Penyokong Tun M Mahu Jatuhkan Sultan?

Nampaknya sikap anarki sesetengah pihak di negara kita telah semakin teruk sehingga mereka tidak lagi menghormati undang-undang negara. 

Mereka merasakan bahawa mereka bebas bertindak tanpa batasan seolah-olah kita ini hidup di zaman yang tidak bertamadun.

Baru-baru ini, Tunku Mahkota Johor (TMJ), Tunku Ismail Idris telah membuat satu kenyataan panjang yang antara lainnya mendedahkan tentang individu tertentu yang menurut TMJ merupakan seorang “individu lidah bercabang dua seperti ular”.

Portal Free Malaysia Today (FMT) telah menyiarkan komen Pengerusi Pakatan Harapan, Tun Dr. Mahathir terhadap artikel TMJ itu yang mana telah mengundang berpuluh komen biadap dan kurang ajar terhadap TMJ, seperti yang telah disiarkan oleh FMT.

Lebih teruk lagi, terdapat komen-komen yang bukan sahaja mengutuk dan membangkitkan rasa benci terhadap Istitusi Diraja, malah menghasut orang ramai supaya menjatuhkan Institusi Diraja; contohnya di bawah ini:

Sedarkah mereka yang komen-komen mereka di atas melanggar Seksyen 121B Akta Kanun Keseksaan, kerana mahu menjatuhkan Yang Di-Pertuan Agong dan Raja-Raja Melayu?

Apakah mereka itu terlalu jahil undang-undang atau sememangnya mereka tidak peduli?

Sikap beraja di hati, bersultan di mata tanpa menghormati undang-undang adalah sikap oarang yang tidak bertamadun. 

Perlu diingat bahawa Wan Ji Wan Hussin telahpun merancang untuk menghapuskan Sistem Diraja menjelang tahun 2030, sila click si sini untuk video.

Dan orang itulah yang telah yang telah dilantik oleh Lim Guan Eng untuk memegang jawatan Pegawai Penerangan di Pejabat Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang!

Persoalannya apakah pihak pembangkang yang diketuai DAP merestui sikap anarki sebegini?

G25 Yang Terlalu Keliru

Saya amat tertarik membaca tajuk tulisan G25 yang disiarkan oleh  Free Malaysia Today (FMT), namun saya hairan kenapa G25 menggunakan ungkapan ‘place of pride’ sedangkan ungkapan yang betul dan tepat ialah “pride of place”, jika apa yang cuba G25 gambarkan dengan ungkapan itu ialah ‘mempunyai tempat yang penting dan istimewa’.

Menariknya kini G25 mengakui bahawa Islam adalah agama Persekutuan dan tidak lagi agama rasmi negara seperti dakwaan ahlinya Tawfik Tun Dr. Ismail: tetapi pendapat mereka masih sama; seolah-olah tiada bezanya di antara ‘agama negara’ dan ‘agama rasmi negara’.

Di bawah tajuk, “G25: The word “liberal” has place of pride in Rukun Negara”, G25 mendakwa perkataan “liberal” seperti yang dilabelkan ke atas mereka, telah digunakan untuk menghina umat Islam yang percaya kepada nilai demokrasi sejagat, hak asasi manusia, kesaksamaan gender dan menghormati kepelbagaian budaya dan segala bentuk kepelbagaian.

“G25 has often been labelled as “liberal” by its critics, using a word which is becoming a derogatory term in Malaysia to describe Muslims who believe in the universal values of democracy, human rights, gender equality and respect for multiculturalism and diversity.” – G25

Malah, G25 menuduh bahawa perkataan “liberal” disalahgunakan olen pihak penguatkuasa agama dan “ekstrimis” untuk memburukkan golongan yang mempunyai pendapat yang berbeza tentang bangsa, agama dan politik.

“It is a word which has been abused by the religious authorities and extremists to demonise those who have different opinions on matters of race, religion and politics.” – G25

Kenyataan-kenyataan di atas, jelas menunjukkan kumpulan G25 bersikap ‘double standard’, mereka tidak senang bila dilabelkan “liberal”, namun pada masa yang sama, G25 merasa mempunyai hak untuk mengutuk dan melabelkan orang lain sebagai “ekstrimis”!

Lebih teruk lagi, G25 berhujah bahawa perkataan “liberal” mempunyai ‘tempat yang penting dan istimewa’ di dalam Rukun Negara!

“We, the members of G25, would like to remind our critics that in the Rukun Negara, the word “liberal” has a place of pride in the five principles of the national ideology aimed at bringing the various races together for national unity and development.” – G25

Hujah G25 lagi “liberal” sebenarnya ialah satu sikap yang positif, malah menjadi salah satu hala tuju negara, selah-olah Rukun Negara dan hala tuju negara kita ini bersifat “liberal”. 

“In the preamble to the Rukun Negara, it states that one of Malaysia’s aims are: “menjamin satu cara yang liberal terhadap tradisi-tradisi kebudayaannya yang kaya dan berbagai corak”.” – G25

Nampaknya G25 sudah terlalu keliru sehingga gagal memahami maksud “liberal” dalam ayat di atas, yang hanyalah merujuk kepada kebudayaan sahaja; dan bukannya kepada soal agama atau kepercayaan.

Perkara ini disahkan sendiri oleh Prof. Dr Shamrahayu Abd Aziz, di mana Aunty Shamrahayu menerangkan kepada saya bahawa “liberal” dalam ayat tersebut bermakna keterbukaan menerima budaya pelbagai kaum, dan bersifat dan bersikap inklusif dengan prinsip asas; tetapi tanpa mengabaikan Tuhan dan prinsip kesopanan dan kesusilaan.

Ini kerana Malaysia adalah sebuah negara Islam, yang tidak mengabaikan prinsip-prinsip agama; sampai ke tahap Perkara 37 Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan bahawa setiap Yang Di-Pertuan Agong sebagai Ketua Utama Negara mesti bersumpah atas nama Allah untuk pada setiap masa memlihara agama Islam sebelum menjalankan tugas baginda sebagai Ketua Utama Negara.

G25 adalah puak Islam liberal kerana mereka berusaha meliberalkan agama Islam, menolak, menentang dan mempertikaikan hukum-hukum Islam termasuk hukuman ke atas pesalah syariah.

Sebagai contoh, G25 mendawa kesalahan syariah hanyalah ‘personal sin’ di sisi Perlembagaan dan bukannya satu jenayah yang mesti dihukum oleh mahkamah, sedangkan kedudukan Mahkamah Syariah telah diperuntukkan oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan melalui Perkara 121(1A).

“… LGBT, free sex etc are wrong but that these are personal sins, not crimes as defined in constitutional law.” – G25

Nyata G25 gagal memahami Perlembagaan Persekutuan khasnya Perkata 3(1) dan sewenang-wenangnya telah memfitnah Malaysia sebagai sebuah negara demokrasi sekular!

 “We in G25 will defend the country’s secular democracy based on the Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the country.” – G25

Bagaimanakah Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang jelas mengangkat Islam sebagai agama negara boleh dituduh menjadikan Malaysia bersifat demokrasi sekular sedangkan perkataan demokrasi dan sekular tidak pernah tertulis di dalam Perlembagaan?

Saya mencabar G25 untuk membuktikan di dalam Perkara atau Jadual manakah dalam Perlembagaan yang  menyebut bahawa Malaysia adalah sebuah negara demokrasi sekular!

“The constitution was written with the intention that while Islam is the religion of the federation, the laws of the country should follow the universal values of justice which were in existence long before independence.” G25

Kenyataan di atas membuktikan bahawa G25 mesti kembali belajar daripada orang yang lebih pakar kerana G25 bukan setakat buta Perlembagaan, malah buta sejarah.

Sejarah negara membuktikan bahawa kerajaan-kerajaan Melayu dahulunya adalah Kerajaan Melayu Islam yang mana sistem perundangannya adalah berasaskan Islam dan bukannya mengikut nilai keadilan sejagat seperti yang direka oleh G25.

Maka, di atas dasar apakah G25 mahu berhujah jika ternyata mereka sendiri yang sebenarnya tersangat keliru dan yang gagal memahami asas kenegaraan Malaysia?

Malah, fakta yang mereka berikan bukan sahaja tidak benar, malah adalah bercanggahan di antara satu sama lain!

G25 memperakui bahawa Islam adalah agama bagi Persekutuan tetapi pada masa yang sama mendakwa Malaysia ialah sebuah negara demokrasi sekular serta menuduh pihak penguatkuasa agama melampaui batasan Perlembagaan dan menganggap perlaksanaan undang-undang Islam adalah melanggar prinsip-prinsip demokrasi dan hak asasi manusia!

Adalah tidak masuk akal jika sebuah negara Islam boleh bersifat sekular pada masa yang sama kerana sekular bermakna memisahkan agama dari pentadbiran negara sedangkan kerajaan Malaysia mempunyai tanggung jawab keperlembagaan untuk menjaga kesucian Islam di negara ini.

G25 lantang memburukkan pihak berkuasa agama yang menjalankan tugas mengikut Perlembagaan untuk mempertahankan kesucian Islam:

“… religious authorities go beyond the limits of the constitution in exercising their powers, and introduce laws to control and police the behaviour of Muslims against the principles of democracy and human rights, G25 has a duty to respond by raising the issues of law and order …” – G25

Lebih parah, G25 yang liberal ini mahu menyesatkan umat Islam di negara kita dengan mendesak kerajaan membenarkan golongan liberal dan sesat yang G25 dakwa mempunyai pandangan yang “controversial and radical” untuk bebas menulis dan berucap di negara ini, sebagai contoh buku mereka, “Breaking the Silence: Islam in a Constitutional Democracy” yang diharamkan oleh kerajaan; walaupun perkara itu bertentangan dengan undang-undang negara.

Penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan kes Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Menteri Dalam Negeri jelas membuktikan hal ini, di mana YA Dato’ Abdul Aziz Rahim menegaskan bahawa:

I would add however that the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation, to my mind imposes certain obligation on the power that be to promote and defend Islam as well to protect its sanctity. In one article written by Muhammad Imam, entitled Freedom of Religion under Federal Constitution of Malaysia – A Reappraisal [1994] 2 CLJ lvii (June) referred to by the learned counsel for the 8th appellant it was said that: “Article 3 is not a mere declaration. But it imposes positive obligation on the Federation to protect, defend, promote Islam and to give effect by appropriate state action, to the injunction of Islam and able to facilitate and encourage people to hold their life according to the Islamic injunction spiritual and daily life.”

Hujah dangkal G25 seterusnya yang menuduh ‘founding forefathers’ mahukan Malaysia menjadi sebuah negara demokrasi sekular yang liberal dapat saya patahkan dengan hujah Hakim Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif di dalam kes Mahkamah Persekutuan ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor: 

“Federal Constitution allows the Legislature of a State to legislate and enact offences against the precepts of Islam. Taking the Federal Constitution as a whole, it is clear that it was the intention of the framers of our Constitution to allow Muslims in this country to be also governed by Islamic personal law.”

Seperti golongan liberal lainnya G25 sengaja memfitnah bahawa Perkara 10(1) memberikan kebebasan bersuara sehingga bebas menghina dan menafsir Islam secara liberal dan sesuka hati; atau menurut G25 pendapat yang “controversial and radical”, malah mendakwa pendapat sesat sebegitu adalah satu budaya yang sihat dalam memahami Islam.

Ini adalah satu lagi fitnah kerana di dalam penghakiman kes Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali yang ketika itu ialah Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan, berhujah:

“[36] The alleged infringement of the fundamental liberties of the respondent can be negated by trite law that any freedom is not absolute. Freedom cannot be unfettered, otherwise, like absolute power, it can lead to chaos and anarchy. Freedom of speech and expression under Article 10(1) are subjected to restrictions imposed by law under Article 10(2)(a). Freedom of religion, under Article 11(1), as explained above is subjected to Article 11(4) and is to be read with Article 3(1).”

G25 dengan sendirinya telah membuktikan bahawa mereka adalah sebuah golongan liberal yang keliru, bercakap melawan fakta, ‘double standard’ dan tidak profesional; mereka bebas menuduh orang lain sebagai extrimis dan melanggar Perlembagaan sedangkan mereka sendirilah sebenarnya yang gagal memahami ajaran Islam yang sebenarnya serta buta Perlembagaan.

Anehnya bila mempertahankan suara liberal, G25 melaungkan hak kebebasan bersuara walaupun ianya “controversial and radical” namun menentang suara pejuang Islam yang mereka gelar extrimis serta tugas pihak berkuasa Islam yang mereka fitnah melampaui batas Perlembagaan, seolah-olah “constitutional guarantee on the freedom of speech and expression” hanya sah kepada puak liberal dan penentang Islam sahaja!

Semoga G25 yang telah sedar bahawa Islam adalah agama bagi Persekutuan, boleh belajar memahami ajaran Islam  yang sebenarnya  serta suatu hari nanti akan bersama-sama mempertahankan Islam Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah, mazhab Syafie daripada anasir yang mahu meruntuhkan akidah umat Islam di Malaysia, Amin.

Related Article:

• Act 355: Another Baseless and Illogical Arguement from G25
• G25: “Some Ulama Consider Khalwat Raids Un-Islamic”
• Act 355: G25, Stop Lying About Hadi’s Private Bill
• Datuk Noor Farida And G25 Must Go Back To School 
• Tan Sri Harussani Saran G25 Bertaubat 
• Reaksi Jurucakap G25 Terhadap Bersih 4 Menyedihkan 
• G25, Another Voice Of Liberal Muslims? 
• G25: Champion Open Debate and Discourse on Islamic law 
• Bila Liberal Mengajar Apa Itu Islam 
• Tawfik Tun Dr Ismail Wants Jakim Abolished 
• Ambiga Mahu Kembalikan ISA? 
• BTN ‘Ultra Malay racist’? 
• Constitutionally Illiterate!
• Wanita Enggan Jabat Tangan Lelaki Apartheid Baru 
• Bencinya Farouk A. Peru Akan Sekolah Tahfiz

Ateisme Mencabar Kedaulatan Negara

Sejak beberapa hari yang lalu, beberapa portal berita pro-pembangkang giat menyiarkan laporan yang bersifat tidak benar dan prujudis tentang isu golongan ateis yang asalnya beragama Islam di Malaysia ekoran pendedahan tentang kumpulan Atheist Republic.

Free Malaysia Today (FMT) melaporkan seorang ahli akademik Amerika Syarikat yang berpangkalan di Washington, Prof. Zachary Abuza mengkritik reaksi kerajaan Malaysia terhadap kumpulan ini.

Menurut FMT, Abuza berkata Malaysia bukan lagi sebuah negara yang mengamalkan kesederhanaan seperti sebelum ini.

Ini adalah satu fitnah jahat kerana fahaman ateisme adalah bercanggah dengan undang-undang tertinggi Negara; lebih-lebih lagi untuk bekas umat Islam.

Jelaslah, terdapat usaha terancang untuk menghalalkan ateisme dan murtad.

Menggunakan hujah liberal dari kumpulan yang sememangnya tidak faham atau ‘yang sengaja buat-buat tidak faham’, porta-porta berita pro-pembangkang dilihat cuba menimbulkan persepsi perundangan yang salah dan bertentangan dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan untuk menjustifikasikan desakan mereka supaya orang Islam bebas berfahaman ateis.

FMT juga melaporkan kata-kata Prof. Datuk Dr. Shad Saleem Faruqi bahawa Perlembagaan Persekutuan tidak menyebut mengenai murtad dan “ia tidak mengharamkan murtad dan tidak membenarkannya”, yang memberi persepsi seolah-olah murtad tidak bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan maka tidak boleh ada peruntukan undang-undang yang sah untuk mengawal gejala songsang ini.

Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan menyatakan:

“Islam ialah agama bagi Persekutuan; tetapi agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai di mana-mana Bahagian Persekutuan.”

Ini membuktikan bahawa asas kenegaraan kita ialah Islam sebagai agama bagi negara ini tetapi agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan selagi amalan mereka tidak menjejas kesucian Islam dan tidak menimbulkan apa-apa ancaman atau apa-apa kemungkinan ancaman dan kemungkinan yang boleh menjadi ancaman terhadap agama Islam. 

Perkara ini telah ditegaskan oleh Tan Sri Apandi Ali  yang ketika itu Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan, di dalam kes Mahkamah Rayuan Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia:

[33] In short, Article 3(1) was a by-product of the social contract entered into by our founding fathers who collectively produced the Federal Constitution, which is recognized as the Supreme Law of the country. It is my judgment that the purpose and intention of the 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.

Perkara 11(4) Perlembagaan Persekutuan menegaskan:

Undang-undang Negeri dan berkenaan dengan Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Labuan dan Putrajaya, undang-undang persekutuan boleh mengawal atau menyekat pengembangan apa-apa doktrin atau kepercayaan agama di kalangan orang yang menganuti agama Islam.

Ini bermakna Perlembagaan Persekutuan membenarkan undang-undang Negeri dan Persekutuan digubal untuk menyekat penyebaran perkara yang boleh memurtadkan umat Islam termasuk penyebaran fahaman ateis.

Di dalam penghakiman kes Mahkamah Persekutuan ZI Publications Sdn Bhd dan lain-lain v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan ketika itu, Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif menegaskan:

Federal Constitution allows the Legislature of a State to legislate and enact offences against the precepts of Islam. 

Malah “Kebebasan bercakap, berhimpun dan berpersatuan” di dalam Perkara 10(1) adalah tertakluk kepada Fasal (2), (3) dan (4), dimana:

(2) Parlimen boleh melalui undang-undang mengenakan—(a) ke atas hak yang diberikan oleh perenggan (a) Fasal (1), apa-apa sekatan yang didapatinya perlu atau suai manfaatdemi kepentingan keselamatan Persekutuan atau manamana bahagiannya, hubungan baik dengan negara-negaralain, ketenteraman awam atau prinsip moral dan sekatan sekatan yang bertujuan untuk melindungi keistimewaan Parlimen atau mana-mana Dewan Undangan atau untuk membuat peruntukan menentang penghinaan

(c) ke atas hak yang diberikan oleh perenggan (c) Fasal (1), apa-apa sekatan yang didapatinya perlu atau suai manfaat demi kepentingan keselamatan Persekutuan atau mana-mana bahagiannya, ketenteraman awam atau prinsip moral.

Hujah ni diperkuatkan lagi oleh Perkara 37 yang mewajibkan Yang Di-Pertuan Agong untuk bersumpah di atas nama Allah S.W.T. untuk memelihara pada setiap masa agama Islam, seperti apa yang tertulis di dalam Jadual Keempat Perlembagaan Persekutuan, sebelum memulakan tugas Baginda sebagai Yang Di-Pertuan Agong.

Maka, negara mempunyai ‘constitutional duty’ untuk memelihara dan menjaga kesucian agama Islam daripada apa-apa ancaman, kemungkinan ancaman dan apa-apa yang akan memungkinkan berlakunya ancaman terhadap agama Islam, termasuk ancaman pemurtadan termasuk fahaman ateisme.

Malah, menurut Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif IKSIM yang merupakan seorang pakar Perlembagaan, Dato’ Prof. Mahamad Naser Disa, golongan ateis tidak mempunyai hak Perlembagaan (constitutional rights) di negara ini kerana Perlembagaan negara hanya mengiktiraf hak rakyat yang beragama seperti tertulis di dalam Perkara 3 dan 11 dan Prinsip pertama Rukun Negara iaitu “Percaya Kepada Tuhan”.

Huraian prinsip pertama Rukun Negara kepada kedaulatan negara amat terang dan jelas:

Bangsa dan Negara ini telah diwujudkan atas kepercayaan yang kukuh kepada Tuhan. Sesungguhnya dengan nama Tuhanlah, Bangsa dan Negara ini diwujudkan sebagai sebuah Bangsa dan Negara yang berdaulat. – Jabatan Perpaduan Dan Integrasi Negara (Jabatan Perdana Menteri) 

Namun terdapat pendapat songsang dan salah yang menafsirkan hak beragama seperti yang di jelaskan di dalam Perkara 11(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan sebagai termasuk hak untuk tidak beragama dan kepercayaan kepada Tuhan juga merangkumi tidak percaya kepada Tuhan.

Tafsiran songsang itu tidak benar kerana asas pengertian sesuatu undang-undang itu mestilah, pada mulanya, dicari dalam bahasa undang-undang itu ditulis, dan jika bahasanya terang dan jelas, maka kewajiban tafsiran tidak timbul dan fungsi tunggal mahkamah adalah untuk menguatkuasakannya mengikut istilahnya.

The 1917 American case of Caminetti v. United States had held that “it is elementary that the meaning of a statute must, in the first instance, be sought in the language in which the act is framed, and if that is plain… the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms.” And if a statute’s language is plain and clear, the court further warned that “the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion,”

Jelasnya tafsiran undang-undang tidak boleh dibuat dengan sesuka hati, apalagi dengan menambah perkataan yang tidak ada tertulis di dalam undang-undang itu, dalam hal ini, di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Inilah nilai dan fahaman songsang golongan liberal yang mahu merosakkan tatasusila dan tamadun rakyat Malaysia untuk membebaskan diri daripada undang-undang agama yang akhirnya mennghakis sifat ketamadunan masyarakat kita.

Menurut seorang lagi pakar Perlembagaan Prof. Dr. Shamrahayu Abd. Aziz, hak asasi hanya boleh menjadi hak apabila ianya tidak melanggar undang-undang, maka mereka yang berfahaman ateis tiada hak dan tidak boleh menuntut hak mereka kerana Perlembagaan Persekutuan hanya mengiktiraf rakyat yang beragama.

Sesungguhnya dengan nama Tuhanlah, Bangsa dan Negara ini diwujudkan sebagai sebuah Bangsa dan Negara yang berdaulat, maka jelaslah fahaman ateisme yang tidak percaya kewujudan Tuhan mencabar dan menjejaskan kedaulatan negara.

Tun M, Tolong Jawab Soalan Saya Yang Tun Gagal Jawab Dalam Surat Tun

“Nothing to Hide 2.0” forum, which is organised by Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (PPBM) and to be held on Aug 13, 2017 is supposed to be the platform where the party promises to answer all the questions asked by its audience.

Anyhow, funnily Free Malaysia Today (FMT) reported that, “Mahathir said the platform would be a good place for Najib to address the allegations against him once and for all”.

In my opinion, in contrary to what was said by Tun M as reported by FMT, PPBM should not waste its time and money on PM Najib, but should make full use of the opportunity to clear out issues that are bothering some of their supporters and the general public, especially about the vision and mission, as well as the direction of the party in the future.

I have an important question that Tun M had failed to answer in the letter that was sent to me by Tun M as to answer an important question regarding PPBM’s agreement with DAP, PKR, PAN that I wrote in my blog post on the 10th of January, 2017.

(Please read: Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM Untuk Meminda Perkara 3(1)?)

In the agreement which was named, Perjanjian Kerjasama Pakatan Harapan – PPBM, the four parties agreed on several main issues including to uphold the Federal Constitution.

In the post, I asked why did the parties involved added the word “bebas” to the Article 3(1) which will definitely undermine the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation and distort the interpretation of the Article 3(1)?

To my surprise, on January 12, 2017, I received a letter from Tun M himself to answer the question I had asked in my post.

The letter was sent by the Office of Datuk Badariah Arshad, Director of  Operations, Perdana Leadership Foundation (Yayasan Kepimpinan Perdana) to my father via e-mail, to be forwarded to me.

Please click here for: “Surat Balas Tun M Tidak Menjawab Persoalan”

Unfortunately, not only Tun M’s explanation failed to answer my question, but it made the matter even more confusing.

In contrary to what was written by Tun, the Article 3(1) is the Article that confers Islam as the religion of the Federation and it’s position over other religions in Malaysia and not about the rights to convert to other religions as what Tun tried to explain in his letter.

The letter that was sent to me by Tun Dr. Mahathir.

So, if I will be able to attend the program, I really want to ask Tun M the above question as the issue is crucial for it touches on the supreme law of our Nation and hopefully this time Tun M will be able to answer my question because he has Nothing to Hide.

FMT: Laws Against Quran And Sunnah Are Void, Said Tun Fairuz

I am very proud to read what was said by Tun Ahmad Fairuz in Free Malaysia Today’s report, “Ex-CJ: Laws that are against Quran and Sunnah are void”.

FMT wrote, “Explaining his interpretation, Ahmad Fairuz who was the chief justice from 2003 to 2007, cited a Privy Council judgement on a case in Singapore, where it said for a law to be valid, it must conform to the fundamental rules laid down by English Common Law.”

“This view seems to be accepted in Malaysia too. But as Islam is the religion of the federation, surely the fundamental principles of the law should be based not only on English Common Law, but (also) on the shariah law.

“I want to stress the aspect of judiciary in the definition of Islam where the Quran and Sunnah are the main sources of Islamic laws.

“Article 4 of the Federal Constitution states that laws which are against the Federal Constitution are void, on the part of the contradicting provisions. And hence, laws that are against the Quran and Sunnah will also be void.”

Explaining about the interpretation of Article 3(1) Tun Fairuz was reported saying:

“In the case of Lina Joy, when I was the chief justice, I said Islam was also a complete way of life that included all aspects of human activities, including judiciary, politics, and economy among others.”

FMT further wrote, “Hence, Ahmad Fairuz, reading Article 3 and 4 together, interpreted the Federal Constitution as making Islamic law the second most supreme legislation.”

Therefore for those who are constitutionally illiterate and shouting that Malaysia is a secular country and the proposed amendment of Act 355 is unconstitutional, please attend Tun Fairuz’s next lecture to learn more about the Federal Constitution from our former Chief Justice.

A Seditious Article From FMT

In a recent article posted by Free Malaysia Today (FMT), the author, an FMT reader, Ravinder Singh hit out at the Concerned Lawyers for Justice’s Aidil Khalid for his view on the vernacular schools.

In his article, “Unity has its roots in the people’s hearts”, Ravinder not only undermines and questions the use of the Bahasa Melayu as our national language but also our court rulings.

I have no idea why FMT publishes such an irrational piece of article with baseless, illogical slanderous, offensive, bias and racist arguments that can disrupt our national unity.

Below are some examples of what was written in the article:

• Aidil cites legal authorities to support his view about the “destructive and damaging” effects of vernacular schools. He should be reminded that court decisions are made by humans who have sometimes been proven wrong.
• National unity is not built by compelling everyone in a country to learn and use a national language.
• A national language is a common language for administrative purposes. 
• It is useless having everyone fluent in the national language when that same language is used to condemn and insult persons of different beliefs and cultures, creating walls between them.
• On the other hand, you can have people of different religions, beliefs and cultures living happily together despite not being fluent in a national language. This was what Malaysia used to be.
• Isn’t it sad that it is the abuse of the national language by politicians, self-appointed “defenders of the race”, vigilantes, school authorities and academicians that has disunited Malaysians?
• There is no need to cite court judgments and or make academic pronouncements. They mean nothing when the reality on the ground is that it is the use of the national language itself that has brought about disunity.

Those seditious statements are uncalled for and are against the Section 3(1)(f) and the Section 3(1)(c) of the Sedition Act because such statements are part of elements that disrupt our national unity. 

The Section 3(1)(c) of the Sedition Act states:

A “seditious tendency” is a tendency— to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State;

And it is against the Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act to question the national language:

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.

National unity cannot be achieved unless the people understand the foundation and the history of our country.

Our national language, the Bahasa Melayu is the language that unites us as it is the language that breaks the language barrier of our multiracial society and enables us to communicate with people of all races. 

Hence it is wrong to undermine the Bahasa Melayu as merely “a common language for administrative purposes”.

One must learn to argue intellectually and give solid evidence to prove their points and not to resort to using lame, illogical and offensive arguments that prove nothing.

And they must be very careful not to go against the law due to offensive or seditious statements or remarks.

And lastly, the media must play their role to unite the people instead of publishing articles that instigate hatred among the people.

G25: “Some Ulama Consider Khalwat Raids Un-Islamic”

In its article, “Khalwat Raids Make Malaysia Tougher Than Saudi Arabia”, Free Malaysia Today (FMT) wrote:

The way Malaysian religious authorities are policing khalwat (close proximity) is beyond anything in Saudi Arabia or other Gulf States today, warns a leading NGO. – FMT

FMT was reporting on comments made by G25 adviser Tan Sri Mohd Sheriff Kassim, “in response to the recent death and injuries of two policemen who jumped from buildings to escape raids by the Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais).”

Birds of a feather flock together, like the G25’s spokesperson Dato Noor Farida Ariffin, Tan Sri Mohd Sheriff Kassim is also against khalwat raids.

Below are my answers (in blue) to FMT’s article (in red) regarding this issue.

G25 adviser Mohd Sheriff Kassim points out that even Saudi Arabia, the country which is home to Islam’s holiest site, has issued stern guidelines to limit the powers of the moral police to harass and arrest Muslims.

“The instruction is that the moral police should not take the law into their own hands and instead, it should advise those committing offences under the morality laws to change and repent,” he said In a statement today.

I cannot comment on the laws of Saudi Arabia because

1. I have not studied the laws of the country

2. I respect and do not want to interfere with the laws of the land.

But even if it is true that they do not implement such laws, as a sovereign country, we have our own constitutional rights to implement our own laws.

Anyway, if G25 adviser thinks that Saudi Arabia is doing a better job in dealing with Syariah offences, then G25 must fight for our country to follow the laws of Saudi Arabia, which means implementing the Hudud laws in our country.

 His comments were in response to the recent death and injuries of two policemen who jumped from buildings to escape raids by the Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais).

As policemen, they must know the laws and their rights, so if they chose to jump from the building in order to escape, the fault is theirs and it is not JAIS’ fault.

Would G25 blame the police if a burglar chose to jump from a building in order to avoid being arrested by the policemen who are carrying their duties? 

Just two months ago, Jais introduced a mobile phone app, called “Hotline Jais”, for people to report religious offences, including khalwat.

It is a good move by JAIS to use updated technology so that it is easier for the public to report religious offences in order for us to take care of our Muslim community.

Sheriff added that Malays who visited or lived in Arab states have not come across any country where so-called moral police raid private homes.

If we must follow the laws of Saudi Arabia, we must change our Federal Constitution and implement the Hudud laws.

He also pointed out that some ulama consider khalwat raids un-Islamic as it gave the impression that the religion used only punishment to uphold morals.

Khalwat raid is one of the ways to prevent the religious offence of khalwat and the Islamic authorities have their Standard Operating Procedure that must be followed by their enforcement officers conducting the raids, only liberal ‘ulama’ would declare that our khalwat raids are un-Islamic; not the real ulama of Ahli As-Sunnah Wa Al-Jamaah.

Khalwat raids also tended to target the lower-income group as the “rich and powerful” had more resources to “get away with bigger sins”. Sheriff noted that khalwat laws could be easily exploited by a person’s enemies to “settle a score”.

G25 adviser has made a very serious allegation which I hope he has the proves to support it, and it is the duty of G25 to make police reports as soon as possible regarding this matter.

“Our authorities should learn from the failed experience of dictatorial regimes which criminalised personal thoughts and behaviour to discourage individualism and promote mass obedience to the state ideology,” he said.

What does khalwat raid have to do with “dictatorial regimes which criminalised personal thoughts and behaviour to discourage individualism and promote mass obedience to the state ideology”?

Islamic matters are not political matters and it is stated clearly in our Federal Constitution that the YDP Agong and the Royal Rulers are the Head of Islam, so the above statement is a malicious distortion of the truth and a humiliation to the Royal Rulers.

Article 3(2) of the Federal Constitution:

In every State other than States not having a Ruler the position of the Ruler as the Head of the religion of Islam in his State in the manner and to the extent acknowledged and declared by the Constitution of that State, and, subject to that Constitution, all rights, privileges, prerogatives and powers enjoyed by him as Head of that religion, are unaffected and unimpaired; but in any acts, observances or ceremonies with respect to which the Conference of Rulers has agreed that they should extend to the Federation as a whole each of the other Rulers shall in his capacity of Head of the religion of Islam authorize the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to represent him.

Article 3(3) of the Federal Constitution:

The Constitution of the States of Malacca, Penang, Sabah and Sarawak shall each make provision for conferring on the Yang di-Pertuan Agong the position of Head of the religion of Islam in that State.

Since G25 wants us to follow Saudi Arabia, G25 members must start fighting for our country to implement Hudud.

Related Posts:

• Act 355: G25, Stop Lying About Hadi’s Private Bill
• Datuk Noor Farida And G25 Must Go Back To School 2015/12/09
• Tan Sri Harussani Saran G25 Bertaubat 2015/12/08
• Reaksi Jurucakap G25 Terhadap Bersih 4 Menyedihkan 2015/09/01
• G25, Another Voice Of Liberal Muslims? 2015/08/21
• G25: Champion Open Debate and Discourse on Islamic law 2014/12/10
• Bila Liberal Mengajar Apa Itu Islam 2015/11/11
• Tawfik Tun Dr Ismail Wants Jakim Abolished 2015/11/09
• Ambiga Mahu Kembalikan ISA? 2015/09/18
• BTN ‘Ultra Malay racist’? 2015/09/14

PAN Protects Alcohol, Rejects Hadi’s Bill?

PAN or Parti Amanah Negara’s MP for Kota Raja, Dr Siti Mariah Mahmud said in Parliament that the alcohol taxes should not be raised as reported by Free Malaysia Today (FMT).

I would understand if this issue was raised by a non-Muslim MP, but why must a Muslim MP from a so-called Islamic political party raised the issue in parliament?

FMT reported that Siti Mariah who is the women’s wing chief of PAN said that, “As for alcohol, it is allowed to non-Muslims, so if we increase its tax it will burden them.”

Bagi alkohol pula, ia dibenarkan untuk bukan Muslim, jadi jika kita naikkan cukainya ia akan membebankan mereka,” kata Siti Mariah Mahmood (Amanah-Kota Raja) di Dewan Rakyat hari ini. – FMT

This is an argument made by a senior leader from a party that claims that its aim is to become the main Islamic party in Malaysia.

My question to PAN’s Dr Siti Mariah are:

1. Why must a Muslim like Siti Mariah fights for something which is haram just to win the non-Muslims’ votes?

2. Is fighting for the non-Muslims alcohol drinker is more important than fighting for the Muslims who want the Act 355 to be amended?

3. Is the issue of alcohol tax is more important than the issue of the amendment of Act 355?

4. Is fighting for the tax on alcohol not to be increased is one of the actions taken by Siti Mariah and PAN to empower Islam as promised by them to their main voters who are the Muslims?

5. Is there no better issue to fight for other than alcohol?

6. Is PAN not aware of the bad effect of alcohol?

7. Is PAN saying that all non-Muslims consume alcohol for concluding that an increase on alcohol tax will burden the non-Muslim and not only the people who consume alcohol?

8. Is she implying that drinking alcohol is such an important part of the lives of the non-Muslims that it is a duty for her to raise the issue regardless the fact that she is a Muslim?

Siti Mariah must understand that alcohol is haram to the Muslims so it is wrong for a Muslim to fight for alcohol, as there is no reason for non-Muslims to make a fuss about Act 355 as it has nothing to do with them.

Furthermore, why must she fight for alcohol?

Is she not aware of the bad effects of being drunk, like causing accidents, crimes like domestic violence, fights and other violence actions?

Is this how a Muslim MP supposed to be; promoting bad practices and assuming that every non-Muslims drinks alcohol.

Siti Mariah as a PAS candidate in the 13th General Election has violated the trust of her Muslims voters.