Waking up to a rainy Sunday morning is one of the most unproductive experiences one can possibly have. It's one of those stay-in kinda days.
Rainy Sunday morning in Walski's neighborhood
Just as well though, being Sunday and all that. But today is not like any other Sunday. First off, it's April Fools Day - April 1st. Second, it's one day after the rest of the Muslim world glorifies their prophet, Muhammad. And this post has some to do with both. In the usual indirect Walski fashion.
Ironically, to a certain degree, yesterday was also the day that confirmation of the SMS which Zorro got was published in the news. It concerns the Subashini case. And the news was that she got a legal injunction against her estranged husband carrying on with his intended forced conversion of their other child, pending her appeal. The case concerns her attempting to stop her husband (now a converted Muslim) from dissolving the marriage, getting custody of their two children, and converting them to Islam. Earlier, the civil court turned down her application in a 2-1 decision, which to many (Walski included), was a miscarriage of justice.
To some, it may seems that getting the injunction is a slap in the face to the Syariah courts. To some, the Syariah court is superior. To some Syariah law is "the law of God". Nevermind that there a many versions of Syariah legislature around the world. And they don't always say the same thing - which leads to two possible logical conclusions. Either God is inconsistent and wishy-washy, or the Syariah laws are not God's laws, per se, but man-made laws based on man's own understanding of revelation.
To Walski, the answer is obvious - it has to be the latter.
Which means that the entire fuss about which is the better legislature, Civil or Syariah, is really an unnecessary argument. Unnecessary, because for the most part, the basis of the argument is flawed to begin with. It's basically an argument about man-made laws versus "divine laws". But since both aren't God-ordained per se, the whole argument becomes moot. Totally unnecessary.
And what gets lost in the equation of emotional argumentative rhetoric really is this: Which set of laws are more equitable and just? One, or the other, or neither?
(more foolish, rainy Sunday thoughts, in the full post)
The injunction may appear like justice has prevailed. But Walski thinks that the joy may be shortlived. Saravanan's (Subashini's husband) syariah lawyers could invoke Article 121(1A) and claim that the Civil court's injunction has no bearing or consequence on the Syariah court, and therefore the Syariah proceedings must proceed - the marriage must get annulled, and the other child must get converted, post haste.
If this happens, Walski really has to ponder this question - where the fuck is justice? And whose justice is more important?
Which brings us back to the significance of yesterday - the Prophet Muhammad's birthday. If one of the tenets of Islam is justice, and the prophet, in his lifetime, fought for justice, wouldn't the hypothetical defense tactic Walski just mentioned above really be a slap on the prophet's face? That for Muslims in Malaysia, it's not justice that's important, but "just us".
And if this is truly so, then April Fools should be a day to commemorate the fact that when all has been said and done, we are nothing but Fools celebrating our pride and selfishness. In which case, April 1st isn't just today, it's 364.25 days in a year...