[Video] Gerakan Kristian Ektremis Radikal Bertapak di Malaysia?

27 02 2018

Video: Namewee Ada Sakit Mental!?

18 02 2018

Kerana Mudah Lupa, Tun M Kini Jadi Alat Puak Liberal Pengaruhi Melayu (Video)

8 02 2018

Institusi Agama Fitnah G25 & Shad Faruqi? Biar Betul!

18 12 2017

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:


Wanita Enggan Jabat Tangan Lelaki Apartheid Baru – Farouk A. Peru

10 10 2017

Inilah masalahnya dengan orang-orang jahil tetapi merasakan diri mereka pandai, maka bukan sahaja mereka bodoh sombong, malah cuba memaksa idea sesat mereka supaya diterima di negara ini.

Baru-baru ini Free Malaysia Today (FMT) telah menyiarkan tulisan aktivis liberal, Farouk A. Peru yang bertajuk “Salam David Beckham dan ‘apartheid’ baru”.

Artikel itu mengkritik tindakan seorang wanita Islam yang memilih untuk mematuhi batas pergaulan Islam dan tidak menyambut salam David Beckham apabila pemain bola sepak terkenal itu menghulurkan tangan untuk bersalam dengannya.

Apakah Farouk cuba mengatakan tindakan wanita tersebut (yang tidak mahu berjabat tangan bersama David Beckham) adalah akibat daripada perpisahan di antara agama yang dilabelkannya sebagai ‘aparthied’ dengan menulis seperti yang tertera di bawah?

Semakin lama, semakin luas jurang perbezaan di antara rakyat Malaysia beragama Islam dan bukan Islam.

Pengasingan ini dinamakan “apartheid”. Sebab apartheid ini berlaku bukanlah tuntutan Islam sendiri, tetapi amalan yang diajar oleh agamawan yang tidak dapat membezakan agama dan budaya.

Amalan ini boleh jadi amalan yang kecil sahaja seperti berjabat tangan.

Aktivis liberal itu juga menulis:

Inilah masalah sebenarnya. Dengan mudah, sebuah akhbar “arus perdana” membuat dakwaan yang ini “batas pergaulan Islam”.

Yang sebenarnya, peraturan sedemikian tidak disebut langsung dalam Al-Quran, sumber utama Islam. Ia hanya menyatakan jangan mendekati zina (Surah Al-Isra, ayat 32). Adakah dengan berjabat tangan di khalayak ramai itu boleh membawa kepada zina? Tak masuk akal langsung!

Sebenarnya, wanita ini hanya mengikut suruhan ustaz yang tidak memahami perbezaan antara budaya dan agama, itu saja.

Sebenarnya pendapat dan tafsiran sesat Farouk A. Peru itulah yang “tak masuk akal langsung” dan aktivis liberal itulah yang “tidak memahami perbezaan antara budaya dan agama”,

Menurut Hadis Riwayat Muslim, Nabi Muhammad S.A.W. bersabda:

“Ditetapkan atas anak cucu Adam bagiannya dari zina akan diperoleh hal itu tidak mustahil. Kedua mata zinanya adalah memandang (yang haram). Kedua telinga zinanya adalah mendengarkan (yang haram). Lisan zinanya adalah berbicara (yang haram). Tangan zinanya adalah memegang (yang haram). Kaki zinanya adalah melangkah (kepada yang diharamkan). Sementara hati berkeinginan dan berangan-angan, sedang kemaluan yang membenarkan semua itu atau mendustakannya.” ~Hadis Riwayat Muslim | 2657

Perkara ni juga disebut di dalam kitab Hadis Riwayat Sahih Al Bukhari di dalam hadis ke-6243.

Apabila kita hanya merujuk kepada Al-Quran sahaja tanpa membaca hadis yang berkaitan, maka sukarlah bagi kita untuk memahami hukum hakam dan undang-undang Islam, termasuklah dalam perkara batas pergaulan dalam Islam.

Namun bagi golongan anti-hadis, mereka menolak hadis dan merasakan bahawa akal mereka sudah cukup hebat untuk menafsirkan sendiri kitab suci Al-Quran, walaupun mereka tidak memahami bahasa Al-Quran iaitu bahasa Arab dan hanya membaca tafsir Al-Quran sahaja.

Golongan anti-hadis ini merasakan pendapat merekalah yang benar dan oleh itu, tidak boleh dipertikaikan oleh sesiapa pun termasuklah para mufti.

Farouk seterusnya menulis:

Malaysia satu negara berbilang bangsa dan agama. Janganlah kita membiarkan satu golongan mendominasi ke atas golongan lain.

Nampaknya Farouk A. Peru bukan sahaja jahil tentang hukum Islam malah juga jahil tentang asas dan idealogi Negara termasuk undang-undang tertinggi Negara iaitu Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Malaysia bukan sebuah Negara berbilang agama tetapi ialah sebuah Negara Islam dan seperti yang tertulis di dalam Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan, agama bagi Negara ini hanyalah Islam manakala agama-agama lain hanyalah agama-agama yang boleh diamalkan selagi tidak mengganggu suasana aman dan damai agama Negara iaitu agama Islam.

Perkara 3(1) mengatakan bahawa “Islam ialah agama bagi Persekutuan; tetapi agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai di mana-mana Bahagian Persekutuan.”

Manakala, Perkara 153 Perlembagaan Malaysia memberi hak kepada Yang di-Pertuan Agong menjaga hak-hak dan keistimewaan orang Melayu dan Bumiputera serta kepentingan-kepentingan sah kaum-kaum lain mengikut peruntukan perkara ini.

Seterusnya Farouk yang menentang dasar-dasar Islamisasi di Negara ini turut mendakwa Malaysia boleh menjadi negara taliban, apabila Islamisasi tersebar di dalam Negara ini.

Farouk A. Peru menulis:

Dasar yang dianggap Islamisasi datang dengan kita tidak sedar. Sebelum kita tahu, mungkin kita telah menjadi negara Taliban!

Sebenarnya fahaman liberalnya menjadikan Farouk A. Peru seorang yang amat keliru sehinggakan dia tidak dapat memahami asas-asas dan hukum agama Islam dan juga ideologi Negara kita.

Farouk A Peru ialah seorang daripada penulis buku G25 iaitu “Breaking the Silence: Voices of Moderation” yang telah di haramkan kerana mempromosikan fahaman liberalisasi agama yang boleh merosakkan aqidah umat Islam.

Namun, aktivis liberal sebeginilah yang diangkat sebagai pejuang Islam oleh sesetengah orang terutamanya peminpin parti-parti politik pembangkang yang lantang menentang dasar kerajaan yang memperjuangkan Islam Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah.

Malah pemimpin pembangkang termasuk Naib Presiden PAN, Dr Mujahid Yusof Rawa dan pemimpin DAP, Lim Kit Siang dengan keras telah membantah pengharaman buku “Breaking the Silence” dan buku-buku liberal dan ajaran sesat yang lain.


Ateisme Mencabar Kedaulatan Negara

15 08 2017

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.


Lim Kit Siang Dah Terima Al-Quran?

31 07 2017

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.


%d bloggers like this: