It is very interesting to see that MMO retracted the article a day after the ruling by the Federal Court on the case of Azmi Sharom challenging the constitutionality of the Sedition Act.
Any way MMO is defending the writer:
“The writer wishes to point out that she is aware of the sensitivities in Malaysia regarding the topic of religion. She has no intention of insulting Islam.”
I do not understand how could MMO wrote that the writer has no intention of insulting Islam.
In the article which was deleted by MMO on October 7, not only did the writer insult Islam but she took the liberty to interpret the Islamic law in her own way when she is not even a Muslim.
“In Ezra Zaid’s case, Muslims, like other Malaysians, may have freedom of expression, but there are a string of state laws, as empowered by Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution, that do not allow Muslims to publish books that are deemed unIslamic.” – MMO.
By saying that “there are a string of state laws, as empowered by Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution, that do not allow Muslims to publish books that are deemed unIslamic”, she is questioning the decision made by MAIWP and JAIS as the religious authorities that Irshad Manji’s Allah, Liberty and Love is contrary to the Islamic law.
The writer also wrote:
“Who decides whether a particular book is “unIslamic”? That would be the state religious departments.” – MMO.
What right has a person of another religion to question and interfere in matters regarding Islam, the religion of the Federation?
Of course, it must be the Islamic religious departments that decide on matters regarding Islam and not a person of another religion like the writer.
Boo Su Lyn also wrote that:
“It’s unclear if the Selangor Islamic Religious Department or the Federal Territory Islamic Affairs Department (in Nik Raina Nik Abdul Aziz’s case involving the same book), had actually read Allah, Liberty and Love, or if the religious authorities merely opposed the book simply because the Canadian author Manji is a lesbian.”- MMO.
What a malicious statement!
Is Boo Su Lyn saying that she understands Islam better than MAIWP and JAIS and that the Islamic authorities are unprofessional in doing their duties?
Furthermore, is the writer trying to violate the Article 11(3)(a) of the Federal Constitution by interfering into the rights of the Muslim authorities to manage its own religious affairs?
Article 11(3)(a) states:
Every religious group has the right— to manage its own religious affairs
In its Apology and Retraction article, MMO did not even mention that Boo Su Lyn made a public statement against Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act which restricts anyone to question the four sensitive issues of the Federal Constitution.
Boo Su Lyn wrote that Article 10(4) that prohibits a person from questioning Part III (citizenship), Article 152 (national language), Article 153 (special position of the Malays and of Sabah and Sarawak natives) and Article 181 (rulers’ sovereignty) should also be abolished so that there can be public discussion on what she wrote as “these so-called “sensitive” issues.”
“A “seditious tendency” is a tendency— to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution.”
She even questions Article 153 that against Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act by writing:
“It also allows state-sanctioned discrimination against minority groups, with no avenue for victims to seek redress as they’re not even supposed to question the so-called “sensitive” matter of Malay privileges.” – MMO.
Apart from condemning and calling for the Article 10(4) to be abolished, Boo Su Lyn did the same to the Article 11(4) when it has nothing to do with her and the fact that she has no rights to interfere in the matters of Islam (Article 11(3)(a)).
Without Article 11(4), the Rulers cannot ‘restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam’.
“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.”
By calling for the Article 11(4) to be abolished, Boo Su Lyn is also challenging the Article 3(1) fordisrupting “peace and harmony” of the relationship betweenthe Muslims and people practicing other religions.
A very senior lawyer, Professor Dato’ Naser Disa explains that the words, “other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation” means that people from other religions must practise their religions in peace and harmony with others from different religions especially Islam, which is the religion of the Federation of Malaysia.
In the ruling of the case of Kalimah Allah, the Federal Court judge Datuk Seri Mohamed Apandi Ali wrote that:
“It is my judgment that the purpose and intention of the 29 insertion of the words: “in peace and harmony” in Article 3(1) is to protect the sanctity of Islam as the religion of the country and also to insulate against any threat faced or any possible and probable threat to the religion of Islam. . It is also my judgment that the most possible and probable threat to Islam, in the context of this country, is the propagation of other religion to the followers of Islam. That is the very reason as to why Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution came into place.”
It is unconstitutional for Boo Su Lyn to write untrue and seditious statements about Articles 10(4) and 11(4) to justify her call for the Articles to be removed and a person who questions the four sensitive issues mentioned under Article 10(4) can be charged under Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act.
However, regarding the malicious article, MMO wrote:
“Malay Mail Online also has no intention of insulting Islam or any religion, and is withdrawing the said article and apologising in the hopes of avoiding any such perception.”
So, we can clearly see that:
MMO does not think that the seditious and malicious content of article is wrong.
It is not wrong for a non-Muslims to take the liberty to interpret Islam the way they wish and to interfere in the Islamic matters.
It is not seditious to question Article 153 and the other sensitive issues protected by Article 10(4) .
MMO did not apologise and withdrawing the article because it is wrong and seditious.
MMO took the action only because, “in the hopes of avoiding any such perception.”
MMO is actually supporting Boo Su Lyn’s article that maliciously insulting Islam and the Islamic authorities and condemning Article 10(4), and saying that she is right.
It is the readers with “such perception” who wrongly think that the article insults Islam.
My conclusion is, MMO and the writer find there is nothing wrong with the article that not only insult and humiliate Islam but has gone against Articles 3(1), 10(4), 11(3)(a), 11(4) and 153 of the Federal Constitution and Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act.
The Sedition Act must be used to stop people from challenging the law and the Federal Constitution and to protect the peace and harmony of our beloved country.
The Malaysian Insider(TMI) reported that, “Bar Council constitutional law committee chairperson Firdaus Husni said the current framework of Malaysia’s Federal Constitution did not allow for hudud implementation, based on several articles.”
According to TMI, the articles are Articles 7, 8 and 3 of the Federal Constitution.
It puzzles me when Firdaus Husni said that, “hudud could also be challenged using Article 3, which stated that Islam was the religion of the federation”; when hudud is a part of Islam and not against the religion of the Federation.
Article 3(1) says:
“Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”.
She went on saying:
“Instead, the 1993 Supreme Court case held it to mean that Islam in the context of Article 3 only relates to rituals and ceremonies,” – The Malaysian Insider.
I guess she was referring to the case ofChe Omar Che Soh v Public Prosecutor (1988) 2 MLJ 55; an old case which is no longer a good law; in fact the case was decided before the coming into effect of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution.
To define Islam in Article 3(1), she should refer to later and more important cases to like the cases of Meor Atiqul Rahman v Fatimah Sihiand others  5 MLJ 375 and Lina Joy v Majlis agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & 1 Lagi  4 MLJ 585.
Furthermore, in Che’ Omar bin Che’ Soh v Public Prosecutor, Tun Salleh Abbas did not say that Malaysia is a secular nation but Tun Salleh Abbas only said that secular lawswere used in Malaysia.
After giving all her arguments of why Hudud is against the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, I have a question for the Bar Council; has the Bar Council forgotten about Articles 3(1), 10(4), 11(4), 181 and others when it fights for the LBGT rights, the freedom for the Muslims to change their religion or to become atheists and to abolish of the Sedition Act?
Indeed as lawyers they surely understand thatin order for the Sedition Act to be removed, it needs the consent of nine Sultans because the Sedition Act is related to Article 10 (4); but they do not respect and sort of question the rights of the Sultan which is against the Article 181of the Federal Constitution.
The Bar Council also supportsCOMANGOthat are fighting for lots of things that are against the Federal Constitution in Geneva.
To simplify what I am trying to say, I think those Bar Council lawyers do not mind to change the Federal Constitution in order to achieve what they want.
So what is the logic of the Bar Council’s arguments saying that Hudud is against the Federal Constitution, when they are also fighting for things which are against the Federal Constitution?
If we compare Hudud to the rights to leave Islam, I think Hudud as the Islamic laws is more relevant in Malaysia since Islam is the religion of the Federation.
As a Muslim, Bar Council lawyer, Firdaus Husni must fight for Islam and not against Islam.