Ani Zonneveld dan Masjid Liberal Jerman (Video)

Berita mengenai sebuah masjid liberal dibuka pada 16 haribulan Jun lalu di Berlin, Germany menjadi tular di media massa di negara kita.

Masjid golongan sesat bernama Ibn-Rushd-Goethe-Mosque ini terlelak di sebuah bilik yang disewa di Protestant Johanniskirche atau Gereja  St. John dan merupakan gereja pertama seumpanya di Jerman.

Seperti masjid-masjid liberal lain di seluruh dunia, perempuan dan lelaki bersembahyang di saf yang sama dan bergilir-gilir menjadi imam dan melaungkan azan.

Peguam wanita bernama Seyran Ates yang merupakan salah seorang pengasas masjid golongan sesat itu telah membaca khutbah Jumaat manakala bekas penyanyi yang berasal dari Malaysia, Ani Zonneveld atau Zuriani Abdul Khalid telah melaungkan azan sebelum solat Jumaat pada hari itu.

Seyran Ates (tengah berbaju putih) bersama pengasas-pengasas masjid itu termasuk Zuriani Khalid (sebelah Ates berbaju biru)

Zuriani Abdul Khalid ialah seorang pengasas ajaran sesat Muslims for Progressive Values (MPV) di Los Angeles, California.

Selain daripada memberi khutbah dan menjadi imam kepada jemaah lelaki dan perempuan,Zuriani Abdul Khalid sendiri menikahkan pasangan yang hendak berkahwin termasuk golongan LGBT dan berlainan agama di pejabatnya di Los Angeles.

Kita mesti memandang serius perkara ini kerana Zuriani Abdul Khalid mempunyai pengikut di Malaysia dan sering mengadakan program di negara ini khasnya bersama Komuniti Muslim Universal (KMU) sebagai cawangan MPV di Malaysia.

Seorang pengasas NGO Sisters In Islam atau nama sebenarnya SIS Forum Berhad bernama Amina Wadud juga memberi khutbah dan mengimamkan solat jemaah berbagai jantina.

Menurut Wikipedia, disertasi Amina Wadud yang bertajuk ‘Qur’an and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman’s Perspective‘ masih digunakan oleh NGO tersebut sebagai teks asas untuk aktivis dan akademik.

While there, she published her dissertation Qur’an and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman’s Perspective and co-founded the non-governmental organization Sisters in Islam. The book is still used by the NGO as a basic text for activists and academics, but it is banned in the United Arab Emirates.

 

 

Akta 355: Poster Dangkal SIS Forum Tentang Akta 355

Poster di atas yang bertajuk, “Memahami Rang Undang-Undang 355 Dan Impaknya” telah dikeluarkan oleh SIS Forum (Malaysia) Berhad untuk membantah cadangan pindaan Akta 355.

Jelas bahawa SIS Forum (Malaysia) Berhad yang lebih suka dikenali sebagai Sisters in Islam tidak memahami atau dengan sengaja mahu mengelirukan orang ramai dengan fakta-fakta yang tidak betul dan tidak tepat berkenaan cadangan pindaan Akta 355.

Sebenarnya SIS Forum amat keliru dan tidak faham perkara yang mereka bangkitkan kerana apa yang mereka dakwa sebagai Rang Undang-Undang (RUU) 355 itu sebenarnya ialah Bil Persendirian cadangan pindaan Akta 355 dan bukannya Rang Undang-Undang 355.

Rang undang-undang mestilah digubal oleh kerajaan Persekutuan dengan syarat tertentu dan dalam hal ini, kerajaan hanya boleh menggubal RUU ini setelah Bil Persendirian pindaan Akta 355 ini diluluskan oleh parlimen.

Saya ingin mengulas poster di atas, ayat bewarna merah ialah kenyataan pada poster SIS Forum Berhad manakala ayat bewarna biru ialah ulasan saya.

Akta 355 merupakan akta berkaitan bidang kuasa jenayah mahkamah syariah.
Seksyen 2 di bawah Akta 355 menjelaskan batas bidang kuasa mahkamah syariah di mana hukuman maksimum yang boleh dikenakan adalah penjara 3 tahun atau denda RM5000 atau 6 kali sebatan atau apa-apa gabungan hukuman tersebut.

SIS Forum mestilah amanah dan mesti menerangkan  perkara-perkara asas yang amat penting tentang Akta 355 dan Seksyen 2 Akta 355.

• Pertama, SIS Forum mesti menjelaskan bahawa bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah hanya terhad kepada orang Islam sahaja untuk mengelak kekeliruan di kalangan rakyat yang kurang memahami isu perundangan dan Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

• Kedua, hukuman sebat yang dijatuhkan oleh Mahkamah Syariah adalah “sebatan syariah” yang amat jauh lebih ringan daripada “sebatan sivil”.

Apakah cadangan pindaan RUU355?
Parti politik PAS mencadangkan untuk meminda Akta 355 bagi meningkatkan hukuman denda yang dikenakan olen mahkamah syariah, kecuali hukuman mati. Jumlah hukuman yang dikenakan akan ditentukan oleh Dewan Undangan Negeri.” 

• Cadangan pindaan Akta 355 bukanlah semata-mata mahu meningkatkan hukuman denda. Denda di dalam konteks undang-undang Mahkamah Syariah sekarang bermakna sejumlah wang (tidak melebihi lima ribu ringgit) yang mesti dibayar oleh pesalah.

• Perkara yang dicadangkan dalam pindaan Akta 355 termasuklah Mahkamah Syariah bukan hanya boleh mengenakan hukuman penjara, denda dan sebatan syariah, tetapi boleh mengenakan berbagai bentuk hukuman-hukuman lain termasuk hukuman sosial jika ianya lebih berkesan.

Apakah impak pindaan ini, jika diluluskan?
-Ia akan memberi kuasa yang lebih luas kepada mahkamah syariah untuk mengenakan hukuman denda kepada pesalah jenayah syariah tanpa batasan kecuali hukuman mati.
-Hukuman yang dikenakan oleh mahkamah syariah selamanya tidak akan selaras kerana ia tertakluk mengikut negeri.
-Kelemahan pelaksanaan hukuman akan memberi nama yang buruk kepada mahkamah syariah dan agama Islam.

Dakwaan SIS Forum adalah prejudis, di luar konteks dan tidak benar. Impak sebenar pindaan ini bila di luluskan ialah Mahkamah Syariah boleh menjatuhkan hukuman yang selaras dengan kadar hukuman Mahkamah Sivil dan DUN boleh menggubal undang-undang yang lebih sesuai bukan hanya untuk menghukum tapi juga untuk mendidik umat Islam supaya menjadi lebih baik di samping mengurangkan jenayah syariah.

• Menuduh pindaan ini akan “memberi kuasa yang lebih luas kepada mahkamah syariah untuk mengenakan hukuman denda kepada pesalah jenayah syariah tanpa batasan kecuali hukuman mati” adalah satu fitnah jahat kerana bentuk dan had hukuman syariah adalah digubal oleh DUN di peringkat Negeri dan bukannya oleh Mahkamah Syariah itu sendiri.

• Amat tidak masuk akal bila SIS Forum mendakwa jika pindaan ini diluluskan, impaknya ialah, “Hukuman yang dikenakan oleh mahkamah syariah selamanya tidak akan selaras kerana ia tertakluk mengikut negeri”. Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang memperuntukan kuasa penggubalan Undang-undang Syariah kepada Negeri dan bukannya cadangan pindaan Akta 355 yang mencadangkan perkara ini. Oleh itu, perkara ini tiada kaitan dengan pindaan Akta 355.

• Amat tidak logik untuk SIS Forum mendakwa satu lagi “impak pindaan ini, jika diluluskan” ialah, “Kelemahan pelaksanaan hukuman akan memberi nama yang buruk kepada mahkamah syariah dan agama Islam” kerana Mahkamah Syariah bukanlah institusi yang melaksanakan hukuman.

Benarkah pindaan ini akan memartabatkan status mahkamah syariah di Malaysia?
Tidak benar, kerana pindaan ini hanya tertumpu kepada aspek hukuman, tanpa menyelesaikan masalah sistemik di mahkamah syariah, contohnya perlaksanaan Undang-undang Keluarga Islam yang masih bermasalah.

Keupayaan Mahkamah Syariah menjatuhkan hukuman yang setimpal dengan kesalahan syariah sudah tentu akan memartabatkan status Mahkamah Syariah.

• Sekarang had hukuman Mahkamah Syariah jauh lebih rendah daripada hampir semua hukuman jenayah sivil, contohnya hukuman merokok di tempat awam adalah jauh lebih tinggi daripada hukuman jenayah syariah. Apakah SIS Forum merasakan bahawa kesalahan merokok di tempat awam adalah lebih serius daripada kesalahan di bawah Undang-undang Keluarga Islam?

Cara-cara lain untuk memperkasakan mahkamah syariah:
– Menyelaraskan sistem undang-undang keluarga Islam di antara negeri-negeri di Malaysia supaya sama.
– Memudahkan proses tuntutan nafkah bagi ibu-ibu tunggal supaya lebih efisien.
– Mempercepatkan proses perceraian, hak penjagaan anak dan lain-lain supaya tidak berlanjutan sehingga bertahun-tahun.
– Memastikan setiap daerah di Malaysia mempunyai hakim syarie yang mencukupi dan adil gender.

Undang-undang Syariah di Malaysia tidak hanya tertakluk kepada Undang-undang Keluarga Islam sahaja.

• Cadangan SIS Forum tidak merangkumi cara menyelesaikan kesalahan syariah lain seperti murtad, LGBTIQ, khalwat, menghina Islam, ajaran sesat dan lain-lain.

• Sistem Undang-undang Keluarga Islam di antara negeri-negeri yang disamakan, proses tuntutan nafkah dimudahkan, proses perceraian dipercepatkan dan setiap daerah di Malaysia mempunyai hakim Syarie yang cukup sahaja tidak boleh memperkasakan Mahkamah Syariah jika had hukuman maksimanya jauh lebih rendah daripada hukuman merokok di tempat awam.

• Jika SIS Forum berpendapat aspek hukuman tidak penting dalam sistem mahkamah, SIS Forum patut mendesak had hukuman Mahkamah Sivil diselaraskan dengan had hukuman Mahkamah Syariah iaitu terhad kepada 3 tahun penjara, denda 5 ribu ringgit dan 6 kali sebatan syariah.

• Ataupun adakah SIS Forum merasakan kesalahan syariah tidak seserius kesalahan sivil maka hukuman sekarang sudah memadai?

   

• Sebenarnya cadangan SIS Forum berhubung cara penambahbaikan sistem Mahkamah Syariah sudah pun dilaksanakan Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Malaysia dan Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Negeri contohnya dengan menubuhkan Jawatankuasa Kerja Arahan Amalan Mahkamah Syariah untuk melicinkan proses mahkamah dan Jawatankuasa Kaedah Mahkamah Syariah pula untuk menggarap modul agar perbicaraan dapat dipercepatkan.

Bolehkah orang Islam membantah RUU355?
Rakyat Malaysia tanpa mengira latar belakang agama berhak menyuarakan bantahan kerana RUU355 adalan pindaan kepada prosedur yang akan memberi kesan kepada kepentingan awam.

• Pertama, perkara ini berkaitan Bil Persendirian dan bukannya RUU355; jadi kenapa orang Islam harus membantah RUU355 yang tidak wujud?

• Tidak menjadi satu kesalahan di bawah undang-undang Malaysia jika sesiapa sahaja mahu membantah Bil Persendirian ini, walaupun tiada sebab untuk mereka membantah satu pindaan yang membawa kepada kebaikan. Pindaan ini adalah salah satu cara untuk mengurangkan jenayah syariah. Pengurangan jenayah akan memberi kesan positif kepada seluruh rakyat yang cintakan keamanan termasuk juga orang yang bukan beragama Islam.

• Namun, bagi orang Islam yang membantah bermakna mereka membantah satu usaha untuk mengurangkan jenayah Syariah; manakala bagi orang bukan Islam pula, tiada sebab untuk mereka membantah kerana jenayah syariah hanya melibatkan orang Islam sahaja dan Mahkamah Syariah tidak ada kaitan langsung dengan mereka.

SIS Forum Berhad yang suka menggunakan nama Islam sepatutnya membuat poster tentang pindaan Akta 355 dengan penuh amanah dan berdasarkan fakta yang tepat dan bukannya menggunakan imaginasi mereka untuk memburukkan suatu usaha yang murni untuk memartabatkan perundangan Islam di Malaysia.

Tindakan SIS Forum ini telah memberi nama yang buruk kepada agama Islam kerana mereka seakan memberi gambaran bahawa Mahkamah Syariah tidak harus diberi kuasa yang lebih tinggi dalam menjatuhkan hukuman; seolah-olah Mahkamah Syariah tidak penting dan hakim-hakim Mahkamah Syariah tidak mampu bertindak dengan adil dan amanah.

Is Marina Mahathir Scared Of Hudud?

Referring to the article above, I have several questions for Marina Mahathir, who is a daughter of former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.

1. What kind of Muslim is Marina, to say that she wants to leave Malaysia if hudud is implemented in this country?
   A Muslim should be happier when Islamic law is implemented in his or her country. It will be safer for them because it can turn our country into a more peaceful country. 
2. “I cannot live in a country where people want to cut off hands, I’m sorry, or stone people to death,” Marina told Malay Mail Online in a recent interview here. What does she understand about Islam and hudud?
   I’m sorry for her because at her age, she still does not understand Islam and the Islamic law; but yet she still want to talk about hudud as if she is an expert on the subject.
3. Is she scared of hudud? Has she done something wrong that might cause her to be punished under hudud?
   Contrary to what Marina thinks, Islamic law is fair and just. Islam is a peaceful religion.
4. Marina claims to be a Muslim activist fighting for Muslim rights through an NGO called Sisters in Islam. Why would an ‘Islamic’ activist hate the Islamic law?
   I hope that Marina will understand that it is wrong for a Muslim to belittle the Islamic law.
5. “She said the Iranian women, who were middle-class elites living in New York, had sounded bitter and were aggressive about keeping religion out of everything, noting that their counterparts had stayed back in Iran and fought from within, when women’s rights were rolled back after Iran became an Islamic state following the 1979 revolution.” Does Marina understand the difference between Syiah and Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah?
   Syiah is a deviant teachings which claims to be as a part of Islam. The rules of Syiah is against the rules of Islam. Like other liberals and plurals Marina does not understand Islam. Not only they refer Syiah as a part of Islam, but they are also forcing the Malaysian government to accept the teaching of Syiah as part of Islam; but at the same time they complain about the Syiah law as practiced in Iran.
6. “It’s natural to me, if I see something wrong, to say something, or to do something,” said Marina. Does she see hudud as “something wrong”?
   If she does, I’m so sorry for her.
7. “It’s a form of worship. It’s how I act out my life as a Muslim. If you say it’s a way of life, it’s not just about rituals. It’s acted out by trying to do good, to be charitable and to ensure justice,” she added. Is Marina trying to tell others how a Muslim should lives their life?
   A person with no proper knowledge on a subject must not talk as if they are an expert on that subject. Marina who fights for lots of things that is against Islam such as LGBT rights, liberalism and pluralism of religion should not talk about Islam as if she really understands Islam better than others.

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

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 Muslims of Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah. People cannot interpret Islam as they wish, the way they want it to be like the liberals do. I think it is the same for 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 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.

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”.