Can non-Muslims practise in the
syariah courts?LAWYER Victoria Jayaseelee Martin made headlines in mid May with her quest to be admitted as a syariah lawyer in the Federal Territory. The Federal Territory Islamic Religious Council had refused admission to Martin because she was not a Muslim. On 14 May 2010, she was granted leave to have the council’s decision reviewed by the High Court.
Martin’s case raises interesting questions. Can a non-Muslim practise in the syariah courts? Is there anything in civil or Islamic law that prevents this? If so, what are the principles governing this restriction and are they constitutional?
Applying syariah law
Syariah lawyer Saadiah Din says there is no basis for restricting non-Muslim lawyers from practising in the syariah court, pointing out that non-Muslims practise in the Singapore syariah courts.
“Islam doesn’t prohibit non-Muslims from appearing in the syariah court,” she tells The Nut Graph.
“The syariah court is a court of law. It applies Islamic law, which is universal. If non-Muslim lawyers can submit to the syariah court’s jurisdiction and argue based on Islamic principles, there should be no problems in them practising syariah law,” she says.
Haris IbrahimShe adds that many family law provisions under syariah law are in fact similar to those in civil law because the underlying principles are universal. For example, in a custody case in either a civil or syariah court, a child’s welfare would be paramount, she says.
Lawyer Haris Ibrahim agrees, saying: “The syariah court practices syariah law. It is not dependent on faith.” he says.
What is more important, he argues, is for syariah lawyers to have the requisite academic knowledge and expertise. “For example, Dr Patricia Martinez is a renowned authority on Islam and syariah law. Wouldn’t she be an asset in the syariah court?”
Malaysian Syariah Lawyers Association president Mohd Isa Abd Ralip, however, disagrees. “Syarie lawyers must be Muslim because syariah courts are different from the civil courts,” he says in a phone interview.
The president of Malaysian Syariah Lawyers Association believes syariah lawyers must
have a belief in the Quran and hadith (© The People Speak | Flickr)
Mohd Isa argues that syariah lawyers must know more than just Islamic law and procedure. “They must also know the Quran, hadith and hukum syarak. To deal with this, they must have a belief in God. How can [non-Muslim lawyers] bring a case in the syariah court if they don’t believe in the Quran and hadith?” Isa asks.
Legal discrimination?
Isa says the Peguam Syarie Principles clearly states that it is a condition that syariah lawyers must be Muslim. He says although there is no provision under the parent Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993, the Act allows the council to make rules for the appointment of syariah lawyers.
Shad SaleemConstitutional law expert Prof Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi, however, states that there may be constitutional grounds to argue that the council cannot bar non-Muslims lawyers on the grounds of religion alone.
He cites Article 8 of the Federal Constitution which prohibits discrimination on the ground of religion only and also in the administration of any law related to the conduct of any profession. “Article 8(5) permits differentiation in the issue of personal law, but I do not think that appearing in court is covered by that exception,” says Shad Saleem in a phone interview.
Shad Saleem adds that the issue should also be seen from the viewpoint of the parties involved in a syariah case who must be given equal protection under the law. “If there are cases such as S Shamala or M Moorthy, where a non-Muslim faces their family life being destroyed, they should have a right to the counsel of their choice,” Shad Saleem says.
Isa, however, refutes the suggestion that the Peguam Syarie Principles may contravene the constitution, arguing that syariah law falls under state, not federal, jurisdiction. “Under the state list, the constitution gives power to the state to make their laws, including those governing syariah lawyers.”
Isa agrees that litigants should have the right to select their counsel of choice. But he stresses that the first requirement of becoming a syariah lawyer is to be a Muslim. “So they can choose any lawyer they want, as long as the lawyer is Muslim.”
Disingenuous?
But are non-Muslims being disingenuous by seeking rights to practise in the syariah courts while refusing to appear in the syariah court and submit to its jurisdiction in cases such as Shamala‘s?
Haris says both issues are separate and must not be confused. “Non-Muslim lawyers practising in the syariah court will not enlarge its jurisdiction. Non-Muslim [litigants] would still not be able to appear.”
Lawyer K Shanmuga, who represented R Subashini and Mohan Singh‘s family, explains that that is because the Federal Constitution restricts the syariah courts’ jurisdiction to only persons professing Islam.
Non-Muslims must submit to the syariah court’s jurisdiction, but cannot be syariah lawyers?
(Ortaköy Mosque pic source: morguefile.com)
Additionally, Shanmuga argues that the Malaysian Syariah Lawyers Association is the one being disingenuous. “It says non-Muslims cannot be (syariah) lawyers, [but it] has also previously claimed that non-Muslim spouses must submit to the syariah court’s jurisdiction!”
Islamic state
Shad Saleem says if Malaysia were a fully Islamic state, syariah would be applied extensively. And in some areas such as criminal law, it would apply to everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
“If non-Muslims lawyers are not allowed in the syariah courts, we’d have to come to the conclusion that in any criminal case, non-Muslims cannot argue a case. I don’t think that’s the intention at all. In an Islamic state with the syariah extensively applied, I don’t think there’s any such rule that only Muslims can argue in syariah courts,” he says.
He notes that while there may be no clear cut position on the matter, the law should be interpreted sympathetically. “We should embrace with open arms anyone who wishes to learn other religions and become an expert in it and try to assist justice,” says Shad Saleem. “I think justice is something anyone can try to assist in.” 
See also: Syariah law galore
For related stories, see In the Spotlight: Political Islam
The Nut Graph needs your support
Al Fathil says
Anatole France once remarked that the law, in its magnificent impartiality, forbids rich and poor alike to steal food, beg for bread in the streets, and sleep under bridges.
Perhaps someone will be able to phrase, with precision and delicacy, the corresponding judgment upon Malaysian-style syariah law: that in its own magnificent universal impartiality, it compels non-Muslims to do its bidding, precludes them from questioning it, and prohibits them from professionally practising it.
Does that formulation accurately represent the situation?
Eric M. says
Yes, we should start here, syariah courts seem to be pre-occupied with khalwat. GROW UP already … SEX is natural … it’s a human right.
“KUALA LUMPUR: A seminar on Syariah Law review wants non-Muslims found committing khalwat (close proximity) with Muslims to also be held liable.”
This was among the proposals made at the two-day seminar organised by the Islamic Institute of Understanding Malaysia (Ikim) and the Syariah Judiciary Department Malaysia. (see http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/4/3/nation/20830111&sec=nation)
farha says
Great article! Thank you!
As a Muslim, I think there’s nothing wrong with non-Muslims wanting to be syariah lawyers as long as they understand and accept syariah principles. Another example: Islamic finance – its principles are accepted, and some CEOs of such banks are not even Muslim.
vaithies says
I can’t say much ‘coz I just can’t stop laughing.
The book itself disagrees to discriminatory practices as widely debated as it promotes fairness and equality, but we have those who are practising merely by the name of the book disagreeing to its factual contents and claim otherwise. Basically, I think its the inferiority complex genetically in built in them [which] makes them think that they are a bit tiny winy smarter than an ostrich.
tkosong says
This is just a scenario. If one day Malaysia become an Islamic country, practicing only the syariah law as the highest law, can only Muslims be lawyers in this country? Macam tak logic je…
Dr Syed Alwi says
This is a non-issue from an Islamic viewpoint. A syariah lawyer must not only uphold Muslim laws – but MUST also show exemplary behaviour under Islamic Law. In other words – to be a syariah lawyer – it is NOT enough to just have academic credentials.
One must also live a lifestyle that reflects positively under the light of Islamic criteria. A syariah lawyer must also be a decent Muslim. After all in syariah law – a reliable witness must also be a reliable, practicing Muslim and so on. Non-Muslims wanting to be a syariah lawyer – are either foolish or have a hidden agenda.
Dr Syed Alwi says
As much as I am a modernist-cum-reformist in my views of Islam, I find the demand from some non-Muslims to be syariah lawyers as being absolutely frivolous. In the first place, in syariah law – to be considered as a reliable witness, a person must be a decent practicing Muslim. Such is the nature of syariah law. Without any reform or modernization of syariah law – there is no doubt that non-Muslims do NOT qualify to be syariah lawyers. After all – does it make sense if non-Muslims next ask to be an Ustaz or Ustazah just based on academic knowledge? Of course not! Why? Because you must walk the talk! Anyone can study syariah law. But how many of us can lead exemplary lives under the syariah? A syariah lawyer must be able to walk the Islamic talk. He or she must lead an exemplary Islamic lifestyle. And for that – he or she must be a decent, practicing Muslim.
Kate Green, Zombie Shooter says
Dr. Syed Alwi:
I thought a common joke about Syariah lawyers was that they had one foot in Heaven and one foot in Hell?
Hey, it was a Muslim kid who told me that, and not a liberal one. (Also, it was in class when I was still in school, and spoken to a really fundamentalist Muslim teacher. She didn’t deny it but replied something to the effect of “Yelah, tapi kerja kena buat…”)
Anyway, I think this is a really silly controversy. I know someone who was a gung-ho Evangelical Christian who wanted to study law but ended up going to UIA to study *Syariah* law. I don’t know why, maybe he was unlucky with his UPU. Pass jugak, with good results.
I mean, if what you say about how Syariah lawyers must have this-or-that personal attribute or they’re just not Syariah lawyers, you’d think UIA [would automatically reject students studying Syariah Law on principle of religion. Of course, this was in the Nineties.
I mean, it’s fine that you have high ideals of how your religion ought to be practiced, and it’s great that you have high values, but the reality doesn’t cohere. In reality, Syariah lawyers act like lawyers.
Ida Bakar says
@ Dr Syed Alwi who said, “He or she must lead an exemplary Islamic lifestyle. And for that – he or she must be a decent, practicing Muslim”.
Are you saying that someone who isn’t a Muslim cannot possibly have the moral integrity to do a job well? If the job description requires the knowledge and application of Islamic law, which can be learnt, why does one have to profess the religion of Islam to learn and practice it?
Not that long ago the idea of female surgeons was far-fetched because women cannot possibly have the nerves to deal with blood and guts given their delicate predisposition. In the recent past the idea of a Chinese (Malaysian) heading the PKNS was like a red hot poker in the Malay [Malaysian] chauvinists a**es.
One authority on the life of the Prophet Muhammad is Karen Armstrong who is not a Muslim. Are we to dismiss her work because as a non-Muslim she cannot possibly have the moral integrity to do her research with due diligence?
Islamic jurisprudence at the end of the day, is the study of law and the principles on which law is based – be it on precedents or interpretation or in the spirit of the Holy Book. All of this can be learnt and applied to the practice of that set of laws. What has one’s religious belief got to do with it?
Hang Jebat says
So if I understand Dr Syed Alwi’s interpretation of Islam correctly, non-Muslims are NON-PERSONS as far as Islam is concerned – they are not fit to be witnesses, much less syariah lawyers. Thank you very much, we’ll stick to civil law which does not discriminate whether a person is Muslim or not. You certainly give new meaning to the phrase “modernist-cum-reformist in my views of Islam”.
Dr Firdaus says
@ Dr Syed Alwi
Assalamualaikum.
That´s very rich, what you said.
“Islam” means to submit. And everything flows from that submission.
As such, I totally agree with you — that Islam is an exclusive religion, exclusive to those who submit to it.
Syariah flows from the Qur’an and the hadith. And so, Kafirs cannot possibly advocate Syaria’ in the name of Islam and the Qur’an.
But yet, even with my PhD, I am unable to make sense of your comments beyond the points made above.
I find people who demand that Syaries “must not only uphold Muslim laws – but MUST also show exemplary behaviour under Islamic Law” as being absolutely hypocritic, and devoid of any rationale.
For example: The Qur’an forbids riba, and a host of other things. But yet, I bet you that there are Syaries who have taken non-Islamic loans to buy cars, houses, etc. And I also bet you that there are Syaries who vote Umno. (I also bet you that the money used to build the Syariah Courts are also contaminated with money taxed from pork-sellers´ income, liquor-sellers´ income, and a host of other barang-barang dan perkhidmatan-perkhidmatan yang diharam oleh Allah dan Qur’an, seperti duti-duti perjudian, arak, dan lln.)
After all, does it make sense to talk so highly of Syariah just based on ideals instead of the real world? Of course not! Why? Because you must walk the talk! Anyone can study Syariah and become a Muslim. But how many of us can lead exemplary lives under Syariah?
Over to you, Dr.
theRamohds says
I assume the interest for non-Muslims to [practice] syariah law is to address the growing number of non-Muslims trapped under the Muslim label. By [this] I mean apostates or converts who wish to leave Islam. If I were going to commit apostasy, I’d like to be represented by a non-Muslim lawyer who would understand me better (I would never leave Islam officially, because having a Muslim IC has business advantages).
On another point.
This is the second time I’ve seen a comment proclaiming one’s self a modernist-reformist Muslim. Based on the comments, I find it hard to differentiate this from what I would consider a conservative, intolerant and insular Islam. I.e., I would consider a reformist or modernist someone who would understand that nothing is too sacred to be challenged, discarded, questioned or even satirized by followers or non-believers.Â
I’ve accepted the fact that there are conservative, insular, intolerant Muslims, and I think most people have, too. I’ve developed protocols to deal with them in day-to-day life and we co-exist comfortably. There’s no need to dress that up with warm and fuzzy labels.Â
Or perhaps it may be a good idea to describe exactly what it means to be a reformist, modernist Muslim? Perhaps I’m forming hasty conclusions. Maybe you could write an article in TNG and describe what a modernist reformist Muslim is to TNG’s liberal Muslim and secular humanist readers.
Chode says
Consider these few points:
1) The term “syariah” means “law”. By definition, every country has “syariah” or “law”.
“Syariah” “Law” is like saying Law Law and is a misnomer.
For some reason religionists like to use fancy schmancy terms to feel good about themselves. Just like some Christians pray in Latin, Muslims have some kind of Arab fetish, even when faith is universal and independent of language. Hence the creation of the term “syariah law” that in reality just makes these religionists feel good about themselves.
2) One basic principle of monotheism is that God/Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah/The_Monotheist_God guides whom he wills and leaves astray whom he wills. And only God knows who has been guided. Nobody has the right to determine a person’s faith. Faith is not inherited, faith cannot be passed along, faith cannot be thought and the concept of faith being determined by five characters printed on a piece of plastic is absurd and stupid.
3) The followers of sects (Sunni/Shia) idolize Muhammad like there is no tomorrow. Make a cartoon critical of Muhammad and they will be up in arms. Cartoons making fun of Jesus/Moses/ etc are still being made (watch any episode of South Park, even after the Danish controversy) but they dont care. They only idolize Muhammad and it is blatantly obvious. The concept of an “Islamic State” as promoted by the followers of these sects that idolize Muhammad is fundamentally flawed and has not been successful anywhere as it is ultimately impractical. They idolize Muhammad because they follow the oral history about his life that was written down 300+ years after Muhammad died.
4) The followers of sects promoting these concepts believe in proselytism and believe that they can guide people and change peoples faith. Their beliefs are based on what is effectively oral history, myth, legend and lies that were written down over 200 years after Muhammad died. The concept of an “Islamic State” and “Syariah Law” is based on this oral history. Different sects have different collections of oral history and that’s why Sunnis and Shias can never seem to get along.
5) Christians suffered when the Bible was taken for law. The bible as we all know is effectively myth, legend, and quite possibly lies written down CENTURIES after Jesus died. Remember the dark ages? The Spanish Inquisition? And yes, Christians forced women to cover their hair too. But they have learnt their lesson. Take oral history, myth and legend at face value and you would be screwed – hence the separation of church and state in all modern societies. Christians also no longer follow the bible literally the same way Muslims are following the hadith (oral history, myth, legend and lies).
6) The idea that there can be two legal systems in place to serve people with and without five letters printed on a piece of plastic is just absurd.
a) Say yes to “Law”. Say yes to “Syariah”!
b) Law is universal. Laws based on oral history must be expunged.
c) Without oral history, religionism’s choke-hold on civil liberties will effectively not exist and proper fair civil law can be implemented.
M.O.T.U says
“In the first place, in syariah law – to be considered as a reliable witness, a person must be a decent practicing Muslim.”
So if I as a non-Muslim were to witness a crime my word would not count for anything by virtue of my religion?
By the way, who determines [who is a] “decent, practicing Muslim”?
Merah Silu says
Well, we have too many issues trying to provoke the Malay [Malaysians]. Not everything in life can be clearly translated in the form of text and law. In many cases, it is the spirit behind the formulation of rules and laws that really matter. It is the same case for the syariah court that there is a need for the judges and lawyers to be Muslims. If we appreciate the context of how these laws were formulated, then we will understand. However, if we are troublemakers, then we will argue and relate that as a discriminatory practice.
I myself read well on Islam and Christianity. Although I am a Muslim, I am also have above average knowledge about Christianity. Should I then apply to become a priest, promotes Christian values and ways of life, and, teach them the beauty of being a Christian; even though I am not a Christian myself, and do not believe in that religion?
Well my friend, that is the generosity of Malay [Malaysian] values in me that will never provoke others for the sake my right as a citizen, more so as a native of this country. Although I always promote harmony, tolerance and compromise, but there is such a point where I cannot stand it anymore. That is why I always blame the shortsightedness of the Malay [Malaysian] leaders [for] accepting those economic-seeking-immigrants without proper screening as citizens of this country. The first generation could be well behaved, but their [subsequent] generations – always create trouble.
So it is best for these ‘adopted citizens’ to try very hard to get out from this immigrant-mentality and gradually join the legitimate citizens of this country. They should respect the laws and the constitution, as well as to know who they are and where they came from. I hope through this mutual respect and understanding, we can promote harmony and prosperity.
Dr Syed Alwi says
Its the nature of Islam. No Muslim country has ever allowed Non-Muslims to be Syariah Lawyers! So why hit on Malaysia alone?
Dr Syed Alwi says
If you want to have a reform of Islamic practices – then I suggest that you address your views to the leading ulamas world-wide. Because that is how Islamic practices are derived via a consensus of the ulama based on the Quran and Hadith. Malaysia cannot invent her own version of Islam as the Muslim world might very well reject it as deviationist.
Editor’s note: What world-wide gathering of ulama decides on the the Islamic creed? There is no Islamic equivalent of the Vatican, unless you take into account the Iranian political-theocratic system.
Shanon Shah
Columns and Comments Editor
Dr Syed Alwi says
Dear Shanon,
If you want a reform of Islam – you have to get an Ijma or concensus from among the leading ulamas world-wide. Perhaps you can voice your views like Tariq Ramadan did with his call for a moratorium on Hudud. Or perhaps you can go on a lecture circuit and write books – explaining the need for reform. But so far – the current consensus holds. Islam does NOT have a hierarchical clergy like the Vatican. That is why you must get a concensus world-wide. Not an easy task…
Editor’s note: Can you name a period in the history of Islam in which the ummah managed to get a categorical consensus from ALL ulama worldwide? As far as I know, ikhtilaf (or respect diversity of opinion) has actually been a hallmark of the Islamic intellectual tradition, up until the post-colonial age.
Shanon Shah
Columns and Comments Editor
Dr Syed Alwi says
The Ijma is the consensus of the majority. Minority dissent will always be present. Ikhtilaf or diversity of opinion – is allowed only in the minor issues (perkara cabang) and not in the major issues (perkara pokok).
In today’s context – if you can get Al-Azhar, Medina and a few other leading Muslim institutions to agree – then you have a good chance of getting an Ijma. This has actually happened recently with Human Organ Transplant. For 20 years it was deemed haram. But with more education – there is now an Ijma and fatwas have been issued allowing Human Organ Transplant. No doubt – there will always be naysayers. But they are the minority opinion. So yes – you can work hard and get an Ijma if what you speak of brings benefit to the Ummah.
Kate Green, Zombie Shooter says
Merah Silu:
I think you’re conflating priesthood with knowledge of legal systems. The role of the priest, in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, is to provide the means of the sanctification of the soul. Protestants believe in two sacraments (or none), Catholics believe in seven, and the Orthodox believe that the entire Church is sacramental (but round it down to seven when push comes to shove). The sacraments are understood as means through which the Christian may grow in holiness (that their soul may be sanctified).
Rightfully, only the priest may perform these sacraments, although emergency situations may call for them to be done by laypersons. However, Catholicism and Orthodoxy are both very insistent that only the priest may be allowed to serve the sacrament of the Eucharist, and to perform the rituals that transform the bread and wine into the body and the blood.
So the Christian equivalent, especially if you’re talking about denominations with a priest, isn’t priesthood. There is no priesthood system in Islam — no one has that kind of mystical election. The equivalent is knowledge of Canon Law. Canon Law concerns matters of Church administration, either at a universal or parish level. For example, matters concerning how the (Catholic and Orthodox) Church should respond to the presence of child molesters in the institution, or whether a person committing an abortion should be excommunicated, are matters that fall into Canon Law. There is nothing mystical about Canon Law, to have knowledge of it and (in Catholicism) to be part of institutional bodies that concern themselves with advising the Church on matters of Canon Law.
Within Catholicism, the are people who serve as advisers on Canon Law, and they *are* Catholics, but that’s also because matters involving Canon Law strictly relate to Catholics only. If we had a situation ala the Inquisition when Canon Law did conflate with Real Life law, then you have a situation where non-Catholics would be at the mercy of Canon Law and simultaneously not allowed to use their knowledge of Canon Law to protect themselves. So far, in Malaysia, the kind of theocratic government has not emerged, but we do find situations where non-Muslims find themselves in Syariah Courts.
As for whether you are allowed to start a church of your own, to be frank, contemporary Protestantism doesn’t really have any restriction on this. The principle is Sola Scriptura — if you think the Bible has revealed something to you, and you feel called to start a church, you can start a church. So if a Muslim feels that the Christian Bible has revealed something to him or her so said person can start a new denomination and open a new church, what’s stopping him or her? Only the Malaysian legal system, really.
Dr Syed Alwi says
Dear Shanon & other readers,
I think that the process of getting a concensus of the majority of ulamas – worldwide – is quite well-defined. One has to get the leading Islamic institutions like Al-Azhar, Medina and others etc – to come to a general agreement. The classic example of this process being applied to a modern situation is the – Human Organ Transplant issue. After two decades of debate and scientific progress – the majority of the leading Muslim ulamas – worldwide – now agree that Human Organ Transplant is permissible. So there is NO EXCUSE for those who want to reform Islam. They must set out their case in a scholarly manner – and get an ijma (concensus) from the various leading Islamic institutions like Al-Azhar etc. Whatever their case may be – it has to be written scholarly and debated over – in the proper circles. Islam is not a circus for clowns to poke fun at.
Editor’s note: Where is this “well-defined” process you talk about? Islamic authorities disagree all the time, even on major issues of dogma. Al Azhar recognises the Jafari school of jurisprudence in Shi’ism as a legitimate mazhab, yet the Malaysian Islamic authorities still outlaw Shi’ism, and Shias are still subjected to discrimination and violence in several Sunni-majority states. So you actually have not provided evidence to back your claim conclusively.
Shanon Shah
Columns and Comments Editor
Dr Syed Alwi says
Dear Shanon and other readers,
Yes – there are differences amidst a diversity of opinions. But on an important issue like a “Reformation” in Islam – there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind – that you have to get an ijma (concensus) of the leading ulamas.
One way to do so – is to encourage debate and discussion in the appropriate clerical circles within leading Islamic institutions like Al-Azhar, Medina, UIA in Malaysia, MUI in Indonesia etc etc.
How to do this ? Write a scholarly book that is addressed to these ulamas and go on a lecture circuit. Make your views – which should have a sound basis – known to the ulamas. Make your views heard in Al-Azhar etc. Don’t say it cannot be done. Why? Because Human Organ Transplant is one clear example where the ijma process works. Are you saying that the ijma process is non-existent? Then how do you explain the ijma regarding Human Organ Transplant?
It takes time and serious effort. Especially on an issue as huge and as important and fundamental – as is a reform of Islam. I believe that Islam is due for a reform owing to the changes in social structure.
Azizi Khan says
Shanon,
You are right. My thoughts are “syariah” as a law will not exist until there is a standardization of the “legality of syariah as a law”. We have syariah differ from country to country, state to state and in some cases district to district based on some know-it-all ulama who thinks that he knows more than God.
This is fundamentally what is wrong with syariah implementation, not syariah itself. Add to this, there are hundreds of “tribal laws” added to spice up Syariah in various countries around the world. Take our own marriage and divorce syariah laws.
The fact of the matter is (and this is the single point that “experts” such as Dr Syed Alwi fail to understand is: Syariah is God’s law to mankind, not Muslims. Everything that God created is for mankind, believers and unbelievers alike. But he wanted people to believe in Him, the Almighty.
So to say only Muslims can practice Syariah is sheer hypocrisy. I say if a non-Muslim brother or sister wants to take it up to ensure the rights of everyone it is a noble effort. So let it be.
Let’s face it. Islam all around the world, and especially in Malaysia reeks with hypocrisy. Its peppered with politics, marinated with the needs of the rich and well roasted and served on a platter by our “experts” and various “jabatan-jabatan” all around Malaysia. Add to this the “covert operations” to convert Orang Asli.
Now Dr Syed Alwi, answer me this : Where are my slave girls? I’m waiting! 🙂
AK