant said that the circumstantial evidence relied on by the prosecution was sufficiently corroborated and inference was made against the Appellant. As such, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant’s appeal and upheld the punishment meted out by the High Court i.e. death sentence. Mohd Abbas lodged an appeal with the Federal Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal.
.
http://www.kehakiman.gov.my/judgment/coa/latest/Crpp%2042%20Mohd%20Abbas%20bin%20Danus%20Baksan%20v%20PP%20%20(J-05-71-04).htm
.
Now, after the High Court and the Court of Appeal found Mohd Abbas guilty for murder, what made the Federal Court in a unanimous decision differed from the two (2) previous Courts?
.
In criminal case, there are two (2) elements that must be proven by the prosecution during the trial i.e. the mens rea and the actus reas. Mens rea means the intention to commit the crime and actus reas means the action, which causes the crime to be committed. If the prosecution is only able to prove only one (1) of the two (2) elements mentioned above, the Court may acquit the accused or punish him/her with a lower punishment. On top of that, the prosecution's burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt". "Beyond reasonable doubt" means there shall be no single doubt in the prosecution's case and what the accused need to do is to raise at least one doubt (which is reasonable) to throw out the prosecution's case. There was a joke to illustrate what is “beyond reasonable doubt”?. An accused was charged for murder and knowing very well that he is going to lose his case, after the Court resume the proceedings and before the Judge delivering his decision and sentence, the accused stood up and told the Judge that the victim (that had been murdered) is on the way to the Court room and should arrive shortly. The Judge took the trouble and interestedly waited for the victim to walk in. After waiting for a couple of minutes (and the victim was still not walking into the Court room), the Judge told the accused that he (the accused) was bluffing and the Court was going to deliver its decision. The accused stood up and told the Judge that he had managed to raise a reasonable doubt and therefore, he should be acquitted. The Judge was stunned and the accused explained that if the Judge believed that the prosecution had proven the case "beyond reasonable doubt", the Judge should not believe in what the accused said about the victim coming in to the Court room.
.
Now, in this case, Mohd Abbas was jointly charged for murder with two (2) others who were unnamed. There appeared to be the presence of a third person (which was believed to have been Jojo) in the crime scene when the crime took place. This was further supported by the fact that there was a semen stain on a straw mat at the crime scene which does not belong to Mohd Abbas and Suyaimi. The said semen stain belongs to an unidentified male individual. So, in this case, it is not disputed that there was a third person other than Mohd Abbas and Nurul Huda at the crime scene when the crime took place. The prosecution in proving the case against Mohd Abbas at the High Court was relying on the circumstantial evidence in that: -
.
(a) Mohd Abbas was alone at the guardhouse when the victim’s body was found;
.
(b) The victim’s path to the shop from her house and return journey would have led her past the guardhouse;
.
(c) Mohd Abbas’ demenour when approached by the victim’s family members whereby he claimed that he did not see the victim (when the fact that the victim’s body was lying motionless in the guardhouse’ toilet);
.
(d) Mohd Abbas’ demenour in not allowing the police to enter the TNB main station area; and
.
(e) Though Mohd Abbas claimed that it was Suyaimi and Jojo who murdered the victim, Mohd Abbas was said to have supposedly to help the girl and informed the police of the crime committed by Suyaimi and Jojo as alleged by him, which he failed to do. It only serves to suggest that he killed the victim and was trying to conceal the evidence.
.
Now, to me personally, the circumstantial evidence mentioned above does not form conclusive evidence that Mohd Abbas did murder the victim. All it suggested was that Mohd Abbas was present at the crime scene when the crime took place. Though it was said Mohd Abbas should help the girl and inform the police if at all it was true that it was Suyaimi and Jojo and not him who killed the victim, to me Mohd Abbas would have his own reason for doing so. In this case, he admitted to have raped the victim. As such, it makes sense for him not to cooperate with the police and the victim’s family members (even to the extent that he might try to conceal the evidence) because he had raped the victim. The fact that he was alone at that point of time would added to his fear, as he could be charged for murder too, a crime he claimed that he did not do. So, with due respect, I beg to differ with the argument that Mohd Abbas’ uncooperative demanour can only suggest that he killed the victim, a crime he denied of committing, as it can also suggest that he raped the victim, a crime which he admitted at the Sessions Court.
.
So, in this case, the Federal Court was of the opinion that the presence of a third person, which have been proven but that third person’s whereabout could not be established only serves as a doubt in the prosecution’s case. This is because, there was no direct evidence to prove that Mohd Abbas killed the victim (as what the prosecution had was only circumstantial evidence) and that the presence of the third person could also suggest that there was always a possibility that the victim was murdered by that third person. So, while Mohd Abbas admitted to have raped the victim, there was just no conclusive evidence to suggest that he killed the victim. So, in that sense, the Federal Court found doubt in the prosecution’s case and as I mentioned above, the defence (Mohd Abbas) just need to create one reasonable doubt to throw out the prosecution’s case and he did.
.
And as I mentioned earlier, the decision by the Federal Court invited mixed reaction from the people. They just could not believe that the criminal involved in heinous crime against a helpless 10-year old girl escaped the gallows. Even the family members of Nurul Huda was shocked to learn that Mohd Abbas is still alive, as they thought that he (Mohd Abbas) had been hanged already.
.
However, I have to tell you this. Law is not about common sense. Law is not about emotion feelings and law is not about logic. Law is governed by the rule of law. What I mean is that when we deal with law, we should not use our emotion while common sense and logic is not all. A simple example, a man who had consensual sexual intercourse with a girl aged 15 years 364 days has committed a statutory rape but a man who had consensual sexual intercourse with a girl aged 16 years 1 day is not committing any offence. Reason being because under the law, girls under 16 years of age are minor, hence under the law, they do not have the capability to give their consent but girls of 16 years of age and above are said to be able to give their consent. If we think about it, does that really make sense? In this instance, the two (2) girls’ age was different by three (3) days only but does that really make a different with their capability to give their consent? No right? But the law says it is. To me it does not make sense and is not logic but that is the law. So, in Nurul Huda’s case, while we, the people believe and thought that Mohd Abbas should have been found guilty of murder, the law takes different view and it is because the law does not based on emotion, logic and common sense as we thought it should be. The law looks at the rule of law vis-à-vis evidence surrounding the case.
.
While I agree with the finding of the Federal Court, I am not too sure who killed Nurul Huda. It could have been Mohd Abbas who killed her but the evidence tendered in Court does not suggest so.
.
In the end, it is better to acquit ten (10) guilty persons (as they shall receive their punishment in the hereafter) than to punish an innocent person (as this may cause great injustice).

Internal Security Act

A lot have been said about the Internal Security Act 1960 or better known as ISA. While a few quarters are in favour of using the Act to ensure the country’s security, some others do not mind the authority invoking the ISA so long as there is no abuse of the said Act but most of the people are against the using of the Act against any individual for any reason whatsoever. Some even labeled the Act as a draconian law, which means rigorous, unusually severe or cruel law.
.
Let me take you through the brief background of ISA and the salient sections of the Act to better understand what ISA is all about.
.
The reason the ISA was drafted and enacted has been discussed by Yang Pei Keng in his Article entitled “Preventive Detention Under ISA – Unlawful for Non-Violent Peaceful Activities – The Effect of the Recent Federal Court Decision in Chor Phaik Har –v- Farlim Properties Sdn. Bhd. on Statutory Interpretation [1995] 1 CLJ cxcv (Mar)..
.
The following is the excerpts from his Article above which I quoted in verbatim: -
.
Professor R.H. Hickling, the former Professor of Law, University Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, was the first Parliamentary Draftsman and Commissioner of Law Revision of Malaya in the early years of Independence. He was "involved in much federal legislation, up to 1962. Included in that legislation was the Internal Security Act (ISA) of 1960".

.
When he was assigned the task of drafting the ISA, he explained to the then Deputy Prime Minister Tun Razak in 1959, that "the preventive detention under the ISA was justified only in emergency conditions".

In the preface to Essays in Malaysian Law, written by him in 1989 when he was the Professor of Law in the University Kebangsaan Malaysia, Professor Hickling had this to say when commenting on the frequent use of the ISA by the Executive:

I could not imagine then that the time would come when the power of detention, carefully and deliberately interlocked with Art. 149 of the Constitution, would be used against political opponents, welfare workers and others dedicated to non-violent, peaceful activities. It was with some considerable surprise that I discovered in 1987 that the Supreme Court (Teresa Lim Chin Chin and Ors. v. Inspector General of Police [1988] 1 MLJ 293 at 296) took the view that "from the wording of the provision(s) of the Act there is nothing to show that it is restricted to communist activities." It seems extraordinary that a Court, faced with two interpretations of a law, should adopt the one more restrictive of freedom, and indifferent to the Constitution." (see Preface to R.H. Hickling: Essays in Malaysian Law)

.
So, now it is evidently clear that the reason and the intention ISA was drafted and enacted in 1960 was to curb communism and the same to be used only in emergency situations. So now the issue is whether ISA can be used for any other purpose including nation’s security, which is not in line with the intention of the law makers?
.
Initially, in 1988, in the case of Teresa Lim Chin Chin and Ors. v. Inspector General of Police [1988] 1 MLJ 293, the then Supreme Court held that the intention of the Parliament in enacting any Act should not be used as the factor for interpreting the Act. It is for the Court to interpret in its own way. In other words, the using of the ISA is not restricted to the law maker’s intention when the same was enacted.
.
However, in Chor Phaik Har v. Farlim Properties Sdn Bhd [1994] 3 MLJ 345, the Federal Court held that the statement of a Minister or the promoter of a Bill (the intention of the Parliament) can be referred to as an aid to interpretation. It means that the intention of the Parliament in drafting and enacting an Act may be used as an aid to interpret the Act but shall not be the sole or main factor to determine whether or not the Act should be used in a case.
.
Based on the above two (2) cases, it is crystal clear that ISA may be used for any reason other than its’ original intention and I think that is why the government is using it so widely to safeguard the country’s security.
.
Now, let us take a look at some salient points of the ISA.
.
Section 8 (1) of ISA gives the Home Minister the power to order the detention of any person for up to two (2) years if the Minister is satisfied that such a person may be prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or to the maintenance of essential services or to the economic life thereof.
.
However, Section 8 (1) does not really set the maximum period for the detention. By virtue of Section 8 (7), the Minister may extend the detention period for another two (2) years and thereafter for another two (2) years, so on and so forth, so long as the Minister is satisfied that the person is still a threat to the national security. In other words, Section 8 (7) gives the power to the Minister to determine the detention period and there shall be no limit to it until the Minister is satisfied that the detainee shall not be a threat to the country’s security.
.
Section 8B provides that there shall be no judicial review on the detention order made by the Minister or the Yang Di Pertuan Agong unless on the ground of procedural compliance, which means the person who is detained under the ISA cannot have their detention reviewed by the Court based on merit unless they are able to prove that the detention does not follow the proper procedure. This provision makes it almost impossible for a detainee to challenge the Minister’s decision for the detention and they have to hope for any breach of procedures to be committed by the detaining authority, which is highly unlikely to happen because the detaining authority has been doing this over time.
.
However, as oppose to the provision of Section 8 (7), Section 10 allows the Minister to suspend the detention order.
.
Apart from the above Sections that gives the Minister the power to issue the detention order, Section 73 gives the power to police to detain a person, without a need for warrant, of up to sixty (60) days without a need of a detention order from the Minster as required under Section 8 if the police has the reason to believe: -
.
(a) that there are grounds, which would justify his detention under Section 8; and
.
(b) that he has acted or is about to act or is likely to act in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or to the maintenance of the essential services or to the economic life.
.
As such, based on the Sections mentioned above, in a nutshell the detention under the ISA works this way: -
.
(a) Police may detain the person for up to sixty (60) days without a detention order from the Minister in pursuant to Section 73;

.
(b) At the end of the sixty (60) days, the Police may either release the person or obtain the detention order from the Minister, who may order the detention up to two (2) years.

.
(c) At the end of the two (2) years detention period, the Minister may wither release the detainee or extend the detention period up to another two (2) years and so on and so forth.
.
If we look at the provisions of the ISA, it talks about “if the Minister satisfied” and “if the police have reason to believe”. It indicates that all the arrests and detentions made under the ISA are made at the sole discretion of the police and the Minister. In this case, in my opinion, the discretionary power given to the Minister is very wide because the detention order issued by the Minister or any extension thereof is almost impossible for it to be challenged in Court.
.
Going back to the provision of Section 8B above, while it is not allowed to challenge the Minister’s order of detention made pursuant to Section 8, it is silent on whether the detainee is allowed to challenge the arrest and detention made by the police in pursuant to Section 73. This means that detainees are allowed to file a judicial review with the High Court to challenge the arrest made by the police in pursuant to Section 73 both on merit and procedural.
.
Based on the provisions stated above, ISA is actually a law that allows “detention without trial”. This is definitely against the principle of law where “a person is innocent until proven guilty”. And how do we prove a person is guilty or innocent? We definitely need to have a proper and fair Hearing so that all the relevant evidences can be tendered in an open Court before a Judge, witnesses are called to testified, their testimony can be challenged, and the evidences tendered can be challenged by the opposing party. All it means is that both parties i.e. the accused and the authority should play at the same ground level. So, when the authority is having the upper hand over the detainee, it is what common people called “unfair”.
.
Well, as the Minister said recently that ISA is a preventive law, to me whatever it is, you have no right to detain a person without putting him in a proper trial. That is wrong and there is no two (2) ways about it.
.
All I want to say is that, while the authority may have the information to form the grounds for them to believe that the person is a threat to the national security, thus arresting him under the ISA, the wide discretionary power granted to the Minister may still lead to an abuse of the process of law because no one can challenge the Minister’s discretionary power. Not even the court of law in the country. A person may be a threat in the eyes of the Minister but not in the eyes of the majority but the Minister’s belief shall prevail. So, in detaining a person under the ISA, whether or not the person is a real threat to the country, only the Minister knows.
.
I am against the ISA.

Are We Over Sensitive?

A lot have been said and commented on Karpal Singh's (Karpal) statement that was published in the newspaper when Karpal was reported of saying that (and I quoted from The Star online): -

"Perak Sultan Azlan Shah has no jurisdiction over the transfer of Datuk Jamry Sury from the Perak Religious Department, Bukit Gelugor MP Karpal Singh said.
“The constitution of Perak clearly provides that the Rulers must act on executive advice.
“Sultan Azlan Shah did not have any say, as the Ruler of Perak, in the decision made by the state government and, by law, the palace cannot order the state government to reinstate Jamry,” Karpal Singh said, citing the case of the Federal Territory Education Director and Others vs Loot Ting Yee which was decided in the Federal Court in 1982."

Police report was lodged by UMNO leaders in Perak while some others chose to verbally criticised Karpal for his insensitive statement against the Palace in particular and against the Malay in general and even there are demands for Karpal to send his apology to the Sultan of Perak and for him to retract his statement. Karpal's statement, to certain extent was said to be undermining the Malay Sultanate.

In my opinion, Karpal was just making a statement based on a case that was decided by the then Federal Court in 1982. In that case of Pengarah Pelajaran, Wilayah Persekutuan & Ors -v- Loot Ting Yee [1981] 1 LNS 186, it was stated by the Federal Court among others that: -

As to the allegation that the transfer was not in the public interest it suffices us to say that as employment in the civil service is during pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, as long as he is in the service, it is for the Government to decide whether his transfer is in the public interest or not, having regard to the fact that the Government has a larger public duty to perform. It is not for us to interfere with the discretion of the Government in this matter. To do so would only amount to an unjustifiable usurption of Government's discretion by us. There is absolutely no legal basis for us to interfere with the Government's discretion.

In the case of Loot Ting Yee quoted above, it was held that the Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the government's decision to transfer a civil servant so long as the servant is employed under the pleasure of the Yang Di Pertuan Agong. It does not stated clearly on whether Yang Di Pertuan Agong or the Sultan has the jurisdiction over the matter i.e. to interfere with the government's decision to appoint or transfer any of the government's servants. As such, in my opinion, to that extent, the case of Loot Ting Yee can be distinguished from the current issue.

However, we also need to look at the Perak's Constitution on the power of the Sultan in this instance. At the moment, I have no access to the Perak's Constitution, so, I am not in a position to comment further on that. But assuming what was said by Karpal on Perak's Constituion is correct i.e. “The constitution of Perak clearly provides that the Rulers must act on executive advice" then I would say that the Sultan of Perak's decision must be in accordance with the advice of the Executive i.e. the Menteri Besar. In other words, it is mandatory for the Sultan to act based on such advice. It is exactly the same provision in our Federal Constitution whereby it is stated that the Yang Di Pertuan Agong must act based on the advice from the Prime Minister.

In the case of Merdeka University Berhad -v- Government of Malaysia [1981] CLJ 191 (Rep), Eusoffe Abdoolcadeer J (as he then was) had, among others stated as follows: -

"It would perhaps be appropriate to clarify two matters at this exordial stage. First, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is a constitutional monarch and is required under Article 40(1) of the Federal Constitution in the exercise of his functions (except on certain matters that do not concern these proceedings) to act in accordance with collective or individual ministerial advice and not on his own initiative (emphasise is mine) (Balakrishnan v. Ketua Pengarah Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia and Government of Malaysia [1981] 2 MLJ 259)"

If what Eusoffe Abdoolcadeer said is taken into consideration, then I think Karpal was right in his statement.

For better understanding of Article 40 (1) of Federal Constitution, I append below the provision of the Article: -

(1) In the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or federal law the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet, except as otherwise provided by this Constitution; but shall be entitled, at his request, to any information concerning the government of the Federation which is available to the Cabinet.

(1A) In the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or federal law, where the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is to act in accordance with advice, on advice, or after considering advice, the Yang di- Pertuan Agong shall accept and act in accordance with such advice.

The word "shall" referred to in the Article means mandatory, which means it is mandatory for Yang Di Pertuan Agong to act in accordance of the advice of the Prime Minister, and to that extend, I believe Eusoffe Abdoolcadeer was right in saying that the Yang Di Pertuan Agong not to act on his own initiative.

However, the next issue to consider here is Islamic matters. As the issue at hand involves Islamic matters and the Sultan is the Head of Islam in the State, in his capacity as the Head of Islam, can the Sultan interfere with the government's decision?

Article 3 (5) of the Federal Constitution provides that: -

(5) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall be the Head of the religion of Islam in the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya; and for this purpose Parliament may by law make provisions for regulating Islamic religious affairs and for constituting a Council to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in matters relating to the religion of Islam.

Article 32 (1) of the Federal Constitution provides as follows: -

(1) There shall be a Supreme Head of the Federation, to be called the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who shall take precedence over all persons in the Federation and shall not be liable to any proceedings whatsoever in any court except in the Special Court established under Part XV.

Now, taking the position of the Yang Di Pertuan Agong as the Supreme Head of the Federation, he is, subject to the provision of Article 40 (1) of the Federal Constitution, must act in accordance with the advice from the Prime Minister. So, as the Head of the Religion of Islam as stipulated in Article 3 (5) as quoted above, I do not see any difference with that of his position as the Supreme Head of the Federation. Again, assuming that the Perak Constitution have the same effect with that of the Federal Constitution with regards to the Ruler's postion as the Head of Islam in the State, I believe that the Sultan of Perak, to that extent must act in accordance with the advice of the Menteri Besar.

While I may not be fair in making the assumption on Perak Constitution, I think I arrived at the right conclusion in making the comparison between the Federal Constitution and the Perak Constitution as even Najib and Nazri Aziz made reference to the Federal Constitution when commenting on this issue.

The next issue that I would like to discuss here is the sensitivity of the Malay leaders or the so called Malay leaders and to be exact UMNO leaders on the remarks passed by Karpal in this issue. My questions are: -

(1) Is there a need for them to be that sensitive?
(2) Is there a need for them to lodge police report over the matter?

I am totally against those who do not respect the Malay Sultanate, more so if they are rude towards the Sultans. However, when the UMNO leaders do not know how to respect the Sultans and even the Yang Di Pertuan Agong, what do they expect the non Malays to do? Is it fair for them to expect the non Malays to respect the Sultans when they don't? The answer is absolutely not.

Look at the events surrounding the appointment of the Terengganu Menteri Besar. When the palace i.e. the Sultan chose Ahmad Said instead of Idris Jusoh as the Menteri Besar, a group of UMNO Wakil Rakyat threatened Ahmad Said that his UMNO membership could be stripped for going against the wish of the UMNO President (in other words, for following the wish of the Sultan). Even Pak Lah as the Prime Minister to certain extent was reported to have refused to meet up with Ahmad Said before the matter was resolved. That had led to the banner being posted with the insulting words towards the Sultan. Didn't the UMNO leaders think that the whole episode were an insult towards the Sultan? What did they do when Pak Lah and the UMNO wakil rakyat rude to the Sultan? Was there any police report lodged by them (UMNO leaders) on the banner that insulted the Sultan? The answer is NO. It was obvious that it was an act of disrespect and rude towards the Sultan but the UMNO leaders chose to close both eyes for some political reasons. And it is for the political reasons too that they are now going after Karpal by criticising him and lodging police report against him. I am neither speaking on behalf of Karpal nor that I am his supporter, but to me, if the UMNO leaders do not know and choose not to respect the Sultans and fails to put them in a place where they (Sultans) are supposed to be, please do not expect others to respect the Sultans. Everybody led by example. It is like ketam mengajar anaknya berjalan.

If you do not respect your parent, do not expect others to respect your parent.

Fitna

Have you watched the film "FITNA" by Geert Wilders? This short film is said to have really insulted Islam and the holy book Al-Qur'an. Muslims around the world have condemned the showing of this film. I have watched the film through "you tube". Though I did not watch it in full, as I have problem with my internet connection, but what I can say here is the film is an insult to Islam. The film relates Al-Qur'an with terrorism. Yes, Geert Wilders quote the Qur'anic verse but it was interpreted wrongly by someone who knows nothing about Islam and taken out of context. Al-Qur'an has never ever asked the Muslims to go and kill the non muslim as they wish. In fact, killing fellow human being is prohibited in Islam. However, in making the film, Geert Wilders was being unfair in the sense that either he faled or purposely refused to look at what caused some Muslims to react in such a way that they are labelled as terrorist. In all fairness, the Muslim around the world in being treated unfairly by the Americans and the Westerns. Almost everyday the Jews mercilessly killing the innocent Palestinians and yet the American labelled the Palestinian as terrorist. The war in Gaza peninsular is far from over. Whatever peaceful plan promoted by the American is only for the benefit of the Jews. The whole world is aware of this but nobody does anything.

Look also at the way America attacked Iraq. Despite the fact that IAEA reported that there was no nuclear weapon development in Iraq and no support from the UN, the American vis-a-vis the bushy Bush went on to attack Iraq just to cause irrepairable damage to the Muslim country and found no nuclear weapon programme. But then they still said that it was a right decision and nobody dares to do anything against the US. Look also at the incident of 9/11. After the attack, the Americans straightaway accused Osama Bin Laden to be responsible for the attack. It was so easy for the US to point finger to a Muslim and the whole world would listen to them. However, investigation on the 9/11 has given more questions than answer. After all, there was no direct evidence that it was Osama Bin Laden who launched the attack. But the Americans used that as an excuse to attack Afghanistan on the pretext that Osama Bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan. Funny isn't it? After 7 years, the US still could not find Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Now, after causing damage to Iraq, US is paying their attention to Iran on their nuclear programme. Despite denial by Iran that their nuclear programme is not meant for weapon, the US insisted that IAEA to go in and investigate. To me, it will be the same story like what happened to Iraq. Even if IAEA finds that there is no proof that Iran is developing the nuclear weapon, the US will not believe in the report and will go ahead to attack them. Why can't the US deal with the nuclear issue in North Korea? North Korea has the same issue even before Iraq was attacked. And now, after so many years, the US still did not do anything to the North Korea, but instead, interested in dealing with Iran first.

So, with all the above, of course to mention a few, do not you agree that Muslims all around the world have been treated unfairly? Is it wrong for the Muslim to take the law into their hands when they are being provoked in doing so?

Only if Geert Wilders can see what caused the Muslim to react in such away in a very fairly manner, I believe that he will not come out with such heinous film.

In any event, Allah said in the Qur'an that "lakum dinukum waliyadin" which means that "for them is their religion and for you is your religion". The verse simply means that the Muslim should not disturn other religion and vice versa.

On another note, LiveLeak.com, a website that aired the film has decided to stop airing it for safety reason, as their staff received death threat. In response, LiveLeak.com made a statement that it marks the end of freedom of speech on the net. Well, any freedom must have a limit. Here, the freedom of speech has been misused by the unethical Dutch politician. And for their insensitivity in airing the film on the net, is it not logical for them to receive the death threat? All these westerners, they are a laughing stock. They will condemn people who pass racist remark but will support people who insult other religion especially Islam. And in condemning the people who pass racist remark, they do not regard that as limiting the freedom of speech.

'Adil (Justice)

Allah said in Al-Qur'an: "Fa iza hakamtum bainan nassi an tahkumu bil 'adl" which means "if you punish among the human being, you must punish in fairness/justice".

The above Qur'anic verse is simple and seems to be straightforward but it is not. Allah said punish in fairness/justice. But what is fairness/justice? Justice is to put something in its place. The meaning is wide enough to cover a lot of things from the appointment of ruler/leader to the implementation of Syariah laws. Have we been treated fairly so far by our leaders? At a glance, we may say yes but if we think in depth, we may say otherwise. The laws that should be implemented by a Muslim leader/government is the Syariah laws as demonstrated in the Qur'an and Hadith. More so in our country that claimed to be an Islamic country and alleged that a lot of other Islamic countries are admiring its "Islamic" concept.

However, in Malaysia, what laws are being implemented? Is it Islamic laws? We do not need a genius to figure out that. Even an ordinary citizen of our country knows that we are upholding the law that was introduced by the British and sidelined our own Islamic laws. Funny isn't it? An Islamic Counrty is unable to uphold Islamic laws. This is further proven under Article 4 of our Federal Constitution, which provides that "this Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void".

In Islam, our utmost guidance is the Qur'an and Hadith. There shall be no other book or laws higher than the divine book, Al-Qur'an. But the said Article 4 stated otherwise. Even if the Syariah laws is inconsistent with the Federal Constitution, the Syariah laws, which is a divine laws that comes from Allah the Almighty shall, to that extent, be void.

After 50 years of independence, we are still following the British laws that was drafted by the Reid Commission. Are we fully independent?

In my humble opinion, our leaders/government, after 50 years of “independence” and run the country on their own, still fail to uphold and put the Islamic laws vis-à-vis Al-Qur’an in its proper place. Have they done justice to us? My answer is absolutely “no”. While our leaders proudly and always tell the people and the whole world that Malaysia is an Islamic country (may be because we are member of OIC), I seriously think that they need to be guided by the following hadith: -

Narrated by Ma’qil:-

The Prophet (pbuh) said, “If any ruler having the authority to rule Muslim subjects dies while he is deceiving them, Allah will forbid paradise for him”.
-rawahul bukhari-

Wallahu ‘alam…