Kenapa Kita Tidak Boleh Bentengi Akidah Umat Islam?

(Karim’s Blog) – Kenapa MUSUH-MUSUH ISLAM sangat benci apabila kita usaha bentengi akidah Umat Islam?

Di mana salahnya kita perkasakan akidah anak-anak muda dengan penganjuran seminar dan ceramah pemurnian akidah?

PELAMPAU EVANGELIS KRISTIAN bebas berkeliaran memurtadkan orang-orang Islam – TETAPI apabila kita berusaha mendedahkan AGENDA JAHAT TIPU HELAH mereka, mereka mula membuat bising.

Dalam isu penganjuran Seminar Pemurnian Aqidah di UiTM Melaka Sabtu lalu, kenapa PELAMPAU EVANGELIS Kristian ganas membuat bising?

Yang patut dipersoalkan ialah kenapa ada “SPY” yang menyelinap masuk dalam seminar yang dari awal lagi dikhaskan hanya untuk pelajar Islam sebagai sebahagian dari program ACIS. NIAT BUSUK dan JAHAT “spy” ini jelas sengaja membuat kecoh. Niat pelajar tersebut sepatutnya disiasat. Paderi yang mula menyebar FITNAH dan HASUTAN tersebut mesti disiasat kerana niat jahatnya.

Ini hak kita yang dilindungi oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan – Perkara 11 Fasal 4:

Undang-undang Negeri dan berkenaan dengan Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Labuan dan Putrajaya, undangundang persekutuan boleh mengawal atau menyekat pengembangan apa-apa doktrin atau kepercayaan agama di kalangan orang yang menganuti agama Islam.

Kita buat seminar untuk mendedahkan strategi-strategi JAHAT penipuan PELAMPAU EVANGELIS Kristian. Kita mahu umat kita sedar musuh berusaha untuk memurtadkan umat kita. Tidak salah untuk kita anjurkan seminar sebegini. TIDAK SALAH untuk kita anjurkan setiap hari setiap pelusuk Tanah Air ini kerana ianya selari dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan Perkara 11 Fasal 4.

Yang salah ialah mereka yang sengaja menghasut.

Apa agenda MKini/TMI/MMonline dalam membesar-besarkan HASUTAN mereka ini?

Bila Liberal Mengajar Apa Itu Islam

Former Deputy Prime Minister’s grandchild, Tariq Ismail defended Tawfik Ismail’s uncalled statement to abolish JAKIM that had angered the Muslims in this country – please click here.

Asking Tawfik Ismail to simply apologise or face dire consequences is wrong. He did not question the sanctity of Islam. – Tariq Ismail via TMI

He was referring to PERKASA’s call for Tawfik Ismail to apologise to JAKIM and the Muslims.

Perkasa menggesa agar Tawfik Ismail segera memohon maaf kepada JAKIM dan umat Islam agar tidak berlaku implikasi yang negatif kepada beliau,” katanya dalam satu kenyataan di sini, hari ini. – Astro Awani

Before I go on, I must say that I do not agree with what TMI wrote as “face dire consequences” as the translation from “agar tidak berlaku implikasi yang negatif.”

Tawfik, in his interview with TMI did question the sanctity of Islam when he accused JAKIM as “seems to serve no other purpose than to intervene in the personal lives of Malaysians” for performing the duty to uphold Islam.

Is Tawfik not questioning the sanctity of Islam when he implies that it is right for the Muslims to return to the time when people drinks brandy and whisky during meetings and own dogs?

Denying Islamic rules, means that one is questioning the sanctity of Islam.

Saying something that is haram as alright and something that is wajib as wrong in the context of Islam is questioning the sanctity of Islam.

Tawfik is against of, “tried to infuse their definition of “Islamic values” into every aspect of Malaysian life” – if he was referring to JAKIM’s definition of Islamic values which is of the Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah, Tawfik again is questioning the sanctity of Islam.

Apart from defending Tawfik’s arguments about JAKIM, Tariq also had bad thing to say about the Syariah Court:

Currently, we have a Shariah Court that sometimes does not seek to uphold justice; those with money and influence have corrupted the sanctity of this institution. – TMI

Tawfik must not only apologise to JAKIM and the Muslims but more importantly he must bertaubat to Allah or repent and get his akidah right; and if Tariq agrees with Tawfik’s liberal thinking then he too must get his akidah right.

As I wrote in my previous post,Tawfik Tun Dr Ismail Wants Jakim Abolished,” Tawfik is so confused about Islam and he needs help from JAKIM to go back to the true path of Islam.

We have to follow the real teaching of Islam.

In Malaysia, we are the Muslims of Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah from the Shafie school of thought or madhhab, so this is the guideline followed by JAKIM.

The true teaching of Islam is always relevant, therefore it must never be evolved or liberalised by anybody.

G25, Another Voice Of Liberal Muslims?

The Malaysia Insider reported that a “group of retired Malay civil servants of G25 against religious extremism plans to seek an audience with the Malay rulers to petition for a committee that will review the application of Islam in Malaysian law.”
G25 wrote an open letter dated December 7, 2014 (please click here for the open letter) among others expressed that they are disturbed and deeply dismayed “over the continuing unresolved disputes on the position and application of Islamic laws in this country” and stated that “the teachings of our faith must continue to evolve” to be relevant.
They wrote that:

“The on-going debate over these matters display a lack of clarity and understanding on the place of Islam within our constitutional democracy.”

Actually, there should not be any question about the place of Islam within our constitution because it is clearly stated in Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia that Islam is the religion of the Federation and the oath pledged by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as in accordance to Article 37(1) is made in the name of Allah, “Wallahi Wabillahi Watallahi” and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong pledges to uphold Islam at all time.

Article 3(1) said that:

“Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.”

Article 37(1) stated that the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong needs to take his oath before exercising his functions:

“The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall before exercising his functions take and subscribe before the Conference of Rulers and in the presence of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court (or in his absence the next senior judge of the Federal Court available) the oath of office set out in Part I of the Fourth Schedule; and the oath shall be attested by two persons appointed for the purpose by the Conference of Rulers.”

The oath pledged by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong:

“Wallahi: Wabillahi: Watallahi,

Maka dengan lafaz ini berikrarlah Kami dengan sesungguhnya dan dengan sebenarnya mengaku akan taat setia pada menjalankan dengan adilnya pemerintahan bagi Malaysia dengan mengikut sebagaimana undang-undang dan Perlembagaan yang telah disahkan dan dimasyurkan dan akan disah dan dimasyurkan di masa hadapan ini. Dan lagi Kami berikrar mengaku dengan sesungguh dan dengan sebenarnya memeliharakan pada setiap masa Agama Islam dan berdiri tetap di atas permintaan yang adil dan aman di dalam Negeri.”

G25 also wrote:

“We refer specifically to the current situation where religious bodies seem to be asserting authority beyond their jurisdiction; where issuance of various fatwa violate the Federal Constitution and breach the democratic and consultative process of shura; where the rise of supremacist NGOs accusing dissenting voices of being anti-Islam, anti-monarchy and anti-Malay has made attempts at rational discussion and conflict resolution difficult; and most importantly, where the use of the Sedition Act hangs as a constant threat to silence anyone with a contrary opinion. These developments undermine Malaysia’s commitment to democratic principles and rule of law, breed intlerance and bigotry, and have heightened anxieties over national peace and stability.”

Contrary to the accusation made by G25, the religious bodies are not “asserting authority beyond their jurisdiction, but they are doing their job to uphold Islam as the religion of the Federation as stated under Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution.

“…the rise of supremacist NGOs accusing dissenting voices of being anti-Islam, anti-monarchy and anti-Malay has made attempts at rational discussion and conflict resolution difficult…” – G25

From the above statement I guess the NGOs that G25 called supremacist are the Malay and Islamic NGOs who are fighting to uphold Islam which is the religion of the Federation as written in Article 3(1) and protecting the rights of the Malays as written in Article 153 of the Federal Constitution.
I just wonder why the Malays of G25 are so disturbed by people fighting for Islam and the rights of the Malays?
And why is G25 quiet when liberal NGOs like COMANGO questioned, humiliated and challenged Islam, the Malays rights and our Rulers?
Does G25 think that it is constitutional when people like Lim Kit Siang, Eric Paulsen and Tony Pua humiliate and slender Islam, the Friday Sermon and JAKIM?
What about some illegal coalition of NGOs such as BERSIH who went against the law by organising illegal street demonstrations, with the hope to topple a democratically elected government?
G25 also attacked Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom for doing his job as the minister in charge of the Islamic affairs:

“…we are particularly concerned with the statement issued by Minister Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom, in response to the recent Court of Appeal judgement on the right of transgendered women to dress according to their identity.”

Calling the Sedition Act as a tool to silence the voices with a contrary opinion shows that one does not understand the Sedition Act.
According to Tan Sri Aziz Abdul Rahman, (please refer to this article) the Sedition Act or Akta Hasutan was written after the government identified four serious issues as one of the major causes of the serious 1969 racial riot:

  • Article 153 of the Federal Constitution: Special Rights For The Malays
  • Article 152 of the Federal Constitution: Malay As The National Language
  • Part III: of the Citizenship Rights                 
  • Article 181 of the Federal Constitution: Rights, Status, Sovereignty Of The Rulers

I just do not understand why G25 members want the four sensitive issues to be questioned when open debates on the four issues could actually “heightened anxieties over national peace and stability.”

The G25 further wrote:

“The Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any law enacted, including Islamic laws, cannot violate the Constitution, in particular the provisions on fundamental liberties, federal-state division of powers and legislative procedures”

How could the Islamic laws violate the Federal Constitution when Islam is the religion of the Federation as stated in Article 3(1) of the the Federal Constitution?
In the ruling of the Court of Appeal’s three-member panel led by Federal Court judge Datuk Seri Mohamed Apandi Ali on the Kalimah Allah case:

[31] It is my observation that the words “in peace and harmony” in Article 3(1) has a historical background and dimension, to the effect that those words are not without significance. 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. It is pertinent to note that the fundamental liberties Articles were grouped together subsequently under Part II of the Constitution.

And in the case of Ramah v Laton, it has been decided that the Islamic laws are the laws of the land, so it does not violate the Federal Constitution.

G25 then wrote:

“It is our fervent belief that for Islam to continue to be relevant and universal in our times, the understanding, codification and implementation of the teachings of our faith must continue to evolve.”

We have to follow the real teaching of Islam. We are the Muslims of Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah from the Shafie school of thought or madhhab, so this is the guideline followed by our Islamic authorities.
The true teaching of Islam is always relevant, therefore it must never be evolved or liberalised by anybody.

Is Marina Mahathir Scared Of Hudud?

Mmo

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

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

Lim Kit Siang Mursyidul Am Baru PAS?

Di dalam video tersebut, Pengerusi DAP Lim Kit Siang seolah-olah mengatakan bahawa beliau lebih tahu daripada ulama’-ulama’ PAS tentang perlaksanaan hukum hudud dalam program anjuran PAS di Kota Bharu.

Lim Kit Siang berhujah kenapa hudud tidak boleh dilaksanakan sedangkan PAS Kelantan sedang berusaha untuk melaksanakan hukum hudud di Kelantan.

Lim Kit Siang telah dijemput untuk memberi ceramah di program PAS; dan Lim Kit Siang telah mengambil kesempatan untuk menghina PAS tetapi pemimpin PAS yang berada di atas pentas pada hari itu tidak pula berkata apa-apa.

Soalan saya ialah:

  1. Dimanakah maruah PAS sehingga boleh membiarkan pemimpin DAP itu mengajar mereka tentang perlaksanaan hukum Islam?

  2. DAP sudah sering kali membuat kenyataan tentang hudud tetapi yang menghairankan saya ialah bagaimana PAS masih boleh bekerjasama dengan DAP?

  3. Apakah Lim Kit Siang merasakan dirinya lebih tahu tentang hukum Islam berbanding Presiden dan Mursyidul Am PAS?

  4. Pemimpin DAP bebas bercakap tentang hal ehwal agama Islam; apakah tindakan DAP jika pemimpin PAS masuk campur atau mengkritik perkara-perkara yang berkaitan dengan urusan agama mereka?

Hudud Is Against Federal Constitution, Total Freedom Is Not?

Insider 16The Malaysian Insider (TMI) reported that, “Bar Council constitutional law committee chairperson Firdaus Husni said the current framework of Malaysia’s Federal Constitution did not allow for hudud implementation, based on several articles.”

According to TMI, the articles are Articles 7, 8 and 3 of the Federal Constitution.

It puzzles me when Firdaus Husni said that, “hudud could also be challenged using Article 3, which stated that Islam was the religion of the federation”; when hudud is a part of Islam and not against the religion of the Federation.

Article 3(1) says:

“Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”.

She went on saying:

“Instead, the 1993 Supreme Court case held it to mean that Islam in the context of Article 3 only relates to rituals and ceremonies,” –  The Malaysian Insider. 

I guess she was referring to the case of Che Omar Che Soh v Public Prosecutor (1988) 2 MLJ 55; an old case which is no longer a good law; in fact the case was decided before the coming into effect of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution.

To define Islam in Article 3(1), she should refer to later and more important cases to like the cases of Meor Atiqul Rahman v Fatimah Sihi and others [2000] 5 MLJ 375 and Lina Joy v Majlis agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & 1 Lagi [2007] 4
MLJ 585.

Furthermore, in Che’ Omar bin Che’ Soh v Public Prosecutor, Tan Sri Salleh Abbas did not say that Malaysia is a secular nation but Tan Sri Salleh Abbas only said that secular laws were used in Malaysia.

Articles 3(1), 11(4), 12(2), 37(1) and 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution proves that Malaysia is an Islamic country, in fact, that the word ‘secular’ has never been written in the Federal Constitution.

After giving all her arguments of why Hudud is against the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, I have a question for the Bar Council; has the Bar Council forgotten about Articles 3(1), 10(4), 11(4), 181 and others when it fights for the LBGT rights, the freedom for the Muslims to change their religion or to become atheists and to abolish of the Sedition Act?

Indeed as lawyers they surely understand that in order for the Sedition Act to be removed, it needs the consent of nine Sultans because the Sedition Act is related to Article 10 (4); but they do not respect and sort of question the rights of the Sultan which is against the Article 181 of the Federal Constitution.

The Bar Council also supports COMANGO that are fighting for lots of things that are against the Federal Constitution in Geneva.

To simplify what I am trying to say, I think those Bar Council lawyers do not mind to change the Federal Constitution in order to achieve what they want.

So what is the logic of the Bar Council’s arguments saying that Hudud is against the Federal Constitution, when they are also fighting for things which are against the Federal Constitution?

If we compare Hudud to the rights to leave Islam, I think Hudud as the Islamic laws is more relevant in Malaysia since Islam is the religion of the Federation.

As a Muslim, Bar Council lawyer, Firdaus Husni must fight for Islam and not against Islam.

TS Muhyiddin Ingatkan Pemuda UMNO Asas Dan Tujuan UMNO?

In his opening speech of the assemblies of Wanita, Pemuda and Puteri UMNO, Tan Sri Muhyiddin reminded the delegates of the Clause 3.3 of the UMNO Constitution, which explains the core spirit of the party.

Tan Sri Muhyiddin also wants UMNO to work closely with the Muslim NGOs.

“Di samping itu, institusi-institusi Islam perlu diperkasa, penguatkuasaan undang-undang Islam perlu dipertegas dan kerjasama UMNO dengan NGO-NGO Islam perlu diperkukuh.” – Tan Sri Muhyiddin.

I’m glad to hear that because I think it is time for some UMNO leaders, especially the Pemuda or UMNO Youth who are too busy to be popular to be reminded about the Cause 3 of UMNO’s Constitution.

Please read: “Khairy, A Trojan Horse?

A lot of Malays are questioning the UMNO Youth Vice Chief, Khairul Azwan’s statement to Astro Awani.

Astro 1

I do not understand why must he as the UMNO Youth Vice Chief could make such a statement.

Is he confused about which party he is now representing?

Maybe the UMNO Youth Chief must make sure that all UMNO Youth leaders understand the Clause 3 of the UMNO Constitution that UMNO’s core fight is for ‘agama, bangsa dan negara.

If the UMNO Youth Vice Chief understands Clause 3 of the UMNO Constitution, he’ll see that what the right wings Malay/Muslim NGOs which he seems not to be happy with, share the same spirit with UMNO.

In fact they are part of the unsung heroes behind UMNO’s success in the PRU 13.

I would like to end this article with a nice poem read by Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.

Bunga kesidang si bunga tanjung,
Tumbuh di laman mekar berkembang,
Agama dijulang Bangsa dijunjung,
Begitulah UMNO terus berjuang.