It is unbecoming and unacceptable when a person in a non-political position, especially and normally those in positions of note, uses that position to make questionable pronouncements which are motivated by political predispositions.
I have even questioned my own Bishop if such were the case.
Aziz Bari can argue till the cows come home but he cannot escape the political orientation for his actions.
I have posted twice his close association with PAS and will now validate political motive for his academic expressions.
Aziz Bari uses Islamic teachings rather than Islamic Syaria Law, when these elements are distinct by themselves, to support his criticism of HRM Sultan Selangor's decree in the DUMC affair.
Let's look at closely the statements which has resulted in Aziz Bari being in his present predicament.
Quote: "Menurutnya, sebagai ketua agama Islam di negeri itu, baginda mempunyai hak untuk campurtangan tetapi ini perlu dijalankan selaras dengan ajaran Islam."Translation: According to him, as head of Islam in Selangor, his majesty has the right to intervene but it must be done according to Islamic teachings.
Aziz affirms that as head of Islam HRH Sultan Selangor has the rightful authority to intervene but qualifies it by saying the right must be dispensed in line with Islamic teachings.
HRH the Sultan decreed on the basis of the JAIS report enforcing enacted Syaria laws, not Islamic teachings.
It gives an impression that HRH Sultan Selangor does not follow Islamic teachings.
Conspicous is his use of the word "campurtangan" because it could mean intervene or interfere.
It is cynical.
I will use "intervene" in the translations rather than "interfere" which has a negative connotation by any definition.
Quote:“Seseorang akan berfikir sama ada dengan meletakkan umat Kristian dalam kedudukan itu - sesuatu yang tidak dapat dielakkan berikutan serbuan ke atas DUMC - adalah benar-benar mengikut ajaran Islam."Translation: People will think (or jump to conclusions) that whether putting the Christians in that position, something that could not be avoided following the raid on DUMC, truly follows Islamic teachings.
This statement is totally incoherent or deliberately ambiguous.
Contextually, one can only guess what exactly he is alluding to. The secular position of Christians, JAIS entering a non-Muslim religious DUMC premise, the raid was unlawful, the manner of the raid?
Or the position the DUMC find themselves in ie unable to respond to an Islamic decree, that there was evidence of protelysing, issued by the HRH Sultan Selangor?
In the absence of elaboration and specifics, it is apparent that statement gives a perception that the whole aspect of the JAIS action and by extension the HRH Sultan Selangor decree supporting the JAIS action, is not in compliance with Islamic teaching.
JAIS had acted within their authority by Syaria laws enacted in Selangor,
"Selangor’s Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Amongst Muslims) Enactment, which outlines offences deemed as acts of proselytisation by non-Muslims towards Muslims, grants the religious authorities powers to launch investigations and arrest individuals without producing a warrant.He refers to Islamic teachings which he is specific. He is not referring to Syaria law.
He is not specific in what it was that was not in line with Islamic teachings.
Is Aziz Bari deeming Selangor Syaria laws do not abide by Islamic teachings?
There must not be any ambiguity on his part.
“Quote: "Lebih-lebih lagi, campurtangan istana dalam perlembagaan negara amat jarang sekali. Apa yang berlaku di Selangor hari ini bukan sesuatu yang lazim."Translation: More so, palace intervention in (of) the Federal Constitution is very rare. What has happened in Selangor today is not uncommon.
The politics of Aziz Bari unravels.
Now of course, it must be made clear here, that statements are direct extracts from that Malaysiakini report but Aziz did not correct anything nor made any clarification in a follow up report.
That being said, "campurtangan istana dalam perlembagaan negara amat jarang sekali" - palace intervention in (of) the Federal Constitution is very rare, does that make any sense in either language?
Palace "intervening" or even "interfering" in or of the Federal Constitution?
So off goes Aziz jumping to the Federal Constitution? Why not? Make HRH Sultan's decree seemingly going against the Federal Constitution.
The HRH Sultan Selangor decree was made after due consideration of the JAIS report as Head of Islam which Aziz himself admits HRH has a right to exercise. The decree does not impinge any article of the Federal Constitution.
Worse is implying that it does.
What he is actually and sorely referring to is the appointment of the Selangor state secretary, which he touches upon only later on, not the matter at hand in which Aziz is embroiled, the DUMC affair.
Two altogether different issues and circumstances rolled into one to give the impression that HRH is a serial transgressor of the Federal Constitution.
Typical political grandstanding of the opposition kind.
Critically, he implies that HRH is not being scrupulous.
Quote: "Sebelum ini, pernah terjadi kejadian yang lebih teruk seperti bekas menteri besarnya merobohkan surau tertentu di Selangor. Tetapi pihak istana tidak campurtangan,” katanyanya dalam satu kenyataan sms kepada Malaysiakini.Translation: "Before this, there was an incident much more serious like the demolition of a particular surau by his former menteri besar in Selangor. But the Palace did not intervene, he said in an sms statement to Malysiakini"
In my previous post Aziz Bari had alluded to a demolishment of a surau. The Malaysiakini report I mentioned must have been that incident. If the demolishment was not by JAIS it would have created a national furore.
Here then, I would like to enquire whether JAIS demolition of a surau is more serious than preventing apostasy, according to Islamic teachings or Syaria laws?
While I am not an expert in Islamic matters, I consider that exclamation to be erroneous. Preventing apostasy is viewed more seriously.
The way it was put is sensational for dramatic effect to say the least.
More importantly one need to ask on what basis does Aziz make this comparison?
Specifics. Where are the specifics? In the demolition issue he does not say nor dispute that JAIS was acting lawfully.
He says only that the HRH did not intervene.
In the present DUMC case that Aziz is bitching about, how could that decree by HRH be construed as intervening?
He does not say. Again no specifics.
Quote: "Sehubungan itu, menurut Aziz yang telah menghasilkan tesis, buku dan artikel mengenai peranan monarki dalam Islam dan demokrasi, beliau sependapat dengan biskop Katolik Paul Tan Chee bahawa jika tiada bukti, maka kes berkenaan perlu ditutup."I won't waste time translating Malaysiakini's aggrandisations of Aziz Bari's literary work. It is just to give credence and it has no relevance in the continuance of the sentence regarding "evidence" and "case closed".
It is relevant however to translate the part of that statement to show Aziz's motive and the other mentioned personality's ignorance of the law,
Quote: "beliau sependapat dengan biskop Katolik Paul Tan Chee bahawa jika tiada bukti, maka kes berkenaan perlu ditutup."Translation: Aziz is in agreement with Catholic Bishop Paul Tan Chee Ing that if there is no evidence, then the case needs (must) to be closed."
Any person with even a simple knowledge of English can tell you "no evidence" is different vastly from "insufficient evidence". If there is "insufficient evidence" for any legal action no competent authority will proceed to do so.
This is clearly stated in HRH Sultan's decree,
"Based on the investigations by Jais, there is evidence that there were attempts to subvert the faith and belief of Muslims but that the evidence obtained would be insufficient for further legal actions to be taken."And even if a case is closed because there is "no evidence" it could still be reopened.
Rev Father, is that your problem?
By convention, no offence except by statute of limitation, can ever be considered to be closed.
As for you Dr Aziz, being a professor of Law, stop the spin.
Only political disposition can explain Bari's disingeuous concurrence with Rev Bishop Paul Tan on the "no evidence" therefore "case close".
Firstly, to the dismay of Pakatanis especially PAS itself, in this NST report,
Datuk Dr Hasan Mohamed Ali, who is state Muslim Affairs, Malay Customs, Infrastructure and Public Amenities Committee chairman, said there was evidence of "proselytising of Muslims by non-Muslims"Datuk Dr Hasan Mohamed Ali is also PAS Selangor Commissioner.
Secondly, recall my previous post Aziz the political troublemaker? He not only effects consternation with anything construed pro-BN but also anything considered anti-PAS. I will now be dilligent to translate what was the outrage caused in that report,
Quote: "Dalam sesi 'percambahan minda' yang melibatkan Dr Abdul Aziz sendiri, pandangannya di Sinar Harian bulan lepas dan wawancara dengan Malaysiakini semalam yang mengkritik pedas kepemimpinan Abdul Hadi menimbulkan pelbagai reaksi daripada peserta."Translation: In the 'exchange of ideas' session involving Dr Abdul Aziz himself, his views in Sinar Harian the previous month and his interview yesterday with Malaysiakini heatedly crticising Abdul Hadi's leadership drew various responses from particpants.
Why this strong criticism of PAS president Abdul Hadi by Aziz Bari?
Well, you see Abdul Hadi is "pro-Umno", in reference to the Pas president's discreet meetings with Umno leaders to form a "unity government" for which the Tok Guru showed utter contempt, the same sentiment Aziz Bari shows as well.
How anti-UMNO is Aziz Bari? In the same report detailing outcries against Aziz,
Quote: "Sementara itu sewaktu menggulung hujahnya, Dr Abdul Aziz berkata beliau tidak mempunyai bukti atau "ubat" untuk memantapkan PAS.Translation: Meanwhile in his winding up arguments, Dr Aiz said he does not possess any proof or "medicine" to strengthen PAS.
"Soal label pro-Umno, masuk Umno (yang dikaitkan dengan isu kerajaan perpaduan), ada atau tidak, tuan kena cari sendiri. Kalau tahu Umno cukup jijik pada PAS, yang pergi dekat, buat apa?" katanya."
The question of labelling pro-Umno, joining Umno (in relation to the unity goverment issue), present or not, you gentlemen have to figure yourself. Knowing Umno's deep disgust for PAS, those who went to approach, what for?
Note: Aziz Bari is fully capable to use English words to be specific.
Surely Aziz would be agitated not only because it is the PAS Selangor Commissioner who is saying there was evidence of protelysing, corroborating HRH decree which is the subject Aziz's criticisms, but also him being in "PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang's camp, which is in favour of unity talks with Umno."
Quote: “Di bawah undang-undang atau sistem undang-undang mana-mana sekalipun, jika tiada bukti, kes ditutup. Tohmahan dan dakwaan lanjut dan sebagainya, mesti dielakkan, khususnya di negara seperti Malaysia,” katanya.Translation: Under the law or any legal system anywhere, if there is no evidence, the case is closed. Accusations and continous allegations and the like, must be avoided, especially in a country like Malaysia.
Joseph Goebbels is attributed to have said, "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth". Here Aziz is repeating stupidity hoping it to become intelligent. Even stretching said stupidity "tiada bukti, kes ditutup - no evidence, case closed", being a universal judicial philosophy.
I give a deliberate example by this report,
"The case, which was closed previously because of a lack of evidence, was reopened in June after Ms Haggerty told the National Enquirer magazine that Mr Gore had tried to assault her"Maintaining his "right" to criticise HRH Selangor just by saying that it is does not follow Islamic teachings without any specifics, he too can be accused of "tohmahan dan dakwaan". Because I hesitate to say, HRH Sultan Selangor's actions not following Islamic teachings according to Aziz Bari is only an opinion, not evidence. And by his standards is a "closed case" and must also cease his "tohmahan dan dakwaan" especially wherever he may be.
Quote: "Menurut Aziz, walaupun Sultan Selangor dilihat melaksanakan kuasanya, namun tindakan baginda itu dilihat tidak konsisten."Translation: According to Aziz, although Selangor Sultan is seen as exercising his authority, that action by his majesty, however, is seen as inconsistent.
Inconsistency, in as far as the demolition of the surau is alluded to, has been adequately addressed.
Quote: “Yang pasti, baginda menerima kuasanya diambil (oleh kerajaan persekutuan) dalam pelantikan Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri tanpa sebarang bantahan atau aduan. Daripada apa yang dilaporkan, baginda menerima perkara itu sebagai fait accompli.Translation: What is certain, his majesty received his authority taken (by the federal constitution) in the appointment of State Secretary without any objection or complaint. From what is reported, his majesty received the matter as a fait accompli.
The constructive words here are "from what is reported". It begs a question from what report? Mainstream media reports? Alternative media reports? Or personal opposition reports?
Whatever the case may be the Selangor State Government had accepted the HRH appointment.
What "fait accompli" is Aziz talking about? The appointment was not subject to Islamic Syaria law which if exercised by HRH as Head of Islam, would then be final and indisputable. The appointment could have certainly be challenged in a court of law.
Quote: “Bagi saya, istana perlu melihat kuasanya dengan gambaran yang lebih luas; iaitu peranannya sebagai simbol negeri dan faktor penyatuan yang mesti mengatasi parti politik. Ia tidak boleh mengambil kuasa secara isolation (terasing).Translation: For me, the palace should see its authority in a wider perspective; ie it's role as a state symbol and a unifying factor overcoming a political party. It cannot use it's authority in isolation.
Well Prof Dr Aziz Bari, for me, you Sir should see your position in a wider perspective; ie your role as an academician and a unifying factor overcoming your political proclivities. You too should not use your position in isolation for interpretations of law when you affirmed HRH Sultan Terengannu as rightfully rejecting of the then Prime Minister's choice for Mentri Besar as against a "fait accompli" of HRH Sultan Selangor's appointment of the State Secretary.
Quote: “Apa yang berlaku hari ini, adalah contoh yang baik.”Translation: What has happened today is a good example.
Yes indeed. What has happened by your actions is a good example.
Let me end this PAS participle, with a dare by PAS leader Datuk Abu Bakar Chik to Aziz in that Malaysiakini report which Aziz had a stirring role,
Quote: "Turun, jadi orang politik!"Translation: Come down, be a politician!
In the same vein. Related reading.
Anwar backs hudud in Kelantan
Law expert says Constitution does not forbid hudud
More death threats on Anwar family
Aziz Bari receives bullet, death threat