Tag Archives: G25

Apa Nak Jadi Pada Tun M

As I wrote in, “Tun Dr Mahathir (Tun M), From A Statesman To A Street Demonstrator“, the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, who was once admired as a statesman, a nationalist and a man of principle has turned into an anti-government street demonstrator after he left UMNO.

Now, it seems like Tun M, whom by now is a seasoned street demonstrator is always ready to take to the streets for what ever reasons as long as he can protest against the government and UMNO, the political party that had brought him to power.

It is really odd to see the man who had once introduced ‘Penerapan Nilai-Nilai Islam’ into his government policies is now a close friend of his once nemesis, the DAP’s Lim kit Siang who had arrogantly rebuked and condemned the holy Quran, claiming that the verse 120 of Surah Al-Baqarah causes religious hatred and blasted JAKIM for using the said verse in Khutbah Jumaat.

Recently, in a rally called Wanita #BantahPolitikToksik which was powered and supported by the oppositions parties and liberal movements that are fighting for anti-Islam agendas like COMANGO, G25, SIS Forum Bhd. Empower, WAMN and others, Tun was seen taking part in the what was advertised as a rally for women along side DAP leaders like Hannah Yeoh. 

Tun Dr. Mahathir was accompanied by his wife Tun Dr. Siti Hasmah and some of his immediate family members, and his wife was one of the speakers, hence indicating that not only both Tuns endorsed the demands made by the demonstrators but they are supporting the demands which includes LGBT rights as written on the poster carried by their granddaughter, Ineza Roussille who is also Marina’s daughter.

Also seen at the rally were the infamous Siti Zabedah, Ambiga, Teresa Kok, Marina Mahathir and those who constantly slander the ideology of our country by saying that Malaysia is a secular country, fighting against the Federal Constitution that enshrines Malaysia as an Islamic country, questioning the constitutional duties of the government to protect the religion of Islam, trying to lower the position of Islam in Malaysia to the same level as other religions, making baseless and malicious accusations towards the Islamic authorities, fighting for the rights of LGBT and a lot more of other things.

Now, apa dah jadi Tun? Tun dah sokong tuntutan COMANGO?

Perhaps, COMANGO may consider making one of the Tuns their spokesperson for the coming UPR in Geneva.  

I really wonder who is the real Tun; is it the person who he used to be or the person he is now.

Related Posts:

  1. Surat Balas Tun M Tidak Menjawab Persoalan
  2. Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM Untuk Meminda Perkara 3(1)?
  3. Tun Dr Mahathir, From A Statesman To A Street Demonstrator
  4. Tun Dr. Mahathir, “Kalau Marahkan Nyamuk Jangan Bakar Kelambu”
  5. Tun M: “Perdana Menteri Buat Demonstration” (Video)
  6. Tun M: Jangan Menang Sorak, Kampung Tergadai

Kepimpinan PAN Yang Buta Hati Dan Keliru

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:

Bencinya Farouk A. Peru Akan Sekolah Tahfiz

Membaca berita tragedi kemalangan di Kampung Telekong yang telah mengorbankan tujuh pelajar Maahad Tahfiz Al-Hashimi Kampung Tualang, yang dalam perjalanan dari Kuala Krai ke Kota Bharu, mengingatkan saya tentang kenyataan seorang tokoh liberal berkenaan sekolah tahfiz.

Siapa yang tidak kenal akan aktivis liberal bernama Farouk A. Peru, yang begitu kerap menghina dan menentang ajaran Islam di samping menyebarkan ajaran sesat?

Terkenal sebagai seorang liberal yang juga anti-hadis, Farouk pernah menulis bahawa hudud itu bercanggah dengan Al-Qur’an, dan menyokong dakwaan Siti Zabedah Kassim bahawa tuhan terhasil daripada getaran.

Tokoh liberal ini pernah mengeluarkan kenyataan di Facebooknya yang mengkritik sekolah-sekolah  tahfiz, khususnya sekolah di mana Allahyarham Mohamad Thaqif Amin Mohd Gaddafi pernah belajar.

  • Quran says: be just even if against yourselves (4/135, 5/8)
  • My question: when will the admin of Thaqif’s school give full co-operation?
  • Or do they not know what they memorised and are singing daily?

Tulisannya itu disokong oleh netizen-netizen yang membaca halaman Facebooknya, di mana seorang daripada mereka menulis bahawa kitab suci Al-Qur’an itu adalah ‘buku karaoke’.

Dan komen jijik ini dipersetujui oleh Farouk A. Peru dengan ‘gelak ketawa’.

Malah, tidak terhenti di situ, kenyataan biadap di halaman Facebooknya itu telah disusuli oleh sebuah artikel yang ditulisnya untuk menjawab kenyataan Presiden Gabungan Persatuan Institusi Tahfiz Al-Quran Kebangsaan (Pinta), Mohd Zahid Mahmood, ‘Farouk A Peru: Maut Mohamad Thaqif – Siapa Yang Bersalah?’, dan disiarkan oleh sahabatnya, Mariam Mokhtar.

Farouk A. Peru di dalam artikelnya itu mengatakan bahawa “ini bukan takdir Tuhan” (merujuk kepada peristiwa malang yang menimpa Allahyarham Thaqif), dan seterusnya menulis, “ini kebodohan ulamak-ulamak pentadbir sekolah yang tidak faham bagaimana menguruskan institusi” sebelum mempersoalkan tindakan Perdana Menteri memberi dana yang besar yang diharapnya “tidak akan disalahgunakan untuk ‘brainwash’ budak-budak sekolah ini”  supaya menjadi anak murid Wandy Jedi.

“Ada juga orang yang mengatakan ini takdir Tuhan. Ini bukan takdir Tuhan, ini kebodohan ulamak-ulamak pentadbir sekolah yang tidak faham bagaimana menguruskan institusi. Mungkin mereka boleh mengerjakan solat hajat saja, seperti Pas!

“Yang ironiknya, perdana menteri, Najib Razak, sendiri baru memberi dana 80 juta kepada sekolah pondok, sekolah menengah agama berdaftar dan sekolah tahfiz.

“Adakah Najib akan menyelidiki bajet-bajet sekolah ini dan memastikan ulamak-ulamak tidak menyonglap dana yang diberi kerajaan itu? Tuhan sahaja yang tahu. Harap-harap, dana ini tidak akan disalahgunakan untuk ‘brainwash’ budak-budak sekolah ini untuk membenci orang lain dan akhirnya menjadi anak murid Wandy Jedi pula!”

Apa yang dapat kita simpulkan daripada petikan di atas ialah:

  1. Farouk menghina ulamak dan mendakwa “ulamak pentadbir sekolah” sebagai bodoh.
  2. Farouk mempertikaikan kebesaran Allah dengan memperkecilkan solat hajat.
  3. Farouk mempersoalkan kewajaran Perdana Menteri “memberi dana 80 juta” kepada sekolah pondok, agama dan tahfiz.
  4. Farouk bersangka buruk terhadap pentadbiran sekolah agama dan tahfiz secara keseluruhannya dan menuduh mereka berhasrat “menyonglap dana” itu.
  5. Farouk menghina dan memfitnah sekolah agama dan tahfiz seolah-olah mereka menghasut pelajar dan menjadikan mereka seperti Wandy Jedi. Bercakap dalam nada yang sama seperti Naib Presiden Parti GERAKAN, Dominic Lau Hoe Chai yang bukan Islam, Farouk menggambarkan sekolah-sekolah ini menghasilkan orang yang ekstrim.

Apa yang jelas, Farouk telah mengambil kesempatan diatas tragedi yang menimpa Thaqif untuk menzahirkan kebenciannya terhadap sekolah agama dan tahfiz dengan berbagai fitnah jahat.

“Sebenarnya, kita tidak memerlukan langsung sekolah-sekolah tahfiz mahupun sekolah aliran agama. Sekolah-sekolah sebegini hanya akan memencilkan golongan Melayu Islam daripada Rakyat yang lain dan juga daripada realiti”.

Lebih teruk lagi, aktivis liberal ini menghina agamawan dan menggelar mereka sebagai “paderi”:

“Inilah kasta paderi yang telah melekakan umat Islam dan menyebabkan mereka jauh ketinggalan di dunia.”

Tuduhan hina dan biadap Farouk A. Peru ini menggambarkan ego dan kejahilannya sehingga menjadi seorang pejuang ajaran sesat.

Akibatnya, penyumbang bersama dalam penulisan buku, ‘Breaking The Silence: Voices of Moderation: Islam in a Constitutional Democracy’ oleh kumpulan G25 ini amat memusuhi dasar-dasar Islam yang diterapkan di dalam sistem pemerintahan negara.

Namun amat menghairankan bilamana masih ada orang-orang Islam sendiri yang begitu teruja untuk mengangkatnya sebagai seorang pakar pemikir Islam.

 

 

 

Act 355: Another Baseless and Illogical Arguement from G25

Named as a “group of prominent Muslims” by DAP, G25 is a group of people who are so clueless about the teaching of Islam that their arguments and ideas regarding Islam are so mind-blowing and out of context, making them good friends of DAP’s Penang Institute. Sharing DAP’s stance regarding the amendment of Act 355, G25’s arguments on this matter are as baseless and illogical as those given by DAP. Below are my answers (in blue) to G25’s article in red:


To all honourable Members of Parliament,
We, G25, anxiously appeal for a promise from each Honourable Member of Parliament to not support/cancel the debate on PAS’ private motion to amend Act 355, or Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965, which will now be debated in Parliament.
We hope the honourable MPs would ponder upon and note that any amendment to Islamic laws should be done within the framework of the Federal Constitution.
There is no law saying that Act 355 or any other Acts related to the Islamic Laws cannot be amended. The Hadi Private Bill to amend the Act 355 is being done within the framework of the Federal Constitution and  I’m sure that the members of G25 are aware that this is not the first time the Act 355 is amended. 

Specifically, Article 4 provides for the superiority of the federal law and civil courts over state Islamic enactments and shariah courts. This ensures the existence of only one system of justice governing all Malaysians.
A misleading fabricated statement. Syariah Courts is part of Malaysian legal systems as confers by Article 121(1A). There is no such thing as,“This ensures the existence of only one system of justice governing all Malaysians”.
1)
  Article 4 states that the Federal Constitution is the Supreme law and Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution says:

The courts referred to in Clause (1) shall have no  jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts. 

2) In the judgement of the case, ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Anor v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, the Federal court ruled in a unanimous decision that the section 16 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) is valid and not ultra vires the Federal Constitution, Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif said:

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.

Limitations on the powers of the shariah courts:
Item 1 in the Ninth Schedule of the State List of the Federal Constitution states that the shariah courts “shall not have jurisdiction in respect of offences except in so far as conferred by federal law”. The purpose of this provision is for Parliament to have oversight and control over offences, including the nature of punishments created by state enactments, so that the state legislatures do not have a free hand to create offences or to prescribe sentences.
1) Act 355 is a Federal Law and not a State Law. The Act confers jurisdiction upon Courts constituted under any State law for the purpose of dealing with offences under Islamic law.
2) “Item 1 in the Ninth Schedule of the State List of the Federal Constitution” does not exist. What we have is, Item 1 of the State List in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution and it proves that the Syariah Court system is legal and constitutional.

Increasing status of the syariah courts complicates enforcement:
The desire to raise the status of the shariah courts to be on a par with the civil courts is worrying and very likely will shock our multiracial community as it will raise questions on the direction of the country’s legal system.
Is G25 unaware of the existence of Article 121(1A)?  In 1988, the then Prime Minister, Dato’ Sri Dr. Mahathir Mohamed tabled the Constitution (Amendment) 1988 Bill in Parliament to add Clause (1A) to the Article 121 which raised the status of the Syariah Courts. That happened 29 years ago and it had not “shock our multiracial community”. G25 must stop debasing the Syariah Courts.

A secular system of justice existing side by side with the Islamic system is not only unconstitutional but will cause considerable confusion and uncertainty in the enforcement of law and order.
Is G25 saying that Articles 74(2) and 121(1A) is unconstitutional and Item 1 of the State List in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution does not exist?

A big risk with investors:
Economists and international experts who have studied Malaysia’s remarkable economic development over a relatively short period to become one of the most advanced economies in the developing world, have always cited its system of law and administration as a key factor in attracting foreign and local investors to do business here. It is a system which foreigners are familiar with because it is similar to what they find in their own countries. Their presence is most important for the transfer of knowledge and technology so that Malaysians can benefit by developing our own skills to compete in the world market. Our country will be taking a big risk with foreign and local investors if we have a system of law which is moving away from its original character to become more religiously oriented and less tolerant of modern lifestyles and values.
Act 355 is not a new law  and it will not change our current “system of law”. I wonder if:
1) To G25, is “modern lifestyles and values” means lifestyles and values which are against the teaching of Islam?
2) In what way does the amendment of Act 355 can be bad for our economy in regarding to “attracting foreign and local investors to do business here”?
3) G25 really thinks that a “religiously oriented” Muslim society is bad for the economy?

A step towards hudud:
Supporters of the PAS bill to amend Act 355 insist that there is no intention to introduce hudud. Malaysians find this hard to believe as Kelantan, which is ruled by PAS, has already passed the Syariah Criminal Code II (1993) Enactment 2015, prescribing hudud punishment for zina (illicit sex), murder, theft, robbery, sodomy, consumption of liquor and apostasy.
The amendment of Act 355 cannot enable the implementation of the current Syariah Criminal Code II (1993) Enactment 2015. The amendment is only to enable the Syariah Courts to increase its punishments limits, but its jurisdiction will still be limited to the crimes listed under the Item 1 of the Second List in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, which does not include murder, robbery and theft as in hudud. 

But State law is currently prevented from being enforced because of Act 355.
Another false fact. Act 355 confers the jurisdiction upon States’ Syariah Courts therefore it does not prevent the enforcement of State laws.

Prioritising good governance in public institutions
A well-governed country with laws and governing institutions that provide social justice for the poor and the needy should be a priority for the country’s social and economic progression. This would be more Islamic than the implementation of hudud. We should be proud that our shariah index is higher than other Muslim countries because our children are better educated; health and medical facilities are available in all corners of the country; unemployment and poverty rates are low; and our youth can look forward to a brighter future. Higher priority should be given towards improving the standards of governance and to strengthen the institutions of law and order so as to promote integrity and clean administration in the country. These governing qualities are far more important to the country than policing the moral behaviour of Muslims and punishing them like criminals. The personal sins of Muslims do not hurt others in the society or the economy but the corruption and financial mismanagement among politicians and civil servants and the perception that the institutions of justice favour those in power — these are the social diseases that can cause economies to collapse and the people to rise up against their rulers. The government and MPs should be careful not to support the PAS bill and instead spend their energy in dealing with the unresolved problems surrounding 1MDB so that the country can turn its attention to deal with the bigger issues facing the economy, in particular the weak ringgit and the rising cost of living.
We do not need the PAS bill to divide the nation at a time when all races should stand together. The time now is for the real 1Malaysia.
Contrary to what was claimed by G25, the amendment of Act 355 will not only lead to good governance but it will help to build a better society and reduce social problems among the Muslims. Talking about economy, the increase of punishments for drinking and gambling can hinder Muslims from wasting their money on those negative activities, hence will improve the economy of their families. And faithful Muslims will not be involved in “corruption and financial mismanagement”, hence will prevent “the social diseases that can cause economies to collapse and the people to rise up against their rulers”. 

Kuasa Pendaftar Pertubuhan Yang Kita Tak Ambil Peduli

Semakin banyak saya membaca, semakin bertambah pengetahuan saya dan semakin saya sedar begitu banyak pekara yang saya perlu saya pelajari.

Membaca tulisan salah seorang Uncle Naser Disa di portal Menara.my yang bertajuk, ‘ROS Boleh Batalkan Pendaftaran Pertubuhan-Pertubuhan Yang Menentang Agenda Islam Negara!’ telah membuka mata saya betapa tingginya kedudukan Islam sebagai agama bagi Persekutuan di negara kita, dan betapa lemahnya usaha kita dalam menggunakan peruntukan undang-undang yang sediaada untuk mempertahankan kedaulatan Islam.

Saya diminta oleh Menara.my untuk mengulas isu ini, dan setelah saya menghubungi Uncle Naser untuk mendapatkan keterangan lanjut tentang perkara ini, dan saya menulis satu artikel ringkas.

Di sini saya lampirkan tulisan saya yang telah disiarkan oleh portal Menara.my.


Saya amat tertarik membaca kenyataan yang dibuat oleh Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif, Institut Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia (IKSIM), Dato’ Prof. Hj Mahamad Naser Disa seperti yang dilaporkan oleh portal berita Menara di bawah tajuk, ‘ROS Boleh Batalkan Pendaftaran Pertubuhan-Pertubuhan Yang Menentang Agenda Islam Negara!’.

ali-karim-petak-2-203x300

Seksyen 2A Akta Pertubuhan 1966 dengan jelas menggariskan bahawa setiap pertubuhan berdaftar mestilah mematuhi Perlembagaan Persekutuan dalam menjalankan urusan mereka.

Menara melaporkan bahawa menurut Dato’ Prof. Hj Mahamad Naser Disa, parti-parti politik dan pertubuhan yang menentang pemerkasaan Akta 355 boleh dibatalkan pendaftaran mereka.

Selain daripada mempersoalkan pindaan Akta 355, apakah tuduhan bahawa Malaysia ialah sebuah Negara Sekular oleh pemimpin sesebuah parti politik atau pertubuhan akan mengakibatkan terbatalnya pendaftaran pertubuhan mereka kerana perkara itu jelas bertentangan dengan Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan?

Persolannya, kenapakah sekarang ini pemimpin-pemimpin parti politik dan pertubuhan berlumba-lumba untuk dengan lantangnya mendakwa bahawa mereka bebas dan berhak menentang dan menghina hal-hal berkaitan agama Islam dan kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu? Malah, ada pemimpin yang sanggup menghina Raja-Raja Melayu dan mempertikaikan titah Raja-Raja kita. Apakah mereka terlalu jahil undang-undang atau sengaja mahu mencabar undang-undang dan kedaulatan Perlembagaan negara kita?

Akta Pertubuhan 1966 memperuntukkan bahawa setiap pertubuhan diwajibkan untuk menjalankan apa-apa aktiviti dan hal ehwal nya selaras dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan Perlembagaan Negeri. Dan yang penting sekali, jika apa-apa yang dibuat oleh pertubuhan itu berlawanan dengan, atau berkurangan atau bertentangan terhadap, atau tidak mengambilkira mengenai kedudukan Islam sebagai agama Malaysia, maka pendaftaran pertubuhan tersebut boleh dibatalkan.

Kes-kes seperti kenyataan songsang oleh pemimpin-pemimpin parti politik, G25, COMANGO, Bersih, SIS Forum Berhad, dan lain-lain dengan jelas melanggar Seksyen 2A Akta Pertubuhan 1966.  Mereka dengan sengaja menyalahtafsirkan Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia untuk mengelirukan orang ramai dalam usaha untuk meruntuhkan asas-asas negara kita yang bertentangan dengan ideologi mereka.

Malah, COMANGO pula sudahpun membawa tuntutan-tuntutan yang bercanggah dengan Seksyen 2A Akta Pertubuhan 1966 kepada Pertubuhan Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu (PBB) untuk Semakan Berkala Sejagat (Universal Periodic Review). Perkara ini telah membawa kepada tekanan oleh Pertubuhan Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu keatas negara kita dan mendesak kerajaan Malaysia mematuhi piawaian UPR biarpun ianya jelas bertentangan dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan Malaysia.

Apakah ini bermakna bahawa tindakan boleh diambil ke atas pertubuhan-pertubuhan mereka?

Kini sudah sampai masanya pihak berwajib mengambil langkah yang lebih tegas dalam mengawal aktiviti-aktiviti parti-parti politik dan pertubuhan yang dengan bangganya menghina dan memperlekehkan agama Islam serta membuat kenyataan yang bertentangan denganundang-undang Malaysia. Perkara ini amat penting kerana ianya boleh mencetuskan perbalahan kaum dan agama yang boleh membawa kepada rusuhan seperti tragedi 13 Mei 1969. Jika ini terjadi, kestabilan ekonomi negara akan musnah dan akan membawa kepada kehancuran negara kita.

logo-head

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

On June 1, 2016 the Malay Mail Online reported that:

G25 criticised today PAS President, Dato’ Seri Haji Hadi’s  Private Member’s Bill to expand the range of punishments the Shariah courts can impose, saying hudud law is inappropriate in secular Malaysia”.

~Malay Mail Online

In order to support its arguments, G25 made a contradictory and baseless statement:

“Although Article 3 of the Federal Constitution declares that Islam is the religion of the Federation, still, constitutionally, Malaysia is a secular state, as our forefathers and the framers of the Federal Constitution had intended. Further, our nation is multi-religious, multi-racial and multi-cultural,” it added.

~Malay Mail Online

How could a country be constitutionally a secular state when its Federal Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the land  has declared that Islam is the religion of the country and the word “secular” has never been mentioned in the Federal Constitution?

Does G25 misunderstood the term secularism or is G25 trying to say that the Article 3 of the Federal Constitution is unconstitutional?

If Malaysia is a secular state, the word “Islam” cannot even be mentioned in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

The creator of the term secularism, George Jacob Holyoake , in his book, “The Principles of Secularism”, defines secularism as separating government and religion, while Merriam-Webster defines secularism as “the belief that religion should not play a role in government, education, or other public parts of society”.

So, Article 3(1) automatically denies any claim saying that Malaysia is a secular state; since secularism means separating government and religion which is the opposite case in Malaysia.

Please click here for my article on why Malaysia is not a secular state.

A good example of an important criteria of a secular state is the 25-year legal battle regarding the Mount Soledad Cross, a giant cross installed on Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in the United States of America.

After a group of people installed a giant cross on the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California, the court ordered them to remove the cross, because as a secular state it is unconstitutional to put a symbol of religion on government land.

The controversy over the Mount Soledad Cross only ended after the US Department of Defense sold the government land on which the 29-foot cross stood.

So how could Malaysia be claimed as a secular state when the government not only built mosques on government lands but also finances Islamic religious authorities?

The Malay Mail Online also wrote:

They noted that by implication, the Bill allows Shariah courts to impose “any form of hudud punishment” other than the death penalty, for example 100 lashes of whipping for Muslims found guilty of adultery, or the amputation of one’s hand for theft.

~Malay Mail Online

What a defamation and malicious falsehood!

Firstly, it is a lie to claim that the Private Bill is a Hudud Bill “to impose any form of hudud punishment other than the death penalty” and “to expand the range of punishments the Shariah courts can impose”, because the Bill is only to enable amendments to be made to the existing Act 355 Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act so that the Syariah Courts can increase the punishments for the cases under the courts’ jurisdictions.

Secondly, as the above statement gives the implication that Hudud punishment is harsh and negative it is a defamation to Islam.

Muslims members of G25 must learn to understand the concept of punishments in Islam and how they are carried out – please click here for a video that explains the differences between Syariah whippings and civil whippings. 

Thirdly, it is a false statement to say that the Bill will allow the Shariah Courts to impose the “amputation of one’s hand for theft” because, since theft is a criminal crime that is punished under the Penal Code, theft is under the jurisdiction of the civil courts and not the Syariah Courts.

The Syariah Courts have jurisdiction only over the matters as stated in the State List under Item 1 of the List II of the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution and not over other offences; and the Bill is not about giving the Syariah Courts the jurisdiction over the offences punished under the Penal Code.

The Malay Mail Online further wrote:

The group noted that the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code II (1993) Bill 2015 prescribes  hudud punishments for offences like adultery, theft, robbery, sodomy, consumption of liquor and apostasy, but it has yet to be enforced due to the limits in the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act.

“Therefore, there is the need for the state of Kelantan to seek Parliament to amend the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1995. And, so, here comes Hadi’s Bill,” said G25. 

~Malay Mail Online

It is untrue that the Bill is about to enable the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Criminal Code II to be implemented because as I wrote above, the Bill will not gives the power to the Syariah Courts to implement capital punishment Hudud nor the jurisdiction over offences punished under the Penal Code.

It is hard to understand why a Muslim opposes a Bill that not only helps to curb the social problems among the Muslims but also to empower the Syariah Courts.

The Article 37 states that the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong must take his oath to protect the religion of Islam before exercising his functions; and this Bill is the right move towards protecting and upholding Islam which is the religion of our country. 

Related post on G25: