A Seditious Article From FMT

9 02 2017

In a recent article posted by Free Malaysia Today (FMT), the author, an FMT reader, Ravinder Singh hit out at the Concerned Lawyers for Justice’s Aidil Khalid for his view on the vernacular schools.

In his article, “Unity has its roots in the people’s hearts”, Ravinder not only undermines and questions the use of the Bahasa Melayu as our national language but also our court rulings.

I have no idea why FMT publishes such an irrational piece of article with baseless, illogical slanderous, offensive, bias and racist arguments that can disrupt our national unity.

Below are some examples of what was written in the article:

  • Aidil cites legal authorities to support his view about the “destructive and damaging” effects of vernacular schools. He should be reminded that court decisions are made by humans who have sometimes been proven wrong.
  • National unity is not built by compelling everyone in a country to learn and use a national language.
  • A national language is a common language for administrative purposes. 
  • It is useless having everyone fluent in the national language when that same language is used to condemn and insult persons of different beliefs and cultures, creating walls between them.
  • On the other hand, you can have people of different religions, beliefs and cultures living happily together despite not being fluent in a national language. This was what Malaysia used to be.
  • Isn’t it sad that it is the abuse of the national language by politicians, self-appointed “defenders of the race”, vigilantes, school authorities and academicians that has disunited Malaysians?
  • There is no need to cite court judgments and or make academic pronouncements. They mean nothing when the reality on the ground is that it is the use of the national language itself that has brought about disunity.

Those seditious statements are uncalled for and are against the Section 3(1)(f) and the Section 3(1)(c) of the Sedition Act because such statements are part of elements that disrupt our national unity. 

The Section 3(1)(c) of the Sedition Act states:

A “seditious tendency” is a tendency— to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State;

And it is against the Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act to question the national language:

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.

National unity cannot be achieved unless the people understand the foundation and the history of our country.

Our national language, the Bahasa Melayu is the language that unites us as it is the language that breaks the language barrier of our multiracial society and enables us to communicate with people of all races. 

Hence it is wrong to undermine the Bahasa Melayu as merely “a common language for administrative purposes”.

One must learn to argue intellectually and give solid evidence to prove their points and not to resort to using lame, illogical and offensive arguments that prove nothing.

And they must be very careful not to go against the law due to offensive or seditious statements or remarks.

And lastly, the media must play their role to unite the people instead of publishing articles that instigate hatred among the people.

Advertisements




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.





G25, Another Voice Of Liberal Muslims?

21 08 2015

The Malaysia Insider reported that a “group of retired Malay civil servants of G25 against religious extremism plans to seek an audience with the Malay rulers to petition for a committee that will review the application of Islam in Malaysian law.”
G25 wrote an open letter dated December 7, 2014 (please click here for the open letter) among others expressed that they are disturbed and deeply dismayed “over the continuing unresolved disputes on the position and application of Islamic laws in this country” and stated that “the teachings of our faith must continue to evolve” to be relevant.
They wrote that:

“The on-going debate over these matters display a lack of clarity and understanding on the place of Islam within our constitutional democracy.”

Actually, there should not be any question about the place of Islam within our constitution because it is clearly stated in Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia that Islam is the religion of the Federation and the oath pledged by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as in accordance to Article 37(1) is made in the name of Allah, “Wallahi Wabillahi Watallahi” and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong pledges to uphold Islam at all time.

Article 3(1) said that:

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

Article 37(1) stated that the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong needs to take his oath before exercising his functions:

“The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall before exercising his functions take and subscribe before the Conference of Rulers and in the presence of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court (or in his absence the next senior judge of the Federal Court available) the oath of office set out in Part I of the Fourth Schedule; and the oath shall be attested by two persons appointed for the purpose by the Conference of Rulers.”

The oath pledged by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong:

“Wallahi: Wabillahi: Watallahi,

Maka dengan lafaz ini berikrarlah Kami dengan sesungguhnya dan dengan sebenarnya mengaku akan taat setia pada menjalankan dengan adilnya pemerintahan bagi Malaysia dengan mengikut sebagaimana undang-undang dan Perlembagaan yang telah disahkan dan dimasyurkan dan akan disah dan dimasyurkan di masa hadapan ini. Dan lagi Kami berikrar mengaku dengan sesungguh dan dengan sebenarnya memeliharakan pada setiap masa Agama Islam dan berdiri tetap di atas permintaan yang adil dan aman di dalam Negeri.”

G25 also wrote:

“We refer specifically to the current situation where religious bodies seem to be asserting authority beyond their jurisdiction; where issuance of various fatwa violate the Federal Constitution and breach the democratic and consultative process of shura; where the rise of supremacist NGOs accusing dissenting voices of being anti-Islam, anti-monarchy and anti-Malay has made attempts at rational discussion and conflict resolution difficult; and most importantly, where the use of the Sedition Act hangs as a constant threat to silence anyone with a contrary opinion. These developments undermine Malaysia’s commitment to democratic principles and rule of law, breed intlerance and bigotry, and have heightened anxieties over national peace and stability.”

Contrary to the accusation made by G25, the religious bodies are not “asserting authority beyond their jurisdiction, but they are doing their job to uphold Islam as the religion of the Federation as stated under Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution.

“…the rise of supremacist NGOs accusing dissenting voices of being anti-Islam, anti-monarchy and anti-Malay has made attempts at rational discussion and conflict resolution difficult…” – G25

From the above statement I guess the NGOs that G25 called supremacist are the Malay and Islamic NGOs who are fighting to uphold Islam which is the religion of the Federation as written in Article 3(1) and protecting the rights of the Malays as written in Article 153 of the Federal Constitution.
I just wonder why the Malays of G25 are so disturbed by people fighting for Islam and the rights of the Malays?
And why is G25 quiet when liberal NGOs like COMANGO questioned, humiliated and challenged Islam, the Malays rights and our Rulers?
Does G25 think that it is constitutional when people like Lim Kit Siang, Eric Paulsen and Tony Pua humiliate and slender Islam, the Friday Sermon and JAKIM?
What about some illegal coalition of NGOs such as BERSIH who went against the law by organising illegal street demonstrations, with the hope to topple a democratically elected government?
G25 also attacked Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom for doing his job as the minister in charge of the Islamic affairs:

“…we are particularly concerned with the statement issued by Minister Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom, in response to the recent Court of Appeal judgement on the right of transgendered women to dress according to their identity.”

Calling the Sedition Act as a tool to silence the voices with a contrary opinion shows that one does not understand the Sedition Act.
According to Tan Sri Aziz Abdul Rahman, (please refer to this article) the Sedition Act or Akta Hasutan was written after the government identified four serious issues as one of the major causes of the serious 1969 racial riot:

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

I just do not understand why G25 members want the four sensitive issues to be questioned when open debates on the four issues could actually “heightened anxieties over national peace and stability.”

The G25 further wrote:

“The Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any law enacted, including Islamic laws, cannot violate the Constitution, in particular the provisions on fundamental liberties, federal-state division of powers and legislative procedures”

How could the Islamic laws violate the Federal Constitution when Islam is the religion of the Federation as stated in Article 3(1) of the the Federal Constitution?
In the ruling of the Court of Appeal’s three-member panel led by Federal Court judge Datuk Seri Mohamed Apandi Ali on the Kalimah Allah case:

[31] It is my observation that the words “in peace and harmony” in Article 3(1) has a historical background and dimension, to the effect that those words are not without significance. 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. It is pertinent to note that the fundamental liberties Articles were grouped together subsequently under Part II of the Constitution.

And in the case of Ramah v Laton, it has been decided that the Islamic laws are the laws of the land, so it does not violate the Federal Constitution.

G25 then wrote:

“It is our fervent belief that for Islam to continue to be relevant and universal in our times, the understanding, codification and implementation of the teachings of our faith must continue to evolve.”

We have to follow the real teaching of Islam. We are the Muslims of Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah from the Shafie school of thought or madhhab, so this is the guideline followed by our Islamic authorities.
The true teaching of Islam is always relevant, therefore it must never be evolved or liberalised by anybody.





My View On Waco’s Twin Peaks Shooting

4 06 2015

A shootout between rival biker gangs on a Sunday afternoon at a Twin Peaks restaurant in Waco, Texas, had killed 9 people and injured 18 others.

Sadly, shootings and violent incidents seems to becoming a norm in once a civilised country. 
The Guardian reported that sergeant Patrick Swanton, a spokesperson for Waco police department, said in a press conference on Monday after the incident that:

Police in Waco have charged 170 people with “organised crime in reference to … capital murder” in what could potentially represent the largest mass arrest on a capital charge in American history. – The Guardian.

The Guardian also reported that sergeant Patrick Swanton as saying:

“What happened here today could have been avoided,” he said. “They [the restaurant management] failed and this is what happened.”- The Guardian.

So, the incident could have been avoided?

He added: “We have been made aware over two months that rival gangs are meeting here and that the potential for violence is increasing.” – The Guardian.

Police were already present at the scene because authorities were aware of the likelihood of trouble between the gangs, Swanton said,”The Guardian.

The police had suspected some violent incident to happen during the meeting between the gangs; so they were there at the scene; but they do not have the rights to interfere before the incident happen because they have no rights to do so!

He said that police had attempted to get the local management to assist but they “would not cooperate”. – The Guardian.

The First Amendment in the American constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As what I had asked before, is too much freedom good for us?

This shooting could have been avoided if:

  1. The police had the rights to take actions to prevent  the violent incident from happening.

  2. The government of United States does not give the total freedom of owning and carrying guns to their citizens.

In this case, the police had done their job and they were actually there before the shooting started but sadly, their hands were tied.

The police can’t do anything because not like Singapore, the United States does not have laws like the Internal Security Act (ISA) of Singapore (Cap. 143, 1985 Rev. Ed.), where police can take actions to prevent such crime if they have information that it could happen; furthermore carrying guns is legal in the United States.

Innocent people and children could had been killed and the police could not do anything to stop it from happening in the first place.

It is sad that such a violent incident that could had been prevented can’t be stopped.

After all the mass shootings in the United States, is it right for the United States to tell Malaysia to repeal the Sedition Act after the Western powers and the United Nations had forced Malaysia to abolish the ISA?

Without the laws, mass shooting and mass killing like the Sandy Hook shooting incident could be a norm in Malaysia just like in the United States.

I am surprised that the United States had not learnt that too much freedom and the rights to carry guns are part of the reasons that had caused the many incidents of mass shootings and mass killings and expect other country to abolish laws that could prevent such incidents.

Perhaps the government of Singapore can brief the United Nations on why they still keep the ISA.

Is total freedom to do anything they want as demanded by the human rights groups is more important than preserving a peaceful community and the safety  of minors and old people who may not be able to protect themselves? 





Hudud Is Against Federal Constitution, Total Freedom Is Not?

31 03 2015

Insider 16The Malaysian Insider (TMI) reported that, “Bar Council constitutional law committee chairperson Firdaus Husni said the current framework of Malaysia’s Federal Constitution did not allow for hudud implementation, based on several articles.”

According to TMI, the articles are Articles 7, 8 and 3 of the Federal Constitution.

It puzzles me when Firdaus Husni said that, “hudud could also be challenged using Article 3, which stated that Islam was the religion of the federation”; when hudud is a part of Islam and not against the religion of the Federation.

Article 3(1) says:

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

She went on saying:

“Instead, the 1993 Supreme Court case held it to mean that Islam in the context of Article 3 only relates to rituals and ceremonies,” –  The Malaysian Insider. 

I guess she was referring to the case of Che Omar Che Soh v Public Prosecutor (1988) 2 MLJ 55; an old case which is no longer a good law; in fact the case was decided before the coming into effect of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution.

To define Islam in Article 3(1), she should refer to later and more important cases to like the cases of Meor Atiqul Rahman v Fatimah Sihi and others [2000] 5 MLJ 375 and Lina Joy v Majlis agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & 1 Lagi [2007] 4
MLJ 585.

Furthermore, in Che’ Omar bin Che’ Soh v Public Prosecutor, Tan Sri Salleh Abbas did not say that Malaysia is a secular nation but Tan Sri Salleh Abbas only said that secular laws were used in Malaysia.

Articles 3(1), 11(4), 12(2), 37(1) and 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution proves that Malaysia is an Islamic country, in fact, that the word ‘secular’ has never been written in the Federal Constitution.

After giving all her arguments of why Hudud is against the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, I have a question for the Bar Council; has the Bar Council forgotten about Articles 3(1), 10(4), 11(4), 181 and others when it fights for the LBGT rights, the freedom for the Muslims to change their religion or to become atheists and to abolish of the Sedition Act?

Indeed as lawyers they surely understand that in order for the Sedition Act to be removed, it needs the consent of nine Sultans because the Sedition Act is related to Article 10 (4); but they do not respect and sort of question the rights of the Sultan which is against the Article 181 of the Federal Constitution.

The Bar Council also supports COMANGO that are fighting for lots of things that are against the Federal Constitution in Geneva.

To simplify what I am trying to say, I think those Bar Council lawyers do not mind to change the Federal Constitution in order to achieve what they want.

So what is the logic of the Bar Council’s arguments saying that Hudud is against the Federal Constitution, when they are also fighting for things which are against the Federal Constitution?

If we compare Hudud to the rights to leave Islam, I think Hudud as the Islamic laws is more relevant in Malaysia since Islam is the religion of the Federation.

As a Muslim, Bar Council lawyer, Firdaus Husni must fight for Islam and not against Islam.





Nurul Izzah Biadap

18 03 2015

Above is the seditious statement towards the Judicial Institution made by Nurul Izzah Anwar in Parliament on March 10, 2015.

Using Clause 2 of Article 63 of the Federal Constitution, the opposition leaders defended her by claiming that Members of Parliament (MP) can say whatever they want in the Parliament; and starting to create stories so that actions will be taken to others who are against them.

TMI Zul

In fact they even accused the Inspector General of Police for “blatant abuse of power”.

Nurul screen

The Malaysian Insider reported Nurul Izzah as saying:

“I think it is quite clear. My arrest is a blatant abuse of power by the IGP, and I hold the prime minister responsible for allowing transgressions against parliamentarians. I have immunity granted to me… on the issues raised in Parliament,” the Lembah Pantai MP said after being released at 12.30pm at the Dang Wangi police headquarters today. – TMI

According to lawyer Dato’ Zulkifli Noordin there is no total immunity for the MPs in parliament because the MPs are also binded by the Article 63 (4) of the Federal Constitution which says:

Clause (2) shall not apply to any person charged with an
offence under the law passed by Parliament under Clause (4) of
Article 10 or with an offence under the Sedition Act 1948 [Act
15] as amended by the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance
No. 45, 1970 [P.U. (A) 282/1970].

Article 3(a) and 3(c) of the Sedition Act says:

A “seditious tendency” is a tendency—

(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection
against any Ruler or against any Government;

(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection
against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in
any State;

In fact in the case of Datuk Mark Koding -v- Pendakwaraya [1982] 2 MLJ 120 FC, Datuk Mark Koding was found guilty under the Sedition Act for his speech which was made in the Parliament.

Total freedom to say anything they want and to accuse anybody they wish to, no matter if they are lying or will create disharmony in the country?

Now it is very clear why the opposition parties want the Sedition Act to be abolished.

I’m very thankful that the government of Malaysia is wise enough to keep the Sedition Act to protect peace and harmony in our country from spiteful people with personal, self-interest agendas.





Eric Paulsen Slanders JAKIM

12 01 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article 11(3)(a):

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

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

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

Screenshot_2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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








%d bloggers like this: