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?

Advertisements




Another Seditious Article by MMO’s Boo Su-Lyn

30 01 2017

Boo Su-Lyn’s Malay Mail Online article, “Why we must stand up against Hadi’s Bill” is full of false, slanderous and malicious accusations that undermine Islam, the religion of the Federation. She is instigating disunity among people of different races. She is disloyal to the DYMM Yang Di-Pertuan Agong as she refutes the DYMM Agong’s oath to uphold Islam at all time and she also went against the decree of the former DYMM Yang Di-Pertuan Agong which was made in the parliament on the 7th March, 2016:

“Beta berharap langkah-langkah ke arah memperkukuhkan institusi agama dan kecekapan perlaksanaan undang-undang pentadbiran agama Islam melalui pemerkasaan Mahkamah Syariah dapat disegerakan.”

Article 11(3) of the Federal Constitution says that, “Every religious group has the right— to manage its own religious affairs”. That means Boo Su-Lyn has no constitutional rights to intervene in the matters of the Muslims religious affairs and to question the implementation of our Syariah Laws.

One of the causes of religious conflicts in Malaysia is instigation made by people like Boo Su-Lyn who seems to think that she knows everything, has the right to interfere with everything and has respect to others.

Below are my answers (in blue) to Boo Su-Lyn’s article in red:


JANUARY 20 — If we fear that PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang’s private member’s Bill to amend the Shariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 (Act 355) may irrevocably change our beloved country, then we must stand up against the Bill in a united show of protest.

PAS president’s Private Member’s Bill is an amendment to enhance the Act 355, which was last amended in 1989 in order to empower the Malaysian Judiciary Systems, specifically the Syariah Courts. Lots of other Acts had been amended more than twice since Act 355 was last amended.

Today, the maximum punishment for smoking in public places is higher than the maximum punishments for any Syariah offences, thus, giving an impression that the offence of smoking in public places is more serious than any Syariah offences including apostasy.

It’s not enough to merely issue press statements as our voices are scattered.

Boo Su-Lyn is beginning to echo what was said by Jamal Yunos about Bersih, so she must stop complaining about him. Bersih rallies are illegal, affect everybody including Jamal but Act 355 is constitutional and does not affect the non-Muslims including Boo. 

PAS knows that there is significant opposition to Hadi’s Bill, which is why they themselves are organising a mass rally on February 18 to gather support for the Bill, even though the prime minister himself has announced that the government will take over the proposed legislation.

On the February 18, Muslims will rally in solidarity as a united Muslim ummah, regardless of their political parties, to urge their MPs to support the amendment of Act 355. PAS does not need to gather support from the Muslims because the majority of the Muslims support the private Bill.

Likewise, if we Malaysians across race and religion feel strongly against Hadi’s Bill which threatens to alter the secular structure of our country, then we must mobilise ourselves and express our opposition on a single, visible platform.

By calling Malaysia a secular country, Boo Su-Lyn slanders and challenges both the Federal Constitution and the definition of secularism.

George Jacob Holyoake who is the creator of the term secularism defines 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 in Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution.

Hence, Boo words, “threatens to alter the secular structure of our country” is indeed a malicious lie.

Proponents claim that Hadi’s Bill is not about hudud, conveniently ignoring history when PAS has always wanted to amend Act 355 and even the Federal Constitution to allow it to implement hudud in Kelantan.

Boo is wrong again.  It is a slanderous lie to claim that the Private Bill is a Hudud Bill or it will legalise the Kelantan’s Hudud  because:

  • The offences under the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts are not the same as the offences listed under the Hudud law.
  • Hudud’s punishments include capital punishment which is not included under the Act 355.

The Bill is only to enable amendments to be made to the existing Act 355 Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act so that the Syariah Courts can increase the punishments for the cases under the courts’ jurisdictions. Therefore, this Bill is unable to enable the implementation of Kelantan’s Kanun Jenayah Syariah II (1993) 2015 or known as Kelantan’s Hudud.

A working paper by the Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim) that was leaked in 2014 had even argued that the Islamic penal code should be applied to all Malaysians on the basis that Islam is the religion of the federation.

The amendment of Act 355 is unable to enable the implementation of Kelantan’s Kanun Jenayah Syariah II (1993) because Kelantan’s Kanun Jenayah Syariah II contradicts with our judicial systems.

It has only been of late that PAS claims that Hadi’s Bill is not aimed at introducing hudud law, but merely at expanding the punitive powers of the Shariah courts. The proposed expansion of Shariah punishments is drastic — increasing jail term limits from three to 30 years, hiking up fines by 20 times from RM5,000 to RM100,000, and multiplying lashes of the cane from six to 100.

For those who do not bother to check their facts right like Boo Su-Lyn, will claim that “the proposed expansion of Shariah punishments is drastic”. Actually, the hike in the proposed amendment seems high because the current punishment limits are much too low and are overdue for a revised since the last increase in the punishment was done 33 years ago.

In reality, even though the maximum punishment for the civil offence of smoking in public places is RM10,000 fine or two years of imprisonment, some activists are still fighting for the increase in the punishments. 

In the case of whipping, there is a huge difference between Syariah whipping as compared to civil whipping, both in terms of the way of conduct and also the size of the cane. I trust the Syariah Courts’ judges and I’m sure they are as professional as the Civil Courts’ judges and not to punish people cruelly.

What religious offence would merit imprisonment of up to three decades?

A lot because Islam is a way of life.

In the Penal Code, rape and culpable homicide not amounting to murder are punishable with 30 years’ jail. What offence which merely violates certain religious instructions can possibly be equivalent to the violent crimes of rape and homicide?

A lot including apostasy and offences under Islamic Family Laws.

MCA is against PAS’ “Himpunan 355” rally, claiming that it will cause disunity.

MCA should have banned their members from taking part in the illegal Bersih 5 because not only Bersih causes disunity, it condemned the government and caused chaos all around the city for its selfish decision to demonstrate around the city instead of holding a rally in a stadium or a field.

I don’t think we should try to prevent PAS from organising their rally. It’s well within their rights to assemble peacefully for whatever cause they hold dear.
Just as it’s within our rights as Malaysian citizens to protest against Hadi’s Bill.

Make sure that it will be legal, hold the rally in a stadium or a field and do not turn it into street demonstrations like Bersih. It will be interesting to see if the Malay leaders of PPBM, PAN and PKR dare to take part.

Hadi’s supporters say that non-Muslims are interfering with Muslim affairs by questioning and criticising Hadi’s Bill, which they claim will not affect non-Muslims.

Article 11(3) of the Federal Constitution says that, “Every religious group has the right— to manage its own religious affairs”.

It’s a spurious argument.

Are you challenging the Article 11(3) of the Federal Constitution?

Malaysia is a multi-racial and multi-religious country. We do not live in silos. We eat, work and live together.

Wrong. Malaysia is a multi-racial but not a multi-religious country. Malaysia’s only religion is Islam, as stated in the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution. But Malaysia is a country with multi-religious citizens.

Non-Muslims may not want to see their Muslim friends, family or neighbours subjected to an unjust law that is opposed by some Muslims themselves.

In the judgment of the Federal Court case, ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif said:

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.

Claiming Syariah laws and punishment as unjust is challenging the Federal Constitution because the Syariah Courts are part of our judicial systems as written in Article 121(1A). It has a seditious tendency as stated in Section 3(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948, which is, to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State.

Non-Muslims may also end up being victimised, which has already happened in several interfaith child custody cases involving Muslim converts. A 60-year-old Christian woman was publicly caned in Acheh, Indonesia, last April under Shariah law for selling alcohol.

Another lame and out of context argument. Malaysian Syariah Courts have never punished any non-Muslim and the proposed amendment does not give the Syariah Courts the jurisdiction to do so.

Everyone has the right to talk about Hadi’s Bill because it is just like any other ordinary piece of legislation. This is not interference in someone else’s religious affairs; it’s about exercising our roles in democracy as equal Malaysian citizens.

Everyone has the right to talk but non-Muslims have no constitutional rights to intervene in the matters of the Muslims religious affairs as stated in Article 11(3).

Hadi’s opinions must be open to scrutiny just like those of any Malaysian politician. No one should stand on a pedestal as if they’re above everyone else.

Agreed, that is why I hope Boo Su-Lyn will be professional enough to write about the seditious statements made by opposition leaders toward the religion of Islam.

We cannot separate “Muslim” and “non-Muslim” affairs as if they’re different slices of a cake.

Boo Su-Lyn must go back to school and learn about Article 11(3) and other basic facts about our Federal Constitution before writing on matters related to the Constitution because everyone is subjected to the laws of our country including Boo Su-Lyn. “No one should stand on a pedestal as if they’re above everyone else”.  

Taxpayers’ money that goes towards maintaining the Shariah courts and Islamic departments and enforcing Shariah legislation, just like it’s used to upgrade roads and to pay the salaries of civil servants, comes from both non-Muslim and Muslim taxpayers.

Boo must go back to school. Islam is the religion of the Federation. Therefore, the Federal Government is allowed to spend for the Syariah Courts using the taxpayers’ money. And Article 12(2) of the Federal Constitution allows the Federal Government to establish or maintain or assist in establishing or maintaining Islamic institutions or provide or assist in providing instruction in the religion of Islam. In fact, the government is not at all allowed to spend taxpayers’ money for secular reasons or on anything that could cause any negative effect on the religion of Islam.

Laws that are passed in both the state legislative assemblies and in Parliament, including state Shariah legislation, involve the participation of both Muslim and non-Muslim lawmakers.

These state assemblymen and MPs must also remember that they represent voters across race and religion, even if most of their constituents may be predominantly of a certain ethnicity. Hence, their vote on Hadi’s Bill must be representative of their entire constituency, and not merely come from personal religious convictions.

Precisely. Boo Su-Lyn must remind the MPs that they represent their voters, so they are supposed to listen to the voters in the case of Hadi’s Private Bill and not to make their own decisions. Non-Muslim MPs must not forget who voted them into office, especially those from MCA, MIC and Gerakan.

Both non-Muslims and Muslims, as Malaysian citizens who vote and pay taxes, have just as much right as each other to talk about various issues and policies, including Shariah law and vernacular schools.

All Malaysian citizens have the rights to talk about the bill but non-Muslims have no constitutional rights to fight against the amendment of Act 355 because it is regarding the Muslims religious affairs as it is against the Article 11(3).

So, everyone should not be afraid of speaking up against Hadi’s Bill.

The can talk about it as long as they know their limits.

It is our right as citizens to stand up for what we think is right and to stop Malaysia from turning into an intolerant state like Brunei or Acheh.

Boo Su-Lyn must stop making slanderous accusations and remember that nobody is above the law, including her. We are governed by law and our supreme law is the Federal Constitution.

The then Federal Court Judge, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali in the Court of Appeal’s judgement of the case, Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia said:

[36] The alleged infringement of the fundamental liberties of the respondent can be negated by trite law that any freedom is not absolute. Freedom cannot be unfettered, otherwise, like absolute power, it can lead to chaos and anarchy. Freedom of speech and expression under Article 10(1) are subjected to restrictions imposed by law under Article 10(2)(a). Freedom of religion, under Article 11(1), as explained above is subjected to Article 11(4) and is to be read with Article 3(1).

Related posts:





Act 355: Answering “CCM Says Hadi’s Bill Will Radically Rewrite Constitution”

18 10 2016

In preserving a harmonious country, the people of Malaysia from all faiths and races must uphold the Federal Constitution, respect each other, obey the laws of our country and must not insult others.

As a person in his position who always talks about unity and harmony, Hermen Shastri must not insult the Muslims by making rude, harsh and false accusations regarding the Syariah punishments as well as the PAS president’s Bill.

After all, why must non-Muslims try so hard to deny the constitutional rights of the Muslims to manage our own religious affairs as written in Article 11(3) of our Federal Constitution?

In its article, “In plea to MPs, CCM says Hadi’s Bill will ‘radically’ rewrite constitution”, Malay Mail Online (MMO) wrote:

Council of Churches of Malaysia (CCM)’s secretary-general, Reverend Dr Hermen Shastri recently claimed that a vote for the Act 355 Bill which was tabled by PAS’ president, Dato’ Seri Haji Hadi will “radically” rewrite the Federal Constitution, urging MPs to not look at the Bill lightly and instead view it with “great concern and alarm”  Malay Mail Online.

MMO later quoted Shastri as saying:

“Hadi’s Bill is not just about upgrading the power of the Shariah Courts, it is rewriting the constitution in a radical way,” – Malay Mail Online.

Now, what does the CCM leader’s intention of using the words, “… in a radical way” when Hadi’s Bill is in no way will bring any changes to the Constitution?

The fact is, the Bill is only to increase the Syariah punishments which maximum punishments are currently too low and not to introduce new sets of laws.

MMO also wrote that:

Shastri pointed out that Shariah Courts were established and regulated by state laws, and that their powers and offences were defined by the Federal Constitution  Malay Mail Online.

The Bill will not change this fact, the Shariah Courts will still be regulated by State laws while the Civil Courts will still be regulated by Federal laws.

bill

Worse, Herman Shastri’s wild accusation gives the implications to people who believe his words that those who are telling the truth about the Bill are liars; which will cause anger and hatred that can divide the people.

According to MMO:

He added that the ramification to widen Islamic laws was not only limited to those who are Muslims  Malay Mail Online.

Another false statement because under the laws of Malaysia, non-Muslims are not subjected to the Syariah Laws.

Section 2 of the Act 355 clearly says that the Syariah Court has no jurisdiction over the non-Muslims and Hadi’s Bill is not about amending the Section 2 of the Act 355 to give the Syariah Courts the jurisdiction over the non-Muslims.

Also said by Shastri:

“Once we lose the balance between Syariah and Civil Courts as set forth in our Federal Constitution, it is going to lead to a dangerous path of conflicting jurisdictions; forms of punishment not acceptable in modern societies; and erosion against the liberal secular status of the Constitution and its impact especially on the states of Sabah and Sarawak,”

~Malay Mail Online

Firstly, what does the CCM’s secretary-general mean by “forms of punishment not acceptable in modern societies”?

From the above sentence, I understand the above rude phrase is written in reference to the Syariah punishment, which is clearly an insult to Islam, the religion of the Federation and to the Muslims who believe in the teaching of Islam.

Is insulting and scoffing at other religions an attitude that is “acceptable in modern societies”?

There is no case of “… erosion against the liberal secular status of the Constitution”, because the status of our Federal Constitution is neither liberal nor secular since Article 3(1) of our Federal Constitution stated that Islam is the religion of the Federation.

In fact, the words liberal and secular have never been mentioned in our Federal Constitution.

To understand a secular constitution, please refer to the constitution of the United States of America and read the interesting case about Mount Soledad.

As a CCM leader, Hermen Shastri must be really careful of what he said, especially when commenting about other religions, please do not scoff at or insult other religion.

Do not insult others and learn to respect the constitutional rights of others.

He must get his facts right from the people who understand the matter for if not, not only it will be a pointless statement which doesn’t make any sense but it will also cause anger and hatred.

The rights of the Muslims to be governed by the Islamic law is granted under the Federal Constitution of our country.

In the judgement of ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, the Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif concluded:

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.

Hadi’s Bill only concerns the lives of the Muslims and we are not disturbing people of other faith.

We want to prevent and solve social problems among the Muslims as some offences punishable by the Syariah Courts are not considered as offences under civil law, such as Muslims drinking alcohol in public which can also cause problems to non-Muslims as in the cases of violence when they are drunk.

So why must it become a problem to non-Muslims when the Muslim are working to solve our social problems and helping each other to become better Muslims and better human being?

Are the people who are against the Bill are against the faithful Muslims?

Related Posts:





Act 355: G25, Stop Lying About Hadi’s Private Bill

28 06 2016

On June 1, 2016 the Malay Mail Online reported that:

G25 criticised today PAS President, Dato’ Seri Haji Hadi’s  Private Member’s Bill to expand the range of punishments the Shariah courts can impose, saying hudud law is inappropriate in secular Malaysia”.

~Malay Mail Online

In order to support its arguments, G25 made a contradictory and baseless statement:

“Although Article 3 of the Federal Constitution declares that Islam is the religion of the Federation, still, constitutionally, Malaysia is a secular state, as our forefathers and the framers of the Federal Constitution had intended. Further, our nation is multi-religious, multi-racial and multi-cultural,” it added.

~Malay Mail Online

How could a country be constitutionally a secular state when its Federal Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the land  has declared that Islam is the religion of the country and the word “secular” has never been mentioned in the Federal Constitution?

Does G25 misunderstood the term secularism or is G25 trying to say that the Article 3 of the Federal Constitution is unconstitutional?

If Malaysia is a secular state, the word “Islam” cannot even be mentioned in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

The creator of the term secularism, George Jacob Holyoake , in his book, “The Principles of Secularism”, 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”.

So, Article 3(1) automatically denies any claim saying that Malaysia is a secular state; since secularism means separating government and religion which is the opposite case in Malaysia.

Please click here for my article on why Malaysia is not a secular state.

A good example of an important criteria of a secular state is the 25-year legal battle regarding the Mount Soledad Cross, a giant cross installed on Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in the United States of America.

After a group of people installed a giant cross on the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California, the court ordered them to remove the cross, because as a secular state it is unconstitutional to put a symbol of religion on government land.

The controversy over the Mount Soledad Cross only ended after the US Department of Defense sold the government land on which the 29-foot cross stood.

So how could Malaysia be claimed as a secular state when the government not only built mosques on government lands but also finances Islamic religious authorities?

The Malay Mail Online also wrote:

They noted that by implication, the Bill allows Shariah courts to impose “any form of hudud punishment” other than the death penalty, for example 100 lashes of whipping for Muslims found guilty of adultery, or the amputation of one’s hand for theft.

~Malay Mail Online

What a defamation and malicious falsehood!

Firstly, it is a lie to claim that the Private Bill is a Hudud Bill “to impose any form of hudud punishment other than the death penalty” and “to expand the range of punishments the Shariah courts can impose”, because the Bill is only to enable amendments to be made to the existing Act 355 Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act so that the Syariah Courts can increase the punishments for the cases under the courts’ jurisdictions.

Secondly, as the above statement gives the implication that Hudud punishment is harsh and negative it is a defamation to Islam.

Muslims members of G25 must learn to understand the concept of punishments in Islam and how they are carried out – please click here for a video that explains the differences between Syariah whippings and civil whippings. 

Thirdly, it is a false statement to say that the Bill will allow the Shariah Courts to impose the “amputation of one’s hand for theft” because, since theft is a criminal crime that is punished under the Penal Code, theft is under the jurisdiction of the civil courts and not the Syariah Courts.

The Syariah Courts have jurisdiction only over the matters as stated in the State List under Item 1 of the List II of the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution and not over other offences; and the Bill is not about giving the Syariah Courts the jurisdiction over the offences punished under the Penal Code.

The Malay Mail Online further wrote:

The group noted that the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code II (1993) Bill 2015 prescribes  hudud punishments for offences like adultery, theft, robbery, sodomy, consumption of liquor and apostasy, but it has yet to be enforced due to the limits in the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act.

“Therefore, there is the need for the state of Kelantan to seek Parliament to amend the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1995. And, so, here comes Hadi’s Bill,” said G25. 

~Malay Mail Online

It is untrue that the Bill is about to enable the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Criminal Code II to be implemented because as I wrote above, the Bill will not gives the power to the Syariah Courts to implement capital punishment Hudud nor the jurisdiction over offences punished under the Penal Code.

It is hard to understand why a Muslim opposes a Bill that not only helps to curb the social problems among the Muslims but also to empower the Syariah Courts.

The Article 37 states that the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong must take his oath to protect the religion of Islam before exercising his functions; and this Bill is the right move towards protecting and upholding Islam which is the religion of our country. 

Related post on G25:





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.





MMO Did Not Apologise For Boo Su Lyn’s Seditious Article

10 10 2015

Malay Mail Online (MMO) columnist, Boo Su Lyn wrote a seditious article, “Abolish Federal Constitution’s Article 11(4)” last Friday, October 2, 2015. (Please click here for the article)

Anyway on October 7, MMO retracted the seditious article and wrote that it apologises “to anyone who may have been offended by it”.

It is very interesting to see that MMO retracted the article a day after the ruling by the Federal Court on the case of Azmi Sharom challenging the constitutionality of the Sedition Act.

Any way MMO is defending the writer:

“The writer wishes to point out that she is aware of the sensitivities in Malaysia regarding the topic of religion. She has no intention of insulting Islam.”

I do not understand how could MMO wrote that the writer has no intention of insulting Islam.

In the article which was deleted by MMO on October 7, not only did the writer insult Islam but she took the liberty to interpret the Islamic law in her own way when she is not even a Muslim.

“In Ezra Zaid’s case, Muslims, like other Malaysians, may have freedom of expression, but there are a string of state laws, as empowered by Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution, that do not allow Muslims to publish books that are deemed unIslamic.” – MMO.

By saying that “there are a string of state laws, as empowered by Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution, that do not allow Muslims to publish books that are deemed unIslamic”, she is questioning the decision made by MAIWP and JAIS as the religious authorities that Irshad Manji’s Allah, Liberty and Love is contrary to the Islamic law.

The writer also wrote:

“Who decides whether a particular book is “unIslamic”? That would be the state religious departments.” – MMO.

What right has a person of another religion to question and interfere in matters regarding Islam, the religion of the Federation?

Of course, it must be the Islamic religious departments that decide on matters regarding Islam and not a person of another religion like the writer.

Boo Su Lyn also wrote that:

“It’s unclear if the Selangor Islamic Religious Department or the Federal Territory Islamic Affairs Department (in Nik Raina Nik Abdul Aziz’s case involving the same book), had actually read Allah, Liberty and Love, or if the religious authorities merely opposed the book simply because the Canadian author Manji is a lesbian.”- MMO.

What a malicious statement!

Is Boo Su Lyn saying that she understands Islam better than MAIWP and JAIS and that the Islamic authorities are unprofessional in doing their duties?

Furthermore, is the writer trying to violate the Article 11(3)(a) of the Federal Constitution by interfering into the rights of the Muslim authorities to manage its own religious affairs?

Article 11(3)(a) states:

Every religious group has the right— to manage its own religious affairs

In its Apology and Retraction article, MMO did not even mention that Boo Su Lyn made a public statement against Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act which restricts anyone to question the four sensitive issues of the Federal Constitution.

Boo Su Lyn wrote that Article 10(4) that prohibits a person from questioning Part III (citizenship), Article 152 (national language), Article 153 (special position of the Malays and of Sabah and Sarawak natives) and Article 181 (rulers’ sovereignty) should also be abolished so that there can be public discussion on what she wrote as “these so-called “sensitive” issues.”

Article 10(4) is protected by Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act:

“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.”

She even questions Article 153 that against Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act by writing:

“It also allows state-sanctioned discrimination against minority groups, with no avenue for victims to seek redress as they’re not even supposed to question the so-called “sensitive” matter of Malay privileges.” – MMO.

Apart from condemning and calling for the Article 10(4) to be abolished, Boo Su Lyn did the same to the Article 11(4) when it has nothing to do with her and the fact that she has no rights to interfere in the matters of Islam (Article 11(3)(a)).

What is her intention to ask for the Article that protects Islam, the Religion of the Federation as stated in the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia to be abolished?

Without Article 11(4), the Rulers cannot ‘restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam’.

Article 11(4):

“State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.”

By calling for the Article 11(4) to be abolished, Boo Su Lyn is also challenging the Article 3(1) for disrupting “peace and harmony” of the relationship between the Muslims and people practicing other religions.

A very senior lawyer, Professor Dato’ Naser Disa explains that the words, “other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation” means that people from other religions must practise their religions in peace and harmony with others from different religions especially Islam, which is the religion of the Federation of Malaysia.

In the ruling of the case of Kalimah Allah, the Federal Court judge Datuk Seri Mohamed Apandi Ali wrote that:

“It is my judgment that the purpose and intention of the 29 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. . It is also my judgment that the most possible and probable threat to Islam, in the context of this country, is the propagation of other religion to the followers of Islam. That is the very reason as to why Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution came into place.”

It is unconstitutional for Boo Su Lyn to write untrue and seditious statements about Articles 10(4) and 11(4) to justify her call for the Articles to be removed and a person who questions the four sensitive issues mentioned under Article 10(4) can be charged under Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act.

However, regarding the malicious article, MMO wrote:

“Malay Mail Online also has no intention of insulting Islam or any religion, and is withdrawing the said article and apologising in the hopes of avoiding any such perception.”

So, we can clearly see that:

  1.  MMO does not think that the seditious and malicious content of article is wrong.
  2. It is not wrong for a non-Muslims to take the liberty to interpret Islam the way they wish and to interfere in the Islamic matters.
  3. It is not seditious to question Article 153 and the other sensitive issues protected by Article 10(4) . 
  4.  MMO did not apologise and withdrawing the article because it is wrong and seditious.
  5. MMO took the action only because, “in the hopes of avoiding any such perception.”
  6. MMO is actually supporting Boo Su Lyn’s article that maliciously insulting Islam and the Islamic authorities and condemning Article 10(4), and saying that she is right.
  7.  It is the readers with “such perception” who wrongly think that the article insults Islam.

My conclusion is, MMO and the writer find there is nothing wrong with the article that not only insult and humiliate Islam but has gone against Articles 3(1), 10(4), 11(3)(a), 11(4) and 153 of the Federal Constitution and Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act.

The Sedition Act must be used to stop people from challenging the law and the Federal Constitution and to protect the peace and harmony of our beloved country.





Is Marina Mahathir Scared Of Hudud?

27 05 2015

Mmo

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

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







%d bloggers like this: