Video Aksi Siti Zabedah Kasim di Wacana Akta 355

Above was how a human rights lawyer, Siti Zabedah Kasim acted during a program hosted by Sinar Harian entitled, “Wacana Sinar Harian Akta 355: Antara Realiti dan Persepsi” at the Auditorium Sultan Muhammad ke-V, Kompleks Kumpulan Media Karangkraf.

The human rights lawyer in a very loud voice said that she is against the move to amend Act 355 which she said is an attempt to empower the Syariah Court.

She went on saying:

“Saya Melayu, saya seorang Melayu. Dan saya seorang Islam. Kenapa saya perlu dicontrol, didictate oleh orang orang begini. Ini adalah antara saya dengan tuhan.”

My question is, why is she so scared of the empowerment the Syariah Court that she wants to discriminate the rights of most Muslims who want to empower the Syariah Court?

She rudely pointed her middle finger as a sign of insult to those who do not agree with her loud speech.

Now, she pointed her middle finger and claimed that she is a Muslim, aren’t she ashamed of herself? 

Her actions insult the Muslims because it gives the image that Muslims are rude when in Islam it is wrong to insult others.

Is the Bar Council happy with this kind of behaviour shown by its member in a public event?

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

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:

• Datuk Noor Farida And G25 Must Go Back To School 2015/12/09
• Tan Sri Harussani Saran G25 Bertaubat 2015/12/08
• Reaksi Jurucakap G25 Terhadap Bersih 4 Menyedihkan 2015/09/01
• G25, Another Voice Of Liberal Muslims? 2015/08/21
• G25: Champion Open Debate and Discourse on Islamic law 2014/12/10
• Bila Liberal Mengajar Apa Itu Islam 2015/11/11
• Tawfik Tun Dr Ismail Wants Jakim Abolished 2015/11/09
• Ambiga Mahu Kembalikan ISA? 2015/09/18
• BTN ‘Ultra Malay racist’? 2015/09/14

Act 355: Interfaith Group’s Statement Risks Weakening Constitutional Liberties

What is the problem with some non-Muslims when the Muslims tries to strengthen the teaching of Islam in an Islamic country?

Why must non-Muslims oppose laws that only affect the Muslims?

The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) opposes the private member’s bill regarding the Act 355 or Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 tabled by PAS President, Datuk Seri Haji Hadi, reported Malay Mail Online on May 31, 2016.

According to Malay Mail Online, MCCBCHST claimed that, “…. the proposed law risks weakening the country’s constitutional liberties, including religious freedom.”

The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) expressed today its opposition to the Syariah Court (Criminal Jurisdiction) (Amendment)Bill 2016, and warned that the proposed law risks weakening the country’s constitutional liberties, including religious freedom.

~Malay Mail Online.

In the first place I wonder if the council leaders understand Dato’ Seri Haji Hadi’s Private Member’s Bill and the Act 355 before making the statement.

As I wrote in, “Akta 355: DAP MPs, Please Do Your Homeworks”,  the Private Member’s Bill  is not about proposing a new Act but it is about amending an existing Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act, which is to increase the Syariah Courts punishments that are currently limited to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or with a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or with whipping not exceeding six strokes or with any combination thereof.

So how can the Bill, “risk weakening the country’s constitutional liberties, including religious freedom“?

Firstly, since Act 355 is an existing Act about criminal jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts which only affects persons professing the religion of Islam, how could the increase of the Syariah Courts current existing punishments weakens the country’s constitutional liberties, including religious freedom when the Bill will empowers the teaching of Islam for the Muslims and has nothing to do with people professing other religions?

Instead, the Bill will strengthen the “constitutional liberties,  including religious freedom” of the Muslims because it will give more constitutional rights for the Muslims in professing the true teaching of Islam and to curb deviant teachings that claimed to be the true Islamic teaching.

So, will that pose problems to the council?

In fact, it is MCCBCHST that is “weakening the country’s constitutional liberties, including religious freedom” by interfering into the internal matter of the Muslims and denying the constitutional rights of the Muslims to manage their own religion.

Article 11(3) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia:

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

So, in my opinion, since the council does not represent the Muslims and the Bill will not effect the people of religion groups represented by the council the council has no constitutional rights to intervene in the matters of the Muslims and to tell the Muslims how to manage Islam. 

Also said in the same article by Malay Mail Online:

“It has the potential to undermine religious freedom and fundamental liberties as enshrined in Part II of the Constitution. The Non-Muslim’s position too would be in jeopardy under Hudud and they would not have equal rights if implemented,” the group said in a statement.

~Malay Mail Online

I do not understand why the leaders of the council group are so opposed to the Bill that not only will give so much advantages for to the Muslims but also very positive impacts to the society because a Muslims who observes the true teaching of Islam will be a very good citizen and will obey the law of our country.  

So I wonder why that will pose a problem to others.

Stating that:

“Our former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad had warned the PAS government of Kelantan in 1994 against introducing Hudud Law in the State because ‘Hudud Law punishes victims while actual criminals were often left off with minimum punishment,” it said. 

~ Malay Mail Online.

If Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad made that statement regarding the Bill, then he clearly does not understand it.

So, the council must stop listening to Tun regarding the matter and please ask for clarifications from the official authorities.

That is why Dato’ Sri Najib Razak must not listen to Tun and oppose the Private Member’s Bill just because Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad disagreed with the amendment.

Datuk Noor Farida And G25 Must Go Back To School

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Federal Constitution allows the Legislature of a State to legislate and enact offences against the precepts of Islam. Taking the Federal Constitution as a whole, it is clear that it was the intention of the framers of our Constitution to allow Muslims in this country to be also governed by Islamic personal law”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bila Liberal Mengajar Apa Itu Islam

Former Deputy Prime Minister’s grandchild, Tariq Ismail defended Tawfik Ismail’s uncalled statement to abolish JAKIM that had angered the Muslims in this country – please click here.

Asking Tawfik Ismail to simply apologise or face dire consequences is wrong. He did not question the sanctity of Islam. – Tariq Ismail via TMI

He was referring to PERKASA’s call for Tawfik Ismail to apologise to JAKIM and the Muslims.

Perkasa menggesa agar Tawfik Ismail segera memohon maaf kepada JAKIM dan umat Islam agar tidak berlaku implikasi yang negatif kepada beliau,” katanya dalam satu kenyataan di sini, hari ini. – Astro Awani

Before I go on, I must say that I do not agree with what TMI wrote as “face dire consequences” as the translation from “agar tidak berlaku implikasi yang negatif.”

Tawfik, in his interview with TMI did question the sanctity of Islam when he accused JAKIM as “seems to serve no other purpose than to intervene in the personal lives of Malaysians” for performing the duty to uphold Islam.

Is Tawfik not questioning the sanctity of Islam when he implies that it is right for the Muslims to return to the time when people drinks brandy and whisky during meetings and own dogs?

Denying Islamic rules, means that one is questioning the sanctity of Islam.

Saying something that is haram as alright and something that is wajib as wrong in the context of Islam is questioning the sanctity of Islam.

Tawfik is against of, “tried to infuse their definition of “Islamic values” into every aspect of Malaysian life” – if he was referring to JAKIM’s definition of Islamic values which is of the Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah, Tawfik again is questioning the sanctity of Islam.

Apart from defending Tawfik’s arguments about JAKIM, Tariq also had bad thing to say about the Syariah Court:

Currently, we have a Shariah Court that sometimes does not seek to uphold justice; those with money and influence have corrupted the sanctity of this institution. – TMI

Tawfik must not only apologise to JAKIM and the Muslims but more importantly he must bertaubat to Allah or repent and get his akidah right; and if Tariq agrees with Tawfik’s liberal thinking then he too must get his akidah right.

As I wrote in my previous post, “Tawfik Tun Dr Ismail Wants Jakim Abolished,” Tawfik is so confused about Islam and he needs help from JAKIM to go back to the true path of Islam.

We have to follow the real teaching of Islam.

In Malaysia, we are the Muslims of Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah from the Shafie school of thought or madhhab, so this is the guideline followed by JAKIM.

The true teaching of Islam is always relevant, therefore it must never be evolved or liberalised by anybody.

Is Malaysia A Secular State?

No, Malaysia is not a secular state.

The Minister in the Prime Minister Department (Law and Parliamentary Affairs), YB Dato’ Seri Nazri Aziz made that statement at the parliament yesterday.

He said that Malaysia has never been declared a secular nation despite having secular laws.

“Under the Federal Constitution, there is no mention of the word secular in it,” he said when replying a question raised John Fernandez (DAP-Seremban) at the parliament on Monday.

Referring to Article 3 (1) of the Federal Constitution, Nazri also said that the position of Islam as a federal religion was also noted in several provisions under the Constitution which included the development and spread of Islam amongst the Muslim community and that civil courts have no jurisdiction over the powers of the Syariah courts. 

“There is also the oath taken by the Agong under Schedule Four to preserve Islam at all times,” he added.

Based on Article 162 of the Constitution, Nazri noted the 1988 Supreme Court’s decision in Che Omar did not declare the country as a secular nation although secular laws were used.

He also noted the words used in context of Article 162 referred to laws that were passed prior to Independence and were stated as ‘existing laws’ rather than ‘secular laws’.

So, is Malaysia a secular state?

Uncle Mahamad Naser Disa had spoken about this matter a lot of times and so did Uncle Azril Mohd Amin.

Like Nazri’s statements, they said that Malaysia is not a secular state for the reasons as given by the minister.

They always remind us about Article 3 (1) of the Federal Constitution that says that: 

” Islam is the religion of the Federation”

It is very funny when DAP and PAS of Pakatan Rakyat always say that Malaysia is a secular state when Malaysia is not.

I think PR leaders would not accept the fact given by Nazri and would be looking for reasons to spin the facts and prove that they are right.

I wonder why?