Malaysian Parliament is DEAD, says Tawfik Ismail


April 6, 2017

Malaysian Parliament is DEAD, says Tawfik Ismail

Tawfik Ismail

The Parliament is dead, and the nation is being driven down a dangerous path, Tawfik Ismail, son of former Deputy Prime Minister Tun Dr. Ismail Abdul Rahman lamented today following the tabling of the amendment to Act 355.

Mohamed Tawfik Ismail said today was a sad day for Malaysia as Dewan Rakyat Speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia had pressed on with the tabling of the motion, despite him having served an originating summons to Pandikar yesterday to deter the amendments being tabled in Parliament today.

Image result for Pandikar Amin Mulia

Pandikar Amin Tak Mulia: What Rules are you talking about when you do not respect our Courts?

Tawfik, who had filed the summons at the Kuala Lumpur High Court last Friday, told reporters yesterday after serving it on Pandikar, that he does not expect to see the amendments to Act 355 being in the Parliament order paper today.

“Parliament is dead when the speaker who took an oath to protect preserve and defend the Federal Constitution betrays the very oath he has taken as a member of Parliament.

“The speaker plays politics disregarding the constitution and commits treason in ignoring the Conference of Rulers’ right to be consulted before promulgation of any laws that will divide us as a nation,” he added further in the statement.

Tawfik said that for the speaker to jump to PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang’s motion and place the amendment as number one in the order paper is arrogance of the highest order. He alleged Pandikar of wanting to show power.

 

“He wants to show he can abuse power and there is nothing anyone can do about it. That much is clear,” he said, adding that the dream of one united nation is being subverted by the very people voted by the rakyat and trusted to wisely make laws to unite us as a nation.

“Today the people must rise to condemn the Speaker if elected MPs cannot do that. Today we must stand together to protect the nation from the mischief of one man. Today the people must rise to protect Parliament,” he urged.

It was reported that in the court papers that Tawfik filed, he had sought a declaration that the proposed amendments were unconstitutional.

When Facts don’t matter in America


March 13, 2017

When Facts don’t matter, Trump’s White House is the sole arbiter of truth.

by Paul Krugman@www.nytimes.com

Image result for Paul KrugmanDr. Paul Krugman-The Nobel Laureate in Economics

The U.S. economy added 10.3 million jobs during President Obama’s second term, or 214,000 a month. This brought the official unemployment rate below 5 percent, and a number of indicators suggested that by late last year we were fairly close to full employment. But Donald Trump insisted that the good news on jobs was “phony,” that America was actually suffering from mass unemployment.

Then came the first employment report of the Trump administration, which at 235,000 jobs added looked very much like a continuation of the previous trend. And the administration claimed credit: Job numbers, Mr. Trump’s press secretary declared, “may have been phony in the past, but it’s very real now.”

Image result for When Facts don't under TrumpTrump’s American Supporters are factually challenged

Reporters laughed — and should be ashamed of themselves for doing so. For it really wasn’t a joke. America is now governed by a president and party that fundamentally don’t accept the idea that there are objective facts. Instead, they want everyone to accept that reality is whatever they say it is.

So we’re just supposed to believe the president if he says, falsely, that his inauguration crowd was the biggest ever; if he claims, ludicrously, that millions of votes were cast illegally for his opponent; if he insists, with no evidence, that his predecessor tapped his phones.

And it’s not just about serving one man’s vanity. If you want to see how this attitude can hurt millions of people, consider the state of play on health care reform.

Obamacare has led to a sharp decline in the number of Americans without health insurance. You can argue that the decline should have been even sharper, that there may be troubles ahead, or that we should have done better. But the reality of the law’s achievement shouldn’t be in question, and you should worry about the consequences of Trumpcare, which would drastically weaken key provisions.

Republicans, however, are in denial about recent gains. The president of the Heritage Foundation dismisses the positive effects of the Affordable Care Act as “fake news.” In Louisville over the weekend, Vice President Mike Pence declared that “Obamacare has failed the people of Kentucky” — this in a state where the percentage of people without insurance fell from 16.6 to 7 percent when the law went into effect. And as for the likely impacts of Trumpcare — well, they literally don’t want to know.

When Congress is considering major legislation, it normally waits for the Congressional Budget Office to “score” the proposal — to estimate its effects on revenues, outlays and other key targets. The budget office isn’t always right, but it has a very good track record compared with other forecasters; even more important, it has always been scrupulous about avoiding partisanship, and therefore acts as an important check on politically motivated wishful thinking.

But Republicans rammed Trumpcare through key committees, literally in the dead of night, without waiting for the C.B.O. score — and they have been pre-emptively denouncing the budget office, which is likely to find that the bill would cause millions to lose health coverage.

The truth is that while the office got some things wrong about health reform, on the whole it did pretty well at projecting the effects of a major new bill — and far better than the people now attacking it, who predicted disasters that never happened. And whatever criticisms one may have of its forthcoming score, it will surely be better than the ludicrous claim of Tom Price, the secretary of health and human services, that “nobody will be worse off financially” as a result of a plan that drastically cuts subsidies and raises premiums for millions of Americans.

But this isn’t really about whose analyses of health policy are most likely to get it right. It’s about Trump and company attacking the legitimacy of anyone who might question their assertions.

The C.B.O., in other words, is in the same position as the news media, which Mr. Trump has declared “enemies of the people” — not, whatever he may say, because they get things wrong, but because they dare to challenge him on anything.

“Enemy of the people” is, of course, a phrase historically associated with Stalin and other tyrants. This is no accident. Mr. Trump isn’t a dictator — not yet, anyway — but he clearly has totalitarian instincts.

And much, perhaps most, of his party is happy to go along, accepting even the most bizarre conspiracy theories. For example, a huge majority of Republicans believe Mr. Trump’s basically insane charges about being wiretapped by President Obama.

So don’t make the mistake of dismissing the assault on the Congressional Budget Office as some kind of technical dispute. It’s part of a much bigger struggle, in which what’s really at stake is whether ignorance is strength, whether the man in the White House is the sole arbiter of truth.

Zakir Naik: Peace Preacher or Hate Monger


April 20, 2016

(@KLIA on the way back to Phnom Penh)

Zakir Naik: Peace Preacher or Hate Monger

by Dr. Lim Teck Ghee

Dr. Zakir Naik, the controversial Muslim televangalist, is no stranger to Malaysia. He was here first in 2012 to deliver lectures in Johor Baru, Shah Alam, Kuantan and Kuala Lumpur. According to the organizers of the first lecture series, their objective was to promote harmony among people of various religions.

He is now into his second lecture tour series here. Presumably his objective to spread the message of peace, love and brotherhood among the various religions and Islam remains unchanged.

But perhaps his presence is also to emphasise the superiority of Islam over other religions; and as stated in the website of the Islamic Research Foundation of which he is President and founder, “about the truth and excellence of Islamic teachings – based on the glorious Qur’an and authentic Hadith, as well as adhering to reasons, logic and scientific facts”?

His main claim to fame (and contrariety)  in Malaysia comes from being recipient of the Ma’al Hijrah Distinguished Personality award by Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah in 2013 for his significant service and contribution to the development of Islam. He has also received various other awards and honours – all from Islamic governments or organizations.

That said, his standing with some non-Muslim governments and organizations is less creditable and more controversial. The religious television channel, Peace TV, which acknowledges him as its main ideologue as well as driving force, has been banned by his own government, the Indian government, for its anti-Indian malicious content.

This is a reasonable statement

The station has also been in trouble with various broadcasting authorities for some of its content and Dr. Zakir himself has been banned from entry to the United Kingdom, Canada and Singapore – in the UK, for allegedly “engaging in unacceptable behaviour by making statements that attempt to justify terrorist activity and fostering hatred.”

It could be that Dr. Zakir has been unfairly targeted and victimized for his religious zealotry and popularity with the Muslim community. He has claimed, for example, that he has been quoted out of context for his views on terrorism.

But if he has been misquoted or has recanted for his earlier views on Al Queda and his support of Islamic terrorism, what are his perspectives on Islam and other religions which have enabled him to gain such a huge following among Muslims all over the world, and have him placed so high up on the pedestal?

Peace Preacher or Hate Monger.

Critics who have followed his lectures and preaching – Dr. Zakir, following the example of Christian telemarketers, describes himself as “a dynamic international orator of Islam and comparative religion – have expressed concern over his conservative and extremist views on a wide range of subjects, including apostasy and the propagation of other faiths in Islamic states, both of them major issues in Malaysia.

On the former, he is said to have argued that Muslims who convert from Islam should not necessarily receive death sentences, but that under Islamic rule those who leave Islam and then “propagate the non-Islamic faith and speak against Islam” should be put to death. Another source states that according to Dr. Zakir “there is no death penalty for apostates in Islam, until the apostate starts to preach his new religion; then he can be put to death.”

On the latter, Dr. Zakir has noted that while he appreciates that people of other religions allow Muslims to freely propagate Islam in their country, “the dissemination of other religions within an Islamic state must be forbidden because (he believes) other faiths are incorrect, so their propagation is as wrong as it would be for an arithmetic teacher to teach that 2+2=3 or 6 instead of 2+2=4.”

Similarly Dr. Zakir has argued, “regarding building of churches or temples, how can we allow this when their religion is wrong and when their worship-ping is wrong?”

Similarly, The Times of India in a profile piece on Dr. Zakir has argued that “the Wahabi-Salafist brand of Islam, bankrolled by petro-rich Saudi Arabia and propagated by preachers like Naik, does not appreciate the idea of pluralism.”

The article quotes Muslim scholar Wahiduddin Khan: “Dawah, which Naik also claims to be engaged in, is to make people aware of the creation plan of God, not to peddle some provocative, dubious ideas as Naik does.”

He adds: “The wave of Islamophobia in the aftermath of 9/11 and the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan have only added to the Muslims’ sense of injury. In such a situation, when a debater like Zakir Naik, in eloquent English, takes on preachers of other faiths and defeats them during debates, the Muslims’ chests puff with pride. A community nursing a huge sense of betrayal and injustice naturally lionises anyone who gives

A community nursing a huge sense of betrayal and injustice naturally lionises anyone who gives it a sense of pride. Never mind if it’s false pride.”

Whether Dr. Zakir should have the right to be in Malaysia and to speak on comparative religions may be controversial but in our part of the world apparently lacking appropriate Islamic “wise” men and leaders to look up to, hopefully it is not false pride that Dr. Zakir is peddling but the doctrinal and institutional re-caliberation of the religion so that Malaysians can be reassured of its contribution to our religious and racial peace and harmony.

 

President Barack Obama nominates Judge Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court


March 17, 2016

The Opinion Pages | Editorial

President Barack Obama nominates Judge Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court

by The Editorial Board

If you tried to create the ideal moderate Supreme Court nominee in a laboratory, it would be hard to do better than Judge Merrick Garland.

In nominating Judge Garland to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last month, President Obama has taken his constitutional duty seriously, choosing a deeply respected federal appellate judge with an outstanding intellect, an impeccable legal record, and the personal admiration of Republicans and Democrats.

And yet, within minutes of Mr. Obama’s announcement in the Rose Garden on Wednesday morning, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader, was again outrageously claiming that Mr. Obama made his pick “not with the intent of seeing the nominee confirmed, but in order to politicize it for purposes of the election.”

He again vowed not to hold hearings until after Mr. Obama leaves office. But there is no reason to believe that Mr. McConnell and his party will hold hearings at all. What they have claimed is blanket authority to veto any nominee before hearings or a vote takes place. This is a dangerous new role for the Senate, one that could turn the court into nothing more than a group of black-robed politicians.

Under normal, even routinely partisan, circumstances, Judge Garland would sail through confirmation hearings and be confirmed by the Senate in a matter of months, if not weeks. That was obvious to Senator Orrin Hatch, the senior Republican from Utah who sits on the Judiciary Committee, who in 2010 called Mr. Garland a “consensus nominee” and said there would be “no question” that he would be confirmed to the Supreme Court with bipartisan support.

Just last week, Mr. Hatch repeated his praise, saying that if Mr. Obama wanted a real moderate, he “could easily” name Mr. Garland, but predicted that “he probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election.”

But we are no longer operating in the realm of sense or normality. The Republican Party is staring down the very strong possibility that Donald Trump will be the party’s presidential candidate. And now, its leaders, in a stupendous show of political malfeasance, are putting the Supreme Court’s constitutional duties on hold while they make dishonest claims about “letting the people’s voice be heard.”

There is some irony to the Republican rejection of Judge Garland, a 63-year-old white man, who might be considered too moderate for Democrats hoping that the next justice would have a more liberal legal record. It is a choice that does not bring more diversity the court.

In his 19 years on the bench, Judge Garland has established a solidly centrist voting record that reflects no strong political ideology. He has sided with the government in cases involving habeas corpus petitions from detainees at Guantánamo Bay, and has voted against criminal defendants more often than his liberal colleagues have. He has generally voted in favor of deferring to the considered decisions of federal agencies. In civil rights cases, he has voted in favor of plaintiffs who have claimed rights violations.

None of this matters to Senate Republicans, who have pledged that there will be no hearings, no vote — and with a few exceptions, not even the courtesy of a meeting with Judge Garland. They have said that if he were to appear before the Senate, he would be treated like a “piñata.”

This intransigence is unlikely to win votes for the party in November. Americans strongly oppose the Republican blockade, which is unprecedented in the nation’s history. As Mr. Obama said Wednesday, “I simply ask Republicans in the Senate to give him a fair hearing, and then an up-or-down vote.” If they do not, he said, the process of nominating Supreme Court justices — one of the most important jobs of any president — will be “beyond repair.”

Mr. Obama has picked a strong nominee, who won bipartisan support in his confirmation to the appeals court. If the Republicans refuse to accept him, they will face one of two scenarios: a nominee selected by Hillary Clinton, who may well be more liberal, or one chosen by President Donald Trump — a racist, vulgar demagogue who many Republicans have said is unfit to run the country.

The Supreme Court vacancy and why President Barack Obama is bound by the US Constitution to act


February 18, 2016

What you need to know about The Supreme Court vacancy and why President Barack Obama is bound by the US Constitution to act

The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111

With the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, there is now a vacancy that must be filled on the Supreme Court — and President Obama has a Constitutional responsibility to nominate someone to take his place.

The Supreme Court is a vital institution of American democracy and, since the founding of our country, the President of the United States has had the responsibility to appoint a Justice to the Supreme Court every time — and any time — there is a vacancy on the bench. It then falls to the United States Senate to confirm that nominee before he or she can take her seat on our nation’s highest court.

The confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice is a solemn responsibility that the President and the Senate share under the U.S. Constitution. It is not a political opportunity that reflects “left” or “right,” Democrat or Republican. It’s a serious obligation to make sure that an indisputably qualified person of integrity is nominated and confirmed to sit on the highest court in the land.

The President plans to offer his nominee for the Supreme Court to the Senate — and the Senate has more than enough time to confirm that nominee.

Here are the facts:

FACT: Six Justices have been confirmed in a presidential election year since 1900.

For more than two centuries, it has been standard practice for Congress to confirm a president’s Supreme Court nominee, whether in a presidential election year or not. Of the six justices confirmed since 1900, three have been Republicans. The most recent Justice to be confirmed in an election year was Justice Kennedy — appointed by President Reagan — who was confirmed by a Democratic-controlled Congress in February of 1988.

FACT: Every nominee has received a vote within 125 days of nomination.

Since 1975, the average time from nomination to confirmation is 67 days. In fact, since 1875, every nominee has received a hearing or a vote. The longest time before confirmation in the past three decades was 99 days, for Justice Thomas, and the last four Justices, spanning two Administrations, were confirmed in an average of 75 days.

The Senate has almost a full year — more than 300 days — to consider and confirm a nominee.

 

FACT: It will be harmful and create unsustainable uncertainty if Congress fails to act on the President’s nominee.

The Supreme Court could go the better part of two Terms with a vacancy if the Senate rejects its Constitutional responsibility. It’d be unprecedented for the Court to go that long with an empty seat. Here’s why it’s harmful:

The Court’s 4-4 decisions have no value in establishing precedent on which future decisions can rely. They also cannot establish uniform nationwide rules. That means if multiple courts ruled differently on an issue before it arose at the Supreme Court, a 4-4 ruling would leave those different rules in place in different states. The result is an unsustainable uncertainty — for the law, for individual liberties, and for our economy.

As President Obama said, “The Constitution is pretty clear about what’s supposed to happen now.” Watch his remarks:

 

Malaysia’s Mullahs and UMNO Leaders: Don’t be Simpletons and Lazy Bums


January 4, 2016

Malaysia’s Mullahs and UMNO Leaders: Don’t be Simpletons and Lazy Bums

by Zainah Anwar

http://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/sharing-the-nation/

zainahanwar2011

Last time I checked, we still live in a democracy with the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. We do not live in a theocratic dictatorship that some of us seem to imagine. So let’s end this grandiose claim that we speak in God’s name and let’s stop invoking God’s wrath on anyone and anything different. We need to find ways to conduct a sane, constructive and productive discussion on Islam.–Zainah Anwar

I wish for more than anything else as we enter 2016 is for Malaysians to make a conscious decision to be civil, informed, and fair-minded in managing our differences, in particular on matters of religion.

To threaten to rape or kill someone for just having a different opinion, to declare a group of eminent establishment figures who have and are still serving state and society with distinction as deviants, and threaten them with a fatwa indicates the depths of ignorance, misguidance and hysteria we have plunged into when talking about Islam.

Really, the only way one can shut up any public debate on matters of religion is for the government to decide to end the use of Islam as a source of law and public policy to govern our lives, in private and in public. It’s as simple as that.

The stark reality, however, is we live in a country where in the name of Islam, we can be sent to prison, fined, lashed, shamed, fatwa’ed and pronounced as deviants and apostates. What are considered personal sins in the eyes of God have been turned into crimes against the state. And we are supposed to remain silent and be silenced while our fundamental rights and liberties are abused and rule of law is violated by some self-appointed God’s “soldiers” on earth?

mullah-harussani-and-najib

Two of a Kind–Islamic Dodos

Last time I checked, we still live in a democracy with the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. We do not live in a theocratic dictatorship that some of us seem to imagine. So let’s end this grandiose claim that we speak in God’s name and let’s stop invoking God’s wrath on anyone and anything different. We need to find ways to conduct a sane, constructive and productive discussion on Islam (and politics).

First, as a start, can we please stop assuming that the so-called Islamic laws of this country are God’s laws and therefore divine, perfect and unchangeable. They are men-made laws, drafted by mere mortals sitting in government departments and passed by very flawed mortals sitting in Parliament and state assemblies. If they are indeed divine and perfect, why are they amended and continue to be amended, and why are they different from one state to another, let alone one Muslim country to another?

So let’s stop equating the Islamic family law, the Syariah criminal offences law, the hudud enactments of Kelantan and Terengganu and all other laws, rules, fatwas made by human beings to be God’s law, God’s words, and therefore divine and infallible. And to challenge or question them is to challenge God.

Let’s get serious here. Perfection belongs only to God. These codified laws, policies, fatwas and other pronouncements are exercises in interpretation and political choice. To think that just because one invokes God’s name, one becomes the walking, talking embodiment of God and has the right to denounce anyone who disagrees with one’s pronouncement as deviant or apostate is tantamount to shirk – ascribing one as equivalent to God, a grave sin in Islam.

Second, let us understand a few key terms that are now bandied about freely and interchangeably. There are distinctions between Syariah, fiqh, hukum and qanun. Syari’ah literally means the way, the path. What we mean by Syar’iah, is God’s revelation to Prophet Muhammad as embodied in the Quran, encompassing ethical values and principles to guide humans in the direction of justice and correct conduct. No person nor institution has the authority to claim certainty in understanding the divine will. Only God possesses perfect knowledge.

This led to the development of fiqh, which literally means understanding. It is the process by which humans attempt to derive legal rules from the Quran and the Sunnah (practices) of the Prophet. The classical Muslim jurists developed rigorous methodologies and principles to establish a legal system that they believed could best reflect the divine will. And yet none of them ever claimed certainty over their opinions and rulings. Certitude belongs only to God. So while Syari’ah, God’s revelation, is immutable and infallible, fiqh is changeable and fallible. Much of what we call “syariah law” today is actually fiqh, a human construction.

Hukum are legal determinations, rulings in any given case. Qanun are codified laws and regulations enacted by a government. So what we are actually talking about when we dispute over khalwat, moral policing, cross dressing, hudud, and family laws are actually qanun laws based on fiqh, our human understanding of God’s teachings. They change with time and circumstance. We are not talking about Syari’ah. We are talking and questioning the role and motivations of human agency and the methodologies used in drafting and implementation of those laws that have led to injustice and conflict of laws in our constitutional democracy.

So the next time a self-appointed soldier of God tells you you don’t have a right to question or have a different opinion, ask him exactly what is it that you are not supposed to talk about – Syari’ah, fiqh, hukum, qanun?And which category of laws that shouldn’t be questioned? Ibadat (rules that regulate the relationship between humans and God) where there is little room for disputation, or mu’amalat – rules that regulate the relationship of humans with one another? Much of the debate and contestations going on now in Malaysia are about mu’amalat laws – where jurists of over 1,000 years ago have favoured human reason, human experience, and discretion to serve the well-being of society, depending on time and place. We all know the famous example of Imam Shafi’i who changed his legal rulings when he moved from Iraq to Egypt – because of different circumstances and social conditions.

If we are truly serious, sincere and honest about wanting to use Islam to build a just society, and to reform unjust and discriminatory laws, we can mine the Muslim legal tradition, packed with juristic concepts that make reform possible.

There are maslaha (public interest), ikhtilaf (differences of opinion), istihsan (choosing the best opinion in the interest of equity and justice), istislah (choosing the best opinion in the interest of public good), and oh yes the much bandied maqasid al-syariah – the objectives of syari’ah to preserve life, faith, progeny, property and intellect.

How do we apply these principles to solve the problems and contestations we face in the context of 21st century multi-ethnic and multi-religious Malaysia, to ensure that justice is done?

Islamic legal theory is complex and rich. So let’s not be simpletons and lazy bums when we talk and think about Islam. When you can’t debate those who challenge you, silencing them with threats and fatwa shows nothing but ugliness. This is not the way to maintain respect for your claimed authority nor the way to build love and confidence that Islam indeed has the answers, as some people like to claim.

Let’s build some pride and knowledge in our own legal tradition, instead of defiling it with shrill sloganeering that Islam is under threat, and Muslims are under siege.

In the end, what we need to ask is what is the purpose of Islam and what is the purpose of these so-called Islamic laws? We as Muslims make the effort to comply with the divine will for a purpose – to do good, to bring about justice, to contribute to the well-being of society.

The more I read and learn about Islam, the stronger is my faith in a God and a religion that is just. I am proud of the verses in the Quran that talk about men and women being each other’s protector and friend, that promote monogamy in order to prevent injustice, that advocate a relationship based on love and compassion.

Who decided these egalitarian verses should be shunted aside and who decided that verses open to be interpreted as men having authority over women and men having the right to four wives and to beat their wives be the only verses to govern a marital relationship? Where is the justice of Islam when in the 21st century we remain governed by a discriminatory legal framework that bears little reality to the lives of women and men and the family today?

Who decided that the Prophet’s marriage to Khadijah, a widow 15 years older than him, and who was his sole beloved wife until her death should not be the model of marriage in Islam? Who decided that the Prophet’s marriage to Aishah should continue to be used to justify child marriage in Muslim society? Who decided that the part of the verse that talks about marrying two, three or four be used to justify polygamy as a God-given right in Islam, and marry only one and that will be best for you to prevent you from doing injustice is ignored?

These are all human-made decisions. Not God’s. Alas, the ugly truth is, too many of those in power abuse God and Islam to serve their own personal interest to remain in power, to enrich themselves, to remain privileged and protected.

As we descend into an Orwellian society where right is wrong and good is bad, and where Big Brother watches our every move, let us who believe in justice and reason take strength in one foundational idea in Islamic jurisprudence, attributed to Imams Shafi’i and Abu Hanifa: “We believe that our opinions are correct, but we are always cognizant of the fact that our opinions may be wrong.

We also believe that the opinions of our opponents are wrong, but we are always cognizant of the fact that they may be correct.” And in our search for solutions, let us be resolute and be guided by the words of the 14th century jurist, Ibn Qayim al-Jawziyyah, “The fundamentals of the Shari’ah are rooted in wisdom and promotion of the welfare of human beings in this life and the Hereafter.

Shari’ah embraces justice, kindness, the common good and wisdom. Any rule that departs from justice to injustice, from kindness to harshness, from the common good to harm, or from rationality to absurdity cannot be part of Shari’ah even if it was introduced by interpretation.”In the end, only God knows best. So let’s not play God on this earth.