Perak Mufti’s Statement on KK Super Mart Controversy
In a recent statement, Perak Mufti Datuk Seri Wan Zahidi Wan Teh urged Muslims to refrain from boycotting establishments like KK Super Mart, asserting that such actions deviate from Islamic jurisprudence. Wan Zahidi emphasized the importance of intention, or “alqasdul jinaei,” in determining criminal behavior according to Islamic judicial methods. He clarified that criminal intent cannot be proven through direct evidence (“shahadah”) but requires confession or circumstantial evidence (“qarainul ahwal”).
Wan Zahidi noted that based on KK Super Mart’s explanation and apology, the motive and intention behind the controversy involving the sale of socks with the word “Allah” were unproven. He emphasized that accusations of insulting Islam against the establishment are therefore unverified under Islamic jurisprudence. Additionally, Wan Zahidi highlighted the principle of universal justice in Islam, emphasizing the importance of upholding justice regardless of race.
Background and Controversy
The controversy surrounding KK Super Mart ignited on March 13 when images of socks bearing the word “Allah” circulated on social media. Despite the company’s apology, the issue escalated, leading to a nationwide boycott called by Umno Youth chief Dr. Muhamad Akmal Saleh. Sultan Ibrahim expressed displeasure at the controversy and called for stern action against those responsible. Subsequently, three of the store’s branches faced fire-bomb attacks, believed to be linked to the earlier controversy.
Legal Proceedings
In March, KK Super Mart’s founder and executive chairman, Datuk Seri Chai Kee Kan, alongside his wife, was charged under Section 298 of the Penal Code for deliberately wounding religious feelings. Both individuals claimed trial in response to the charges.
Conclusion and Call for Restraint
Perak Mufti’s statement calls for restraint and emphasizes the need to adhere to principles of Islamic justice in addressing sensitive issues. As the controversy unfolds, it prompts reflection on the intersection of religious sensitivities, legal proceedings, and societal responses.
