The Chittarkottaian: Shah Rukh Khan is hosting a party for Paris Hilton

Datuk Seri Najib Razak vowed today the federal government will staunchly block any attempts to enforce Islamic law, or hudud, effectively ending a budding debate on the subject that has pitted non-Muslim parties against their Muslim allies ahead of national polls.

The Islamic code is not suitable to be implemented because the government has to be realistic about the country’s current situation, the prime minister told reporters in Tanjung Tualang during a day-trip to Perak earlier today.

“If we ask the ulamas (Muslim clerics), Islamic law cannot be implemented unless we take into consideration the environment and the reality.

“Moreover, the aim of an administration according to Islam is based on maqasid syariah, which entails protecting the religion, life, moral and property, among others,” Najib was reported as saying by The Star Online.

The sixth PM insisted that elements of hudud have already been incorporated in the existing system “minus the extreme part”.

He added that the principle and objective of maqasid syariah could be championed under the existing legal system.

Hudud is a prickly subject in multicultural Malaysia where race and religion are closely-linked. The country’s 28-million population is also still haunted by the bloody racial riots of May 13, 1969.

Najib (picture) is the second PM to take a strong stand against hudud, after fourth prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who had blocked Kelantan’s attempts to implement the Islamic laws in the state.

Kelantan Mentri Besar Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat has since challenged Najib to revise the country’s top laws to allow the state implement hudud there.

Today, major dailies in the country front-paged the hudud flap involving parties on both sides of the political divide.

Mainstream newspapers appear to suggest that Pakatan Rakyat (PR) is now scrambling to contain its loss of support from the Malay community as a response to PAS deputy president Mohammad Sabu’s alleged remarks over Bukit Kepong tragedy.

But the exchanges have not been entirely across the aisle. Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s expressed support for hudud earlier this week also appears to have upset Barisan Nasional’s Chinese partners.

MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek has threatened pull his party out of the ruling coalition if senior ally, Umno, goes ahead with enforcing hudud. Gerakan has expressed the same threat.

On PR’s side, DAP has likewise maintained they will not support PAS’s longstanding bid to implement Islamic law.

Muhyiddin, who is also Umno deputy president, later tempered his remarks by saying it was not yet time to introduce such laws to multi-racial and multi-religious Malaysia.

Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has also backed the introduction of hudud in Kelantan, which he said would not infringe upon non-Muslims’ rights

Murfreesboro: "No good can come out in keeping silent to the government or in speaking out of ignorance."

That saying of Imam Ali, one of the successors of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be upon him and all other prophets of God), was quoted in the United Nation's 2002 Arab Development Report. It encouraged Arab countries to take his example of establishing a regime based on justice and democracy.

It is true that Islam guides Muslims on all aspects of their lives, from encouraging modesty to prohibiting usury to instructing on governance. Islam also says Muslims must obey the laws of their land and does not allow its adherents to forcefully impose Islamic laws on any country, not even their own! Thus, you don't hear any of the 10 million Muslims living in this country advocating for Islamic legal law, or Shariah, inAmerica.

The posturing that anti-Shariah legislation, such as the bills introduced in February by Sen. Bill Ketron, R-Murfreesboro, and Rep. Judd Matheny, R-Tullahoma, is needed inTennessee to combat terrorism is flawed in many ways. (While the authors have proposed an amendment to remove religious references, the intention of the bill remains the same.) One, Shariah laws themselves prohibit acts of terrorism. So that would now make it a double negative. Secondly, there are already laws on the books to prevent people, regardless of their faith or ideology, from involvement in any type of terrorist activities. Thirdly, American Muslims, if left alone, do not engage in terrorism. In fact, they are on average more law-abiding as a group than the average American. Last but not least, if we study Tennessee history from its inception, it's obvious that most, if not all, acts of terrorism, including bombing, burning, lynching and even genocide, were committed by people who were not Muslims.

So why is one state after another introducing "anti-Shariah" legislation? Some say lawmakers are doing it to garner votes by playing off people's fears. Others say they are trying to distract people's attention from the real problems we are facing, such as increasing poverty, joblessness and homelessness.

But I think the roots of this bitter tree go much deeper than that. Political analyst Noam Chomsky once said we Americans have a bad habit of demonizing the group we are busy oppressing and exploiting. First the enemy was the "savage" Native Americans, next came the "subhuman" Africans and then the Japanese-American "spies." Now it's the Muslim "terrorists" as we endeavor to control more of the Middle East, the latest frontier being oil-rich Libya.

Unless Americans are made to fear and hate Muslims over here, they will not agree to invade, bomb, and rob them over there.

Most people weary of Islam and Muslims point to the tragedy of 9/11 to justify their anti-Muslim rhetoric and laws. Mr. Ketron once said 9/11 turned the pages of history. Well 2/11, the day the Egyptians ousted dictator Hosni-Mubarak, has shut the book on that ugly chapter by revolutionizing the image of Muslims all around the world. For 10 years, by flashing pictures of Osama bin Laden and others of similar ilk on the news, the media, politicians and their corporate sponsors repeatedly told the world who Muslims are and how they work. But now everybody knows the Muslim masses use peaceful means of protest, like we saw in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and like I am are doing here, to express ourselves.

The truth is Islamic radicalism was not a problem until we went to Afghanistan in the 1980s and trained Afghanis and others to fight against the Soviets. And homegrown Muslim terrorism was unheard of until government officials started hiring people to infiltrate mosques and entrap Muslims.

Continuing to support anti-Shariah laws for all the reasons I have stated is a grave injustice. The people of this great state are counting on their leaders to always do what is right and not what is convenient, popular or profitable. I would encourage our leaders to take a step back, study American history and U.S. foreign policies to develop a keen sense of insight, so they can distinguish between truth and falsehood and guide this state to unity, diversity and prosperity for all.

The next time we go to the ballot box in Tennessee, voters should heed the following advice of Imam Ali also included in the UN report mentioned above.

"Choose the best among your people to administer justice among them. Choose someone who does not easily give up, who is unruffled by enmities, someone who will not persist in wrong doings, who will not hesitate to pursue right once he knows it, someone whose heart knows no greed, who will not be satisfied with a minimum of explanation without seeking the maximum of understanding, who will be the most steadfast when doubt is cast, who will be the least impatient in correcting the opponent, the most patient in pursuing the truth, the most stern in meting out judgment, someone who is unaffected by flattery and not swayed by temptation and these are but few."

The implementation of hudud in the state of Kelantan must in all circumstances be subject to the maqasid al Shari’a, that is, the Higher Objectives of the Shari’a, the most paramount of which is to ensure justice for all, regardless of race, status or religion. This warrants the existence of Shari’a judges who are capable of dispensing justice without fear or favour and a Shari’a judicial system which is independent of political pressure or other kinds of influence that would impair its functions in the administration of justice.

As a Muslim, I am bound by the commandments of my religion including the injunctions as ordained in the Holy Qur’an. As I have stated before, the right to practice one’s faith is a fundamental freedom that is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. In this regard, it must be stressed that non-Muslims are and must continue to be in all circumstances exempt from the Shari’a jurisdiction. This view is perfectly consistent with the position of the Pakatan Rakyat as laid out in the Orange Book:

“...to defend the Federal Constitution, to uphold the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation, to ensure that other religions may be professed and practiced fully, and to safeguard the special position of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak as well as the interests of other races in line with Article 153.”

UMNO stoking with fire

We condemn the hypocrisy of UMNO and Barisan Nasional in exploiting the hudud issue for political mileage. Even more deplorable are the sinister machinations orchestrated by UMNO in attempting to stoke the fires of ethnic and religious tension by repeatedly playing up the issue in their media.

To the non-Muslim audience, they project an anti-Shari’a stance even on some occasions rubbishing it as a primitive system while to the Muslim audience; they relentlessly attack Pakatan Muslim leaders as being traitors to their religion and race by consorting with non-Muslim leaders. Without doubt these actions are part and parcel of the overall plan to drive a wedge in the Pakatan coalition and bring about internal strife and in the process hope to weaken the coalition and the chances of victory in the next elections.

I would like to stress that Pakatan Rakyat is a coalition built on the principle of consensus and mutual trust and respect. We hold firm to the conviction that any issue which affects the interest of the people must be discussed frankly in a civilized manner with the objective of seeking an amicable resolution. We also believe that each and every component party of the coalition should be given its legitimate right to explain its position on significant issues to its members.

SO it is that the Sharia law called diyat $2.3mn in "blood money". that saved the live of Davis 36 who work for Blackwater the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army.

Shah Rukh Khan is hosting a party for Paris Hilton and Rosmah

Heiress and international celebrity Paris Hiltonarrives in India Saturday morning and while she is expected to meet Indian celebrities during her visit, Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan has denied the rumours that he is hosting a party for her.

“There’s a hole in the bucket, dear rosmah dear Liza,” sang Rahim Thamby many moons ago and those of us who grew up singing along, generally chorused, “Then fix it, dear Rahim Thamby

, dear. Rahim Thamby Fix it!” Right now, there is a gaping hole in the pussy bucket —but who’s going to fix it, dear rosmah dear rosmah? Not mahatir, for sure. He has finished ‘owning up’ , remember? As a bewildered and increasingly frustrated nation watches the muck flying around, there is disquiet building up within a certain section, which needs to be paid attention to… or else. Or else what, the cynics will ask. Or else the hole will get bigger and bigger and nobody will be able to fix it, till it’s too late. With all the leaks doing the rounds, it’s time to just say it out loud—UMNO is in a mess. A gigantic mess. And unless we acknowledge this nothing is likely to change in the near future.

Dari cerita orang yang rapat dengan Rahim Thamby Chik, sebelum Rosmah diperkenalkan kepada Najib beliau adalah kendak Rahim. Rosmah berharap dapat kahwin dengan Rahim. Rahim ini hebat orangnya dan bukan calang-calang lelaki. Rosmah tidak dapat tundukkan Rahim. Rahim lagi bijak darinya. Rahim tahu Najib suka perempuan-prempuan seperti Rosmah. Mereka satu kem. Kem buaya darat. Mengikut cerita kononnya dalam dia sudah jadi isteri Najib dia masih berjumpa Rahim. Betul ke? Kalau betul, jahat sungguh awak ni…

Untuk lepaskan dirinya dari Rosmah dia cepat-cepat paskan Rosmah kepada Najib. Dia beri pengakuan kepada Rosmah, kalau dia baik dengan Najib dia boleh dapat kawasan balak. Negeri Pahang banyak balak, Melaka tidak ada balak.

Rahim bukan mudah dikenakan orang. Di Negeri Melaka ketika dia menjadi Ketua Menteri, dialah raja. Mengikut cerita orang-orang Melaka kononnya beliau pernah menghalau Pegawai-pegawai Majlis Ugama Melaka dan Polis dari bilik hotelnya di Hotel Ramada. Mereka datang menyerbu ke bilik hotel itu apabila terima laporan ada orang berkhalwat. Apabila sampai ke bilik itu yang di dapati berkhalwat ialah Ketua Menteri Melaka sendiri Rahim Thamby Chik dengan seorang gadis jurujual.

Najib walaupun buaya besar seperti Rahim Thamby Chik, kena dengan Rosmah dia kalah dan terduduk. Lupa diri, lupa anak bini. Balak Pahang pun dia berikan kepada Rosmah. Hotel Hyatt Kuantan menjadi tempat mereka berkendak tidak kira siang atau malam setiap kali Rosmah datang ke Kuantan.

Apabila Najib ke Kuala Lumpur mereka berkendak di Hotel Shangri-la kerana Najib tinggal di situ dan pejabat Rosmah di Bangunan SPK berhampiran dengan hotel itu.

Sejak dia mengadakan perhubungan sulit secara haram dengan Najib dia lupa terus kepada suami dan anak-anaknya.

Mengikut cerita orang, Rosmah, Najib dan Toh Puan Rahah masa pergi ke Mekkah kali kedua, mungkin untuk membuang dosa kononnya, semasa dia berjalan mengelilingi Kaabah, dikatakan terkena baling batu yang tidak tahu dari mana datangnya.

Some days back, some news reports had surfaced that suggested that SRK is set to host a party for Paris Hilton during her visit, but the actor said he is too busy at the moment.

"Some friends were planning to host a party for Paris Hilton. But I'm very busy with 'Ra. One'. So it's a little difficult. So my friends decided that if I can't come, then let it be. So we aren't having it now," Shah Rukh told reporters here at the sidelines of an event organised to announce the collaboration of his film "Ra.One" with Western Union Money Transfers.

Were we ever surprised that things would turn out this way? Was it ever going to be a surprise that Prime Minister Najib Razak and wife Rosmah Mansor would apply to strike out the subpoena placed on their heads?

In the beginning, the couple refused to attend an interview to ascertain whether they were viable witnesses for the Sodomy II trial. They made it clear that they would only do so if a subpoena was served on them. Anwar's lawyers then applied for one, a subpoena was served and even-though the decision itself was a surprise; it was clear the motive in allowing it to happen was merely to ensure both Najib and Rosmah would never take the witness box, ever, in the Sodomy II trial.

Why is this so? Because this method to evade taking the witness stand was done before, back in 2001 by none other then ex-premier Mahathir Mohamad.

Back then, the prosecution was led by Gani Patail and he inadvertently colluded with the courts to allow the application to strike out Mahathir’s subpoena. The court decided that Mahathir was not a material witness to the 1998 sodomy trial, and thus his testimony was not relevant.

When the court decided to allow Mahathir to file an application to strike out the subpoena, the defence would have had to state in open court the relevance of the premier’s testimony to the ongoing sodomy trial. This would force the defence to reveal the evidence they had against Mahathir, something that clearly placed Anwar’s defence at a disadvantage.

Back in 2001

Lead prosecutor Gani Patail, invoking S136 of the Evidence Act, raised objections to the subpoena and said evidence to be sought from Mahathir was irrelevant to the trial. Under this section, the judge will have to rule whether evidence from a particular witness is relevant to the proceedings.

"There is no evidence that would connect the Prime Minister to the accused (Sukma). No evidence to show that the Prime Minister is a material witness in the sodomy act. He was not at the scene," Gani Patail said.

Failing to conceal his irritation, defence counsel Karpal Singh snapped: "It is not for the prosecution to state what evidence the Prime Minister is expected to give for the defence."

Arguing there is more than sufficient relevance, Karpal pointed out that an earlier witness, police officer SAC Musa Hassan, had testified that the principal witness in the sodomy trial, Azizan Abu Bakar, had met with Mahathir. Azizan, in his evidence, confirmed the meeting.

Karpal, raising his voice, accused the prosecution of trying to assist Mahathir by going the extra mile to prevent him from testifying.

"There is more than sufficient relevance for Mahathir to testify. So, why the fright? Why the clambering to the Prime Minister’s assistance to ensure he does not come to court?"

Acting for the PM

Repeatedly saying that he is "not acting for the Prime Minister", Gani Patail reminded the court it has the power and is in fact duty bound to ask the defence to show the relevancy of Mahathir’s testimony.

Gani Patail indeed has experience in twisting the law and the courts to his whims and fancy. More so now that he is the Attorney General. Most Malaysians will say there is no doubt that he was in direct consultation with Najib and Rosmah, and would have advised them every step in this case.

The same line of questioning Karpal had for Gani in 2001 can apply for Najib and Rosmah in 2011. Why the fright? Why the clambering by the AG and the courts to ensure that they do not come to court? Why the about-turns and demands and threats when the court of law is the best place to prove one’s innocence?

Come September 29th we will hear what the courts have to say about Najib’s bid to strike out the subpoena but much of the usual can be expected. This script has been played before and it will be re-played, striking once again at the soul of the Malaysian judiciary. Until when will we see true justice prevail? And not just for Anwar but for all. Hopefully, it will be in this life-time.