[Groop]OT Amina Lawal

Azamin azamin7@pd.jaring.my
Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:28:42 +0800

No Larry.. you didn't start a fire.. just intellectual dialog... that's what
we should do.. having a dialog and understand others... and explaining to
others... we must look at this positively... To have a harmony interreligious
relationship, we should understand others and to have that, we should involve
in dialog.. changing views.. it's good for Larry to raise this issue so we can
have a dialog here for a better understanding...

And as a muslim, I felt there is need to explain about the case from a muslim
perspective... (I myself feel that she did not get a fair trial based on the
Islamic law principle) and to explain the sensitiveness of the case when we
question the law instead of how it was implemented.  I'm not
critising/accusing anybody here... I was just explaining for our
information/knowledge.. That's why, I myself belief that she didn't get a fair
trial according to the law that she had been trialed with.  i'm sorry if
anybody felt that I'm accusing people of intefering with the nigerian law..

For Muslims, the Islamic penal code (criminal law) is a law set by the God,
thus when somebody question  it as a cruel/inhumane law... many will felt that
these people are saying their God is cruel/inhumane.. what is accepted is to
many Muslims is to critisized it in term of how it is implemented.. and this
sensitiveness/feeling varies in some level from a religious one (which might
felt very offended) to a secular Muslims(which can tolarate with).  It is
different if the man made law (through the parliament or not) is being
critisized as inhumane/cruel as there was no religious/racial sentiment... and
thus.. the sensitivity was not there..

In Malaysia, there was 2 states won by the Islamic party in the election and
these 2 states want to implement the Islamic penal code, Hudud. As Malaysia is
a multi racial and multi religious country,  non muslims and some secular
Muslims are questioning this law in term of how it will be implemented.. like
does it include the non muslims.. what happen if cases involve a muslim and a
non muslim... how to do the enforcement.. the procedure.. the federal
constitution.. etc.. all these we raised without questioning the law itself as
it is a sensitive issue and might offended Muslim in general... (you can read
about these in some of the link of my first email on  this topic).  We had a
racial riot after 1969 election which was caused of racial sentiment and
according to official report about, with 100 death.. but from unofficial one..
there were thousands... thus we were more sensitive to each other.. Malaysia
had about 60% Muslim and 40% non muslim.. and 60% Malay and other local
races.. 30% chinese and 10% indians.. And I believe if it was involving
religious sentiment, the death toll might be more... look at Ambon religious
clash in Indonesia a few years ago... Bosnian war etc...

So does the scenario in the global perspective.. we should respect each others
religion and its law.. but we can question on how it was being implemented...
I believe this way, we will get more peace in this world..
The question of humanright also runs on this concept. look at the amnesty
international stoptoture website.. which runs on the contact of "unfair trial,
torture, ill treatment, fear of safety etc".. and these are about how the law
was implimented.including the Amina's case...

(incompatible with the Nigerian constitution and want her to have an appeal
with an impartial/independence tribunal. They against to all form of death
sentence.. including electrocuted, hanging, gases, injection, stoning and they
are not critising a specific law itself- in this case the Islamic law)

So as what was in the  "Wager of the God", the religious issue is a sensitive
one.. and we should question the rational of other religions' law.. not just
Islam only... but we have all rights in questioning on how the law was
implemented... Sergio, through Groo had touched about this earlier... on how
to keep inter religious harmony... and not to offend other religions.. Sergio
somehow reflect the real life situation in Groo... The book burning ones are
with censorship.. and the one where Groo had been elected is about democracy
and elections...

I was not saying that the US is interfering by sending troops to Nigeria.. but
what I explained was that protest on the law might give some illfeeling to the
Muslim who might felt offended when the law was critisezed as it involve
religiouis sensitivity...(not how the law was implimented/case was
conducted).. they might felt/inteprate that Islam was offended.. and this
somehow might contributes to the illfeeling towards US.. as what Malaysian
Deputy Prime Minister said in APEC summit "Muslims could be expected to be
angry when they see deliberate actions to marginalise them and to offend
Islam, including linking recent terrorist acts to the faith."

(and remember the condition in Nigeria.. where there might not be open minded
as some Muslim in Malaysia or US).  So does with other religion..