Gambar Sekitar Majlis Tahlil A. Karim Omar

2 07 2018

Alhamdulillah, dengan rahmat Allah S.W.T., majlis tahlil ayahanda kesayangan kami, Allahyarham Tuan Haji A. Karim bin Omar telahpun berjalan dengan lancar selama 3 malam berturut-turut.

Terima kasih diucapkan kepada semua yang telah menjayakan majlis tahlil ini.

Semoga roh Allahyarham dicucuri rahmat oleh Allah S.W.T., Amin.

Al-Fatihah.

Advertisements




Eric Paulsen Slanders JAKIM

12 01 2015

Screenshot_1Human Rights lawyer, Eric Paulsen wrote on his twitter page on the 9th January that:

“JAKIM is promoting extremism every Friday. Govt needs to address that if serious about extremism in Msia.”

As a lawyer who claims to be fighting for Human Rights, Eric Paulsen must not make such false accusations towards others.

And if JAKIM does promote extremism “every Friday”, then I suppose JAKIM will not publish their Friday sermon for the whole world to see.

As a lawyer, Eric Paulsen must learn about the Federal Constitution and understand the Article 3(1), which says:

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

First of all every citizen of Malaysia must accept and respect the fact that Islam is the religion of the Federation because that is an important part of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

According to Dato’ Naser Disa, a very senior lawyer who is also our constitution expert, the words, “but other religions maybe practised in peace and harmony” means that the followers of other religions must practise their religions in peace and harmony with others from other religions especially Islam, which is the religion of the Federation of Malaysia; and not to cause uneasiness towards the Muslims.

It does not mean that Islam and the Muslims must obey them and they can do anything to Islam.

Eric Paulsen’s harsh words had cause anger among the Muslims and that is already wrong because there will be no more “peace and harmony” as written in Article 3(1).

And non-Muslims has no rights to set the rules for the Muslim of how to practise Islam.

Has Eric Paulsen forgotten the Article 11(3)(a)?

Article 11(3)(a):

“Every religious group has the right—
(a) to manage its own religious affairs;”

Eric Paulsen and his friends always use Article 11(3)(a) when it suits them but now he is the one who rudely interfere with not just another religion’s affairs but the affairs of the religion of the Federation.

Eric Paulsen also bashed the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Dato’ Sri Khalid bin Abu Bakar and told him to be “neutral and impartial” after the IGP tweeted that Eric Paulsen should be arrested under the Sedition Act.

Screenshot_2

After all he had said, Eric Paulsen again tweeted that, “criticising Jakim should not be construed as insulting Islam” which I think is a lame excuse that could only be agreed by his friends who really hates the government.

Worst is Eric Paulsen does not criticise JAKIM but he slandes JAKIM and unfairly tarnish the Islamic authority.

JAKIM is the official Islamic authority in Malaysia and so, if he insults JAKIM, then it means that he also insults Islam, which is the religion of the Federation.

Eric also re tweeted some of Lawyer For Liberty tweets about some of JAKIM’s Friday sermons, including sermons about Surah Al-Baqarah Verse 120 and also about Syi’ah.

Like Lim Kit Siang who also thinks that he has the rights to interfere and complain about the verse from Quran, Eric Paulsen must understand that they are not Muslims, so they do not understand the concept of Islam and have no rights to teach  JAKIM and the Muslim about the verses from the Quran and other parts of our religion.

What is wrong when JAKIM warned the Muslims of Syi’ah which is a deviant teaching?

From his accusations, it shows that he knows nothing about Islam so it is silly for him to argue and fight about something he does not know or understand.

As a lawyer, Eric Paulsen must understands that the head of Islam is the Sultans and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and he has no rights to control Jakim or the Muslims.

I am very sad to see a lawyer who fights against the law instead of fighting for the law.





Don’t Want Liberalism, Tear Up The Constitution – Another Malicious Distortion Of The Truth From TMI

11 12 2014

Insider 14

In the above article, The Malaysian Insider (TMI) reported that Professor Ebrahim E. I. Moosa who is a South African, made a statement that “Malaysia was a pluralistic and liberal country”.

He made that statement in reply to a question from the audience regarding the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom’s statement, “the teachings of liberalism and pluralism are seen as among the most prevalent forms of insult to Islam”.

TMI wrote that:

“The very idea that Malaysia has accepted, constitutionally or otherwise, the plurality of religious and ethnic communities… it is already on the way to liberalism. You are already on a certain kind of liberalism. It might not be an optimal one, but it is already there” – TMI.

I do not know whether Professor Ebrahim understands the word liberalism and pluralism that were mentioned by Datuk Seri Jamil Khir.

Malaysia does accept “the plurality of religious and ethnic communities” but that does not makes Malaysia ‘a pluralistic and liberal country’; furthermore, Malaysia does not accept pluralism of religion.

“The very idea that Malaysia has accepted the plurality of religious and ethnic communities”, shows that our Rulers, the government and the Malays respect other religions and ethnic communities as how Islam teaches us.

But that does not make us liberal.

Professor Ebrahim also said:

“If you want to get away from liberalism, you need to tear up the Malaysian constitution”  Professor Ebrahim E. I. Moosa – TMI

Tear up the Malaysian Constitution if we do not want liberalism?

I do not know if Professor Ebrahim knows what is he talking about, if he thinks he does, he must be so confused or he must has read the constitution of another country!

And this is a malicious distortion of the truth because as an Islamic country, Malaysia does not accept liberalism because it is against the teaching of Islam.

And there is no such word as ‘liberalism’ in our Federal Constitution.

Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia says:

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

… and we have Article 11(4) to protect the religion of the Federation:

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.

Islam is the only religion mentioned in the Federal Constitution, and Islam is protected by the Federal Constitution and the state laws.

In fact as the religion of the Federation, Islam is above other religions in Malaysian; and that is against the idea of liberalism that rejects state religion.

Moreover, Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution recognises the Syariah Court.

Now, if the professor does not understand what is liberalism and pluralism, he should ask somebody.

Liberalism is all about total freedom and pluralism is saying that one’s religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth, and thus the acknowledgement that at least some truths and true values exist in other religions.

When TMI wrote that, the professor said that, “Malaysia was a pluralistic and liberal country”, I wonder if the word “was” is a typo or he used the word, “was” to indicate that Malaysia was once a pluralistic and liberal country but not anymore.

For the record, Malaysia is neither was nor is a pluralistic and liberal country.

History tells us that Malaysia is always an Islamic country even before our independence.

Actually the existing Islamic laws before Merdeka Day are still valid according to Article 162 of the Federal Constitution which says:

Subject to the following provisions of this Article and Article 
163*, the existing laws shall, until repealed by the authority
having power to do so under this Constitution, continue in force
on and after Merdeka Day, with such modifications as may be
made therein under this Article and subject to any amendments
made by federal or State law.

The professor also told us to learn history:

“The first thing to be done, to the many spokespersons who are saying these things, is a quick lesson in Malaysian history… Malaysian history 101… to re-familiarise themselves” -TMI.

Actually the person who needs to learn history is him and most of those who supported the above TMI article!

And above all, since he is not a Malaysian and since he just came to Malaysia, he should not interfere in local issues that he knows nothing about.

He might want to say that as a scholar, he should know better about our Federal Constitution than others including our Federal Constitution experts like Dato’ Naser Disa and Professor Shamrahayu.

But, has he ever read the Federal Constitution and does he know that it takes a lawyer to interpret law and constitution?

I hope that the government can take stern actions on those who make such a malicious distortion of the truth regarding the Federal Constitution of Malaysia including foreigners because our Federal Constitution is the highest law and something like the pillar of our country.

Those ‘scholars’ are bringing bad influences as they being used by certain groups to influence the public into believing something fictitious in order to serve their hidden agendas and this could cause racial and religious disharmony among the people.

And these so called “Muslim scholars” are spreading the ideologies of liberalism and pluralism as the teaching of Islam when these ideologies are actually part of deviant teaching.





Is Proham Secretary-General Questioning Rights Of The Rulers?

24 11 2014

Insider 12

A lot of things have been said about the Akta Hasutan or the Sedition Act, a very important Act that was amended in 1970 to protect the stability of our country after a serious racial riot in 1969.

The question is, can the Akta Hasutan be abolished without the Rulers’ consent and is it true that Akta Hasutan is just a “normal Act” and “a colonial-era law made by the British” as claimed by some people?

The Malaysian Insider (TMI) in the above article wrote that Proham secretary-general Datuk Dr. Denison Jayasooria said,

“The Sedition Act is not protected by the constitution. It is a law made by the British.”

TMI also reported that, “the consent of the Rulers is not needed to abolish the Sedition Act 1948, as claimed by defenders of the colonial-era law, Proham secretary-general Datuk Denison Jayasooria said.”

Now, how true is Proham secretary-general’s statement?

A law expert, Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahman does not agree with the those statements.

Tan Sri Aziz explains that Akta Hasutan is not considered as a British law any more because it has already been amended in 1970, after the May 13, 1969 racial riot.

The government had identified four sensitive issues as one of the major causes of the racial riot:

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

To avoid more racial riots, Articles 10, 63 and 159 of the Federal Constitution was amended by adding Article 10 (4), 63 (4) and 159 (5) to prohibit any questioning on these issues.

The parliament then passed a law amending the Akta Hasutan under Article 10 (4) of the Federal Constitution by the addition of section 3 (1) (f), making questioning any of the four issues as an offence punishable under the Akta Hasutan.

Therefore, Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz said that in reference to Article 159 (5) of the Federal Constitution, the consent from the Conference of Rulers is needed to repeal the Akta Hasutan since the Act was amended under Article 10 (4) of the Federal Constitution. 

Article 159 (5) says:

A law making an amendment to Clause (4) of Article 10, any law passed thereunder, the provisions of Part III, Article 38, Clause (4) of Article 63, Article 70, Clause (1) of Article 71,
Clause (4) of Article 72, Article 152, or 153 or to this Clause shall not be passed without the consent of the Conference of Rulers.

Article 10 (4) of the Federal Constitutions says:

In imposing restrictions in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof or public order under paragraph (a) of Clause (2), Parliament may pass law prohibiting the questioning of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III, Article 152, 153 or 181 otherwise than in relation to the implementation thereof as may be specified in such law.

Prof Madya Dr. Syamrahayu Abdul Aziz who is an expert in the Constitutional Laws of Malaysia agrees with Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz and explains that:

  1. The laws that was passed before Merdeka Day are known as Enactment.
  2. The laws that was passed during the period of Emergency are known as Ordinance.
  3. The laws that was passed after our Merdeka Day but not during the period of Emergency are known as Act.
  4. If an Enactment and an Ordinance has been amended by the Parliament, it will be known as an Act.

So, since Akta Hasutan is an Act and not an Enactment, it is not just a British law as claimed by the Proham secretary-general.

A very senior lawyer, Uncle Dato’ Naser Disa who also agrees with Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz, told me that in fact claiming the consent of the Rulers are not needed to amend the Akta Hasutan can be an offence punishable under the Akta Hasutan because it is against the Article 181 for questioning the rights of the Rulers.

I agree with Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz that the people who are pushing for the Act to be abolished actually want total freedom and to be able to question the four sensitive issues that was protected under the Act.

They want section 3 (1) (f) of the Act to be abolished so that they are free to say what they want including to question the four sensitive issues.

Are their personal total freedom are more important than the love for their country?

But the weirdest thing is, those people who are fighting to repeal the Akta Hasutan are the same people who want the vocal Rightist to be charged under the Akta Hasutan.

Is preserving a peaceful country is a wrong thing to do that we need to abolish the important law that had managed to curb racial riots?

If the United Nations wants the country members to obey to certain laws made by them, we as a sovereign country has our rights to keep a law that is good for our country.

I would like to thank Uncle Azril for sending me Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Aziz’s statements, Uncle Datuk Zulkifli Noordin for Dr. Syamrahayu’s article and Uncle Dato’ Naser Disa for helping me to understand more about Akta Hasutan that helps to understand the facts of this case that enable me to write this post.








%d bloggers like this: