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:

Advertisements




Gambar Majlis Perasmian Pusat Latihan DIAN IKSIM

19 11 2017

A picture of Dato’ Seri Jamil Khir talking to me after the officiating ceremony, Nov. 16, 2017. (Photo taken from the official Facebook page of Mejar Jeneral Dato’ Seri Jamil Khir Baharom)

Pusat Latihan DIAN IKSIM di Batang Kali, Selangor telah dirasmikan oleh Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri Mejar Jeneral (B) Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom pada 16 November 2017.

Majlis perasmian ini telah dihadiri di antaranya oleh Ketua Pengarah JAKIM Tan Sri Dato’ Haji Othman Mustapha, ketua agensi-agensi di bawah JAKIM, Timbalan Ketua Pengarah BTN Tuan Haji Mohd Noor Rashid bin Mat Taharim, Pengarah Eksekutif Global Movement of Moderates Foundation (GMMF) Tuan Haji Zainal Zainuddin, warga IKSIM serta peserta Kursus Pemantapan DIAN (KPD) dari Kulim dan Kelantan.

Sila tekan imej untuk memperbesarkan gambar:





Siti Kasim: Drowned by Freedom of Speech

3 04 2017

It seems like liberal lawyer, Siti Zabedah Kasim who is usually cool and cheerful is getting really angry after she found out that she would be summoned by the religious authority “to clarify her reported remarks on God’s existence”.

She wrote in her Facebook that,”I will have no hesitation to take the full force of law against anyone or anybody who try to bully or defame me” and that “an idiot blogger” created a story about her that only “mentally challenged people will actually believe rubbish like that”.

She told Malay Mail Online that she received death threats after an article was published by the news portal Menara.my. Going to the extent of name calling, the portal was described as a “fundamentalist Malay-language portal”.

“She told Malay Mail Online when contacted on March 22 that the decapitation threats were made after a fundamentalist Malay-language portal, Menara.my, published an article titled “Melalui getaran, kita menghasilkan Tuhan — Siti Kasim” (Through vibrations, we create God — Siti Kasim) that she said had “manipulated” her interview with Chinese-language portal pocketimes.my”

~ Malay Mail Online.

The out spoken lawyer who is very popular for her liberal ideas and weird interpretations of Islam angered the Muslims with her crazy ideas and Islam bashing statements that she claims to be the true interpretations of Islam.

As a lawyer and activist who fights for the rights of the people, she must also fight for the rights of the Muslims to practise Islam as the religion of the Federaton according to the Federal Constitution.

Zabedah must stop applying double standards in her actions, and denying the rights of the others, as she did over the issue of the proposed amendment of Act 355. 

She complains of her anger over what was written by the “idiot blogger” when her words had angered millions of Muslims almost daily.

As a person of integrity, she should stand up tall and explain what she meant by her statements. instead of putting the burden of proof on others over what she had said in the video.

It is not good enough to only accuse others of twisting the issue because that is a lame excuse.

In fact, Zabedah should voluntarily meet JAKIM and share her ideas about Islam, who knows JAKIM can learn new things from her.

It will be great if she can explain about what she had said in the video and also about her version of Islam.

Or is she going to deny what she had said in the video and says something weird like, the video was edited by somebody to defame her?





Wacana Pemikiran Dan Peradaban Ummah Ke-9 : Liberalisme – Agenda Jahat Illuminati

16 01 2017




Pindaan Akta 355 – Memberi Autonomi Lebih Kepada Negeri-negeri

14 06 2016
Credit to Karim's Blog

Credit to Karim’s Blog

(Sumber: Karim’s Blog)

PINDAAN AKTA 355: MENINGKATKAN AUTONOMI NEGERI UNTUK MEMBENDUNG GEJALA MAKSIAT DAN SALAHLAKU SYARIAH

Mahkamah Syariah ialah warisan unggul Kesultanan Melayu/Islam yang telah berdaulat sejak permulaan kedaulatan Islam di alam Melayu sebagaimana yang tercatat pada batu bersurat Terengganu iaitu 1303(M). Kedaulatan Mahkamah Syariah kemudiannya diiktiraf oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan (PP) sebagaimana yang termaktub dalam Butiran 1, Senarai Negeri, Jadual Kesembilan (B1SNJ9PP) berdasarkan Kuasa Negeri sebagaimana yang diberikan menurut Perkara 74(2) Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Walaupun Perlembagaan Persekutan mewujudkan sistem Kehakiman Negara berteraskan Peruntukan Bahagian IX PP, namun bagi memastikan bidangkuasa Mahkamah Syariah tidak tersentuh oleh Mahkamah Sivil, maka pada tahun 1988, diperkenalkan pula Perkara 121(1A) pada Bahagian IX tersebut. Peruntukan 121(1A) ini tidak dengan sendirinya menyenaraikan bidangkuasa Mahkamah Syariah, tetapi ia memantapkan kedaulatan Mahkamah Syariah dari diganggu-gugat oleh Mahkamah Sivil.

Bidangkuasa Mahkamah Syariah adalah sebagaimana yang termaktub di dalam B1SNJ9PP yang antara lain menggariskan prinsip utama bidangkuasa Mahkamah Syariah seperti berikut – “the constitution, organization and procedure of Syariah Courts, which shall have jurisdiction only over persons profesing the religion of Islam and in respect only of any of the matters included in this paragraph, but shall not have jurisdiction in respect of offences except in so far as conferred by federal law;”

Secara telitinya prinsip-prinsip yang termaktub dalam butiran 1 tersebut di atas adalah seperti berikut:

1. Terhad kepada umat Islam

Bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah terhad hanya kepada orang yang menganut agama Islam. Oleh itu orang bukan Islam tidak perlu bimbang dengan agenda politik yang cuba menakut-nakutkan masyarakat bukan Islam.

2. Terhad kepada perkara-perkara dalam Butiran 1

Tidak termasuk perkara-perkara dalam senarai Persekutuan dan perkara-perkara lain dalam Senarai Negeri Butiran 1 juga menetapkan bidangkuasa Mahkamah Syariah hanya kepada perkara-perkara yang terkandung dalam Butiran 1 sahaja yang meliputi perkara-perkara berkaitan kekeluargaan, zakat, hibah, amanah, pewarisan, wakaf, masjid, surau dan sebagainya. Manakala dalam hal kesalahan (jenayah Syariah) pula bidangkuasanya terbatas kepada offences by persons profesing the religion of Islam against precepts of that religion, except inregard to matters included in the Federal List: Justeru Perlembagaan sendiri yang menghalang mahkamah Syariah membicarakan atau menghukum kesalahan-kesalahan yang terkandung dalam Kanun Keseksaan (Penal Code) serta undang-undang lain di bawah senarai Persekutuan. Justeru kesalahan-kesalahan seperti mencuri, merogol, rasuah, pecah amanah, merompak, ragut tidak termasuk di bawah Mahkamah Syariah.

3. Tertakluk kepada had hukuman maksimum yang ditentukan Akta Persekutuan – Akta 355

Akta Mahkamah Syariah (Bidangkuasa Jenayah) 1965 (Akta 355) adalah keperluan Undang-undang berdasarkan Perlembagaan Persekutuan iaitu; bidang kuasa hukuman Mahkamah Syariah hendaklah ditetapkan oleh undang-undang Persekutuan. Justeru pindaan A355 tidak boleh disifatkan sebagai “unconstitutional” kerana ia adalah keperluan Perlembagaan. Akta 355 ini hanya menetapkan had hukuman maksima yang boleh dijatuhkan oleh Mahkamah Syariah sama seperti dalam isu kesalahan berkaitan kekeluargaan, zakat, hibah, amanah, pewarisan, wakaf, masjid, surau dan kesalahan berkaitan „offences against precept of Islam‟ sebagaimana yang terkandung dalam Enekmen Kesalahan Jenayah Syariah sekarang. Ia hanya mengandungi 3 seksyen sahaja. Seksyen 2 adalah yang terpenting iaitu menetapkan hukuman maksima penjara 3 tahun, denda RM5,000.00, dan 6 sebatan (356) dan telah berkuatkuasa selama 32 tahun sejak tahun 1984, sedangkan kebanyakan hukuman lain di Mahkamah Sivil di bawah Kanun Keseksaan dalam kesalahan jenayah, telah ditingkatkan berulang kali.

Autonomi Lebih Luas Kepada Negeri Untuk Mencegah Maksiat dan Salahlaku Syariah

Jika pindaan Akta 355 diluluskan di Parlimen, ia tidak meningkatkan kadar hukuman secara automatik sebaliknya Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) perlu meluluskan tahap hukuman bagi setiap kesalahan dalam Enakmen-enakmen Syariah yang sedang berkuatkuasa di negeri tersebut terlebih dahulu. Peluang untuk berbahas mengenai kadar hukuman yang munasabah masih terbuka di peringkat DUN. Selain daripada kesalahan-kesalahan di dalam Enakmen Jenayah Syariah, kesalahankesalahan lain yang berkaitan kekeluargaan seperti kahwin lari, poligami tanpa kebenaran, tidak bayar nafkah, melarikan anak dara dari jagaan dsbnya masih tidak berubah. Rujuk: 1. Contoh-contoh Kesalahan Jenayah Syariah 2. Pindaan Akta 355 Tidak Membabitkan Kesalahan Kekeluargaan (W.P.) Akta 303.

Akta 355 ini tidak memperuntukkan sebarang undang-undang hudud “capital punishment”. Pilihan untuk menaikkan kadar hukuman kepada kadar yang lebih tinggi adalah terpulang kepada negeri-negeri untuk memastikan keberkesanan penguatkuasaan undang-undang. Akta 355 tidak menyentuh bidang kuasa mahkamah sivil untuk membicarakan kes-kes jenayah di bawah Kanun Keseksaan.

pindaanAkta355-usahamurniPindaan Akta 355 adalah bertujuan meningkatkan hukuman bagi memperkasakan Mahkamah Syariah dalam pengawalan moral yang sekarang ini berhadapan dengan gejala sosial yang amat serius. Jika hukuman terhadap kesalahan persetubuhan luar tabii dengan haiwan di bawah Seksyen 377 Kanun Keseksaan boleh dikenakan hukuman penjara sehingga 20 tahun dan denda atau sebatan maka hukuman “3,5,6” untuk kesalahan terhadap manusia adalah terlalu ringan. Adakah kita ingin biarkan undang-undang sedia ada melindungi kehormatan binatang lebih daripada kehormatan manusia? Haruskah hukuman menyetubuhi haiwan adalah lebih tinggi dan menggerunkan berbanding meliwat manusia?!

Berkenaan dengan isu kesamarataan, tidak timbul isu kesamarataan seperti yang disebutkan dalam Perkara 8 Perlembagaan Persekutuan kerana kesamaratan tersebut hanya merujuk kepada “genre” yang sama, sebagai contoh, Islam dan bukan Islam adalah bukan kategori atau genre yang sama tetapi kategori yang sama ialah hukuman yang berlainan kepada dua kumpulan orang Islam.

Pindaan Akta 355 ini telahpun dicadangkan oleh JAKIM sejak hampir 10 tahun yang lalu, namun, oleh kerana kekangan birokrasi menjadi faktor kelambatan, ia lebih mudah dibentangkan secara persendirian.

Institut Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia (IKSIM)





An Answer To Boo Su Lyn’s, “Why don’t we eat together anymore?”

5 06 2016

The Malay Mail Online columnist, Boo Su Lyn wrote an article discussing why she thinks the Malays and Chinese do not eat together anymore.

Interestingly, in the article, she seemed to put all the blame on the Malays, implying their “obsession with “halal” food“, as the main cause of the problem.

This is not the first time Boo Su Lyn makes malicious statements about Islam, the Malays, the Muslims and Islamic authorities.

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

In her article, “Why don’t we eat together anymore?”, she wrote:

This unhealthy obsession foments suspicion on Chinese food sellers, even if they’re not selling pork, and discourages Malay-Muslims from dining with other Malaysians at the same table, at the same restaurant, or even at the same section in a food court.

She complained that the Malays do not even want to eat at pork-free Chinese restaurants.

She further accused the Malays of having, “persistent myth that associates the Chinese to pork”, saying:

Why can’t Malays eat at non-pork Chinese restaurants? Not all Chinese dishes contain pork. I don’t understand why there is a persistent myth that associates the Chinese to pork, or why there are irrational fears of so-called pork “particles” contaminating the air. Not only do such concerns sound ridiculous; there’s also an undertone of racism.

I feel really offended by people like Boo Su Lyn, who likes to insult other, calling others racists and behaving as if she understands Islam better than the Muslims.

Having negative perceptions towards the Malays, she wrote that the Malays avoid eating at Chinese restaurants because of racial reasons but says nothing about the Chinese who avoid eating at Malay restaurants.

The night before, my family and I enjoyed a wonderful dinner at a Chinese Muslim halal restaurant in Kota Tinggi, Johor.

The Chinese restaurant serves delicious Chinese food but the people eating there are mostly the Malays, I saw only one Chinese customer waiting for his order to be packed.

My question to Boo Su Lyn is, why must the Chinese avoid eating at the restaurant despite it is a Chinese restaurant?

Is it because the Chineseman who runs the restaurant is a Muslim?

So, by Boo Su Lyn’s logic, it is the non-Muslim Chinese who are actually racists.

The non-Muslim Chinese have no limitation in food affairs so they can eat at halal restaurants, and if non-Muslim Chinese like Boo Su Lyn eats at halal restaurant, everybody will be eating together.

Trying to teach the Malays again, Boo Su Lyn asked, “Why can’t Malays eat at non-pork Chinese restaurants?”

By asking the question, she is telling the Malays that they can eat at non-pork Chinese restaurants or in another word, the non-pork Chinese restaurants are halal restaurants.

Boo Su Lyn should check with JAKIM the criteria of halal food before making silly conclusion about halal food.

And to further insult the Malays, Boo Su Lyn wants the Malays to share a table with a Chinese who is eating “bak kut teh”, knowing that “bak kut teh” is a pork-laden dish where the word ”bak” refers to pork in Chinese.

Why can’t we have Malays eating nasi lemak, the Chinese dining on “bak kut teh and the Indians consuming roti canai at the same table? Do dietary restrictions really mean that one cannot dine with someone else who doesn’t have those restrictions?

If this is her idea of promoting unity, she must be a very inconsiderate and self-centered person for she fails to respect other people’s religion.

Instead of putting the blame on the Malays, why don’t Boo Su Lyn tell the people who have no dietary restrictions to eat at halal restaurants so that everybody can eat together?

As a non-Muslim, Boo Su Lyn has no constitutional rights to talk about Islam and teach the Muslims about what is halal and what is not.

In fact, she has to look at herself first, the fact that she is an atheist means that she is against the National Principles of our country because being an atheist is against the first Rukun Negara, which is, “Kepercayaan Kepada Tuhan” or Belief in God.

She must learn to respect the National Principles and the Federal Constitution of Malaysia before telling Malaysians what they should do.

By making malicious statements regarding Islam and the Malays, it is her who does not respect the national unity and not the other way around.





Datuk Noor Farida And G25 Must Go Back To School

9 12 2015

Moderation in Islam means wasatiyyah and not being liberal as understood by G25.

G25 members who are trying to teach other Muslims about moderation in Islam must seek advises from Global Movement of Moderates Foundation (GMM) to understand what is ‘moderation’ in Islam. 

In its latest attack on the Islamic authorities of Malaysia, G25 wants the punishment for ‘khalwat’ to be repeal on the ground of “those are personal sins”; and in response to the statement, Mufti Perak, Tan Sri Dr. Harussani Zakaria adviced G25 to “bertaubat”.

Below are my answers (in blue) to Free Malaysia Today (FMT)’s article (in red) regarding this issue.

PETALING JAYA: A “personal sin” like khalwat (close proximity) is between the couple involved and God and should not be treated like a crime punishable by the state, said the G25 movement of Malay moderates.

Speaking on their behalf was Noor Farida Ariffin, who was quoted by The Rakyat Post as saying, “Those are personal sins. It’s a sin against God. Between that person and God.”

Does Datuk Noor Farida mean to say that khalwat is just “personal sin” and is not punishable by the State according to the Islamic laws? Now, is she trying to liberalise the Islamic laws or she knows nothing about the Islamic laws? Datuk Noor Farida must understand that the Islamic laws cannot be changed. Muslims must live according to the rules of Islam and not the other way around.

Khalwat is against the Islamic laws, so it is punishable by the State in Malaysia because as an Islamic country, Muslims in this country are also governed by the Islamic personal law as written by The Right Honourable Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Md Raus bin Sharif in the Federal Court judgement of the case, ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor:

“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”.

In Malaysia, we have the Syariah Court that deals with the Islamic laws, and it has the jurisdiction upon every Muslim in this country. 

Questioning why it was turned into a crime, she added, “Islam says you could not intrude on personal space.”

Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin, who does not understand Islam and the Islamic laws should not speak about matters that she knows nothing about. Rather than making her own conclusion and judgement about khalwat and other Islamic laws, she should go to JAKIM and ask for help to guide her to the right path of Islam. She really needs help.

She said this at a press conference after a G25 forum on “Islam in a Constitutional Democracy” and noted that Malaysia was the only country in the world that punished those involved in khalwat.

Datuk Noor Farida must do her homework. Countries that observe the Islamic laws in their legal systems, will punish those involved in khalwat, for example Saudi Arabia and Brunei. 

“This is against Islam. You cannot knock at a person’s door at 3am and arrest people.”

Does she mean that actions taken by the Islamic authorities against khalwat (that is against the Islamic law) is against Islam? She is really confused between what are the rights and wrongs in Islam. It is her statements that is actually against Islam.

She also said there was a need to review other syariah laws that trespassed on the Federal Constitution and pointed out that even non-Muslims were being affected by the Islamic law presently.

All the Articles in the Federal Constitution are harmoniously with each other. The Syariah laws does not trespassed the Federal Constitution because the Article 3(1) states that Islam is the religion of the Federation, hence the other Articles in the Federal Constitution must be read harmoniously with Article 3(1).

In fact, the Federal Constitution recognises the Syariah Court as stated in the Article 121(1)(1a) of the Federal Constitution:

121. (1) There shall be two High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and status, namely—

(a) one in the States of Malaya, which shall be known as the High Court in Malaya and shall have its principal registry at such place in the States of Malaya as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine; and

(b) one in the States of Sabah and Sarawak, which shall be known as the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak and shall have its principal registry at such place in the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine;

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

The Syariah laws only govern the Muslims and does not affect the non-Muslims.

She cited the incidents of dead bodies being snatched for Muslim burials and custody issues when one spouse converts to Islam and explained, “This is the kind of injustices we want to prevent.

Datuk Noor Farida must get her facts rights. This is a malicious distortion of truth used again and again to undermine the Islamic religious authorities even after the Islamic religious authorities had answered the accusations. When the Islamic authorities receive a report, it is their duty to investigate and to take proper actions to solve the problems.

“The way Islam is being implemented under syariah law is resulting in a lot of injustice to Muslims and non-Muslims.

Datuk Noor Farida must learn more about Islam and the implementation of the syariah laws in Malaysia before making more silly statements. Only the Muslims who do not love their religion and do not want Islam as the way of life are against the implementation of the Syariah laws in their countries.

“This is why people are saying that Islam has been hijacked by state authorities,” she said, adding that the way it was being interpreted did not uphold the values of Islam as a religion of justice, mercy and compassion.

People made all kinds of statements and accusations regarding matters which are not agreeable to them; so Datuk Noor Farida must specify who are the people who made the above statements.

She must mix around with more Muslims and attend programs organised by Islamic groups rather than only making friends with the people who subscribe to the liberal ideology in order to see things straight. 








%d bloggers like this: