TMI’s “On Religious Authorities” – A Malicious Distortion Of The Truth

21 11 2014

Insider 13

I find the above article from The Malaysian Insider (TMI) as unjustly written, full of lies and using wrong arguments and analogies to wrongly accuse the Islamic religious authorities and the Malaysian government.

It is a malicious distortion of the truth.

Below are my answers to the writer’s statements, TMI’s text is in blue and my answer will be in red.

It seems that whenever we question anything, either the government or those linked to it does, it is seen as a bad thing. And this comes during a period of a prime minister whose initial speech said “the era of government knows best is over”.

So, why is questioning a fatwa a big issue? It is truly not.

A: Official fatwas are Muslim’s guidelines. We are the Muslims of Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah. People cannot interpret Islam as they wish or the way they want it to be like the liberals do. I think it is the same with other religions.

Even if we look at the most conservative nations practising Islam, there are landmark changes globally. Iran allows sex reassignment surgeries for their transgender community. However warped their mindset may be, it is clearly different than Malaysians who recently heckled the courts for upholding the constitution.

A: Iran is one of an example of “the most conservative nations practising Islam”? He must be kidding because Iran is not an Islamic country but it is a Syiah country. There are big differences in important matters like akidah between us, the Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah Muslims and Syiah followers. The rules of Syiah is against our akidah.

In Saudi Arabia, the authorities are now mulling over giving women the right to drive cars, a fatwa which is decades’ old and has only been vocally challenged in the last five years.
We have seen Muslim-majority countries that are moving forward in issuing religious edicts or limiting the viability of such rules and regulations to allow moving ahead together as a nation.

A: Driving has nothing to do with akidah, unlike LGBT. Malaysia never ban women from driving. Women are free to drive buses, lorries or even to become commercial pilots. 

And yet in Malaysia, we continue to limit the general public and civil stakeholders from venturing an opinion without being heckled, or in the case of Sisters in Islam, having a fatwa quietly gazetted banning them.

A: Sisters in Islam (SIS) leaders are liberal activists. Liberalism is against Islam. They tell people that they understand Islam better than our Muslim scholars and Muftis but they do not follow even the basic rules like to cover their aurat. They do not respect Islamic rules and want liberal rules to be accepted as Islamic rules.

It is truly nonsensical that in this day and age when other nations are talking about matters which are truly important such as poverty eradication, the lack of knowledgeable human resource, and pushing for better public transport – we are stuck discussing, and even going so far as to file police reports, a tourist attraction dedicated to a Hindu deity placed on a bottle of water next to a “Halal” logo.

A: Islam is the religion of the Federation of Malaysia, so in Malaysia everybody must respect Islam. The halal logo was placed at a lower part of the mineral water bottle than the Batu Caves picture. In our custom, that shows disrespect to the religion of the Federation. I guess in Vatican City, they also have rules to respect Christianity more than other religions suitable to their customs that people over there must respect.

The Malaysian government has done much more than solving the problems of “poverty eradication, the lack of knowledgeable human resource, and pushing for better public transport”. But there are people who are never thankful and only look for ways to complain and cause troubles to the country to put down the government.

Even worse: we have Malaysian Muslims who think cross-dressers are a threat to society by promoting a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT, if you still don’t know what that is) lifestyle.

A: LGBT is against Islam and so are cross-dressers. Malaysia does not sign the SOGI Rights.

Permit me to point out that a guy in a dress has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, especially when Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden chose to wear a burqa to escape their hunters.

Would you accuse them of being sodomites, too?

A: Will a man who is not LGBT supporter wants to look like a woman and wear a dress in public without any purpose?

re: “Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden chose to wear burqa to escape their hunters”.

There is a huge difference between men wearing women’s clothes to escape from danger or to save their lives or for other important reasons like investigating a certain case compared to men who always wear them including in public because they like and proud of wearing them, saying that they have the rights to do so.

Fatwas should be up for question because while the religion stays true, its followers evolve. There was once a limited source of knowledge specific to Islam from muftis and imams, and perhaps PAS for the more politically inclined.

A: We cannot change a religion, changing means liberalising and that is against Islam. To question a fatwa, a person must be at least as knowledgeable as the members of the fatwa council on Islamic matters. PAS is not an Islamic party because like SIS they only use the word Islam for their own agendas. 

However, with the advent of the Internet, anything and everything about Islam and other religions can be found online. Intellectual debates can be seen on YouTube as raging, trolling debates rage on news portals and social media aplenty.

A: We can find lots of things from the internet including lies like this article from TMI. How can a person who does not understand a subject take part in intellectual debates on the subject or be a judge on problems regarding the subject?

Malaysian Muslims can not only listen to the lectures of Azhar Idrus, but can also go as far the BBC to see debates of Islam versus Science.

A: Yes, I agree that we must not listen to Azhar Idrus and his ‘fatwas’. I wrote about one of them: Ustaz Azhar Idrus: “Islam Dan Kristian Bertuhankan Allah?”

The internet sparked a revolution of information being streamed, “torrented” and read online without control, allowing Malaysian Muslims to seek counsel outside the boundaries, and this is what has made our religious authorities very nervous to the point of stupidity.

A: It is the main duty for our religious authorities to protect the akidah of the Muslims in Malaysia. Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitutions gives the rights for the states in Malaysia to have state laws to control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among Muslims. Prevention is better than cure.

What was once a monopoly of information by the religious authorities is now apparently threatened by Malay-language Bibles and Irshad Manji books. Not Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ann Coulter, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, whose books are widely available and for everyone to read and buy either online or at a local bookshop.

A: The religious authorities are not threatened by the Malay bibles or Irshad Manji books. They are only doing their duty because any bible that calls the Christian god as Allah is against most of the states’ laws in Malaysia. Irshad Manji books are about deviant teaching but she claims them as the true teaching of Islam. Promoting deviant teachings to Muslim is against the law of Malaysia. All countries have laws to protect their constitutions and people.

They have lost control over the access to information; so clinging to this moral authority has resulted in stupidity beyond measure. Instead of opening issues for debate, our government-led religious authorities have instead decided it is better to outlaw those who talk back.

A: Religious authorities have lots of other more important things to do to benefit the Muslims. 

Never since the schism of the Christians by Martin Luther, creating the Catholics and Lutheran churches and subsequently the Protestant denomination, has any religious authority done something so despicable.

Questions lead to enlightenment. The ability to debate and discuss everything – even faith – is a must. While this is definitely encouraged, what matters is also how such affairs are debated.

A: A rule is not made to be broken even if one does not like it. In Islam not everything can be debated and denying Allah’s rules affect our akidah and cause a person to be a murtad or an apostate.

It is one thing to say our religious authorities are out of sync with the rest of the world, but it is totally another for us to blame it on the religion itself.

Tact, respect and even the ability to access information are a necessity in order to discuss these issues intellectually and with a level head. Personally, Islam should not be limited for discussion among Muslims because it has now become a national issue.

A: Muslim authorities in Malaysia do not interfere with people of other religions unless people of other religions slander, humiliate, interfere in Islamic matters or other similar things in order to protect Islam and the Muslims.

When you steal the bodies of the deceased, kidnap kids from parents, stop people from getting married on their wedding day, confiscate Bibles or even raid bookstores and take managers to court, I am pretty sure you are affecting the lives of non-Muslims as well.

A: These are lies and the writer spins the facts of the cases to unjustly accuse the Muslim authorities. 

So, religious authorities have affected not only national unity, but have created a schism in national unity and harmony that will not be resolved easily. – November 18, 2014.

A: People like the writer who write and spread lies are the ones that “have affected not only national unity, but have created a schism in national unity”.

Advertisements




The Court Of Appeal Recognises SOGI Rights?

8 11 2014

Star 1

In the above article, The Star reported that in a landmark ruling, the Court of Appeal lead by Justice Mohd Hishamudin Mohd Yunus ruled that punishing transgenders for cross-dressing contravenes freedom of expression.

I was really shocked to hear the news because the transgenders and two of the three judges are Muslims and Malaysia is an Islamic country.

As a Muslim, I am sad with the ruling:

  1.  Isn’t the freedom of expression for the Muslims must be in accordance with the rule of Islam? Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution says, “Islam is the religion of the Federation”; and since LGBT is against the teaching of Islam, it contravenes with Article 3(1). How could cross-dressing be a part of freedom of expression for the Muslims when it is against their religion and also the religion of the of the Federation?
  2. Muslims must understand that we must obey the rules of Islam and not the total freedom as in human rights that is against Islam. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action says, “All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated…  While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.” So I think that freedom of expression must be in accordance with a person’snational and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds”.
  3. LGBT is against Malaysia’s, cultural and religious backgrounds; particularly the Muslims. And it can cause uneasiness to others and can cause unpeaceful situation.

Comparing this case to Meor Atiqulrahman and others vs Fatimah Sihi and others, is cross-dressing that important in someone’s life that they have the rights to do that even though it is against the law? In Meor Atiqulrahman and others vs Fatimah Sihi and others; Meor Atiqulrahman, his brother and cousin wore ‘serban’ in school. Serban is not a part of the school’s uniform and the rule is to wear uniform to school. Their headmistress told them to wear songkok instead but they did not listen. The headmistress told their parents to send them to another school and did not let them come the school again.

When it was brought to the court, Meor Atiqulrahman was not allowed to wear serban to school because although ‘serban’ is related to Islam, it is not a main part of the practice of Islam. And wearing ‘serban’ broke the school’s law.

Like wearing serban to Meor Atiqulrahman’s school, wearing other gender’s clothing is also against the law. So how can wearing other gender’s clothing be right when it is against the law and the rights of other people living in the same community? Imagine if a man in woman’s clothing enters a woman’s toilet because he dresses as a woman. Isn’t that contravenes the freedom of other women in the toilet? And what will happen in ‘surau’ and mosques? This matter is very serious because if this happens, it will involve the ‘aurat’ of others.

Malaysian government does not sign the SOGI Rights (Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity) and Malaysia does not legalise LGBTIQ (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Queer). SOGI Rights is a part of Liberalism and Liberalism is against the teaching of Islam.





Mujahid Yusof Rawa Is A Muslim Scholar?

24 06 2014

Screenshot1

In the above article, Mujahid Yusof Rawa told The Malaysian Insider:

“And we have also clearly mentioned that the new laws will not interfere with Article 3 of the Federal Constitution, which states that Islam is the official religion of the federation and other sections which talk about the rights of the Malays and the rulers,” he added.

Exasperated by the attacks from Muslim groups which claimed the bills were drafted to uphold the “liberal-secular” conventions of human rights and drafted by those who were anti-Malay and anti-Islam, Mujahid countered by pointing out that he was himself an Islamic scholar.

“I don’t know what is Islamic to them. I am an Islamic scholar. They are saying that they can condemn other religions but the same cannot be done to them. That is not Islamic,” he said.

The bills, he noted, are “very Islamic” as all stipulations in them were based on the teachings of the Quran.

re: “… Article 3 of the Federal Constitution, which states that Islam is the official religion of the federation … “

Article 3 of the Federal Constitution says that Islam is the religion of the Federation and not the official religion of the Federation.

re: “I don’t know what is Islamic to them. I am an Islamic scholar”.

Is Mujahid a real Islamic scholar or is he only a PAS’s scholar?

Below is what I copied from his blog:

1) Doktor Falsafah (PhD) Siyasah Syariah, UM
2) Sarjana (MA) Pembangunan Sumber Manusia, UPM
3) BA Bahasa Arab & Sastera, Al Azhar, Mesir

Mujahid also made a lot of statements against the teaching of Islam, the rights of Muslims, Muslim authorities, Muftis, Muslim scholars and Muslim activists.

re: “The bills, he noted, are “very Islamic” as all stipulations in them were based on the teachings of the Quran.”

In another article by TMI, “Let Parliament debate protection for gays and lesbians, NGOs tell Unity Council”, it wrote that in the draft of the bills, there is a clause supporting LGBT.

So how could Mujahid claimed that, “the bills are “very Islamic” as all stipulations in them were based on the teachings of the Quran”?

LGBT is against the teaching of Islam and not part of the teachings of the Quran.

I wonder what will Mujahid say about this?

Kertas Putih Parlimen 1988

Kertas Putih Parlimen 1988





Gay Right Group Call For Boycott On Barilla

27 09 2013
Barilla

Where there’s Barilla, there’s home

Aurelio Mancuso, head of gay rights group Equality Italia called for a boycott of Barilla’s pastas, sauces and snacks.

He made the call after Guido Barilla, chairman of the world’s leading pasta manufacturer, told Italian Radio 24 on Wednesday that his company would never use a gay family in its advertising.

“I would never do (a commercial) with a homosexual family, not for lack of respect but because we don’t agree with them. Ours is a classic family where the woman plays a fundamental role.”

Barilla for many years has used the image of a happy family living in an idealized version of the Italian countryside, with the slogan, “Where there’s Barilla, there’s home.”

I support Barilla for supporting the classic family and not promoting gay family in his advertisement because homosexual family is against my religion.

It is funny when Mancuso called for the boycott as Barilla does not say anything against gay, what he said was that he does not want a gay family in his advertisements.

It is wrong and unfair for some people to force other people to accept homosexual family as normal because homosexual family is not accepted by lots of religions.

It seems that Mancuso cannot not respect Barilla’s freedom of speech and opinion.





PPMM’s NGI Round Table Discussion On UPR Human Rights Council 2013

23 01 2013
Uncle Azril Mohd. Amin (L) and I at the Auditorium Utama, Universiti Islam Antarabangsa.

Uncle Azril Mohd. Amin (L) and I (R) during the Forum Islam Dan Cabaran Semasa – Polemik Isu Kalimah Allah at the Auditorium Utama, Universiti Islam Antarabangsa.

I was very proud and honoured when the vice-president of Persatuan Peguam Muslim Malaysia (PPMM), Uncle Azril Mohd Amin invited us to a round table meeting organised by PPMM at the Putrajaya Marriott Hotel yesterday.

It was a closed discussion and lots of lawyers were there as well as some Islamic NGOs or  NGIs activists.

My siblings and I were the only kids and teens whom were invited to that important discussion.

It was a great experience but I am sad because I don’t really understand what Uncle Azril said in his speech as he was speaking  in Malay language, using difficult words.

And I can’t even read words on the English written slide show for I forgot to wear my glasses.

But fortunately Uncle Azril, my parents and my big sisters helped me to understand more about the it later on.

What was discussed was about the demands made by the Coalition of Malaysian NGOs in the Universal Periodic Review Process (COMANGO) and also about the treaty made by the United Nations regarding LGBT which Malaysia haven’t sign because Malaysia is an Islamic country.

I was shocked when I read the demands made by COMANGO.

I think that most of the demands are unfair and bias because lots of them are against the human rights of most Malaysian and also against our Federal Constitution.

Furthermore a lot of important NGOs are not part of COMANGO, so COMANGO does not represend the voice of the majority of Malaysian.

Is it fair to force a sovereign country to change parts of its Federal Constitution and to go against the human rights of the majority of its citizens or robbing their human rights; just to a make small group of people happy?

How about my human rights if their demands were accepted; because some of their demands are against my human rights.

As a citizen, I also want my human rights to be protected even though I am just a kid and I do not want my human rights to be robbed by others who fight for their own agendas.

The United Nations must understand that every country is unique and the values and the needs of its citizens is different from others so nobody must be forced to accept a universal value as the only standard of human rights.

If Malaysian eat rice, nobody must force us to eat bread instead of rice; so if Malaysia do not accept or recognise certain values, nobody must rob our rights by forcing Malaysia to accept the values.

I want to thank Uncle Azril for inviting me to the discussion because it was an important discussion about an interesting topic about Human Rights, and I learned a lot of thing from it.





A Violent Polish Independence Day Parade In Warsaw

12 11 2012

This year the right-wing groups, left-wing radicals and government supporters held their own Polish Independence Day parades in Warsaw to push for their visions of what sort of country Poland should be.

However, the parade turned violent when the riot police confronted right-wing nationalists.

The right wing groups were not happy because they feel the government has liberal values imported from Europe that are ruining Poland’s Catholic traditions.

They are unhappy with issues like gay rights or LGBT rights.

A Reuters correspondent saw policemen beating protesters with truncheons, forcing the rioters to disperse.

Police spokesman Mariusz Sokolowski said, “The police used rubber bullets, pepper spray, stun grenades and truncheons.”

Poland was independent on November 11, 1918.

Anyway I wonder why did some people waved Ukraine flags during the Polish Independence Day celebration as in the first picture?

(Please click the photos for bigger images)





Chick-fil-A Hit by Gay Protesters

4 08 2012

On August 3, 2012, groups of gay rights activists and their supporters protested outside some Chick-Fil-A restaurants in the United States.

They were angry because last month Dan Cathy, the president of the chicken restaurant chain, voiced his opposition to gay marriage.

One restaurant in the Los Angeles suburb of Torrance was sprayed overnight with graffiti that read: ‘Tastes Like Hate’.

A vandalized Chick Fil-A store in Torrance, California is seen in this frame grab from a cell phone video August 3, 2012. REUTERS/Stringer

They claimed that what they were fighting for human rights.

Is this how human rights should be to them?

So what about the rights of Dan Cathy and others who do not support the protesters’ ideas?

I cannot understand people who fight for human rights but cannot accept that other people have their rights too.

Is forcing others to agree with them a part of human rights?

So in this case, who really do not support the human rights?

If they are unhappy, why can’t they just write about it to Dan Cathy, the newspapers, in their blogs or facebooks?

I am sad to see adults behaving this way.

It is like teaching kids to fight back whenever they do not agree with their parents, teachers and others.

Here are some pictures of the incident:

Rollin Longino dressed as Jesus, protests against Chick-Fil-A during the nationwide “kiss-in” outside the CNN center as a security guard looks on in Atlanta, Georgia, August 3, 2012. Same Sex Kiss Day is a reaction to comments last month from Dan Cathy, who said he supported “the biblical definition of the family unit” and put his chain of roughly 1,600 restaurants smack in the middle of a cultural debate. REUTERS/Tami Chappell

A Chick-Fil-A employee tries to hand out lemonade during a nationwide “kiss-in” and protest at a Chick-Fil-A restaurant in Decatur, Georgia, August 3, 2012. Gay rights activists and backers of same-sex marriage plan to hold a nationwide “kiss-in” at Chick-fil-A restaurants on Friday to protest the fast-food chain president’s opposition to homosexual unions.  REUTERS/Tami Chappell

Gay marriage supporters, from left, Emmie Hesley, Cathy Dear and Amy Paffenroth hold signs in front of a Chick-fil-A in Fort Walton Beach, Fla. Thursday Aug. 2, 2012, in protest of the chicken eatery’s stance on gay marriage. (AP Photo/Northwest Florida Daily News, Nick Tomecek)

California is seen in this frame grab from a cell phone video August 3, 2012. REUTERS/Stringer

Partners Tascha Madaffari (L-R), her children William and Dominic Madaffari and Laura Whitman protest on the grounds during the nationwide “kiss-in” and protest at a Chick-Fil-A restaurant in Decatur, Georgia, August 3, 2012. REUTERS/Tami Chappell

>>> Please click here <<< for more photos.

Related article:

  1. Does ‘Demi Rakyat’ Supports Gay?








%d bloggers like this: