Sultan Selangor Larang Guna Kalimah Allah Dalam Apa-Apa Percetakan Kristian

Baca versi Jawi di sini.

Sultan Selangor, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah bertitah melarang pengunaan kalimah Allah dalam kitab Bible terjemahan Bahasa Melayu atau percetakan apa-apa buku dan tulisan agama Kristian

Baginda bertitah, ia bagi memelihara kalimah suci umat Islam itu yang mana kalimah Allah ialah kalimah suci umat Islam merujuk kepada Tuhan Yang Maha Esa yang mempunyai sifat-sifat kesempurnaan.

“Beta menegaskan bahawa penggunaan kalimah Allah dalam kitab Bible (terjemahan Bahasa Melayu) atau percetakan apa-apa buku-buku dan tulisan-tulisan agama Kristian di dalam apa-apa bentuk sekalipun yang mengandungi kalimah Allah tetap dilarang sama sekali penggunaannya di negeri Selangor.

“Beta mengulangi pendirian beta bahawa kalimah Allah ialah suatu kalimah suci umat Islam dan hanya boleh digunakan untuk merujuk kepada Tuhan yang maha esa yang mempunyai sifat-sifat kesempurnaan.

“Kalimah Allah sama sekali tidak boleh diletakkan di tempat yang salah atau digunakan selain daripada maksud Tuhan yang maha esa yang menjadi asas pegangan akidah umat Islam. Namun demikian sekiranya perkataan “Tuhan” digunakan sebagai terjemahan kepada perkataan “God”, beta tiada halangan atas penggunaan perkataan “Tuhan” tersebut,” titah baginda dalam satu kenyataan hari ini.

Pada 10 Mac lalu, Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur memutuskan bahawa kerajaan telah melakukan kesilapan dalam mengeluarkan larangan penggunaan kalimah “Allah” pada tahun 1986 kepada masyarakat bukan Islam.

Justeru, mahkamah sama memutuskan seorang wanita Kristian yang berbangsa Melanau berhak menggunakan kalimah “Allah” untuk tujuan keagamaan dan pendidikan.

Hakim Nor Bee Ariffin membenarkan tindakan undang-undang oleh Jill Ireland dalam kemelut yang berlarutan hampir 13 tahun.

Pada 11 Mei 2008, CD berjudul ‘Cara Hidup Dalam Kerajaan Allah’, ‘Hidup Benar Dalam Kerajaan Allah’ dan ‘Ibadah Yang Benar Dalam Kerajaan Allah’, telah dirampas daripada Jill Ireland sebaik dia tiba di Terminal Tambang Murah (LCCT) di Sepang.

Dalam penghakimannya, Nor Bee berkata arahan oleh Kementerian Dalam Negeri pada 1986 untuk tidak membenarkan penggunaan empat perkataan “Allah, Baitullah, Kaabah dan solat” menyalahi undang-undang dan tidak rasional.

“Penggunaan perkataan itu tidak akan mengganggu ketenteraman awam,” katanya.

Nor Bee berkata perkataan itu juga boleh digunakan oleh masyarakat untuk tujuan pengajaran kerana telah digunakan lebih 400 tahun.

Kerajaan Persekutuan pada 15 Mac lalu mengemukakan rayuan mengenai hak menggunakan kalimah Allah di kalangan masyarakat bukan beragama Islam kini ke peringkat Mahkamah Rayuan.

Perkara itu disahkan oleh Peguam Cara Negara Abdul Razak Musa.

Dalam pada itu, Sultan Sharafuddin menegaskan ia juga adalah selaras dengan keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam kes Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur melawan Menteri Dalam negeri pada tahun 2014 dan fatwa yang diwartakan di negeri Selangor pada 18 Februari 2010 yang menyatakan bahawa kalimah Allah tidak boleh digunakan atau disamakan dengan Tuhan bagi agama-agama bukan Islam yang lain.

“Adalah menjadi kewajipan bagi orang Islam untuk menyekat penggunaan kalimah Allah jika terdapat unsur-unsur penyalahgunaan atau penghinaan terhadap kalimah Allah tersebut.

“Beta menegaskan bahawa adalah menjadi tanggungjawab semua umat Islam terutamanya umat Islam di Negeri Selangor untuk menjaga kesucian kalimah Allah pada setiap masa dan di dalam apa jua keadaan sekalipun.

“Beta juga menitahkan agar rakyat beta yang bukan beragama Islam di negeri Selangor sentiasa akur dan mematuhi larangan penggunaan kalimah Allah sepertimana yang diperuntukkan di bawah Enakmen Ugama Bukan Islam (Pengawalan Perkembangan Di Kalangan Orang Islam, 1988) yang telah diwartakan pada 7 Julai 1988,” katanya.

Titah baginda sebagai ketua agama Islam Selangor, baginda tetap akan mempertahankan kesucian kalimah Allah ini kerana memelihara kesucian kalimah Allah ini adalah menjadi tuntutan agama. -{Malaysiakini]

Sultan Johor: Kalimah Allah Untuk Umat Islam Sahaja

Baca versi Jawi di sini.

Sultan Johor, Sultan Ibrahim ibni Sultan Iskandar hari ini menitahkan bahawa kalimah Allah hanya boleh digunakan bagi tujuan agama Islam sahaja, seperti yang telah difatwakan dahulu.

Menerusi sebuah kenyataan akhbar yang dikeluarkan hari ini, Baginda sekali lagi menegaskan bahawa tuhan agama lain bukan Allah, kerana Allah SWT berfirman dalam ayat 14 Surah Taha bahawa tiada tuhan melainkan Allah.

Kalimah “Allah” merupakan nama yang khusus kepada Tuhan yang disembah oleh umat Islam. Nama “Allah” ini diberi oleh diri-Nya, bukan berasal daripada mana-mana akar kata, tetapi kata nama khas yang merujuk kepada Allah, Tuhan Yang Maha Esa, Tuhan yang disembah oleh umat Islam. Firman Allah SWT dalam surah Taha ayat 14 yang bermaksud: “Sesungguhnya Akulah Allah; tiada Tuhan melainkan Aku; oleh itu, sembahlah akan Daku, dan dirikanlah solat untuk mengingati Daku”.

Baginda Sultan Johor mengingatkan semula bahawa sebagai Ketua Agama Islam di Negeri Johor, Baginda menjaga sensitiviti umat Islam di negeri itu.

Apabila timbul kembali isu penggunaan kalimah Allah untuk digunakan pada tuhan yang lain daripada maksud yang sebenar, saya merasa amat dukacita kerana perkara ini boleh menimbulkan perbalahan dan persepsi yang kurang elok terhadap keharmonian Bangsa Johor yang hidup bermuafakat di dalam satu negeri. Adalah perlu sensitiviti umat Islam dan kesepakatan hidup berbilang kaum dan agama ini diambil kira dalam apa jua keputusan atau penghakiman kerana isu-isu sensitif ini sangat dekat di hati saya selaku Ketua Agama Islam di Negeri Johor khususnya apabila isu tersebut berkait rapat di dalam ruang sempadan agama Islam.

Baginda turut menyeru Kerajaan Persekutuan untuk meneruskan rayuan dalam prosiding ini, dan mengarahkan Majlis Agama Islam Negeri Johor untuk mengambil apa-apa tindakan yang perlu bagi menyokong usaha rayuan tersebut.

Selaku Ketua Agama Islam di negeri Johor, saya menyeru kepada Kerajaan Persekutuan agar meneruskan rayuan dalam prosiding ini. Malah, saya akan mengarahkan Majlis Agama Islam Negeri Johor mengambil apa-apa tindakan yang perlu dan wajar bagi menyokong usaha-usaha rayuan ini.

Menteri Agama: Isu Kalimah Allah Terlalu Awal Untuk Dibincang

Baca versi Jawi di sini.

Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri (Hal Ehwal Agama) Senator Datuk Seri Zulkifli Mohamad Al-Bakri berkata, masih terlalu awal untuk pihaknya mengulas berhubung keputusan mahkamah membenarkan penggunaan kalimah Allah dan tiga perkataan lain dalam penerbitan agama Kristian negara ini.

Ujarnya, perkara itu memerlukan perbincangan dalaman dari semua aspek termasuk undang-undang dan pandangan pelbagai pihak.

“Yang ini saya tunggu dulu, saya mahu bincang dalam masa terdekat ini. Ia melibatkan perbincangan dalaman dulu dan kemudian kita lihat (penyelesaian) yang terbaik.

“Saya kena tengok dari segi semua aspek, dari segi undang-undang, agama kita dan pandangan-pandangan terdahulu dan mutakhir. Semua itu kita akan tengok, Insya-Allah. Terlalu awal saya nak komen,” katanya.

Beliau berkata demikian sebagai mengulas laporan berhubung Mahkamah Tinggi yang memutuskan penganut agama Kristian boleh menggunakan kalimah Allah dan tiga perkataan lain, dalam penerbitan agama itu, untuk pendidikan dalam komuniti mereka.

Selain kalimah Allah, penggunaan perkataan iaitu solat, Kaabah dan Baitullah juga dibenarkan kepada orang Kristian.

Terdahulu, media melaporkan Muafakat Nasional (MN) menyatakan keprihatinan yang amat serius ke atas keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang membenarkan kalimah-kalimah Islam oleh orang bukan Islam di dalam penerbitan masing-masing.

Sehubungan itu, mesyuarat MN yang berlangsung malam tadi menggesa kerajaan merayu untuk membawa penghakiman itu ke Mahkamah Rayuan.-{Astro Awani]

MN Desak Kerajaan PN Bawa Kes Kalimah Allah Ke Mahkamah Rayuan

Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Perunding Muafakat Nasional (MN) yang berlangsung malam ini, menggesa kerajaan membawa keputusan penghakiman berhubung isu penggunaan kalimah Islam ke Mahkamah Rayuan.

Menerusi kenyataan dikeluarkan MN, gabungan itu menyatakan keprihatinan amat serius terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang membenarkan penggunaan kalimah-kalimah Islam oleh orang bukan Islam dalam penerbitan masing-masing.

“Mesyuarat juga menggesa kerajaan Persekutuan untuk mengambil inisiatif menyegerakan pelaksanaan pengharmonian sistem perundangan negara dalam kerangka Perlembagaan Persekutuan,” menurut kenyataan itu.

Kenyataan itu turut memaklumkan mesyuarat juga bersetuju untuk terus mengukuhkan MN.

Kenyataan media itu diedarkan Setiausaha Agung Umno merangkap Setiausaha Agung MN Datuk Seri Ahmad Maslan menerusi aplikasi Whatsapp dan laman Twitternya.

Mahkamah Tinggi di Kuala Lumpur hari ini memutuskan bahawa penganut agama Kristian di seluruh negara boleh menggunakan kalimah ‘Allah’ dan tiga perkataan Arab yang lain dalam penerbitan agama mereka untuk tujuan pendidikan.

Tiga perkataan itu ialah Baitullah, Kaabah dan solat.

Ini susulan keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan Datuk Nor Bee Ariffin, yang bersidang sebagai Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi, membenarkan permohonan semakan kehakiman oleh wanita suku kaum Melanau dari Sarawak yang beragama Kristian, Jill Ireland Lawrence Bill.

Terdahulu mesyuarat MN berkenaan antara Umno dan PAS berlangsung kira-kira tiga jam di Menara Dato’ Onn, Pusat Dagangan Dunia Putra (PWTC), di Kuala Lumpur, antara lain membincangkan agenda pemerkasaan gabungan itu.

Mesyuarat dipengerusikan bersama Timbalan Presiden Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan dan rakan sejawatnya dari PAS, Datuk Seri Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man dan disertai 12 ahli pimpinan tertinggi masing-masing dari kedua-dua parti. -{BERNAMA]

Mahkamah Tinggi: Krisitan Kini Boleh Guna Allah, Baitullah, Kaabah & Solat

Mahkamah Tinggi di sini hari ini memutuskan bahawa penganut agama Kristian di seluruh negara boleh menggunakan kalimah “Allah” dan tiga perkataan Arab yang lain dalam penerbitan agama mereka untuk tujuan pendidikan.

Tiga perkataan itu ialah Baitullah, Kaabah dan solat.

Ini susulan keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan Datuk Nor Bee Ariffin, yang bersidang sebagai Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi, membenarkan permohonan semakan kehakiman oleh wanita suku kaum Melanau dari Sarawak yang beragama Kristian, Jill Ireland Lawrence Bill.

Dalam permohonannya, Jill Ireland antara lain memohon perisytiharan bahawa adalah hak perlembagaannya untuk mengakses penerbitan Kristian dalam menjalankan haknya untuk mengamalkan agama dan hak untuk pendidikan, seperti yang diperuntukkan di bawah Perkara 11 Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Beliau juga memohon mahkamah mengisytiharkan arahan Kementerian Dalam Negeri pada 1986 yang melarang kalimah “Allah” dalam penerbitan Kristian sebagai tidak berperlembagaan dan tidak sah di sisi undang-undang.

Dalam penghakimannya, Nor Bee berkata arahan oleh Kementerian Dalam Negeri pada 1986 untuk tidak membenarkan penggunaan empat perkataan itu menyalahi undang-undang dan tidak rasional.

“Penggunaan perkataan itu tidak akan mengganggu ketenteraman awam,” katanya. -{BERNAMA]

Tuntutan Penggunaan Kalimah Allah Berulang Semula?

A lawyer appearing for Sabah and Sarawak litigants on their right to use the word “Allah” in their religious teachings may write to the new Perikatan Nasional government for an administrative solution.

“I will have to take instruction from my clients to explore the possibility of settling the matter out of court,” counsel Lim Heng Seng told FMT.

He added that a fresh application must be made since a new administration has been installed in Putrajaya.

Lim, who leads the legal team appearing for Sarawakian Jill Ireland and the Sidang Injil Borneo (SIB) Church in Sabah, said they had written to the Pakatan Harapan government after it took power in May 2018.

“A five-member committee led by then-home minister Muhyiddin Yassin was looking into the matter,” he added.

He said others included religious affairs minister Mujahid Yusof Rawa and ministers Liew Vui Keong, Darell Leiking and Baru Bian representing Sabah and Sarawak.

Both matters which came up for case management today were rescheduled to next month.

In Ireland’ case, the High Court deferred its judgments several times after judge Nor Bee Ariffin heard submissions from Lim and the government in late 2017.

Nor Bee is now a Court of Appeal judge. Parties have been appearing before her to update her on the possibility of an out-of-court settlement.

In 2008, customs at the former low-cost carrier terminal in Sepang seized eight CDs from Ireland titled “Cara Hidup Dalam Kerajaan Allah”, “Hidup Benar Dalam Kerajaan Allah” and “Ibadah Yang Benar Dalam Kerajaan Allah”.

Ireland, a Melanau Christian, filed for a judicial review to reclaim the CDs, seeking several declaratory reliefs as well.

In 2014, the High Court ordered the home ministry to return the CDs to Ireland but declined to issue the declaration as it was bound by a Federal Court ruling.

The following year, the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling but ordered the High Court to hear Ireland’s application for the reliefs sought.

She is now seeking a declaration that her constitutional right to practise her religion was violated by the restriction or ban of the import of educational material.

SIB meanwhile filed an appeal in 2017 as part of attempts to reverse a High Court ruling in which Nor Bee dismissed its discovery application for documents used by the home ministry to support its ban on the church’s right to use the word “Allah”.

Nor Bee ruled that there was no necessity for such an order in a judicial review application. -{Free Malaysia Today]

---

Related:

• Herald Weekly Fails To Get Leave To Appeal ‘Kalimah Allah’ Case

Apabila Buku Teks Undang-Undang Tidak Berperlembagaan

For my 14th birthday this year, my eldest sister gave me a law textbook entitled “A First Look at the Malaysian Legal System”, written by Wan Arfah Hamzah and published by Oxford Fajar.

I was very excited to receive a book on the subject that is close to my heart, and so I began reading the book.

As I reached the fourth paragraph of page four, I noticed something peculiar:

“The federation is a secular state (see below, pp 162-3). It is not an Islamic state (an indispensable feature of which is the supremacy of the Syariah or Islamic law). In Malaysia the supreme law is the Federal Constitution (Article 4), not the Syariah or the Islamic law. Far from being the supreme law, Islamic law is not even the basic of the law of the land, ie the law of the general application. The basic law of Malaysia is the common law—the principles of which have their origins in England”

~Page 4 – A First Look at the Malaysian Legal System

It is very alarming that a law text book can make such a dreadful mistake in defining the core principal of our country.

The point is, does the Federal Constitution which is the supreme law of the Federation, ever define Malaysia as a secular country?

To understand more about secular countries, please click here for: “Malaysia Bukan Sekular“

In “The Principles of Secularism”, the author and creator of the term ‘secularism’ George Jacob Holyoake defines secularism as separating government and religion; while Merriam-Webster defines secularism as “the belief that religion should not play a role in government, education, or other public parts of society”.

In reference to the ideology of our country, the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution states that:

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

In actual fact, without doubt, the Article 3(1) automatically denies any claim that says Malaysia is a secular state; for a country cannot be a secular state when it has a specific state religion, in this case Islam which makes Malaysia an Islamic state.

Anybody who reads the Federal Constitution, will find out that the word “secular” has never been mentioned in the Federal Constitution but Islam is mentioned again and again through out the Constitution, proving the importance of Islam as the basic structures of the Constitution.

The Federal Constitution must be read as a whole and no provision can be considered in isolation, as stated by then President of the Court of Appeal Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif  in the Federal Court case of ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor:

It is an established principle of constitutional construction that no one provision of the Federal Constitution can be considered in isolation. That particular provision must be brought into view with all the other provisions bearing upon that particular subject. This Court in Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd v Kekatong Sdn Bhd & Anor [2004] 2 MLJ 257, applied the principle of considering the Constitution as a whole in determining the true meaning of a particular provision. This Court held:-

“A study of two or more provisions of a Constitution together in order to arrive at the true meaning of each of them is an established rule of constitutional construction. In this regard it is pertinent to refer to Bindra’s Interpretaion of Statue 7th Ed which says at page 947-948″

It is absurd to conclude that Malaysia is a secular country because of “the supreme law is the Federal Constitution (Article 4), not the Syariah or the Islamic law” for the Article 4 in no way dispute the constitutionality of the Article 3(1); and the fact that Malaysia has both the civil and the Syariah Court systems proves that Malaysia is not a secular country.

The fact is, it is the Article 4 that intensify the fact that Malaysia is an Islamic country because Islam as the religion of the Federation is placed in the Article 3(1) which is in a higher order of precedence of the Articles than the Article 4.

Therefore it gives Islam a higher position than the supreme law itself, meaning the supreme law of the land must be read and interpreted subjected to Islam as the religion of the Federation as mentioned by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kementrian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia, also known as the Kalimah Allah case:

The Article places the religion of Islam at par with the other basic structures of the Constitution, as it is the 3 rd in the order of precedence of the Articles that were within the confines of Part I of the Constitution

In answering the argument regarding the intention of the Reid Commission, first we have to understand that it is the Royal Rulers and not the Reid Commission who are the real stake holders of our country.

The Reid Commission was only given the responsibilities to draft the Federal Constitution but it is the Malay Royal Rulers who had the rights to make the final say on the matter as well as to give the endorsements for the words to be written in the Federal Constitution.

It is vital to note that both the Reid Commission and the Cobbold Commission are neither law makers nor the state holders of our country, hence their words and intentions are not laws, therefore their intentions cannot change the words written in the supreme law of our Nation.

As for claiming that Che’ Omar bin Che’ Soh v. Public Prosecutor defines Malaysia as a secular country, this is a very lame argument with no valid fact to justify the claim.

In the Supreme Court decision of Che Omar Che Soh v Public Prosecutor (1988) 2 MLJ 55, the Judge, Tun Salleh Abbas only said that Malaysia follows the secular laws from the British, and did not say that Malaysia is a secular state; so how could this case be used to prove something that was not even stated in the judgement?

Furthermore, this is an old case which is no longer a good law.

We must look at the judgments of other more important and prominent later court cases including the Court of Appeal case of Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Binti Sihi & Ors, High Court case of Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan, Federal and Court of Appeal case of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia, Federal Court case of ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor and a lot more that clearly prove that Malaysia is an Islamic country.

In fact, the fact that it is the government’s constitutional duty to protect the sanctity of Islam also denies that Malaysia is a secular country.

This is proven by the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Menteri Dalam Negeri, when YA Dato’ Abdul Aziz Rahim said:

I would add however that the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation, to my mind imposes certain obligation on the power that be to promote and defend Islam as well to protect its sanctity. In one article written by Muhammad Imam, entitled Freedom of Religion under Federal Constitution of Malaysia – A Reappraisal [1994] 2 CLJ lvii (June) referred to by the learned counsel for the 8th appellant it was said that: “Article 3 is not a mere declaration. But it imposes positive obligation on the Federation to protect, defend, promote Islam and to give effect by appropriate state action, to the injunction of Islam and able to facilitate and encourage people to hold their life according to the Islamic injunction spiritual and daily life.”

In a secular state, not only the government has no constitutional duty to protect the sanctity of a particular religion, but it is wrong for the government to do so.

Apart from Article 3(1), the Articles 11(4), 12(2), 37, 121(1A) and a lot more further prove that Malaysia is and was meant to be an Islamic state and not a secular state; unless the book tries to redefine ‘secularism’ or implying that the Articles 3(1), 1(4), 12(2), 37, 121(1A) and others related to Islam are unconstitutional.

Such severe mistake in the law textbook regarding the ideology of our country that contradicts the Federal Constitution should not have happened because all Malaysian must respect and uphold the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and making such a mistake regarding the core principle of our country is really uncalled for.

We surely do not need constitutionally illiterate lawyers!

Related Posts:

• Menjawab “Jika Islam Boleh, Kenapa Kristian Tidak Boleh”
• Menjawab Dr. Ariffin Omar: Apa salahnya kalau Penang hendak dijadikan Christian city?
• Grow Up, MCA!
• Constitutionally Illiterate!
• Another Seditious Article by MMO’s Boo Su-Lyn
• An Answer to Boo Su-Lyn’s “Why Don’t We Eat Together Anymore?”
• MMO Did Not Apologise for Boo Su-Lyn’s Seditious Article
• An Answer to Boo Su-Lyn’s “Why Don’t We Eat Together Anymore?”
• MMO Did Not Apologise for Boo Su-Lyn’s Seditious Article
• Akta 355: Poster Dangkal SIS Forum Tentang Akta 355
  
• Act 355: Answering “CCM Says Hadi’s Bill Will Radically Rewrite Constitution”
• Jawapan Kepada Kenyataan Mengelirukan Khalid Samad Tentang Pindaan Akta 355
• Video Aksi Siti Zabedah Kasim di Wacana Akta 355
• Tidak Ada Sebab Wakil Rakyat Anda Tolak Cadangan Pindaan Akta 355
• Act 355: G25, Stop Lying About Hadi’s Private Bill
• Act 355: Interfaith Group’s Statement Risks Weakening Constitutional Liberties
• Akta 355: DAP MPs, Please Do Your Homeworks

 

Grow Up, MCA!

“Malaysia is a secular country” – that is a very popular myth concocted and supported by people who are obviously constitutionally illiterate and clueless about the interpretation of the Federal Constitution of our country.

MCA Legal Affairs Bureau Chairman Datuk Tay Puay Chuan’s press statement  which was published on the MCA website yesterday (March 30, 2017) with the title, “Federal Constitution remains the supreme law of the nation” is part of the series of false and baseless accusations by certain groups to undermined the core principals of our country.

Tay Puay Chuan who clearly does not (or pretended not to) understand the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, as well as the definition of secularism, made several false accusations regarding the position of Islam in Malaysia, using the recycled baseless arguments which had been answered by many people for years.

I’ve written so many articles on this currently “hot issue” trying to open the minds of these people but then, it seems that some people just prefer to live in denial.

Below is the press statement (orange) together with my answers (blue) to all his twisted facts and wild accusations regarding Islam as the religion of the Federation.

---

I would like to stress again that the status of Islam as the religion of the federation, the roots of the Islamic law nationwide are granted by the Federal Constitution. This ascertains that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of Malaysia

It is true that the Federal Constitution of Malaysia is the supreme law of the Federation as mentioned in Article 4 of the Federal Constitution, but Islam as the religion of the Federation is placed in the Article 3(1) which is in a higher order of precedence of the Articles. Therefore it gives Islam a higher position than the supreme law itself, meaning the supreme law of the land must be subjected to Islam as the religion of the Federation. This was mentioned by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kementrian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia, also known as the Kalimah Allah case.

The Article places the religion of Islam at par with the other basic structures of the Constitution, as it is the 3 rd in the order of precedence of the Articles that were within the confines of Part I of the Constitution

This is in response to the booklet by Institute Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia (IKSIM) on the ’10 Salah Tanggapan Tentang Kedudukan Islam di Malaysia (10 Misconceptions about the Position of Islam in Malaysia)’, in which it included topics that either directly wrote or implied that ‘Malaysia is not a secular country;’ ‘rejecting claims that Islam is lower than the Constitution;’ ‘As an Islamic  nation, Islamic system is the thrust;’ as well as ‘other religions have no equal standing; and ‘the nation does  not carry the responsibility to safeguard and defend other religions.’

Malaysian leaders of all religions must be constitutionally literate and uphold the Federal Constitution including Article 3(1) that enshrines Islam as the religion of the Federation making Malaysia an Islamic nation. All the Articles in the Federal Constitution must be read together and people cannot just cherry-pick what they like and interpret the Articles according to their fancy to serve their agendas. In the High Court decision of the case, Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Sihi & Ors[2000]  1 MLJ 393, the then Justice Mohd Noor Abdullah had clearly clarified that other religions have no equal standing as Islam: 

In my opinion, “Islam is the religion of the Federation but other religions may be practied in peace and harmony” means that Islam is the main religion among other religions that are practied in the country such as Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and others. Islam is not equal to any other religion, not sitting together or stand upright. It sits on top, he walked past, located in the field and his voice heard. Islam is like teak trees – tall, strong and skilled. If not so Islam is not the religion of the Federation but is one among several religions practised in the country and everyone is equally free to practice any religion he professes, no more one than the other. Provisions ‘Islam is the religion of the Federation’ shall be defined and reviewed with the objective to read other provisions of the Constitution, especially Article 89, 152, 153 and 14.

Even though people of other religions can practise their religions (as long as they are in peace and harmony with Islam), there is no provision in the Federal Constitution to protect other religions except Islam, for example, the Article 11(4).

IKSIM must be alerted that the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution also explains that Islamic law is for persons professing the religion of Islam on matters related to succession, marriage, divorce, etc.

I have read the booklet and in the booklet, IKSIM has never said that the Islamic law has the jurisdiction over people professing other religions other than Islam.

The Federal Constitution is THE supreme law of the nation, and the supremacy of the Constitution renders Islam as the religion of the federation whilst other religions are allowed to be practised freely.

That is not only a false but also a malicious statement. The Constitution has never stated that “other religions can be practised freely” in any of its Articles or Schedules. Article 11(1) says that, “Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it” while Article 3(1) clearly says, “Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”. So, there is no phrase such as “other religions can be practised freely” in both Articles. Maybe Tay came across the word “bebas” in the Perjanjian Kerjasama Pakatan Harapan – PPBM and was confused by it.

As for the phrase, “in peace and harmony”, it was clearly interpreted by the then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal case of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia.

Such publication will surely have an adverse effect upon the sanctity as envisaged under Article 3(1) and the right for other religions to be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation. Any such disruption of the even tempo is contrary to the hope and desire of peaceful and harmonious co-existence of other religions other than Islam in this country.

Malaysia is a secular country. In fact, the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, Supreme Court judgement enables the implementation of secular laws in the country, which includes both criminal and civil laws. These laws apply to the entire country, irrespective of race and religion. Similarly, the Federal Constitution also provides that Islamic law may only be used on persons professing the religion of Islam. Therefore, Islamic law is not for everyone. Only secular laws may be applied to everyone. Hence, this is one of the proofs which shows that Malaysia is a secular country.

Contrary to what was argued by Tay, the fact that Malaysia has two court systems, the civil court systems and the Syariah Court systems proves that Malaysia is not a secular country.

By the way, does Tay understand the meaning of the word secularism? George Jacob Holyoake, the creator of the term secularism defined secularism as separating government and religion. Therefore, as said in many of my previous posts, it is impossible for Malaysia to be defined as a secular country when Islam is stated as the religion of the Federation. It also contradicts with other Articles of the Constitution such as the Articles 11(4), 12, 37, 76A, 121(1A) and others.

As I wrote in my article for the news portal Menara, in a secular country, the State does not have a religion and cannot has anything to do in relation to religion, for example in the case of Mount Soledad Easter Cross in San Diego, California.

Hence, by calling Malaysia a secular country, Tay slanders and challenges both the Federal Constitution and the definition of secularism.

Syariah law which is currently applied across all states, is the provision of rights granted to all state governments on the law as outlined in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution. It is stated with a condition that the criminal penalties and jurisdictions of the Syariah Court cannot contravene the Federal Constitution, or it will be considered void and unconstitutional.

The jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts does not contravene the Federal Constitution because it was conferred by the Federal Constitution in Item 1 of the Second List in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.

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

This again shows that other religions are also protected by the Federal Constitution. Hence the claims made in the booklet that the country has no obligation to defend nor protect other religions are incorrect. Instead, our nation and the government have the responsibility of defending all religions in line with the Articles and spirit of the Federal Constitution.

What a mind blowing senseless argument! It shows that either Tay is truly constitutionally illiterate or he, in bad faith is trying to deny and debase the position of Islam in our Federal Constitution because his argument is against the core principals of the supreme law of the land. In the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kementrian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia, Tan Sri Apandi Ali said that the purpose of “in peace and harmony” were added to Article 3(1) is to protect the sanctity of Islam, and not to defend other religions as claimed by Tay.

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.

Therefore, Tay must be constitutionally illiterate if he really thinks that the Federal Constitution conferred Malaysia as a secular country, all religions have equal standing and the nation carries the responsibility to safeguard and defend other religions other than Islam.

It is a known fact that during the 13th General Election, MCA won it seats mostly because of the Malay voters, so this kind of attitude is not a gracious way to thank the voters who had graciously voted for the party candidates regardless of their race and religion. MCA must grow up and stop imitating DAP in debasing Islam and the Malays in trying to win the Chinese votes because it won’t work.  

We are now constitutionally literate and therefore the people are not stupid to easily be fooled by concocted lies. Is it too much for me to hope for leaders to understand and uphold the core principals of my country as clearly stated in the Federal Constitution and stop misinterpreting the supreme law of the land for their political and personal agendas?

Related Posts:

• Constitutionally Illiterate!
• Another Seditious Article by MMO’s Boo Su-Lyn
• An Answer to Boo Su-Lyn’s “Why Don’t We Eat Together Anymore?”
• MMO Did Not Apologise for Boo Su-Lyn’s Seditious Article
• An Answer to Boo Su-Lyn’s “Why Don’t We Eat Together Anymore?”
• MMO Did Not Apologise for Boo Su-Lyn’s Seditious Article
• Akta 355: Poster Dangkal SIS Forum Tentang Akta 355
  
• Act 355: Answering “CCM Says Hadi’s Bill Will Radically Rewrite Constitution”
• Jawapan Kepada Kenyataan Mengelirukan Khalid Samad Tentang Pindaan Akta 355
• Video Aksi Siti Zabedah Kasim di Wacana Akta 355
• Tidak Ada Sebab Wakil Rakyat Anda Tolak Cadangan Pindaan Akta 355
• Act 355: G25, Stop Lying About Hadi’s Private Bill
• Act 355: Interfaith Group’s Statement Risks Weakening Constitutional Liberties
• Akta 355: DAP MPs, Please Do Your Homeworks

10 Aku Janji Azmin Ali; Will He Uphold Them?

PKR Deputy president, Azmin Ali was sworn in as the new Menteri Besar of Selangor on Tuesday.

Like Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, Azmin also took the 10 Akujanji (10-point pledge) before Duli Yang Maha Mulia Sultan Sharafuddin as shown in this video…

But will Azmin be obeying all directives and decisions issued by the Sultan of Selangor as what he pledged in his Aku Janji or will he be taking orders from Anwar Ibrahim, for example on the Kalimah Allah issue?

Sultan Sharafuddin had issued a decree regarding the misuse of the word Allah by the Herald and Malay Bible, and told them to stop using the word Allah as the translation of the word god but Anwar Ibrahim, Azmin and Azmin’s party had openly disagree with the Sultan.

Now, will Azmin dare to go against his Aku Janji on this matter?

If he follows the Sultan and go against Anwar, then Anwar might sack him from PKR as what Anwar did to Khalid Ibrahim.

But if Azmin follows Anwar’s orders then he will break the Aku Janji that he pledged to the Sultan of Selangor.

This must be a hard decision for Azmin Ali.

Khairy, A Trojan Horse?

There is a leader who hold three important posts in the government of Malaysia as well as in his party.

His name is Khairy Jamaluddin, and he is the Sports and Youth Minister, the UMNO Youth Chief and the Member of Parliament of Rembau.

As a youth leader of his party, he must understand which party he is representing and who are the members of his political party.

On September 3, 2014, he launched Proham secretary-general, Datuk Dr. Denision Jayasooria’s biography at the DUMC.

There are three things I must say about this:

1. Dr Denison is one of COMANGO‘s activists.
   So why must Khairy launch a biography of an activist who is fighting against the Federal Constitution and the policies of Khairy’s political party, especially ‘ketuanan Melayu’ and Islam as in the 2011 DUMC case, kalimah Allah issue, bible issue, Article 3(1), Article 121(1A), Article 153, Article 160 and others? Khairy COMANGO has lots of agendas against the government and is fighting for the opposition party to take over the Malaysian government.

2. DUMC is a church.
   Why in the world a Muslim leader like Khairy Jamaluddin must go inside a church, just to launch such a book? If Khairy does not bother about the sensitivity and feelings of the Malays who are represented by UMNO and who voted for Khairy’s party in the GE13, why can’t Khairy, as a Muslim ask for the book launch to be held in another place instead of a church?

3. And why DUMC?
   Has Khairy forgotten the DUMC case where on the 4th day of Ramadhan 1432/2011, JAIS received a report that there were Muslims attending a church program at DUMC and they were having dinner even before Maghrib? So JAIS went there to investigate, but were stopped by the church’s people. JAIS, UMNO and the government were badly condemned and blamed by the Christians, opposition parties’ leaders and also activists who are now involved in COMANGO, when according to the law JAIS did the right thing.

Is Khairy an UMNO leader who really does not care about the dignity of Islam, the feelings and the sensitivity of the Muslims who voted for UMNO which made it possible for him to become a minister?

Please do not hurt the feelings of those who support UMNO in order to be popular among those who hate UMNO.

I hope his boss’ll remind him to remember, understand and uphold the 7 Wasiat Raja-Raja Melayu.