Institusi Agama Fitnah G25 & Shad Faruqi? Biar Betul!

Is this merely a very foolish mistake or is it another spiteful spin with the intention to detriment the good name of Islamic agencies?

In an article, “Religious radicalism on the rise” published by The Star on November 23, 2007, Emeritus Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi made another attack on JAKIM before focusing its attack on another Islamic agency, Institut Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia (IKSIM).

To be fair, since the allegations were made based on “a booklet by the Malaysian Islamic Research Institute (IKSIM)”, I checked the said booklet to see what was written by IKSIM and I found the source of the chaos.

IKSIM’s words were wrongly translated from “Awas! Sekularisme, Liberalisme dan Pluralisme merupakan agenda penghakis akidah Islam dalam meruntuhkan kedaulatan Negara” to “secularism, liberalism and cultural diversity are elements that will undermine the Islamic agenda and destroy the country’s sovereignty”!

Armed with the wrong translation, Prof Shad who is also one of  the contributors to the infamous book by G25, ‘Breaking the Silence: Voices of Moderation‘ attacked IKSIM.

It is like putting words in one’s mouth in order to attack the victim:

1. “Cultural diversity” has not been mentioned in the book by IKSIM.
2. The English translation of the Bahasa Melayu word “pluralisme” is pluralism.
3. “Pluralisme” in the above sentence obviously means religious pluralism as clearly explained in a chart on page 7 of the book.
4. In Bahasa Melayu, “cultural diversity” is ‘kepelbagaian kebudayaan’.

I guess Prof Shad has not have the chance to read the book because it is almost impossible for a learned man like him to not be able to understand the thin, simple book, except, unfortunately the person does not understand Bahasa Melayu well.

Having said that, I really pity Prof Shad for being shocked and at the same time slandering others only because of his own mistake, “I am shocked to read that “cultural diversity” is seen by IKSIM as a threat to Islam and to our nation”.

Prof Shad also questioned, “although Malaysians can embrace other religious faiths, the country is not duty-bound to protect other religions”, claiming that, “The belief that we have no duty to protect other religions is both un-Islamic and un-Malaysian”.

I sincerely hope that Prof Shad is not trying to challenge the Oath of office of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong who is the Supreme Head of the Federation!

In taking the Oath of office of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, as set out in Part I of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, his Majesty declares, “……We do solemnly and truly declare that We shall at all time protect the Religion of Islam … “.

Hence, by law the Prime Minister, the ministers, the lawmakers and the government servants are bounded by his Majesty’s oath to protect the Religion of Islam as they are being tasked with the duty of administering the country on behalf of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong.

In the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Menteri Dalam Negeri, where YA Dato’ Abdul Aziz Rahim stated:

“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.”

However, even though “the country is not duty-bound to protect other religions” but Islam, Malaysia still guarantees “freedom of faith and conscience and cultural and legal autonomy to all religions and tribes” as long as it is not against the law of our country.

One of the main elements of a secular country is, the country is not duty-bound to protect any religion; so using the same argument, are we saying that secular countries do not guarantee “freedom of faith and conscience and cultural and legal autonomy to all religions and tribes”?

Next, Prof Shad said that the Islamic agency is challenging the supremacy of the Federal Constitution by saying that Islam has a higher position than the Federal Constitution itself.

The provision on Islam as the religion of the Federation was inserted in the Part 1 of the Constitution, that is in Article 3(1) which indicates the importance of the provision in the Constitutional structure; whereas the supremacy of the Federal Constitution is positioned after the provision on Islam, which is in Article 4.

Tan Sri Apandi Ali in the high profile case of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Menteri Dalam Negeri stated that:

“The Article places the religion of Islam at par with the other basic structures of the Constitution, as it is the 3 rd in the order of precedence of the Articles that were within the confines of Part I of the Constitution”

In fact Article 3(4) which says that “nothing in this Article derogates from any other provision of this Constitution” has further accentuate the matter.

 Prof Shad words, “According to it, religious enforcement authorities come under the patronage of the Sultans, not state governments. This is a remarkable vision of an autonomous, almost all-powerful, religious elite that is like a state within a state”, for me is uncalled for because it questions the rights of the Ruler as the Head of the religion of Islam which is protected by the Article 181.

Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act says, “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”.

It was also reported that the false allegations by Prof Shad had led IKSIM to lodge a police report against him, The Star and Sin Chew Daily; which was responded by G25’s Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin as reported in Free Malaysia Today (FMT) under the title, “G25 calls for action against Putrajaya-linked institute”.

The G25 member went further saying, “Iksim had singled out Amanah, G25, Sisters in Islam (SIS) and Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF) as liberals”.

She said, “If they (Iksim) can lodge a police report against Prof Shad Saleem Faruqi, similarly I am in a very good position to make a police report against them and sue them for defamation”.

This is the part where it gets very hilarious; G25, in another article, “G25: The word “liberal” has place of pride in Rukun Negara” argues that liberal is something positive so why is the fuss over the word now?

“Note that the word “liberal” is used in both versions in the context of something positive and beneficial to our ambitions to become a united, happy and prosperous country.” – G25 (FMT)

In her speech, “Malaysia as a Secular State”, The Malaysian Insight (TMI) reported G25’s Noor Farida as saying that Malaysia is neither a theocracy states nor secular state!

But I have to highlight that G25 also claimed that Malaysia is a secular state and at other time a secular democratic state!

It is very hard either to try to make sense of what they are trying to say or to take G25’s words seriously when its members keep on changing their minds and seems very confused, for example on their perception regarding the ideology of Malaysia.

To top it all, in its eagerness, FMT made a grave mistake in its reporting: 

1. Iksim was established on Dec 9, 2014 after consent from the Conference of Rulers, with the objective of upholding Islam as the country’s official religion.
2. According to its official website, Iksim was established to fulfil the wishes of the country’s Muslim community to defend the Malay Rulers and uphold Islam as the official religion of the federation.

IKSIM clearly states that Islam is the religion of the Federation hence not only FMT’s wrong reporting defames IKSIM, but also the Constitution itself since the addition of the word “official” undermines the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation.

Taking G25’s Noor Farida Ariffin’s advice, IKSIM should “lodge a police report or even take legal action” against FMT for defaming both IKSIM and Article 3(1) of the Constitution.

Rather than confusing others, G25’s Datuk Noor Farida should walk the talk by making a police report against IKSIM to settle the matter once and for all and to prove that she and her friends from G25 are not the ones who are really confused not only about the truth but also in making their own opinions and views.

Please be reminded that, causing disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will, or prejudicing on grounds of religion” is an offence under Section 298 of the Penal Code. 

Related Articles:

• 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
• G25 Yang Terlalu Keliru

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.

Apabila Buku Teks Undang-Undang Tidak Berperlembagaan

For my 14th birthday this year, my eldest sister gave me a law textbook entitled “A First Look at the Malaysian Legal System”, written by Wan Arfah Hamzah and published by Oxford Fajar.

I was very excited to receive a book on the subject that is close to my heart, and so I began reading the book.

As I reached the fourth paragraph of page four, I noticed something peculiar:

“The federation is a secular state (see below, pp 162-3). It is not an Islamic state (an indispensable feature of which is the supremacy of the Syariah or Islamic law). In Malaysia the supreme law is the Federal Constitution (Article 4), not the Syariah or the Islamic law. Far from being the supreme law, Islamic law is not even the basic of the law of the land, ie the law of the general application. The basic law of Malaysia is the common law—the principles of which have their origins in England” ~Page 4 – A First Look at the Malaysian Legal System

It is very alarming that a law text book can make such a dreadful mistake in defining the core principal of our country.

The point is, does the Federal Constitution which is the supreme law of the Federation, ever define Malaysia as a secular country?

To understand more about secular countries, please click here for: “Malaysia Bukan Sekular“

In “The Principles of Secularism”, the author and creator of the term ‘secularism’ George Jacob Holyoake 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”.

In reference to the ideology of our country, the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution states that:

Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions maybe practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.

In actual fact, without doubt, the Article 3(1) automatically denies any claim that says Malaysia is a secular state; for a country cannot be a secular state when it has a specific state religion, in this case Islam which makes Malaysia an Islamic state.

Anybody who reads the Federal Constitution, will find out that the word “secular” has never been mentioned in the Federal Constitution but Islam is mentioned again and again through out the Constitution, proving the importance of Islam as the basic structures of the Constitution.

The Federal Constitution must be read as a whole and no provision can be considered in isolation, as stated by then President of the Court of Appeal Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif  in the Federal Court case of ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor:

It is an established principle of constitutional construction that no one provision of the Federal Constitution can be considered in isolation. That particular provision must be brought into view with all the other provisions bearing upon that particular subject. This Court in Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd v Kekatong Sdn Bhd & Anor [2004] 2 MLJ 257, applied the principle of considering the Constitution as a whole in determining the true meaning of a particular provision. This Court held:-

“A study of two or more provisions of a Constitution together in order to arrive at the true meaning of each of them is an established rule of constitutional construction. In this regard it is pertinent to refer to Bindra’s Interpretaion of Statue 7th Ed which says at page 947-948″

It is absurd to conclude that Malaysia is a secular country because of “the supreme law is the Federal Constitution (Article 4), not the Syariah or the Islamic law” for the Article 4 in no way dispute the constitutionality of the Article 3(1); and the fact that Malaysia has both the civil and the Syariah Court systems proves that Malaysia is not a secular country.

The fact is, it is the Article 4 that intensify the fact that Malaysia is an Islamic country because Islam as the religion of the Federation is placed in the Article 3(1) which is in a higher order of precedence of the Articles than the Article 4.

Therefore it gives Islam a higher position than the supreme law itself, meaning the supreme law of the land must be read and interpreted subjected to Islam as the religion of the Federation as mentioned by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kementrian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia, also known as the Kalimah Allah case:

The Article places the religion of Islam at par with the other basic structures of the Constitution, as it is the 3 rd in the order of precedence of the Articles that were within the confines of Part I of the Constitution

In answering the argument regarding the intention of the Reid Commission, first we have to understand that it is the Royal Rulers and not the Reid Commission who are the real stake holders of our country.

The Reid Commission was only given the responsibilities to draft the Federal Constitution but it is the Malay Royal Rulers who had the rights to make the final say on the matter as well as to give the endorsements for the words to be written in the Federal Constitution.

It is vital to note that both the Reid Commission and the Cobbold Commission are neither law makers nor the state holders of our country, hence their words and intentions are not laws, therefore their intentions cannot change the words written in the supreme law of our Nation.

As for claiming that Che’ Omar bin Che’ Soh v. Public Prosecutor defines Malaysia as a secular country, this is a very lame argument with no valid fact to justify the claim.

In the Supreme Court decision of Che Omar Che Soh v Public Prosecutor (1988) 2 MLJ 55, the Judge, Tun Salleh Abbas only said that Malaysia follows the secular laws from the British, and did not say that Malaysia is a secular state; so how could this case be used to prove something that was not even stated in the judgement?

Furthermore, this is an old case which is no longer a good law.

We must look at the judgments of other more important and prominent later court cases including the Court of Appeal case of Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Binti Sihi & Ors, High Court case of Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan, Federal and Court of Appeal case of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia, Federal Court case of ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor and a lot more that clearly prove that Malaysia is an Islamic country.

In fact, the fact that it is the government’s constitutional duty to protect the sanctity of Islam also denies that Malaysia is a secular country.

This is proven by the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Menteri Dalam Negeri, when YA Dato’ Abdul Aziz Rahim said:

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.”

In a secular state, not only the government has no constitutional duty to protect the sanctity of a particular religion, but it is wrong for the government to do so.

Apart from Article 3(1), the Articles 11(4), 12(2), 37, 121(1A) and a lot more further prove that Malaysia is and was meant to be an Islamic state and not a secular state; unless the book tries to redefine ‘secularism’ or implying that the Articles 3(1), 1(4), 12(2), 37, 121(1A) and others related to Islam are unconstitutional.

Such severe mistake in the law textbook regarding the ideology of our country that contradicts the Federal Constitution should not have happened because all Malaysian must respect and uphold the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and making such a mistake regarding the core principle of our country is really uncalled for.

We surely do not need constitutionally illiterate lawyers!

Related Posts:

• Menjawab “Jika Islam Boleh, Kenapa Kristian Tidak Boleh”
• Menjawab Dr. Ariffin Omar: Apa salahnya kalau Penang hendak dijadikan Christian city?
• Grow Up, MCA!
• Constitutionally Illiterate!
• Another Seditious Article by MMO’s Boo Su-Lyn
• An Answer to Boo Su-Lyn’s “Why Don’t We Eat Together Anymore?”
• MMO Did Not Apologise for Boo Su-Lyn’s Seditious Article
• An Answer to Boo Su-Lyn’s “Why Don’t We Eat Together Anymore?”
• MMO Did Not Apologise for Boo Su-Lyn’s Seditious Article
• Akta 355: Poster Dangkal SIS Forum Tentang Akta 355
  
• Act 355: Answering “CCM Says Hadi’s Bill Will Radically Rewrite Constitution”
• Jawapan Kepada Kenyataan Mengelirukan Khalid Samad Tentang Pindaan Akta 355
• Video Aksi Siti Zabedah Kasim di Wacana Akta 355
• Tidak Ada Sebab Wakil Rakyat Anda Tolak Cadangan Pindaan Akta 355
• Act 355: G25, Stop Lying About Hadi’s Private Bill
• Act 355: Interfaith Group’s Statement Risks Weakening Constitutional Liberties
• Akta 355: DAP MPs, Please Do Your Homeworks

 

Lim Kit Siang Dah Terima Al-Quran?

On the 19th of July, DAP Parliamentary Leader, Lim Kit Siang used two verses of the Al-Quran in response to the Attorney General, Tan Sri Apandi Ali’s statement regarding the 1MDB issue; where the DAP leader quoted the translation of verses 42 and 60 of the Surah Al-Baqarah:

And do not mix the truth with falsehood or conceal the truth while you know [it].

~Al-Baqarah | Verse 42 | Sahih International translation

And [recall] when Moses prayed for water for his people, so We said, “Strike with your staff the stone.” And there gushed forth from it twelve springs, and every people knew its watering place. “Eat and drink from the provision of Allah, and do not commit abuse on the earth, spreading corruption.”

~Al-Baqarah | Verse 60 | Sahih International translation

Al-Quran must be read as a whole, a person cannot cherry pick verses from Al-Quran to support one’s agendas.

Hence, it is wrong for Lim Kit Siang to cherry pick verses; if he uses verses 42 and 60 of the Surah Al-Baqarah, he cannot reject other part of Al-Quran including the verse 120 of Surah Al-Baqarah.

Had DAP’s Lim Kit Siang who obviously does not believe in Al-Quran, ran out of ideas on better ways to attack Tan Sri Apandi Ali and was too desperate that he had no choice other but to quote the holy Quran?

Most Muslims are not oblivious to the fact that Lim Kit Siang 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.

In other words, Lim Kit Siang’s spiteful accusation painted the idea that the verse 120 of Surah Al-Baqarah is detrimental to religious harmony; which is a malicious distortion of the truth.

And now he is using the same Surah to undermine Tan Sri Apandi Ali! 

What’s more, the verses that he quoted are not even relevant to be used in the context of his wild accusations towards Tan Sri Apandi Ali, but are more relevant to be used against himself, his son Lim Guan Eng and lots of other opposition leaders who 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.

Lim Kit Siang is like a pot calling the kettle black.

If he is an honest man, why does Lim Kit Siang say nothing regarding the problems in Penang, for example Lim Guan Eng’s ‘rumah terlajak murah tanpa swimming pool’ scandal?

As he did to PM Najib and Tan Sri Apandi Ali, he must urge his son to tell the truth and pressure the authorities and Tan Sri Apandi Ali to take stern actions against all the cases involving the Penang government.

Indeed, despite the opposition’s wild accusations against PM Najib, DAP leader Tan Seng Giaw, a member of the Public Accounts Committee(PAC) agreed with PAC’s investigation regarding 1MDB that says PM Najib is not accountable over 1MDB dealings.

Islam is above politics and I can’t imagine if there are Muslims who can tolerate anybody politicising Al-Quran, what more to support the misuse of Al-Quran for what ever reason.

Grow Up, MCA!

“Malaysia is a secular country” – that is a very popular myth concocted and supported by people who are obviously constitutionally illiterate and clueless about the interpretation of the Federal Constitution of our country.

MCA Legal Affairs Bureau Chairman Datuk Tay Puay Chuan’s press statement  which was published on the MCA website yesterday (March 30, 2017) with the title, “Federal Constitution remains the supreme law of the nation” is part of the series of false and baseless accusations by certain groups to undermined the core principals of our country.

Tay Puay Chuan who clearly does not (or pretended not to) understand the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, as well as the definition of secularism, made several false accusations regarding the position of Islam in Malaysia, using the recycled baseless arguments which had been answered by many people for years.

I’ve written so many articles on this currently “hot issue” trying to open the minds of these people but then, it seems that some people just prefer to live in denial.

Below is the press statement (orange) together with my answers (blue) to all his twisted facts and wild accusations regarding Islam as the religion of the Federation.

---

I would like to stress again that the status of Islam as the religion of the federation, the roots of the Islamic law nationwide are granted by the Federal Constitution. This ascertains that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of Malaysia

It is true that the Federal Constitution of Malaysia is the supreme law of the Federation as mentioned in Article 4 of the Federal Constitution, but Islam as the religion of the Federation is placed in the Article 3(1) which is in a higher order of precedence of the Articles. Therefore it gives Islam a higher position than the supreme law itself, meaning the supreme law of the land must be subjected to Islam as the religion of the Federation. This was mentioned by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kementrian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia, also known as the Kalimah Allah case.

The Article places the religion of Islam at par with the other basic structures of the Constitution, as it is the 3 rd in the order of precedence of the Articles that were within the confines of Part I of the Constitution

This is in response to the booklet by Institute Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia (IKSIM) on the ’10 Salah Tanggapan Tentang Kedudukan Islam di Malaysia (10 Misconceptions about the Position of Islam in Malaysia)’, in which it included topics that either directly wrote or implied that ‘Malaysia is not a secular country;’ ‘rejecting claims that Islam is lower than the Constitution;’ ‘As an Islamic  nation, Islamic system is the thrust;’ as well as ‘other religions have no equal standing; and ‘the nation does  not carry the responsibility to safeguard and defend other religions.’

Malaysian leaders of all religions must be constitutionally literate and uphold the Federal Constitution including Article 3(1) that enshrines Islam as the religion of the Federation making Malaysia an Islamic nation. All the Articles in the Federal Constitution must be read together and people cannot just cherry-pick what they like and interpret the Articles according to their fancy to serve their agendas. In the High Court decision of the case, Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Sihi & Ors[2000]  1 MLJ 393, the then Justice Mohd Noor Abdullah had clearly clarified that other religions have no equal standing as Islam: 

In my opinion, “Islam is the religion of the Federation but other religions may be practied in peace and harmony” means that Islam is the main religion among other religions that are practied in the country such as Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and others. Islam is not equal to any other religion, not sitting together or stand upright. It sits on top, he walked past, located in the field and his voice heard. Islam is like teak trees – tall, strong and skilled. If not so Islam is not the religion of the Federation but is one among several religions practised in the country and everyone is equally free to practice any religion he professes, no more one than the other. Provisions ‘Islam is the religion of the Federation’ shall be defined and reviewed with the objective to read other provisions of the Constitution, especially Article 89, 152, 153 and 14.

Even though people of other religions can practise their religions (as long as they are in peace and harmony with Islam), there is no provision in the Federal Constitution to protect other religions except Islam, for example, the Article 11(4).

IKSIM must be alerted that the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution also explains that Islamic law is for persons professing the religion of Islam on matters related to succession, marriage, divorce, etc.

I have read the booklet and in the booklet, IKSIM has never said that the Islamic law has the jurisdiction over people professing other religions other than Islam.

The Federal Constitution is THE supreme law of the nation, and the supremacy of the Constitution renders Islam as the religion of the federation whilst other religions are allowed to be practised freely.

That is not only a false but also a malicious statement. The Constitution has never stated that “other religions can be practised freely” in any of its Articles or Schedules. Article 11(1) says that, “Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it” while Article 3(1) clearly says, “Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”. So, there is no phrase such as “other religions can be practised freely” in both Articles. Maybe Tay came across the word “bebas” in the Perjanjian Kerjasama Pakatan Harapan – PPBM and was confused by it.

As for the phrase, “in peace and harmony”, it was clearly interpreted by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal case of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia.

Such publication will surely have an adverse effect upon the sanctity as envisaged under Article 3(1) and the right for other religions to be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation. Any such disruption of the even tempo is contrary to the hope and desire of peaceful and harmonious co-existence of other religions other than Islam in this country.

Malaysia is a secular country. In fact, the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, Supreme Court judgement enables the implementation of secular laws in the country, which includes both criminal and civil laws. These laws apply to the entire country, irrespective of race and religion. Similarly, the Federal Constitution also provides that Islamic law may only be used on persons professing the religion of Islam. Therefore, Islamic law is not for everyone. Only secular laws may be applied to everyone. Hence, this is one of the proofs which shows that Malaysia is a secular country.

Contrary to what was argued by Tay, the fact that Malaysia has two court systems, the civil court systems and the Syariah Court systems proves that Malaysia is not a secular country.

By the way, does Tay understand the meaning of the word secularism? George Jacob Holyoake, the creator of the term secularism defined secularism as separating government and religion. Therefore, as said in many of my previous posts, it is impossible for Malaysia to be defined as a secular country when Islam is stated as the religion of the Federation. It also contradicts with other Articles of the Constitution such as the Articles 11(4), 12, 37, 76A, 121(1A) and others.

As I wrote in my article for the news portal Menara, in a secular country, the State does not have a religion and cannot has anything to do in relation to religion, for example in the case of Mount Soledad Easter Cross in San Diego, California.

Hence, by calling Malaysia a secular country, Tay slanders and challenges both the Federal Constitution and the definition of secularism.

Syariah law which is currently applied across all states, is the provision of rights granted to all state governments on the law as outlined in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution. It is stated with a condition that the criminal penalties and jurisdictions of the Syariah Court cannot contravene the Federal Constitution, or it will be considered void and unconstitutional.

The jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts does not contravene the Federal Constitution because it was conferred by the Federal Constitution in Item 1 of the Second List in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.

Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution also states that: Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.

This again shows that other religions are also protected by the Federal Constitution. Hence the claims made in the booklet that the country has no obligation to defend nor protect other religions are incorrect. Instead, our nation and the government have the responsibility of defending all religions in line with the Articles and spirit of the Federal Constitution.

What a mind blowing senseless argument! It shows that either Tay is truly constitutionally illiterate or he, in bad faith is trying to deny and debase the position of Islam in our Federal Constitution because his argument is against the core principals of the supreme law of the land. In the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kementrian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia, Tan Sri Apandi Ali said that the purpose of “in peace and harmony” were added to Article 3(1) is to protect the sanctity of Islam, and not to defend other religions as claimed by Tay.

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.

Therefore, Tay must be constitutionally illiterate if he really thinks that the Federal Constitution conferred Malaysia as a secular country, all religions have equal standing and the nation carries the responsibility to safeguard and defend other religions other than Islam.

It is a known fact that during the 13th General Election, MCA won it seats mostly because of the Malay voters, so this kind of attitude is not a gracious way to thank the voters who had graciously voted for the party candidates regardless of their race and religion. MCA must grow up and stop imitating DAP in debasing Islam and the Malays in trying to win the Chinese votes because it won’t work.  

We are now constitutionally literate and therefore the people are not stupid to easily be fooled by concocted lies. Is it too much for me to hope for leaders to understand and uphold the core principals of my country as clearly stated in the Federal Constitution and stop misinterpreting the supreme law of the land for their political and personal agendas?

Related Posts:

• Constitutionally Illiterate!
• Another Seditious Article by MMO’s Boo Su-Lyn
• An Answer to Boo Su-Lyn’s “Why Don’t We Eat Together Anymore?”
• MMO Did Not Apologise for Boo Su-Lyn’s Seditious Article
• An Answer to Boo Su-Lyn’s “Why Don’t We Eat Together Anymore?”
• MMO Did Not Apologise for Boo Su-Lyn’s Seditious Article
• Akta 355: Poster Dangkal SIS Forum Tentang Akta 355
  
• Act 355: Answering “CCM Says Hadi’s Bill Will Radically Rewrite Constitution”
• Jawapan Kepada Kenyataan Mengelirukan Khalid Samad Tentang Pindaan Akta 355
• Video Aksi Siti Zabedah Kasim di Wacana Akta 355
• Tidak Ada Sebab Wakil Rakyat Anda Tolak Cadangan Pindaan Akta 355
• Act 355: G25, Stop Lying About Hadi’s Private Bill
• Act 355: Interfaith Group’s Statement Risks Weakening Constitutional Liberties
• Akta 355: DAP MPs, Please Do Your Homeworks