Violations of Human Rights
Jun 25th, 2007, in News, by PatungSharia, caning, and violations of human rights.
IAIN professor of Islamic law in Banda Aceh, Ar Raniry Al Yasa’ Abubakar, says:
There are some concerns that Islamic law violates human rights.
The application of sharia in Aceh was not yet complete or perfect, he said, and still needed time, and besides it represented the will of God.
In Indonesia this is the first time sharia has been applied, so it still needs time to become properly established.
According to Islam human beings are to be respected for their non-physical qualities and this was why the body had to be covered up, he said.
On the question of caning punishments and whether these were a violation of human rights he said that any punishment was a form of torture, whether imprisonment, capital punishment, or caning. The death penalty was the most controversial of these, he said, but it had to be remembered that there were some countries in the world that allowed a doctor to kill a sick person, or commit euthanasia. On caning:
It’s the same as the death penalty or imprisonment, they are all forms of torture and they all reduce a person to a lower level.
However caning was in accordance with the rules of religion and what was to be found in the holy book, and it was approved of by the relevant authorities. Therefore it could not be considered a human rights abuse, and, what’s more, it was preferable to jailing or fining, especially since most people believed that the former, jailing, had no basis in sharia. republika
26 Comments on “Violations of Human Rights”
-
Saipul says:
You know, I was naive enough to think that the Suharto years were bad. Little did I realize that reformasi would flush Indonesia down the tubes.
-
Ihaknt says:
According to Islam human beings are to be respected for their non-physical qualities and this was why the body had to be covered up, he said.
PAH!!! And this is achieved by suppressing women? Denying them from basic rights?
-
Oigal says:
“besides it represented the will of God.”
Let me see if I understand this correctly, It is the Will of God to flay the skin of of someones back??
Barbaric as it seems, I might even come around if once and awhile a bigger fish than the local street vendor was the one getting the caning. How about the government guy that diddled the Haj Funds for a start (seems fair to me)
-
Parvita says:
The application of sharia in Aceh was not yet complete or perfect, he said, and still needed time, and besides it represented the will of God.
Will of God is to chop off hands, whipping, stone people? I remember reading the Qur’an which says God is Forgiving, Loving, Giving and Caring.
-
Sputjam says:
There is no such thing as syariah law in the koran.
It is a man made concoction.
That is why if you stay in pakistan, the syariah law is defferent from the ones implemented in aceh or Iran.
If you truly believe in God, then stay away from these man made mischief called the religion of islam. 90% of practices in the religion of islam goes against the teachings in the koran.
God says, “read, read in the name of the Lord”, (Read the koran and do not allow yourself be misled by preachers and clerics. take the koran as your only guide to a blissful life)
There are some people out there, after giving them evidence in the koran saying that whatever they have done is erroneous, still refuse to admit their mistakes and insist on following their religion blindly, as had been done by their ancestors, without any from of guidance from the holy book.
Fact is :-
a) there is no instructiion for 5 time daily prayers in the koran
b) there is no instructions for fridays prayers in the koran
c) there is no instruction for paying of zakat
d) there is no isntruction for fasting in the month of ramadan and the 12 lunar calender itself may be incorrect.
e) there is no haj (as haj is pagan in nature)
f) there is numerous warning concerning idol worship
g) there is a warning concerning taking priest as your guides
h) numerous verses saying that for the believers you will be judged by your deeds alone (not the number of times you worship, nor the number of children you bear, nor the amount of money you donate to build worshipping centres such as mosques, nor the bloodline of previous prophets (like syed’s etc), nor the number of haj trips you make.So beware brothers. If you have doubts about the practices of the religion of islam, now is the time to indulge yourself by studying the koranic verses.
Don’t take my word for it. Discover the teachings yourself.
Unlike the ulamas who make money fom their followers, I do not profit from the message I convey. Hopefully there will be some who may come to their senses.Those who think I am erroneous, then bring forth your arguments based on the koran.
-
Sylvester says:
Again, poor Acehnese, poor Indonesian. Having too many idiot uelamas. I am 100% sure that his god is not the same with GOD.
-
Denny Crane says:
Lock and Load for Islamic Law in Aceh
90% of practices in the religion of Islam go against the teaching in the Holy Qur’an
This is very provoking yet the idea to learn the Holy Qur’an is praised. However, it would be very difficult to study Islam only from its primary resource i.e. the Holy Qur’an simply because it has value which transcends time and space as opposed to human conception. For instance, the division of the two seas in the Holy Qur’an which was only discovered in the late twenties by scientific study.
It is with this rationale, in my opinion, Islam provides its believers means to understand the Holy Qur’an more by virtue of hadith and other means of drawing laws. Accordingly this is the part when things get very tricky with potentials of deviation and misconception. Nevertheless, even if such deviation and misconception do exist, it only relates to political driven issues, not the concept of Islam per se.
With regard to punishments in Islam, well, as any other law, Islamic Law is conditional meaning that unless the elements of the crimes met, the sentence cannot be carried out. For example in adultery whereby 4 witnesses are required. In practice this is very difficult to obtain 4 persons who see directly the act of adultery, yet it is doable. This shows that the misconception that most people have is by only observing the type of the sentence rather than the elements of evidence.
With regard to human rights, it would be very naive to believe that human rights only entail universal values. As much as it entails universal values, it also embodies particular values. For example, if a woman uses veils or agrees on the practice of poligamy, can other forbid or say no to that? In the case of Aceh, what most people tend to forget is that the Islamic Law only applies to resident of Aceh, where every of its citizen is moslem agreeing with the application of Sharia Law, meaning that visitors need only to respect the law.
Conclusively, it may be easy to say to a person/group/country that your policy violates human rights. But let’s not forget the notion of proving it and start with the big question as to which standard of human rights applied in the accusation.
Cheers
-
For example in adultery whereby 4 witnesses are required. In practice this is very difficult to obtain 4 persons who see directly the act of adultery, yet it is doable.
Isn’t it the exact reason they a group (of minimum four persons) have “moral syariah police” running around in the city (?) of Banda Acheh, peeping around, to become witnesses?
-
dewaratugedeanom says:
Denny Crane said:
With regard to human rights, it would be very naive to believe that human rights only entail universal values. As much as it entails universal values, it also embodies particular values. For example, if a woman uses veils or agrees on the practice of poligamy, can other forbid or say no to that? In the case of Aceh, what most people tend to forget is that the Islamic Law only applies to resident of Aceh, where every of its citizen is moslem agreeing with the application of Sharia Law, meaning that visitors need only to respect the law.
Human rights are human rights. No more, no less. They are laid down in a Universal Declaration of Human Rights which the members of the United Nations adopted almost unanimously (with the six members of the former Soviet bloc, Saudi Arabia and the Union of South Africa abstaining). By signing the convention member states agreed to bring their national laws in accordance with the principles laid down in the Declaration. Whether it entails universal values or also embodies particular values is not relevant. As far as I know Indonesia also signed the convention, and Aceh is (still) a part of Indonesia.
-
Lock and Load for Aceh (Part II)
With regard to the so called “syariah moral police” consisted of 4 persons (minimum), it may be correct to point out the rationale behind such number. Nevertheless the question would be whether there’s a difference between syariah moral police and ordinary policemen “running around, peeping around”, both simply are conducting their normal patrol duty.
With regard to human rights, Universal Declaration [UD] by its nature is a form of international encouragement without having any legal consequence if a signatory state violates thereof. This is, of course, different to that of treaty which bylaw is binding and therefore has legal consequences for any violation made. Indonesia has ratified ICCPR and ICSCR being the two most fundamental international instruments of human rights, hence Indonesia is liable to the charges if its policy contravenes thereof. Accordingly the question now would be whether the application of syariah law violates the provisions of those aforementioned treaties. On the conceptual level, violation of human rights is simply a question of perspective. If the citizen and state agree on an application of law, why bother to enforce otherwise?
Cheers
-
Arema says:
With regard to human rights, it would be very naive to believe that human rights only entail universal values. As much as it entails universal values, it also embodies particular values. For example, if a woman uses veils or agrees on the practice of poligamy, can other forbid or say no to that?
Particular values are not human rights, but personal preference. They are distinctly different. You should not bother on one’s personal preference, but you should act when one’s human right is violated. If I want to eat rawon for lunch, and soto ayam for dinner, no one can stop me. But if I want to kill someone, you’d better stop me because I’ll violate my victim’s human right. Get the difference?
Human rights are human rights. No more, no less. They are laid down in a Universal Declaration of Human Rights which the members of the United Nations adopted almost unanimously (with the six members of the former Soviet bloc, Saudi Arabia and the Union of South Africa abstaining). By signing the convention member states agreed to bring their national laws in accordance with the principles laid down in the Declaration. Whether it entails universal values or also embodies particular values is not relevant. As far as I know Indonesia also signed the convention, and Aceh is (still) a part of Indonesia.
I fully agree. From wikipedia: Human rights refers to “the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.” The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
Which makes:
On the conceptual level, violation of human rights is simply a question of perspective.
invalid. There is a clear cut boundary.
And finally:
In the case of Aceh, what most people tend to forget is that the Islamic Law only applies to resident of Aceh, where every of its citizen is moslem agreeing with the application of Sharia Law, meaning that visitors need only to respect the law.
If the citizen and state agree on an application of law, why bother to enforce otherwise?
True, it is only applied in Aceh. But by doing that Aceh is saying that they’re not a part of Indonesia. Indonesia is not a united-states-type country, so it only have one law for all. And what is the significance of the application of Sharia? Does it make things better? I can safely say: No!
If the citizens and state agree… it’s a big bolded IF, I tell you…
Who said all people in Aceh is united to enforce Sharia law? If they do, there should be no more violations, and the so-called moral police would only catch naughty visitors, you get what I mean? If the people unanimously asked for the implementation of Sharia law because it is good for them, there shouldn’t be any violations, right? But we see it reported here almost on weekly basis. And count those unreported, you and I can actually smell that this whole Sharia-crap is actually a propaganda from someone / somewhere… Those shouting in Aceh are just disposable pawns. -
Arema said
…you and I can actually smell that this whole Sharia-crap is actually a propaganda from someone / somewhere”¦ Those shouting in Aceh are just disposable pawns.
That’s exactly what it comes down to. And why not call things by their name? Aceh is Mecca’s veranda. Spearhead for Darul Islam and the new caliphate, dominated by Wahabi religious colonialism.
Denny Crane said
With regard to human rights, Universal Declaration [UD] by its nature is a form of international encouragement without having any legal consequence if a signatory state violates thereof. This is, of course, different to that of treaty which by law is binding and therefore has legal consequences for any violation made.
If one pretends to agree by signing a document like the Universal Declaration and then considers it only as a form of international encouragement because there is no legal consequence if one violates its contents, then what is the purpose of signing it and even calling its Ministry of Justice ‘Departemen Kehakiman dan Hak Asasi Manusia’ (department of justice and basic human rights)? Is all this just public relations and window dressing? To make sure the funds from the World Bank keep on flowing in? To get military aid from the West and then use it to crack down on independence movements?
I think there is only one conclusion: kemunafikan (hypocrisy)! Well, at least the Saudi’s were honest and abstained from signing the Universal Declaration. But they could afford to, because as long their oil reserves aren’t depleted their Mighty Protector will look the other way. And I don’t mean Allah. -
Aluang Anak Bayang says:
So beware brothers. If you have doubts about the practices of the religion of islam, now is the time to indulge yourself by studying the koranic verses.
Don’t take my word for it. Discover the teachings yourself.
Unlike the ulamas who make money fom their followers, I do not profit from the message I convey. Hopefully there will be some who may come to their senses.Dear Mas Sputjam, I read it, come to my senses, and threw it in the bin. We can be morally upright without uttering allahi allaha, can’t we?
-
Lock and Load for Aceh (III)
First issue, justification of Sharia Law
Who said all people in Aceh is united to enforce Sharia law? If they do, there should be no more violations, and the so-called moral police would only catch naughty visitors, you get what I mean? If the people unanimously asked for the implementation of Sharia law because it is good for them, there shouldn’t be any violations, right? But we see it reported here almost on weekly basis. And count those unreported, you and I can actually smell that this whole Sharia-crap is actually a propaganda from someone / somewhere”¦ Those shouting in Aceh are just disposable pawns.
The state allows it, the people consent to it, then there is law. The existence of violations is actually a sign that the law is working. If there is no violation then there has to be something wrong with either the law or the enforcement. As a matter of fact there would be no law if there’s no violations. If the people in Aceh have complaints about Syariah Law, they should submit it before the Constitutional Court. Sorry to say, but so far no complaints have been made underlines the maxim that when the state allows it, the people consent it then be it.
Second issue, justification of UD
If one pretends to agree by signing a document like the Universal Declaration and then considers it only as a form of international encouragement because there is no legal consequence if one violates its contents, then what is the purpose of signing it and even calling its Ministry of Justice ‘Departemen Kehakiman dan Hak Asasi Manusia’ (department of justice and basic human rights)? Is all this just public relations and window dressing? To make sure the funds from the World Bank keep on flowing in? To get military aid from the West and then use it to crack down on independence movements? I think there is only one conclusion: kemunafikan (hypocrisy)! Well, at least the Saudi’s were honest and abstained from signing the Universal Declaration.
It has been a prevailing international practice to ignore UD simply because there is no legal ground as to enforce it other than by means of treaty. If you wish to argue on Sharia Law, the question would be whether Sharia Law in Aceh violates ICCPR and ICSECR in which Indonesia is a party.
Third issue, justification of human rights
Particular values are not human rights, but personal preference. They are distinctly different. You should not bother on one’s personal preference, but you should act when one’s human right is violated. If I want to eat rawon for lunch, and soto ayam for dinner, no one can stop me. But if I want to kill someone, you’d better stop me because I’ll violate my victim’s human right. Get the difference?
Your selection of analogy is interesting, I do have many reservations though. Nevertheless let’s stick to your examples. First, the obligation rises in your example is not derived from HR, rather it is from the concept of negligence. If you see a crime in the making, you are obliged to stop for if you don’t you may be liable for negligence. I can assure you that every law in the world recognizes such concept. Second, there are three persons in your selection of example, namely you, me and the victim. The question at hand is the Victim’s human rights. In all fairness who would have the higher degree of justified standing to the Victim’s human rights? You, me or the Victim him/herself? The answer is pretty obvious that it would be the Victim him/herself. Hence if the Victim does not object to your action killing him/her, what ground would you have to claim that a violation of human right is taking place here? Enlighten me… :p
Human rights will never be treated as universal, but hey don’t take my words for it. If your method of defining human rights is correct then it would not be hard for you to just look around and see how many violations took/have taken/is taking and will take place.
Cheers
-
Cukurungan says:
dewaratugedeanom:
Human rights are human rights. No more, no less. They are laid down in a Universal Declaration of Human Rights which the members of the United Nations adopted almost unanimously (with the six members of the former Soviet bloc, Saudi Arabia and the Union of South Africa abstaining). By signing the convention member states agreed to bring their national laws in accordance with the principles laid down in the Declaration. Whether it entails universal values or also embodies particular values is not relevant. As far as I know Indonesia also signed the convention, and Aceh is (still) a part of Indonesia.
Cukurungan :
Those six countries who didn’t sign the human rights declaration are the honest countries whereas the countries who signed it are the hypocrite countries.
Because the human rights declaration by UN is not subject to be endorsed but to be violated. Hence, Why Aceh or Indonesia have to bother with the declaration of human rights while almost all parties who signed those declaration especially the advanced countries violated it. The very clear example is how the WTO backed up by the global corporate violates people rights to work and to food. Nearly three billion people in the poor countries directly depends on agricultural for their livelihood but WTO agreement has been used to tear down tariff and non-tariff barrier in the poor countries while permitting the rich countries to maintain billion of dollars in agricultural subsidies.
Cheap agricultural import have flooded the poor countries market and detroyed rural livelihood and made hundred million of the poor farmer to become even poorer.So why we need to talk about the basic human rights while the most of its promotor blindly ignored it.
For me, the human rights in this real world’s is only for the strong, the majority, the big, the rich while the human rights belonging to the poor, the weak and minority are to be violated by the strong and the majority.
There’s even big gap of miss-understanding among different religion, racial and the specific local custom so . If you like digest it slowly but if you don’t swallow it quickly no other option for you.
Might be I am wrong but UN itself representing the human rights violation. How can the world’s rules of games and the determination which is right or wrong are only be given to the fives countries while other hundred countries have no option but accept it plainly.
Regard,
Amungme Son -
Hi Denny,
I have to admit it took me quite a while to understand your point of view and digest your arguments.
The existence of violations is actually a sign that the law is working. If there is no violation then there has to be something wrong with either the law or the enforcement.
Your statement is true, but only if that statement stand alone by itself. If you use that to counter my argument, it shows that you have not fully understood what I wanted to say. Allow me to explain one more time, using an analogy.
Let’s say you’re in a classroom, and your teacher asked the students whether they want this new rule to be implemented “guys, from now on, those who came in late for class shall buy us all lunch and dinner for the next day”. This time, the teacher emphasizes that if the student don’t want that rule, they have the right to refuse. Let me repeat, they have the right to refuse. And now, position yourself as one of the students. That punishment is harsh. If you never came late and have little possibility to came late in the future, you’d probably want a more disciplined class and occasional free lunch and dinner, thus you agreed for the implementation. On the other hand, if you came late every now and then, and vulnerable to be punished, you are “committing suicide” if you say OK to that rule. Remember, you do have the option to say NO.
The same case with Aceh. If the people mutually agreed, they, by right, should know their capabilities to follow the rules and fully aware of the consequences. By agreeing to the implementation, they have think beforehand that it’s nearly impossible for them to violate it, otherwise, as I said, they’re just making their own life difficult and even softly “committing suicide”. Once again, remember, they have the option to say no. If they say yes mutually, you should see everyone abiding to the rules steadfastly.
But what we see is the contrary… numerous violations, caning, bla2 happening everyday. Isn’t that a sign of refusal to this Sharia Law?
Your selection of analogy is interesting, I do have many reservations though. Nevertheless let’s stick to your examples. First, the obligation rises in your example is not derived from HR, rather it is from the concept of negligence. If you see a crime in the making, you are obliged to stop for if you don’t you may be liable for negligence. I can assure you that every law in the world recognizes such concept. Second, there are three persons in your selection of example, namely you, me and the victim. The question at hand is the Victim’s human rights. In all fairness who would have the higher degree of justified standing to the Victim’s human rights? You, me or the Victim him/herself? The answer is pretty obvious that it would be the Victim him/herself. Hence if the Victim does not object to your action killing him/her, what ground would you have to claim that a violation of human right is taking place here? Enlighten me”¦ :p
Human rights will never be treated as universal, but hey don’t take my words for it. If your method of defining human rights is correct then it would not be hard for you to just look around and see how many violations took/have taken/is taking and will take place.
I think I know your problem. I have to admit the English term “human right” is ambiguous. Indonesian term hak asasi manusia (translated liberally as basic human rights, or just human right in this discussion) sums things up better, because it is different from hak-hak manusia (translated as human right). There is this confusion in you between basic human rights (BHR), which is stated in the universal declaration of human rights, and human rights (HR).
Let me quote wikipedia one more time. Human rights refers to “the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.” BHR is what defines a human and separates human from animal. Because you have your basic rights, you can live like you are right now, you are free to express your opinion (and so do I), etc.
“other” human rights are different. If you work, you have the right to be paid. If you are the child of your parents, you have the right to be given your basic needs and education. If you are a manager, you have the right to give orders to your subordinates, etc. They are rights, but not basic rights.
Every human have BHR, whether they want it or not, admit it or not, or their country signed the UD or not. By the time someone was born as a human, they have their BHR. Other human rights are acquired based on the status / situations you have in your life. This is the main difference. If you don’t work, you don’t have the right to be paid. When you become an adult, you no longer have the right to ask your parents for support, it’s your turn to support them. If you’re fired, you no longer have the right to order your subordinates around.
Those countries who didn’t sign the UD are just basically saying their citizens are a bunch of disposable animals.
-
Lock and Load for Aceh (Final)
Just got back from Nemo Bay in Canada fishing wild salmon, hoho…
Your statement is true, but only if that statement stand alone by itself. If you use that to counter my argument, it shows that you have not fully understood what I wanted to say. Allow me to explain one more time, using an analogy.
You wish to establish that Sharia law cannot be justified because the fact of the matter is that there are so many violations; borrowing your terms the Aceh people are “committing suicide”. I am simply pointing to your reasoning underlying your premise by saying that violations are signs of a working law. In the US, more that 1000 crimes are being committed every minute as opposed to that of your weekly examples in Aceh. You then continue arguing that the Aceh people are not united with regard to the implementation of Sharia Law, I counter it by saying it that so far no Aceh people or any of their representatives ever submit a judicial review for the Sharia Law to the Constitutional Court, never mind the fact that the right of Aceh People to implement Sharia Law is of the essence of the Helsinki Agreement meaning that if the Government does not accord thereof, then the agreement would never be concluded.
Let’s say you’re in a classroom, and your teacher asked the students whether they want this new rule to be implemented “guys, from now on, those who came in late for class shall buy us all lunch and dinner for the next day”. This time, the teacher emphasizes that if the student don’t want that rule, they have the right to refuse. Let me repeat, they have the right to refuse. And now, position yourself as one of the students. That punishment is harsh. If you never came late and have little possibility to came late in the future, you’d probably want a more disciplined class and occasional free lunch and dinner, thus you agreed for the implementation. On the other hand, if you came late every now and then, and vulnerable to be punished, you are “committing suicide” if you say OK to that rule. Remember, you do have the option to say NO.
Your new analogy; students and teacher. Teacher proposes students accept, then the rule exists. Some of the students violate the rule, punishment is enforced. I don’t see any irregularrity as it happens in every system of law in the world. In the case of Aceh, it is the Aceh people who proposed the application of Sharia Law, not the Government. It is the students who suggest the rule, the teacher accepts it, then the rule is applicable. As a matter of fact, in the case of Aceh, almost every crime in Sharia Law is a crime in Indonesian Law by definition. The difference lies in the type of punishment. Nevertheless, if the people of Aceh accepts such type, then what grounds do we have to say No? As an outsider, I would argue that the legal basis is very weak to say that the HR of Aceh people is being violated.
Every human have BHR, whether they want it or not, admit it or not, or their country signed the UD or not. By the time someone was born as a human, they have their BHR. Other human rights are acquired based on the status / situations you have in your life. This is the main difference. If you don’t work, you don’t have the right to be paid. When you become an adult, you no longer have the right to ask your parents for support, it’s your turn to support them. If you’re fired, you no longer have the right to order your subordinates around.
I am not negating your concept of HR or BHR for that matter. Respectfully I have to say that your concept is not anywhere near our gist of discussion. The real concern here is that whether Aceh’s people HR is being violated by the implementation of Sharia Law. I argue no because the implementation of Sharia Law is the particular element of HR. What is the particular element of HR in this matter? It is the right to decide one’s own way of life. Certainly one’s way of life is unique and by far cannot be judged by any yardstick.
Nevertheless, it has been an interesting banter though. I look forward to discussing with you on another topic.
Cheers
-
Dragonwall says:
Thse Indonesian Uelamas & religious scholars/talib/leaders fight so tediously for Syariah Law to be implemented throughout Indonesia, I wonder what was in their mind in the first place. Is it for the people or themselves? Or so that they could catapult their political career to a higher level.
In malaysia and Singapore there were also Syariah Law! But that applies to Muslims and not the whole population at large.
If the Syariah Law is implemented throughout Indonesia then they are trying to imply that this law will also applies to all non Muslim. In this case they will be and the Indonesian Government shall be responsible as they are violating an International Human Rights Law that protects non Muslim from being forced into accepting another religion, and in this case it’s the Syariah Law. Subsequently they will also be held responsible for persecuting those non Muslims.
Those pig heads wants the spot light and be a center of attraction. No wonder there is not much circus in Indonesia.
The Islamic Uelamas and or religious leaders are a bunch of clown following the act of others. That is why most Indonesian are considered followers and not leaders.
They just want to “ikut ikutan”. This applies to all that had tried to push the Syariah Law into enactment.(This is what I analyze. People from all over, governmental, religious and civil, pushing the same subject with different topics and tried to shaft them down the throat of SBY. It is like fighting a war when varius troops of different capabilities surrounding the target from everywhere and then squeeze them to death.)
Let me predict this way. If Indonesian Government were to heed the advice and go ahead with implementing the Syariah Law or the Syariah Banking like the short VP JK suggested, this is what will probably happen.
1. The Syariah Law will be made to supercede the Civil Law.
2. All business will be given priorities to the Muslims.
3. All other non Muslim businesses will be eliminated.
4. All other non Muslims will be forced to apply what the Syariah Law calls for.
5. Most businesses owned by Chinese and foreign investors will either close shop
or go into bankruptcy.
6. Money will start to flow out of Indonesia again, and this time it will be far larger
than ever, like a river of no return.
7. A Mass Exodus will began also like a river of no return.
8. Indonesia will be like a ghost town with zombies running around in funny cloaks.
9. Stock and Shares will tumble.
10. Financial institution will come to a standstill with only in house CC and very little
international transaction, reason being no one trust Indonesia.
11.This Syariah Law is a kind of “kong kali kong” kind of stuffs from people like JK
and his cronies.
12.Indonesia will be drawn back. n example was showed to thw world in Iran when
it was so prosperous and sweet smelling air comparing to now which is polluted
with smell of gun powder and goat stinks all over.To cover the overall it will take quite a while.
Let see what happens next.
So much from democracy to communism.
-
Shiva says:
Denny Crane Says:
If the citizen and state agree on an application of law, why bother to enforce otherwise?
AND
The state allows it, the people consent to it, then there is law.
Yo, Do the citzens really consent to Sharia as you say
It is not easy, to question the Shariah laws for fear of being considered an unfaithful Muslim. The citizens are careful not to criticize the existence of sharia laws, as any hint of Blasphemy and Apostacy always attracts the mindless islamic mobs, who are not shy of using violence
Most of the citizens are not really aware of what sharia entails, as they are brain washed that sharia is another wonderful gift from Allah.
The system of Shariah laws, represents a form of politics and as usual, a way of fattening the payroll.
By applying Shariah law, the governor, the political elites, get more money for police, more courts, and a new section of government to look after Shariah.”
The laws on drinking, gambling and relations between men and women tended to affect poor people the most.
In Aceh traditional ways – referred to as “adat” – have in the past been a very important authority for regulating daily life. The role of adat is recognized in Indonesian law, and was central to the role of Acehnese rulers
This adat or “custom”, being linked to the secular authority of the sultan, was always a balance to the shari’a. The recent introduction of shari’a law in Aceh is part of a centuries-long process of Islamising Acehnese culture, ultimately replacing adat with shari’a.
Since the nineteenth century, adat has been used by colonial government in Indonesia as a legal term designating a prescriptive right, which was given currency as an independent legal entity apart from the canon law of Islam (syari’ah).
Local adat was encoded into units of jural management, whereby legal pluralism in colonial Indonesia was introduced.
Under this scheme, based on a classification of adat systems as cultural geographic units, Indonesia was divided into at least nineteen adat law areas.
So called adat law rather than syari’ah, was then imposed wherever possible in an attempt to divorce the indigenous people from Islam.
Adat law, however, was applied, under the 1854 Constitution, the application of adat rules which were in conflict with generally recognised principles of justice in European terms was strictly forbidden
-
Buruh Migran says:
The death penalty was the most controversial of these, he said, but it had to be remembered that there were some countries in the world that allowed a doctor to kill a sick person, or commit euthanasia.
Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of a terminally ill person in a painless or minimally painful way, for the purpose of limiting suffering. And this practice is being decided under the will of the patient or the closest family not by the doctor. It is not a death penalty by the doctor! What a stupid remark of Professor of Islamic law Ar Raniry Al Yasa’ Abubakar!
Death penalty and euthanasia is totally different practice and background!
-
Lock and Load for Sharia Law
Dragonwall Says:
If the Syariah Law is implemented throughout Indonesia then they are trying to imply that this law will also applies to all non Muslim. In this case they will be and the Indonesian Government shall be responsible as they are violating an International Human Rights Law that protects non Muslim from being forced into accepting another religion, and in this case it’s the Syariah Law. Subsequently they will also be held responsible for persecuting those non Muslims.
I cordially invite you to highlight a provision in Sharia Law which is assumed to have violated International Human Rights Law.
Shiva Says:
Most of the citizens are not really aware of what sharia entails, as they are brain washed that sharia is another wonderful gift from Allah.
I cordially invite you to discuss differences with respect to Civil, Adat and Islamic Law for which all of them are acknowledged in Indonesian Law. It would be of great if you could refer each a provision that signifies the character thereof.
Cheers
-
Would it be funny to assume that you are a Muslim? Or a european trying to pretend to be a Muslim.
I have no interest in the Sharia Law of whoever the country is be it in Arab or Malaysia or Singapore.
In Singapore no one dares to try an implement the Sharia Law as the Sharia Law are use only with the Muslims Community to usually do arbitration on marriage etc but not into the political scene. This is the only limitation that were allowed for them and they were not allowed by law to interferre in civil law.
In the Arabian countries like Saudi they were also prejudicial at certain things but they are liberal enough towards foreign hotels operating there. If you were seen smoking or eating in the public during the Ramadhan, you will be thrown into the dundgeon and left to rot for no apparent reason without any charges. This was from someone I knew who was there serving with the Saudi. So if you are european or whoever that encounter such, is that a violations of Human Rights? Of course! He or she may be embracing another religion and if that were to happen to him/her that is gross violation and discrimination. So do I need to refer to the Sharia Law to enlightened you? Common sense will tell.
If the Syariah Law is implemented throughout Indonesia then they are trying to imply that this law will also applies to all non Muslim. In this case they will be and the Indonesian Government shall be responsible as they are violating an International Human Rights Law that protects non Muslim from being forced into accepting another religion
So is that good reason enough. You don’t need someone to be killed before someone is being sought after for justice. Look for yourself in Aceh as a good example. They even say if you don’t like it god somewhere else. Is that violations of Human Rights and a dsicrimination Yes of course. I have friends who were born and bred Bireun, Lhoksuemawe, Langsa who were afraid of returning there. By saying that, if that is you, what will you do. and if you move to somewhere and again they tell you the same thing what will you do next.
Please do not just quote/unquote because you think differently.
Indonesia was set out to be a democratic country but had not acted like one. They were more socialistic where rampant corruptions became the disease lynching on the community. And now Sharia? And you are Pro Sharia?
How much do you know about Sharia Law. Which standard are they adopting?
Pro Jihad? Moderate Islam? Socialistic or what?When a country who was about to embark into the 20th century back in the 80’s then started to drift back in time. This is exactly the same as Iran when shah Reza Pahlavi allowed the ‘How Many’ to return thinking that he is no longer a threat, later found himself drawn into exile and turning the country into a black and white. After the death of ‘How Many’ his throne was pass on to a ‘How Plenty’ and then what next?
This is realistic.
violations are signs of a working law
Crimes committed in the US as opposing to the Sharia, is there a difference? Do you know that Laws are being passed through constitution and that the Sharia will never be!
Teacher proposes students accept, then the rule exists. Some of the students violate the rule, punishment is enforced. I don’t see any irregularrity as it happens in every system of law in the world
How ignorant by giving such an analogy. So does that applies to the Chinese and others who were not Muslim? I suppose in your explanation they will have to swallow that, right!
Sharia is a law only to Muslims and cannot be taken into comparison to any law passed in a country. Have you heard of a law in the US that says a person be stone, had his hand cut of, etc? If your answer is yes, then you are inhumane and academically unfit.
The laws that were passed are either conventionl or continental. To prove your self innocent or br proven wrong, no exception. Punishment meted out were within reasonable means acceptable in the human society.
Are you trying to say cutting of hands is acceptable. stoning is acceptable?
As an outsider, I would argue that the legal basis is very weak to say that the HR of Aceh people is being violated.
It is not the HR of Aceh people being violated. It is those that who does not embrace the Islamic that their HR is being violated.
What is the particular element of HR in this matter? It is the right to decide one’s own way of life.
You have the right to remain silent, you have the right to an attorney, and you have the right to do it at home with your wife and childrens.
If this is a country like Arab, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Saudi etc it is okay because the majority embrace Islam. Not in Indonesia.
Similarly to China or any other country where the minority is Muslim and they passed an ‘X’ law to decide one’s ownn way of life, other than the state law and if the minority were told to abide, is that in violation of his HR or BHR? You have the answer.
Arguements on whether it violates or not is clear cut. You must be there to witness to make further comments. see it yourself on the neutral side on a panoramic view.
Will America says this to you, being a citizen, ‘If you don;t like it go somewhere else! What will you say.
__________________
The state allows it, the people consent to it, then there is law. The existence of violations is actually a sign that the law is working. If there is no violation then there has to be something wrong with either the law or the enforcement.As a matter of fact there would be no law if there’s no violations.
Ah.. it looks like that you are either trying to be too smart or being plain stupid. Like promise are made to be broken, I suppose! How gullible the thinking you possess.
Laws are being drawn, approve by a constitution and enforce as a bisc guidance to people’s way of life. Not dictate. When someone flout the law by violating with intention or directly that means the person notice a grey spot to manipulate with. If unintentionally or indrectly that means this person could be ignorant, but ignorance is no excuse of the law. The discretion is depend on the judge to dispose.If the people in Aceh have complaints about Syariah Law, they should submit it before the Constitutional Court. Sorry to say, but so far no complaints have been made underlines the maxim that when the state allows it, the people consent it then be it
Sharia can never become a statute in a democratic country. It never really exists except that there are some bias people over zealous by thinking what they want is what other want. So there is no such thing as submit it before the Constitutional Court.
If you say you want to lead the kind of life you so desire. Then you said I am going to make it into a Pariah Law or Hood’s Law. Then you submit that to the Constitution? If the Constitution does not approve you go around killing people, shooting everyone, persecute those whom you think had violate your law? Saying that they made blasphemous remarks at your religion and must be dealt with by your law?
I am interpreting as what you said. so do I need to go into your Sharia Law to highlight a provision in it to prove you wrong? You have by way of speech prove yourself wrong without outside help.
This is a free world so you can say what you like, but in public you are expressing to others so others could rebutt. So may i guess you were plucking things from the air and you do not really understand the Law itself let alone the Sharia!
Sharia is a way to the muslims that they must abide in their religion. By implementing it they are implying that everyone must accept it as the law and this is not on. They were written by clerics for their followers and had never been contitutitonally accepted in any country except they were being treated as a way of governing their own desciples because majority of the population were muslim.
These clerics copy from one another and certain other inclusion were omitted or deleted in some instance. There were no standard in any of them that varies from country to country.
Certain translations like they are allowed to take in four wives on condition that his other wife/wives consented. In most case these women were ignorant thus allowing their husband to take in and took them for granted.
How did Bambang Tri and his wife fare? So this is internal but since they were registered with the civil department they have to go to the civil court suing him for bigamy, asset distribution and ailimony.So where do you stand in the eyes of the Sharia and the US statute. Can you see the difference between the US and Indonesia? US is an immigrant country whereas Indonesia is not.
_____________________
a) there is no instructiion for 5 time daily prayers in the koran
Oh yes, so that they could get paid without working for it like what they did in my factory in Sidoardjo.
b) there is no instructions for fridays prayers in the koran
Who said so. Didn’t you hear of long weekends!
c) there is no instruction for paying of zakat
Yea… There was even someone that goes around preaching this by saying as long as they pay zakat, prostitution is ok. (I mean those who were poor and had to resort to this as away of income to feed their family, this I really sympatthize)
d) there is no isntruction for fasting in the month of ramadan and the 12 lunar calender itself may be incorrect.
Why not? They can’t carry heavy load at work, must rest, but eat a lot in the night till dawn, what like Sahur?
e) there is no haj (as haj is pagan in nature)
Beside the oil in Saudi, How did they become so rich? The Haj of course. Indonesia should shift the Monas to Aceh, Cover it with a red and white and say this is the direction of prayer to promote Aceh’s Tourism Trade, otherwise where are they going to get the money from. (Robbing people)
Tell you this. A friend of mine had a timber concession in Lhoksuemawe and had many caterpillars, log grabbers, loaders everything. He left Indonesia with all those equipment unable to get them out or resell them losing his entire asset.f) there is numerous warning concerning idol worship
You are wrong, this is the old form of tourism gadget preying on the ignorant but staunch believers.
g) there is a warning concerning taking priest as your guides
Otherwise how does the clerics get rich and some were even paid salaries. They may even want to argue that if the Christians were paid why not us????? Distraction.
h) numerous verses saying that for the believers you will be judged by your deeds alone (not the number of times you worship, nor the number of children you bear, nor the amount of money you donate to build worshipping centres such as mosques, nor the bloodline of previous prophets (like syed’s etc), nor the number of haj trips you make.
I knew of a Chinese (like Anton Medan) convert from a nobody to Muslim wearing a peji. This guy is a very prominent person so I skipped the name and place. The owner of this factory is a handicap but his wife attractive. He lost in gambling so he had to bring in partners. This partner (the new Muslim) came in , was invited into their home and a place to sleep. slowly he move from his room to her room. When the husband found out she asked her husband to leave. eventually they have a kid. this guy even gives haj bursary to workers yearly.
I suppose he convert because he wants to take in four wives! And not be punished.
I suppose he give out bursary to redemm his sin by screwing his partner’s wife!
I suppose he converted because he was corrupting with the demise Jaksa Agung in making him rich by giving him the goods confiscated!So that is the good thing about Haj and Sharia.
-
taxpayer says:
Does anyone here respect the constitution of Indonesia?
Or was Sukarno and Democratic freedom just a cool western thing for Indonesians to cling to like every other image related fad Indonesians all love to adore?
Sharia law violates the Indonesian Constitution!!! END OF STORY!! Want sharia law? Change the constitution.
Until than….stop trying to gain total power by using religion. (ANOTHER VIOLATION OF YOUR OWN CONSTITUTION)
If Indonesians don’t respect the constitution instituted in 1945, than what is everyone always whining about here. Your whole country is based on that piece of paper. Welcome to the real world.
The biggest myth is the “nation-state” myth. This seems to be the one thing sharia Law defenders love to cling to.
Plus, with sharia law, 90% of your local and central government officials would have stumps for hands and have to do the “Obama” bump to seal deals.
-
It would seem that the new Chief of the Constitutional Court in Indonesia feels that Sharia by-laws breach Pancasila as well and are a clear and present threat to national integrity.
Let the fun and games begin!
-
david says:
I would say that we should hold our hands together to fight the violation of human rights because we are also human beings.
Comment on “Violations of Human Rights”.
Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-2023
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact
Some hilarious lessons in classical logic by a professor (in Islamic law).
This is a logical sofism:
A punishment is torture. A fine is punishment. So a fine is torture.
This is a tautology:
Human rights ought to be defined by the Holy Book. According to the Holy Book caning is all right. So caning is not a violation of human rights.
By the way: how does one qualify as a professor in Islamic Law?