Bila Islam DiHina

Apabila pensyarah Universiti Utara Malaysia, Dr. Kamarul Zaman Yusoff mendedahkan adanya agenda Kristian di sebalik penglibatan Hannah Yeoh sebagai ahli politik di Malaysia, pemimpin-pemimpin DAP dan PAN mula menyerang Dr. Kamarul dengan begitu hebat, dan cuba menggambarkan seolah-olah kenyataan yang dibuat oleh Dr. Kamarul itu adalah palsu dan tidak berfakta.

Hannah Yeoh pula segera bertindak membuat laporan polis terhadap Dr. Kamarul dan seterusnya memberi  berbagai kenyataan kepada media pro-pembangkang sebagai menyanggah kenyataan Dr. Kamarul.

The Malaysian Insight (TMI), di dalam artikelnya yang bertajuk “Hannah pertikai masa siaran artikel Kamarul Yusof” melaporkan:

“Yeoh, berkata sebagai penganut Kristian, beliau percaya kepada kedaulatan undang-undang, keadilan, ketelusan, kebertanggungjawaban, kesaksamaan dan tadbir urus yang baik”.

Soalan saya ialah, adakah Hannah Yeoh yang dikatakan “percaya kepada kedaulatan undang-undang” itu taat kepada undang-undang negara sedangkan di dalam artikel yang sama, TMI melaporkan:

“Komitmen DAP ialah mewujudkan negara sekular seperti didefinisikan di bawah Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia. DAP mempunyai agenda rakyat Malaysia bukan Kristian.”

  1. Dengan menyatakan Malaysia ialah sebuah “negara sekular seperti didefinisikan di bawah Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia”, Hannah Yeoh telah memfitnah Perlembagaan Persekutuan kerana Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan dengan jelas mengatakan bahawa Islam adalah agama bagi Persekutuan yang membawa erti bahawa Malaysia ialah sebuah negara Islam.
  2. Hannah Yeoh dan parti DAP bukan sahaja telah melanggar undang-undang negara tetapi juga telah menderhaka kepada Duli Yang Maha Mulia Yang di Pertuan Agong jika dia melaksanakan “Komitmen DAP ialah mewujudkan negara sekular”; iaitu satu komitmen untuk menukar Malaysia menjadi sebuah negara sekular yang bertentangan dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan mencabar kuasa Yang di Pertuan Agong sebagai Ketua Agama Islam negara ini.

Malaysia bukanlah sebuah negara sekular.

Malaysia ialah sebuah negara Islam, menegaskan bahawa Malaysia ialah sebuah negara sekular adalah bertentangan dengan undang-undang tertinggi negara iaitu Perlembagaan Persekutuan,  apatah lagi apabila Hannah Yeoh melaksanakan komitmen DAP untuk menjadikan Malaysia sebuah negara sekular.

Bolehkah laporan TMI itu dijadikan hujah untuk mematah dakwaan Dr. Kamarul?

Hakikatnya, Hannah Yeoh sendiri menulis yang dia berjaya untuk berdakyah di gereja-gereja, kepada pemimpin-pemimpin dunia dan kepada orang-orang muda (“to preach at churches, to world leaders and to young people”, muka surat 108) kerana Tuhan Kristiannya yang “made it happen through my political office”. 

Seperti kata Dr. Kamarul, Hannah Yeoh sendiri mengaku telah menggunakan kedudukan politiknya untuk berdakyah.

Oleh itu, bolehkah kita percaya kata-kata Hannah Yeoh Tseow Suan dan penyokongnya termasuk pemimpin parti PAN yang menuduh Dr. Kamarul berbohong?

Dr. Kamarul seterusnya mendedahkan bahawa Hannah Yeoh yang merupakan seorang evangelist telah menyeru “agar penganut Kristian membina semula Malaysia kerana Tuhan mahu menuntut semula politik dan perkhidmatan awam di Malaysia (“God wants to reclaim politics and public service in Malaysia”, muka surat 110), ditambah tindakan beliau mengaitkan diri dengan cita-cita untuk membawa kepercayaan dan perkhidmatan Kristian kepada dunia awam (“aims to bring Christian faith and service to the public sphere”)!

Perkara ini telah mencetuskan keresahan di kalangan umat Islam dan menjadi ancaman kepada kedaulatan dan keamanan negara kita.

Kita tahu akan gejala pemurtadan di tanah air kita.

Sebagai contohnya, dalam kes pemurtadan Azlina Jailani atau Lina Joy pada tahun 1999; Azlina telah mendapat sokongan hebat daripada puak itu yang sehingga kini, masih menggunakan kes ini dan membawanya ke peringkat anratarabangsa untuk mendesak Malaysia memberi kebebasan kepada umat Islam untuk murtad.

Contoh yang lain, dalam ceramahnya pada tahun 2006, seorang paderi Kristian bernama Benjamin Stephen berkata, “di Johor sahaja sudah lebih daripada atau hampir kepada 10,000” orang Melayu telah dimurtadkan dan memeluk agama Kristian, malah di setiap gereja di Semenanjung Malaysia yang dia lawati, ada orang-orang Melayu yang telah murtad seperti dirinya sendiri.

Hari ini, mereka termasuk politik DAP sangat lantang bersuara mengutuk institusi-institusi Islam dan berani mencampuri hal ehwal agama Islam yang mana mereka tidak mempunyai hak kepelembagaan untuk berbuat demikian.

Contoh yang paling mudah ialah kes pindaan Akta 355, dimana mereka bertalu-talu menentang dan menyerang secara lisan dan tulisan, bukan sahaja membantah pindaan suatu Akta yang tiada kena mengena dengan mereka tetapi juga mengutuk dan berusaha untuk menghapuskan institusi perundangan Islam yang telahpun ada di Tanah Melayu ini sejak sebelum adanya sistem perundangan sivil.

Perkara ini merupakan suatu serangan dan penindasan ke atas hak umat Islam dan perkara ini tidak sepatutnya berlaku di sebuah negara Islam.

Mereka juga mengangkat dan menyokong golongan liberal seperti kumpulan G25, SIS Forum,  Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF) dan sebagainya sebagai suara umat Islam Malaysia dan seterusnya menggunakan golongan ini untuk menentang ajaran Islam yang sebenarnya, institusi-institusi Islam dan juga sistem perundangan Islam.

Hannah Yeoh sebagai Puan Speaker DUN Selangor telah menolak usul untuk memperkasakan Mahkamah Syariah di DUN Selangor daripada dibahaskan tetapi pada masa yang sama mendakwa  bahawa dia tidak membenci Islam, malah sangat mesra dengan orang Islam.

Untuk mendapat sokongan orang Islam, Hannah Yeoh dan pemimpin bukan Islam DAP dan PKR telah memasuki masjid hingga ke ruang solat untuk berbagai aktiviti termasuk memberi ucapan.

Ini membawa kepada tindakan biadap Ahli Parlimen PKR Subang, Sivarasa Rasiah yang berucap di kawasan saf hadapan masjid sehingga Sultan Selangor menzahirkan rasa teramat murka dan dukacita dengan tindakannya yang memasuki Masjid An Nur, Kampung Melayu Subang dan menggunakan ruangan solat sebagai tempat berpolitik.

Sebelum ini, semasa menjadi Ahli Parlimen Serdang, pemimpin DAP, Teo Nie Ching juga pernah berucap di di kawasan solat saf hadapan sebuah surau manakala ADUN PKR  Dr. Xavier Jayakumar juga telah berucap di kawasan solat saf hadapan masjid Ar-Rahimiah Klang.

Lebih malang lagi, bila ditegur, mereka lantang mempertahankan perbuatan biadap mereka, seolah-olah mereka lebih faham hukum Islam daripada pihak berkuasa Islam sendiri.

Saya tidak faham bagaimana ada orang-orang seperti Khalid Samad, Mujahid Yusof Rawa dan sebagainya masih buta dan mahu mempertahankan Hannah Yeoh dan bersungguh-sungguh menyerang Dr. Kamarul yang hanya memetik kata-kata Hannah Yeoh sendiri di dalam bukunya, ‘Becoming Hannah’.

Di manakah dasar perjuangan ‘Maqasid Syariah’ parti PAN apabila pemimpin-pemimpin mereka sendiri menentang orang yang mempertahankan negara Islam dan mempertahankan orang yang berusaha menghapuskan kedaulatan Islam di tanah air kita?

Related Posts:

 

Bila Liberal Mengajar Apa Itu Islam

Former Deputy Prime Minister’s grandchild, Tariq Ismail defended Tawfik Ismail’s uncalled statement to abolish JAKIM that had angered the Muslims in this country – please click here.

Asking Tawfik Ismail to simply apologise or face dire consequences is wrong. He did not question the sanctity of Islam. – Tariq Ismail via TMI

He was referring to PERKASA’s call for Tawfik Ismail to apologise to JAKIM and the Muslims.

Perkasa menggesa agar Tawfik Ismail segera memohon maaf kepada JAKIM dan umat Islam agar tidak berlaku implikasi yang negatif kepada beliau,” katanya dalam satu kenyataan di sini, hari ini. – Astro Awani

Before I go on, I must say that I do not agree with what TMI wrote as “face dire consequences” as the translation from “agar tidak berlaku implikasi yang negatif.”

Tawfik, in his interview with TMI did question the sanctity of Islam when he accused JAKIM as “seems to serve no other purpose than to intervene in the personal lives of Malaysians” for performing the duty to uphold Islam.

Is Tawfik not questioning the sanctity of Islam when he implies that it is right for the Muslims to return to the time when people drinks brandy and whisky during meetings and own dogs?

Denying Islamic rules, means that one is questioning the sanctity of Islam.

Saying something that is haram as alright and something that is wajib as wrong in the context of Islam is questioning the sanctity of Islam.

Tawfik is against of, “tried to infuse their definition of “Islamic values” into every aspect of Malaysian life” – if he was referring to JAKIM’s definition of Islamic values which is of the Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah, Tawfik again is questioning the sanctity of Islam.

Apart from defending Tawfik’s arguments about JAKIM, Tariq also had bad thing to say about the Syariah Court:

Currently, we have a Shariah Court that sometimes does not seek to uphold justice; those with money and influence have corrupted the sanctity of this institution. – TMI

Tawfik must not only apologise to JAKIM and the Muslims but more importantly he must bertaubat to Allah or repent and get his akidah right; and if Tariq agrees with Tawfik’s liberal thinking then he too must get his akidah right.

As I wrote in my previous post,Tawfik Tun Dr Ismail Wants Jakim Abolished,” Tawfik is so confused about Islam and he needs help from JAKIM to go back to the true path of Islam.

We have to follow the real teaching of Islam.

In Malaysia, we are the Muslims of Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah from the Shafie school of thought or madhhab, so this is the guideline followed by JAKIM.

The true teaching of Islam is always relevant, therefore it must never be evolved or liberalised by anybody.

Tun M and TMI vs Bukit Aman

Insider 17

The Malaysian Insider (TMI) reported that the police went to Tun Dr. Mahathir’s office in Kuala Lumpur on November 6, 2015.

It is understood that the police team, led by Supt Azham Othman had posed 45 questions to Dr Mahathir over alleged statements he made against the country’s leadership and other related issues including the Bersih 4 rally. – TMI

TMI also wrote that, “the authorities opened several investigation papers after reports were made against Dr Mahathir, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said last month”.

Next, TMI reported that, “Dr Mahathir stays mum, up to police to consider arrest”.

Insider 18

And Tun M decided not to answer questions asked by the police.

“They asked questions and I said I will not answer. I don’t censor anything,” – Tun M (TMI)

Then the next day, on November 7, TMI again posted another article about Tun M questioning, “reports in government-linked newspapers reporting that the country was not heading into a financial crisis.”

Insider 19TMI reported Tun M argued, “if everything is fine, why did Putrajaya arrest people for sabotaging the banking and financial system of the country”.

TMI also wrote that, “Dr Mahathir said there appear to be a loss of confidence in the government that was precipitated by the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal”.

He said there was “the inability to service debts, disappearance of money, cash in the private accounts of the PM, its subsequent disappearance, inability to explain US$100 million, the Budget 2016 monetary gifts, shrinking national resources, questionable use of EPF and KWAP funds, poor FDI, etc.” “So all cannot be well. Who is responsible? Cannot be some non entity! – Tun M (TMI).

Now in the first place, why didn’t Tun M answer the questions asked by the police when the next day he made more accusations about the PM?

If his accusations are true, why didn’t he tell the police everything he knows and give them all the evidences to support his words so that the police can take action and investigate the matter?

Or is it because he has no evidence?

He understands the law, so why haven’t he taken proper actions rather than giving speeches and talking about the same thing over and over again everyday without showing any concrete evidence?

And why did Tun M do not cooperate with the police who are actually doing their work?

What is he trying to prove when he told the reporters that he doesn’t care, “if anyone is going to arrest him”? 

Is anybody trying to imply that the police went there to arrest Tun M or sort of police abusing their power?

And it gets funnier when even Anwar Ibrahim from the Sungai Buloh Prison defended Tun M, saying that Tun M committed no crime.

Now, when the police received a report, they must investigate; but when they investigate, unfortunately people like Anwar blamed the police for doing what they have to do.

Now, does Anwar want to stop the police from doing their work?

As written in the first TMI’s article above, the police were there only to investigate, and not to arrest or to question Tun M because they accused Tun M committed a crime; but why must TMI brought up the possibilities of Tun be arrested?

Is Tun M, TMI and people around him trying to blame the police over this matter and saying that PM Najib uses the police to arrest innocent people who criticise the PM?

And another thing, why must Tun M be the judge and blame the authorities in the case of Khairuddin and Mathias Chang and not wait for the case to be judge in court?

Please stop tarnishing the reputation of other parties to make us look good or to prove that we are right.

I’m sad to see Tun M tarnishing his own good name and I hope Tun M will be given hidayah, amin.

Pakatan Is Selling Off Malaysia For Anwar?

TMI
The Malaysian Insider, 11 February 2015 10:41 PM

In his article, “Pakatan Willing To Sell Off Nation For Anwar”, Hafidz Baharom wrote how the opposition parties are willing to even sacrifice the nation, just to release their leader, Anwar Ibrahim from jail.

I’m not a fan of Hafidz Baharom; in fact I’ve never agree with his opinions, so the article above really surprised me.

He started his article with:

“It is disappointing to see that the only agenda the Pakatan Rakyat parties and supporters have a care for is the immediate release of their leader, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, even to the point of willing to barter away our sovereignty.” – TMI

Hafidz Baharom then asked;

“…is one person really worth sacrificing the entire nation for?” – TMI

Of course NOT!

Hafidz Baharom also wrote:

“With Pakatan promoting this petition to its supporters, allow me to ask this; what if the US puts forward trade sanctions on Malaysia? Think about it.” – TMI

But again, maybe that is what the opposition leaders want – for the US to “put forward trade sanctions on Malaysia”, so that they can blame the whole thing on the government, and call for the people to topple the government even though it’s them who cause that to happen.

Hafidz Baharom also wrote about the opposition leaders:

“So congratulations to them on finally showing their political stripes and just how far they are willing to sell out the people they vowed to defend.” – TMI

I really hope that more people can see the true colours of the leaders and can see that they do not care about the people and that they are willing to sell of the sovereignty our country for their own agendas.

“Malaysians should not unwittingly support something so blindly.” – Hafidz Baharom (TMI)

Most Malaysians are tired of Anwar and his ‘Reformasi’, and opposition parties’ supporters must remember that they must “not unwittingly support something so blindly.”

It seems like PKR is only all about Anwar Ibrahim and his family.

I want to congratulate Hafidz Baharom for being brave enough to be honest and not spinning facts but his boss might not be very happy with him.

Anyway, I’m not surprise if Hafidz Baharom will soon be writing another article that he has change his mind and that he supports the petition to force the Malaysian government to free Anwar Ibrahim.

Please click here to Say That You Respect The Sovereignty of Malaysia.

Nightly Vigils For Anwar?

Insider 15

In the above article, PKR president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail who is also the wife of Anwar Ibrahim announced that PKR will be holding nightly solidarity vigils outside the Sungai Buloh prison in response to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy conviction yesterday and “urged all Malaysians to join in the vigil every night beginning tomorrow for as long as possible.”

“We encourage the public to join solidarity gatherings, or vigils, outside the Sungai Buloh Prison each day, starting tomorrow night.” – Wan Azizah, TMI (February 10, 2015)

I guess she wants to:

  1. Get the attention of the western powers such as the United States, United Kingdom, the United Nations and others so that they will force the Malaysian government to release Anwar from the prison.

  2. To attract more supporters who will then do crazy things like demonstrations against the government.

It is Wan Azizah’s rights to camp outside the Sungai Buloh Prison each day until Anwar Ibrahim is freed but is it fair for her to make others do the same just to free Anwar from jail?

Wan Azizah is actually using PKR supporters to show the world that Anwar Ibrahim has lots of supporters and she does not care that she is wasting the people’s time and money for her own good.

I think it is very selfish because some of them might lose their jobs or having trouble with their studies because of getting carried away with all these useless activities.

By the way, I wonder if Wan Azizah will be camping outside the Sungai Buloh Prison each day, starting tomorrow night for the next 5 years or will she and her family members be resting at home while their supporters do the dirty works?

It will be okay for Wan Azizah, Nurul Izzah and other opposition leaders to camp outside the prison because as MPs and assemblymen they do not have strict office hours like most people and their bosses won’t fire them for being late or not doing their jobs well.

So, let PKR, DAP and some PAS leaders camp outside the prison; it’s interesting to see how long Wan Azizah and Nurul Izzah will be camping and who are the other leaders who’ll be camping for Anwar Ibrahim with them.

I only hope that there will be no candle light Virgil because it is against the teaching of Islam. 

The Pro-opposition Activists Are Pressing For Ismail Sabri’s Resignation

Screenshot_4

The title of the above article by The Malaysian Insider (TMI) really attract my attention.

TMI started the article by writing that:

“Some 49 activist groups today demanded the resignation of Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob who had gone on a racist rant against Chinese businesses, saying it was an irresponsible move on the part of the minister to play on racial sentiments.” – TMI

Which NGOs are the 49 activist groups that demanded the resignation of Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob?

So I searched for the names of the NGOs and I found the full list in Malaysia Today.

Slide1
The list of the 49 NGOS that are pressing for Ismail Sabri’s resignation. (Malaysia Today).

 

When I read the list, I found that many of the NGOs are very familiar; so I did more research …

First I put the list side by side with the full list of NGOs that part of Bersih :

Highlighted in red are the NGOs that matches both lists.
Highlighted in red are the NGOs that matches both lists.

So most of them are part of Bersih.

Then I also put the list side by side with the list of NGOs which are part of COMANGO and this is what I found:

Highlighted in red are the NGOs that matches both lists.
Highlighted in red are the NGOs that matches both lists.

So, that is why the names of the NGOs are very familiar to me and they are highlighted by TMI!

These same NGOs are the members of Bersih, COMANGO, NegaraKu and some of them like SUARAM and Sisters In Islam or its real name, SIS Forum are not legal NGOs because they are not registered under ROS.

It is very funny when some illegal NGOs are pressing for a legal minister’s resignation.

No wonder those NGOs want Ismail Sabri to resign, after all those NGOs are the opposition parties supporters and will only look for ways to oppose the government.

To be fair, TMI should change the title of the article to, “The pro-opposition activists are pressing for Ismail Sabri’s resignation” or “Bersih and COMANGO activists are pressing for Ismail Sabri’s resignation.”

They are not only pressing for Ismail Sabri to resign but they also want to change the government.

 

Don’t Want Liberalism, Tear Up The Constitution – Another Malicious Distortion Of The Truth From TMI

Insider 14

In the above article, The Malaysian Insider (TMI) reported that Professor Ebrahim E. I. Moosa who is a South African, made a statement that “Malaysia was a pluralistic and liberal country”.

He made that statement in reply to a question from the audience regarding the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom’s statement, “the teachings of liberalism and pluralism are seen as among the most prevalent forms of insult to Islam”.

TMI wrote that:

“The very idea that Malaysia has accepted, constitutionally or otherwise, the plurality of religious and ethnic communities… it is already on the way to liberalism. You are already on a certain kind of liberalism. It might not be an optimal one, but it is already there” – TMI.

I do not know whether Professor Ebrahim understands the word liberalism and pluralism that were mentioned by Datuk Seri Jamil Khir.

Malaysia does accept “the plurality of religious and ethnic communities” but that does not makes Malaysia ‘a pluralistic and liberal country’; furthermore, Malaysia does not accept pluralism of religion.

“The very idea that Malaysia has accepted the plurality of religious and ethnic communities”, shows that our Rulers, the government and the Malays respect other religions and ethnic communities as how Islam teaches us.

But that does not make us liberal.

Professor Ebrahim also said:

“If you want to get away from liberalism, you need to tear up the Malaysian constitution”  Professor Ebrahim E. I. Moosa – TMI

Tear up the Malaysian Constitution if we do not want liberalism?

I do not know if Professor Ebrahim knows what is he talking about, if he thinks he does, he must be so confused or he must has read the constitution of another country!

And this is a malicious distortion of the truth because as an Islamic country, Malaysia does not accept liberalism because it is against the teaching of Islam.

And there is no such word as ‘liberalism’ in our Federal Constitution.

Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia says:

Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may
be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.

… and we have Article 11(4) to protect the religion of the Federation:

State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala
Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.

Islam is the only religion mentioned in the Federal Constitution, and Islam is protected by the Federal Constitution and the state laws.

In fact as the religion of the Federation, Islam is above other religions in Malaysian; and that is against the idea of liberalism that rejects state religion.

Moreover, Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution recognises the Syariah Court.

Now, if the professor does not understand what is liberalism and pluralism, he should ask somebody.

Liberalism is all about total freedom and pluralism is saying that one’s religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth, and thus the acknowledgement that at least some truths and true values exist in other religions.

When TMI wrote that, the professor said that, “Malaysia was a pluralistic and liberal country”, I wonder if the word “was” is a typo or he used the word, “was” to indicate that Malaysia was once a pluralistic and liberal country but not anymore.

For the record, Malaysia is neither was nor is a pluralistic and liberal country.

History tells us that Malaysia is always an Islamic country even before our independence.

Actually the existing Islamic laws before Merdeka Day are still valid according to Article 162 of the Federal Constitution which says:

Subject to the following provisions of this Article and Article 
163*, the existing laws shall, until repealed by the authority
having power to do so under this Constitution, continue in force
on and after Merdeka Day, with such modifications as may be
made therein under this Article and subject to any amendments
made by federal or State law.

The professor also told us to learn history:

“The first thing to be done, to the many spokespersons who are saying these things, is a quick lesson in Malaysian history… Malaysian history 101… to re-familiarise themselves” -TMI.

Actually the person who needs to learn history is him and most of those who supported the above TMI article!

And above all, since he is not a Malaysian and since he just came to Malaysia, he should not interfere in local issues that he knows nothing about.

He might want to say that as a scholar, he should know better about our Federal Constitution than others including our Federal Constitution experts like Dato’ Naser Disa and Professor Shamrahayu.

But, has he ever read the Federal Constitution and does he know that it takes a lawyer to interpret law and constitution?

I hope that the government can take stern actions on those who make such a malicious distortion of the truth regarding the Federal Constitution of Malaysia including foreigners because our Federal Constitution is the highest law and something like the pillar of our country.

Those ‘scholars’ are bringing bad influences as they being used by certain groups to influence the public into believing something fictitious in order to serve their hidden agendas and this could cause racial and religious disharmony among the people.

And these so called “Muslim scholars” are spreading the ideologies of liberalism and pluralism as the teaching of Islam when these ideologies are actually part of deviant teaching.

Is Proham Secretary-General Questioning Rights Of The Rulers?

Insider 12

A lot of things have been said about the Akta Hasutan or the Sedition Act, a very important Act that was amended in 1970 to protect the stability of our country after a serious racial riot in 1969.

The question is, can the Akta Hasutan be abolished without the Rulers’ consent and is it true that Akta Hasutan is just a “normal Act” and “a colonial-era law made by the British” as claimed by some people?

The Malaysian Insider (TMI) in the above article wrote that Proham secretary-general Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria said,

“The Sedition Act is not protected by the constitution. It is a law made by the British.”

TMI also reported that, “the consent of the Rulers is not needed to abolish the Sedition Act 1948, as claimed by defenders of the colonial-era law, Proham secretary-general Datuk Denison Jayasooria said.”

Now, how true is Proham secretary-general’s statement?

A law expert, Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahman does not agree with the those statements.

Tan Sri Aziz explains that Akta Hasutan is not considered as a British law any more because it has already been amended in 1970, after the May 13, 1969 racial riot.

The government had identified four sensitive issues as one of the major causes of the racial riot:

  1. Article 153 of the Federal Constitution: Special Rights For The Malays
  2. Article 152 of the Federal Constitution: Malay As The National Language
  3. Part III: of the Citizenship Rights
  4. Article 181 of the Federal Constitution: Rights, Status, Sovereignty Of The Rulers

To avoid more racial riots, Articles 10, 63 and 159 of the Federal Constitution was amended by adding Article 10 (4), 63 (4) and 159 (5) to prohibit any questioning on these issues.

The parliament then passed a law amending the Akta Hasutan under Article 10 (4) of the Federal Constitution by the addition of section 3 (1) (f), making questioning any of the four issues as an offence punishable under the Akta Hasutan.

Therefore, Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz said that in reference to Article 159 (5) of the Federal Constitution, the consent from the Conference of Rulers is needed to repeal the Akta Hasutan since the Act was amended under Article 10 (4) of the Federal Constitution. 

Article 159 (5) says:

A law making an amendment to Clause (4) of Article 10, any law passed thereunder, the provisions of Part III, Article 38, Clause (4) of Article 63, Article 70, Clause (1) of Article 71,
Clause (4) of Article 72, Article 152, or 153 or to this Clause shall not be passed without the consent of the Conference of Rulers.

Article 10 (4) of the Federal Constitutions says:

In imposing restrictions in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof or public order under paragraph (a) of Clause (2), Parliament may pass law prohibiting the questioning of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III, Article 152, 153 or 181 otherwise than in relation to the implementation thereof as may be specified in such law.

Prof Madya Dr. Syamrahayu Abdul Aziz who is an expert in the Constitutional Laws of Malaysia agrees with Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz and explains that:

  1. The laws that was passed before Merdeka Day are known as Enactment.
  2. The laws that was passed during the period of Emergency are known as Ordinance.
  3. The laws that was passed after our Merdeka Day but not during the period of Emergency are known as Act.
  4. If an Enactment and an Ordinance has been amended by the Parliament, it will be known as an Act.

So, since Akta Hasutan is an Act and not an Enactment, it is not just a British law as claimed by the Proham secretary-general.

A very senior lawyer, Uncle Dato’ Naser Disa who also agrees with Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz, told me that in fact claiming the consent of the Rulers are not needed to amend the Akta Hasutan can be an offence punishable under the Akta Hasutan because it is against the Article 181 for questioning the rights of the Rulers.

I agree with Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz that the people who are pushing for the Act to be abolished actually want total freedom and to be able to question the four sensitive issues that was protected under the Act.

They want section 3 (1) (f) of the Act to be abolished so that they are free to say what they want including to question the four sensitive issues.

Are their personal total freedom are more important than the love for their country?

But the weirdest thing is, those people who are fighting to repeal the Akta Hasutan are the same people who want the vocal Rightist to be charged under the Akta Hasutan.

Is preserving a peaceful country is a wrong thing to do that we need to abolish the important law that had managed to curb racial riots?

If the United Nations wants the country members to obey to certain laws made by them, we as a sovereign country has our rights to keep a law that is good for our country.

I would like to thank Uncle Azril for sending me Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz’s statements, Uncle Datuk Zulkifli Noordin for Dr. Syamrahayu’s article and Uncle Dato’ Naser Disa for helping me to understand more about Akta Hasutan that helps to understand the facts of this case that enable me to write this post.

TMI’s “On Religious Authorities” – A Malicious Distortion Of The Truth

Insider 13

I find the above article from The Malaysian Insider (TMI) as unjustly written, full of lies and using wrong arguments and analogies to wrongly accuse the Islamic religious authorities and the Malaysian government.

It is a malicious distortion of the truth.

Below are my answers to the writer’s statements, TMI’s text is in blue and my answer will be in red.

It seems that whenever we question anything, either the government or those linked to it does, it is seen as a bad thing. And this comes during a period of a prime minister whose initial speech said “the era of government knows best is over”.

So, why is questioning a fatwa a big issue? It is truly not.

A: Official fatwas are Muslim’s guidelines. We are the Muslims of Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah. People cannot interpret Islam as they wish or the way they want it to be like the liberals do. I think it is the same with other religions.

Even if we look at the most conservative nations practising Islam, there are landmark changes globally. Iran allows sex reassignment surgeries for their transgender community. However warped their mindset may be, it is clearly different than Malaysians who recently heckled the courts for upholding the constitution.

A: Iran is one of an example of “the most conservative nations practising Islam”? He must be kidding because Iran is not an Islamic country but it is a Syiah country. There are big differences in important matters like akidah between us, the Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah Muslims and Syiah followers. The rules of Syiah is against our akidah.

In Saudi Arabia, the authorities are now mulling over giving women the right to drive cars, a fatwa which is decades’ old and has only been vocally challenged in the last five years.
We have seen Muslim-majority countries that are moving forward in issuing religious edicts or limiting the viability of such rules and regulations to allow moving ahead together as a nation.

A: Driving has nothing to do with akidah, unlike LGBT. Malaysia never ban women from driving. Women are free to drive buses, lorries or even to become commercial pilots. 

And yet in Malaysia, we continue to limit the general public and civil stakeholders from venturing an opinion without being heckled, or in the case of Sisters in Islam, having a fatwa quietly gazetted banning them.

A: Sisters in Islam (SIS) leaders are liberal activists. Liberalism is against Islam. They tell people that they understand Islam better than our Muslim scholars and Muftis but they do not follow even the basic rules like to cover their aurat. They do not respect Islamic rules and want liberal rules to be accepted as Islamic rules.

It is truly nonsensical that in this day and age when other nations are talking about matters which are truly important such as poverty eradication, the lack of knowledgeable human resource, and pushing for better public transport – we are stuck discussing, and even going so far as to file police reports, a tourist attraction dedicated to a Hindu deity placed on a bottle of water next to a “Halal” logo.

A: Islam is the religion of the Federation of Malaysia, so in Malaysia everybody must respect Islam. The halal logo was placed at a lower part of the mineral water bottle than the Batu Caves picture. In our custom, that shows disrespect to the religion of the Federation. I guess in Vatican City, they also have rules to respect Christianity more than other religions suitable to their customs that people over there must respect.

The Malaysian government has done much more than solving the problems of “poverty eradication, the lack of knowledgeable human resource, and pushing for better public transport”. But there are people who are never thankful and only look for ways to complain and cause troubles to the country to put down the government.

Even worse: we have Malaysian Muslims who think cross-dressers are a threat to society by promoting a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT, if you still don’t know what that is) lifestyle.

A: LGBT is against Islam and so are cross-dressers. Malaysia does not sign the SOGI Rights.

Permit me to point out that a guy in a dress has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, especially when Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden chose to wear a burqa to escape their hunters.

Would you accuse them of being sodomites, too?

A: Will a man who is not LGBT supporter wants to look like a woman and wear a dress in public without any purpose?

re: “Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden chose to wear burqa to escape their hunters”.

There is a huge difference between men wearing women’s clothes to escape from danger or to save their lives or for other important reasons like investigating a certain case compared to men who always wear them including in public because they like and proud of wearing them, saying that they have the rights to do so.

Fatwas should be up for question because while the religion stays true, its followers evolve. There was once a limited source of knowledge specific to Islam from muftis and imams, and perhaps PAS for the more politically inclined.

A: We cannot change a religion, changing means liberalising and that is against Islam. To question a fatwa, a person must be at least as knowledgeable as the members of the fatwa council on Islamic matters. PAS is not an Islamic party because like SIS they only use the word Islam for their own agendas. 

However, with the advent of the Internet, anything and everything about Islam and other religions can be found online. Intellectual debates can be seen on YouTube as raging, trolling debates rage on news portals and social media aplenty.

A: We can find lots of things from the internet including lies like this article from TMI. How can a person who does not understand a subject take part in intellectual debates on the subject or be a judge on problems regarding the subject?

Malaysian Muslims can not only listen to the lectures of Azhar Idrus, but can also go as far the BBC to see debates of Islam versus Science.

A: Yes, I agree that we must not listen to Azhar Idrus and his ‘fatwas’. I wrote about one of them: Ustaz Azhar Idrus: “Islam Dan Kristian Bertuhankan Allah?”

The internet sparked a revolution of information being streamed, “torrented” and read online without control, allowing Malaysian Muslims to seek counsel outside the boundaries, and this is what has made our religious authorities very nervous to the point of stupidity.

A: It is the main duty for our religious authorities to protect the akidah of the Muslims in Malaysia. Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitutions gives the rights for the states in Malaysia to have state laws to control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among Muslims. Prevention is better than cure.

What was once a monopoly of information by the religious authorities is now apparently threatened by Malay-language Bibles and Irshad Manji books. Not Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ann Coulter, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, whose books are widely available and for everyone to read and buy either online or at a local bookshop.

A: The religious authorities are not threatened by the Malay bibles or Irshad Manji books. They are only doing their duty because any bible that calls the Christian god as Allah is against most of the states’ laws in Malaysia. Irshad Manji books are about deviant teaching but she claims them as the true teaching of Islam. Promoting deviant teachings to Muslim is against the law of Malaysia. All countries have laws to protect their constitutions and people.

They have lost control over the access to information; so clinging to this moral authority has resulted in stupidity beyond measure. Instead of opening issues for debate, our government-led religious authorities have instead decided it is better to outlaw those who talk back.

A: Religious authorities have lots of other more important things to do to benefit the Muslims. 

Never since the schism of the Christians by Martin Luther, creating the Catholics and Lutheran churches and subsequently the Protestant denomination, has any religious authority done something so despicable.

Questions lead to enlightenment. The ability to debate and discuss everything – even faith – is a must. While this is definitely encouraged, what matters is also how such affairs are debated.

A: A rule is not made to be broken even if one does not like it. In Islam not everything can be debated and denying Allah’s rules affect our akidah and cause a person to be a murtad or an apostate.

It is one thing to say our religious authorities are out of sync with the rest of the world, but it is totally another for us to blame it on the religion itself.

Tact, respect and even the ability to access information are a necessity in order to discuss these issues intellectually and with a level head. Personally, Islam should not be limited for discussion among Muslims because it has now become a national issue.

A: Muslim authorities in Malaysia do not interfere with people of other religions unless people of other religions slander, humiliate, interfere in Islamic matters or other similar things in order to protect Islam and the Muslims.

When you steal the bodies of the deceased, kidnap kids from parents, stop people from getting married on their wedding day, confiscate Bibles or even raid bookstores and take managers to court, I am pretty sure you are affecting the lives of non-Muslims as well.

A: These are lies and the writer spins the facts of the cases to unjustly accuse the Muslim authorities. 

So, religious authorities have affected not only national unity, but have created a schism in national unity and harmony that will not be resolved easily. – November 18, 2014.

A: People like the writer who write and spread lies are the ones that “have affected not only national unity, but have created a schism in national unity”.

PAS Made Another U-Turn

PAS’s Fadli Ghani made a statement saying that PAS wants ‘ketuanan Melayu’.

Insider 8

Everybody knows that UMNO fights for ‘ketuanan Melayu’ while PAS has always been against it and for that reason, they accuse UMNO as ‘assobiah’.

In fact, PAS’s spiritual leader ( Musyidul Am PAS), Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat said that UMNO does not follow the Prophet Nabi Muhammad S.A.W. because UMNO fights for the Malays.

And even PAS’s president said that UMNO is assobiah for fighting for the Malays.

There are articles like Nik Aziz: Tiada Istilah Ketuanan Melayu Dalam Islam by Malaysia Today, Ketuanan Melayu: Nik Aziz Pohon Raja-raja Melayu Selesai Guna Al-Quran by TMI and others stating PAS’s stance against ‘ketuanan Melayu’ that UMNO fights.

But suddenly, a PAS youth leader Dr. Fadli Ghani said that PAS fights to protect the ‘ketuanan Melayu’ while UMNO is fighting for the Malay Rights and not for ‘ketuanan Melayu’ as what was reported by The Malaysia Insider (TMI).

This is the first time I heard that it is PAS who fights for ‘ketuanan Melayu’!

Is Dr. Fadli Ghani confused or is PAS making another U-turn?

He went on to say that PAS always wants to make Islam the official religion of Malaysia, unlike UMNO who makes Islam the religion of the Federation of Malaysia.

Dr, Fadli claims that as Islam is stated in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia as the religion of the Federation of Malaysia, that makes Malaysia a secular country!

Katanya, apabila Islam disebut sebagai agama Persekutuan dalam Perlembagaan, maka ia secara tidak langsung menjadikan Malaysia sebuah negara sekular. “PAS berpegang Islam mesti menjadi agama rasmi supaya Islam boleh ditegakkan secara adil. “Umno berpegang Islam menjadi agama Persekutuan dengan maksud negara ini berpegang kepada keduniaan atau negara sekular,” katanya. – TMI

Is Dr. Fadli Ghani really, really confused about these issues or is he trying to spin facts to confuse other people about the meaning of a Secular State?

Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution says that:

“Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”.

And because Islam is the religion of the Federation, it means that Malaysia is an Islamic country as what PAS claims what it is fighting for.

I wrote a few post on why Malaysia is not a secular country; please read,  “Gobind Singh: Malaysia Is A Secular State – Another Fairy Tale?” and Is Malaysia A Secular State?

A very senior lawyer, Datuk Hj Naser Disa said that if Islam is only the official religion of Malaysia, that means Malaysia has other unofficial religions; having more that one religion means Pluralisme of Religion which is against the teaching of Islam.

So how could having Islam as an official religion is more Islamic than having Islam as the religion of the country?

Does PAS leaders really want Malaysia to be a Secular State when at the same time the same leaders tell their supporters that they are fighting for an Islamic State?

Is this another U-turn by PAS?

Politicians must not talk on the subjects that they do not understand and they must learn from lawyers who are expert in Constitutional Law like Uncle Naser Disa and Dr. Shamrahayu A.Aziz before speaking on topics related to Constitutional Law.

(Please click here for: Video: Naser Disa Polemik Isu Kalimah Allah)