Tag Archives: Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif

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:

 

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”. 

Act 355: Answering “CCM Says Hadi’s Bill Will Radically Rewrite Constitution”

In preserving a harmonious country, the people of Malaysia from all faiths and races must uphold the Federal Constitution, respect each other, obey the laws of our country and must not insult others.

As a person in his position who always talks about unity and harmony, Hermen Shastri must not insult the Muslims by making rude, harsh and false accusations regarding the Syariah punishments as well as the PAS president’s Bill.

After all, why must non-Muslims try so hard to deny the constitutional rights of the Muslims to manage our own religious affairs as written in Article 11(3) of our Federal Constitution?

In its article, “In plea to MPs, CCM says Hadi’s Bill will ‘radically’ rewrite constitution”, Malay Mail Online (MMO) wrote:

Council of Churches of Malaysia (CCM)’s secretary-general, Reverend Dr Hermen Shastri recently claimed that a vote for the Act 355 Bill which was tabled by PAS’ president, Dato’ Seri Haji Hadi will “radically” rewrite the Federal Constitution, urging MPs to not look at the Bill lightly and instead view it with “great concern and alarm”  Malay Mail Online.

MMO later quoted Shastri as saying:

“Hadi’s Bill is not just about upgrading the power of the Shariah Courts, it is rewriting the constitution in a radical way,” – Malay Mail Online.

Now, what does the CCM leader’s intention of using the words, “… in a radical way” when Hadi’s Bill is in no way will bring any changes to the Constitution?

The fact is, the Bill is only to increase the Syariah punishments which maximum punishments are currently too low and not to introduce new sets of laws.

MMO also wrote that:

Shastri pointed out that Shariah Courts were established and regulated by state laws, and that their powers and offences were defined by the Federal Constitution  Malay Mail Online.

The Bill will not change this fact, the Shariah Courts will still be regulated by State laws while the Civil Courts will still be regulated by Federal laws.

bill

Worse, Herman Shastri’s wild accusation gives the implications to people who believe his words that those who are telling the truth about the Bill are liars; which will cause anger and hatred that can divide the people.

According to MMO:

He added that the ramification to widen Islamic laws was not only limited to those who are Muslims  Malay Mail Online.

Another false statement because under the laws of Malaysia, non-Muslims are not subjected to the Syariah Laws.

Section 2 of the Act 355 clearly says that the Syariah Court has no jurisdiction over the non-Muslims and Hadi’s Bill is not about amending the Section 2 of the Act 355 to give the Syariah Courts the jurisdiction over the non-Muslims.

Also said by Shastri:

“Once we lose the balance between Syariah and Civil Courts as set forth in our Federal Constitution, it is going to lead to a dangerous path of conflicting jurisdictions; forms of punishment not acceptable in modern societies; and erosion against the liberal secular status of the Constitution and its impact especially on the states of Sabah and Sarawak,”

~Malay Mail Online

Firstly, what does the CCM’s secretary-general mean by “forms of punishment not acceptable in modern societies”?

From the above sentence, I understand the above rude phrase is written in reference to the Syariah punishment, which is clearly an insult to Islam, the religion of the Federation and to the Muslims who believe in the teaching of Islam.

Is insulting and scoffing at other religions an attitude that is “acceptable in modern societies”?

There is no case of “… erosion against the liberal secular status of the Constitution”, because the status of our Federal Constitution is neither liberal nor secular since Article 3(1) of our Federal Constitution stated that Islam is the religion of the Federation.

In fact, the words liberal and secular have never been mentioned in our Federal Constitution.

To understand a secular constitution, please refer to the constitution of the United States of America and read the interesting case about Mount Soledad.

As a CCM leader, Hermen Shastri must be really careful of what he said, especially when commenting about other religions, please do not scoff at or insult other religion.

Do not insult others and learn to respect the constitutional rights of others.

He must get his facts right from the people who understand the matter for if not, not only it will be a pointless statement which doesn’t make any sense but it will also cause anger and hatred.

The rights of the Muslims to be governed by the Islamic law is granted under the Federal Constitution of our country.

In the judgement of ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, the Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif concluded:

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.

Hadi’s Bill only concerns the lives of the Muslims and we are not disturbing people of other faith.

We want to prevent and solve social problems among the Muslims as some offences punishable by the Syariah Courts are not considered as offences under civil law, such as Muslims drinking alcohol in public which can also cause problems to non-Muslims as in the cases of violence when they are drunk.

So why must it become a problem to non-Muslims when the Muslim are working to solve our social problems and helping each other to become better Muslims and better human being?

Are the people who are against the Bill are against the faithful Muslims?

Related Posts:

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
Video – Mudahnya Memahami Akta 355
Pindaan Akta 355 – Memberi Autonomi Lebih Kepada Negeri-negeri
Akta 355: DAP MPs, Please Do Your Homeworks
Act 355: G25, Stop Lying About Hadi’s Private Bill
Act 355: Interfaith Group’s Statement Risks Weakening Constitutional Liberties


Ezra Zaid vs Syariah Court Of Selangor

I see the case of ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor as like looking at a case of ‘Article 10(1) of the Federal Constitution v Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution’ or ‘Freedom of speech v Religion of the Federation.’

(Please read MMO Did Not Apologise For Boo Su Lyn’s Seditious Article).

A Muslim named Mohd Ezra bin Mohd Zaid was charged before the Syariah Court of Selangor for publishing a book which is contrary to Islamic law.

The petitioners, ZI Publications Sdn Bhd (first petitioner) and Mohd Ezra bin Mohd Zaid (second petitioner) were seeking for a declaration that section 16 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995 is invalid.

Ezra fought that according to the Federal Constitution, the Selangor State Legislative Assembly has no power to legislate a law that “has the effect of restricting and/or has the potential to restrict freedom of expression” as stated in Article 10.

The book, “Allah, Kebebasan, Dan Cinta”, a Malay translation of, “Allah, Liberty, and Love” is written by Irshad Manji, a person who does not understand Islam, and her interpretations of Islam and the Islamic law is contrary to the teaching of Islam.

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.

In his judgment, President of the Court of Appeal Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif said:

“Thus, in the present case, we are of the view that Article 10 of the Federal Constitution must be read in particular with Articles 3(1), 11, 74(2) and 121. Article 3(1) declares Islam as the religion of the Federation. Article 11 guarantees every person’s right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it. With regard to propagation, there is a limitation imposed by Article 11(4) which reads:-

“(4) State Law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.””

So, it is very clear that Article 10 must be read harmoniously with Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution since Article 3 is placed in Part I, while Article 10 was placed in Part II of the Federal Constitution.

Logically, the Articles that are placed in Part I should be of more importance than the ones in Part II.

In his conclusion 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.

The question is, why must a Muslim publishes a book containing deviant teachings and took a state government to court for protecting other Muslims from the deviant teaching (from the book) as conferred by the Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution?

Note:

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

Article 74(2): Without prejudice to any power to make laws conferred on it by any other Article, the Legislature of a State may make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List (that is to say, the Second List set out in the Ninth Schedule) or the Concurrent List.

Article 121(1a): The courts referred to in Clause (1) shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.

Federal Court Sentenced Anwar To Five Years In Jail

The Federal Court sentenced Anwar Ibrahim to a five-years period of jail for sodomising his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan seven years ago.

The five men panel lead by Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria delivered an unanimous 5-0 judgement on the matter.

Hakim

 

Below is the summary of the case which took 7 years to be finalised.

B9cwy_zCUAABUjq