21-10-2003 - International Conference on Harmonization of Shariah and Civil Law

CLOSING SPEECH AT THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON HARMONIZATION OF SHARIAH AND CIVIL LAW at 4.30 p.m. in LEGEND HOTEL, KUALA LUMPUR on 21st October 2010.

Assalaamu’alaikum warahmatullaahi wabarakaatuh.

Sister Chairperson,

Associate Professor Dr. Nik Ahmad Kamal bin Nik Mahmud, Dean, Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws,
Assistant Professor Dr. Zaid bin Mohammad, Director of the Conference,
Fellow Participants,
Invited Guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen.

SALUTATION

I must, first of all, congratulate all the experts and participants for making this conference a success.

I also would like to thank the organizers for making it possible.

HARMONY

I am probably the least qualified to close this conference. Unless the word close means forgetting all the useful knowledge that you have discussed.

I do not know much about civil law nor am I an expert on the Shariah law.

But I know what harmony is. I know to manage it and even how to mismanage it.

ECONOMISTS, ACCOUNTANTS AND LAWYERS

As a part-time caddy when I was a student, I was offered by Charles McGregor, the manager of Ipoh Chartered Bank, in 1962, the opportunity to be trained as a future banker.

I was not sure what the offer was as in the banking industry, in those days, even a bank clerk thinks of himself as a banker, not to mention the office boy. And if you were well connected you need not have the training or the education to be one.

I asked Charles, ‘ What is a banker.’

He paused for a while and then replied, ‘ A banker is one who studies economics, but not enough to be an economist; who studies accountancy, but not enough to be an accountant; who studies law, but not enough to be a lawyer.

Another golfer, whom I did not know, intercepted, ‘That sounds like a politician.’

A third golfer joined in, and asked me a question, ‘ Would you like to be a politician, old chap.’

POLITICIAN

I replied, ‘I am only 19, Sir’ as I did not like the word ‘old ‘ attached to the description of myself. I then asked ‘… how would you define a politician?’

The second golfer replied, ‘ A British politician, I would say, for I am not sure of a Malaysian politician, is one who have the courage to speak a great deal on subjects he knows very little about.’

I am not making this mistake, this afternoon, of talking a great deal on a subject that I do not know, as I am now a repented politician, and my subject in the university is ‘ Mistakes in Antiquity ‘.

As a politician, being called a ‘ veteran ‘ even by those who are more than five years older than me, used to making laws for your interpretation, I often lectured in political forums on what a man should be.

FAME, WEALTH AND SECURITY

In retrospective I began to think that I must have said wise things, as it had never been reported in the media. What I said summarily, is

a) If one wants to be famous, at the risk of being infamous, one must choose to be a politician; but one must not expect to be safe and rich,

b) If one wants to be rich, at the risk of being bankrupt, one must choose to be a businessman; but one must not expect to be famous and safe,

c) If one wants to be safe, at the risk of being mediocre, one must choose to be a civil servant, or a private sector employee; but one must not expect to be famous and rich.

d) If one wants to be safe, rich and famous then the judges should put them in prison. For in prison, one is famous for everybody knows one is there; one is rich with free facilities for very little work; one is safe within the walls and protected by the wardens.

Not bad choices are they?

PROFESSIONALISM, MATURITY AND DISCIPLINE.

If we stick to our discipline and profession; respect other professions; accommodate, tolerate and understand the differences between ourselves we will go a long way towards achieving harmony. This conference is probably one such effort.

It is when one wants to be the prosecutor, the judge and the hangman, simultaneously, that disharmony takes place.

In law, even undergraduate law students sometime decide to be judges and they disagree with the decisions of the Appeal Court.

GAYS AND LESBIANS

On an island of CAPOCABANA two Muslim ladies were arrested for illicit sexual activities. They were Lesbians. Their supporters, Muslims and non-Muslims, were more interested in them winning the case rather than the value system involved. Even the non-Muslims would go for the Shariah Court if, in it, the persons charged could be freed because the prosecutor could not produce acceptable witnesses. Their fanatical Muslim supporters, on the other hand, would forgo the Shariah Court and opt for the World Court, in Den Hague, in Holland if, in that court, Lesbians’ and Gays’ activities could be accepted if they are performed between consenting adults.

There is harmony here when fanatical Muslims could forgo the Shariah Court and prefer the world court; and non-Muslims could prefer the Shariah Court.

ISLAMIC AND TRADITIONAL BANKS

Just as non-Muslims would prefer to borrow from an Islamic Bank when profits in the business is so low with the possibility of incurring losses which could be shared with the bank, and withdraw from the Islamic bank when the business’s profits have accumulated so much that it is cheaper to pay interest to the ordinary commercial bank than to share the profits with the commercial bank.

I do not believe that this is the sort of harmony that you have been discussing about in this conference.

However, it appears to me that this conference possible because it involves mature adults, scholars and professionals.

I say this as I observed that great disharmony is brought about when decisions are made by immature, sexually driven, greedy and power crazy individuals, in the political and economics arena.

GEORGE SOROS Vs GEORGE BUSH

I woke up this morning to find the Fortune Magazine with George Soros picture on the front page. YAB Dato’ Seri Dr. Mahathir would have lost his appetite should he receive the same magazine this morning. The head-line was ‘ GEORGE SOROS VS GEORGE BUSH ‘, summarily it is 'THE BATTLE BETWEEN THE GEORGES ‘ or ‘ SORROWS IN THE BUSH' .

George Soros accused George Bush as a threat to world peace when Bush said, ‘You are for us or against us ’ in his fight against terrorism. Such arrogance, confused with courage, could only come from powerful but immature personalities, as the line of demarcation between courage and stupidity is very slim.

However George Soros, being a Jew, have gone through the Nazi’s and Communist Oppressions, in his country of origin, could see the future danger to world peace thereby affecting his investments and the economies of the world.

OLDER AND YOUNGER JEWS

While the elderly Jew could differentiate the trees from the forest, and could probably separate terrorism from Islam, younger Jews from Harvard University are working hard to drive the whole of the American and Western public opinion against, not just the terrorists, but Islam as a whole.

It is little wonder, therefore, to see the Jewish lobby, particularly the Jewish controlled media, marshaling public opinion against Dr. Mahathir’s inaugural speech, at the opening session of the recent OIC conference.

They could not accept Dr. Mahathir’s effort in isolating the crooked Jews as we do with the crooked Muslims. To them, if we attack or criticize one Jew, it must mean all Jews, and that if one terrorist is a Muslim, then all Muslims must be terrorists.

This is a sample of Jewish potted thinking.

It can disrupt harmony on this earth.

CLOSURE OF SHEIKH ZAYED CENTER IN ABU DHABI

DAVID PROJECT

I have just received an e-mail from ex-officials of Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow Up in Abu Dhabi, saying that, as a result of Jewish pressure originating from Harvard University, the prestigious Zayed center is now closed. The Jewish pressure group is named DAVID PROJECT.

In other words no center on earth could practice free speech.

Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow Up, besides another such center in Lebanon, is one of two centers in the Arab World where prestigious personalities were invited to present their opinion freely. I am not a prestigious personality but I borrowed the center’s prestige when I delivered my speech there in May, 2003.

Personalities such as President Jimmy Carter, Vice President Al Gore, Secretary of State James Baker, CIA Director Admiral Stansfield Turner, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy, and many other American academics and diplomats have spoken at this center.

If Israel could ignore numerous resolutions of the United nations on Palestine, and the United States could ignore the United Nations’ disapproval of the War on the Iraqi people, as they are the ones who suffered and not Saddam Hussein, while democracy is not yet installed as promised, and the existence of the Weapons of Mass Destruction, as a reason for war is proven as lies, how can a group of students and staff at Harvard close a center for free speech in a rich Arab State.

The world should not be oblivious to this act. It is just the beginning.

CRUSADERS

In history, we have seen Peter the Hermit, just an individual who changed the course of the Crusade and brought disaster to the Jews and later the Christians of Europe, before being defeated by the Muslims.

Religions, as we all know, have been abused throughout history.

Alexius was the Emperor of the Byzantine Empire in the east, when Urban the 11 was a Pope in the west.

Both are Christians.

Both were jealous of each other’s influence.

These were political jealousies and not religious.

Not having enough soldiers to defeat the encroaching Muslim Turks, Emperor Alexius Commenus I appealed to Pope Urban 11 for help, but insisting that all land, taken by Muslims, when removed by the western soldiers should be returned to the Roman Empire.

Thus Pope Urban 11, on 25th November, 1095 summoned the first crusade. He called upon the princes, the priests and poor Christians for a holy war against Islam.

He explained that the Turks from Central Asia have converted to Islam and seized lands in Anatolia, i.e. modern Turkey, from the Christian Empire of Byzantine.

Among other things, he said that it was a Christian duty to “exterminate this vile race (The Turks) from our lands.”

But Jesus Christian had told his followers to love their enemies and not to exterminate them. The Crusade therefore was not a Christian act, as commanded by Jesus Christ, but an act by Christians particularly Christian Leaders, for political reasons with religious coloring and motivation.

PETER THE HERMIT

Then came Peter the Hermit.

While Pope Urban 11 summoned a war against the Muslims and that it should commence after the crop harvest, in order to ensure that there was enough food from the crusaders, Peter the Hermit had a different approach.

Peter knew that the idea of a war for the Holy land could unlock a powerful complex of passions and that once the laymen responded to his call he could lead the crusaders to actions which could horrify the Pope.

From a war against the Muslims, as suggested by the Roman Emperor and responded by the Pope, for their political reasons, the Christians responded enthusiastically as they were made to believe that killing was holy.

As the Christians of the west were unable to visualize the faraway evil Muslims in the East, as to make them an enemy to really hate, Peter the Hermit provided a new target, the Jews, who live among them in the west, for the Christians to slaughter. This was different from the plan of Pope Urban 11.

Peter the Hermit further defied the Pope as he started the Crusade before the harvesting season which necessitated the crusaders to loot and plunder the crops for food, along the way. This was also an unchristian activity and not in accordance with the teaching of Jesus Christ. But all these happened in the name of Christianity.

As a result, when the first crusaders reached the East, they were defeated by the Muslims.

ZIONISM

We also remember one man, Vladimir Jabotinsky who changed the course of Zionism from a vicious institution to a brutal organization.

When Theodor Herzl organized the first Zionist Congress in Basel in 1897, Zionism was never a religious movement. For that reason he was even prepared to have a Jewish State in Uganda. Zionism was a political organization aimed at establishing a Jewish State. Zionism was initially socialistic and secular. It was not their initial intention to slaughter the Arabs. But, to mobilize religious sentiment, for political purposes, they chose Israel for their state.

The earlier Jewish settlers live peacefully in the Kibbutz with focus on agricultural activities.

It was a nationalistic and religious movement.

VLADIMIR JABOTINSKY

This was true until the arrival of Vladimir Jabotinsky. In 1923, the Russian Jabotinsky founded the Union of Zionist Revisionists.

Jabotinsky was responsible for militarizing Zionism. The killing of Muslims then started. Although the Jews believe that one of the Ten Commandments given to Prophet Moses on Mount Sinai was “ Thou shall not kill,” the Jews did otherwise.

Zionism is therefore not a religious movement although it carries religious flavor. It was for good reason that Ben-Gurion used to call Vladimir Jabotinsky as “ Vladimir Hitler”.

Once again religion was used by politicians as a reason for killing.

SUMMING UP 

Let us hope that our young will not lose their heads and that harmony could be preserved in despite all the differences.

Let us hope that politicians will not cross our paths to create disharmony on the issue of the Shariah.

With this, I declare this conference closed.

Wabillaahi taufik wassalaamu’alaikum.

Thank you.