PAS President, Dato Seri Hadi Awang presented the amendment to Act 355 on syariah law (henceforth to be referred to as RUU 355).
After a year of waiting, the final moment finally came. Video as above.
It is not the introduction of hudud law as twisted and spin by DAP propagandist. Despite the explanation given, opponents still insist in arguing to link the amendment with hudud.
How will the law eventually come to be received?
Many predicted it will not get passed since some component members of BN, particularly non UMNO and East Malaysians did not agree.
Government side decided not to table the law. It was reverted back to PAS to table the law as originally intended.
It is claimed UMNO has washed their hands. UMNO leaders denied. Its only respecting BN consensus.
Some PAS leaders do not think so. The pro-Pakatan Harapan PAS leaders think so.
Hadi tabled it and Dato Takiyuddin seconded.
However, there is no debate today. It ended with a cliffhanger as one will have to wait for the next Parliament session.
Contrary to Rafizi-led survey claiming the young do not agree to the RUU 355, majority of Muslims will not disagree or oppose to RUU 355.
It is about strengthening Islamic law in line with the Quran, Hadith and practises of Prophet Muhammad. The amendment empower the state up to a limit.
The Muslims that disagree are from the Islam liberal, i.e. Muslims claiming to be progressive but to Islamic authorities, ill equipped to misguided in re-interpreting Islam.
There are also Muslim politicians opposing by claiming concern for non-Muslims or view RUU 355 as not Islamic practise or nit picking on isolated areas deemed as weakness.
Its all about seeking influence from non-Muslims voters or fearing political retaliation from non-Muslim voters.
The loudest are former PAS politicians that used to be vociferous to defend hudud.
Though the law should only be applicable to Muslims, The Star feature on RUU 355 highlighted cases of Islamic law allegedly encroaching into non-Muslims.
This has contributed to interfaith conflicts in the past [read here and here].
It became a stumbling block or to some, an excuse for non-Muslim lawmakers to support.
Disunity among Muslim politicians made non-Muslim lawmakers that support passing of Islamic laws in the past dare not support it today. Supporting it could have negative political implication on their political prospect.
RUU 355 is not the only one on the card. There is also amendment to Act 164.
RUU 164 serve to address conversion of children to non-Muslim couple in which one of the spouse converted to Islam and the children converted without the consent of the non-Muslim parent.
Most of such cases involved Indian couple.
The amendment propose that any official change on the children religion will only be allowed at the age of 18.
Some non-Musim lawyer argued it is the way to go based on the original contract of marriage. The Muslim elders including Hadi did not agree and call for the postphonement.
Will that allow time for a solution or agreed resolution between Islamic clergy and no Muslims?
Doubt so.
In the meanwhile, the debate on the tabling of new law on sexual abuse to children created another controversy.
Though it was passed unanimously by both sides in Parliament, the argument by Dato Shabuddin, MP for Tasek Gelugor became a conversation piece in the past few days.
The Star reported him saying there is nothing wrong with the girl to be married to the rapist.
Many accused The Star as spinning but Shabuddin get criticised from all sides, including his own party MP.
Did he said such?
From this snippet, he did not explain well existing law that do not allow girls below 16 from being married off by the guardian and need syariah court permission.
He may have been misquoted or taken out of context.
Nevertheless, woman's role today is no more just being a wife, mother and eventually grandmother.
It is likely misquoting or spinning Shabuddin's word was part of strategy in attacking RUU 355, and Islamic perspective of RUU 164 that had been the cause celebre of liberals and left leaning NGOs.
Some Muslims will take it as an attack on Islam thus any attempt to explain will be ignored.
While, it can also be Muslims inability to engage non-Muslims or weakness to articulate their argument outside their own perspective.
The nonagenarian political animal, Tun Dr Mahathir brushed off PAS's private bill RUU 355 as politics.
Undoubtedly, everything is politicised in Malaysia. To Mahathir, nothing personal but it is only politics. After all, religion have long been politicised in Malaysia.
So the amendments have its political dimension.
RUU 355 could be PAS's political trump card to have political parties courting them for marriage will have to conform to their agenda.
It is a new strategy for the more polite and less "millitant" PAS without the political animals which are now under DAP control and in PAN.
With the debate postphoned, political pundits will be watching closely the coming PAS Muktamar.
Which marriage proposal accepted?
Which existing marriage divorced?
Remember that Muslim male can marry four wives. Syiah allowed for mutaah marriage or temporary marriage with pre-agreed divorce.
Some called it as legitamising prostituition.
Its a fine line.