Feeds:
Posts
Comments

G25 claims to be “an independent group of Muslim professionals, (who) have expressed their concern over recent developments pertaining to the administration of shariah laws in the country and the longstanding conflicts of jurisdiction between the civil and shariah courts”. They have compiled their list of ‘concerns’ in an open letter addressed to the ‘People of Malaysia’.

Interestingly, they did not address the letter to ‘Muslims of Malaysia’ but to a much larger, plural term – people, presumably regardless of their religion. It tickles me that while they accuse that some of the shariah laws and its implementation are unconstitutional, their letter encourages the consultations of non-Muslims in the regulation of Islamic religious affairs despite in Article 11 (3) of the Federal Constitution declared that:

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

The invitation to Non-Muslims into the managements of the Islamic religious affairs is clearly unconstitutional. Indeed, the managements of Islamic religious affairs and all matters relating to the religion of Islam should be under the Yang di-Pertuan Agong with the advice of an Islamic council pertaining to Article 3 (5) of the Federal Constitution.

Nevertheless, I have read G25’s Letter to the People of Malaysia: Champion Open Debate and Discourse on Islamic Law and the discrepancies did not stop there. I have quoted some of their complains which I find most inconsistent within the letter below:

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

Even as early as in the introduction, they claim that ‘there is a lack of clarity and understanding on the place of Islam within our constitutional democracy’. In actuality, the place of Islam within our federal constitution is clear – Article 3 (1) states that, “Islam is the religion of the Federation.” Anyone with access to the internet and the interest to look up and do a little reading would be able to find a copy of the Federal Constitution in both English and Malay from the website of the Attorney General’s Chamber of Malaysia.

Furthermore, Malaysia is a federal constitutional monarchy – not a constitutional democracy. Not even once had ‘democracy’ ever been mentioned in the federal constitution while the subject of Yang Di-Pertuan Agong as well as the Conference of Rulers have been mentioned numerous times throughout the constitution.

As moderate Muslims, 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. He viewed the right of the transgender community and Sisters in Islam (SIS) to seek legal redress as a “new wave of assault on Islam” and as an attempt to lead Muslims astray from their faith, and put religious institutions on trial in a secular court.

Such an inflammatory statement from a Federal Minister (and not for the first time) sends a public message that the Prime Minister’s commitment to the path of moderation need not be taken seriously when a Cabinet minister can persistently undermine it.

Nowhere in the federal constitution nor any other section of our laws, mentioned that Islam in Malaysia is being geared towards ‘extreme’ moderation or more accurately, liberation. In accordance to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), moderation is “the quality of being moderate in conduct, opinion, etc.; avoidance of excess or extremes in behaviour; temperateness, self-control, restraint.” Thus, having the restraint and self-control to avoid extreme behaviour, such as crossdressing, is in fact being moderate.

While on the other hand, according to OED, liberation is “Freedom from limits on thought or behaviour” which technically contradicts with the concept of becoming a Muslim, which comes from the Arabic term of ‘one who surrenders or submits to God’. No self respecting person who submits themselves to God would consider themselves ‘free from limits’ – they have after all surrendered themselves into God’s power.

The lack of public awareness, even among top political leaders, on the legal jurisdiction and substantive limits of the powers of the religious authorities and administration of Islamic laws in Malaysia. 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.

As subjected to Article 37 (1) of the Federal Constitution:

“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 the oath of office set out in Part I of the Fourth Schedule”

In which the Yang di-Pertuan Agong  swear:

Wallahi; Wabillahi; Watallahi; and by virtue of that oath do solemnly and truly declare that We shall justly and faithfully perform (carry out) our duties in the administration of Malaysia in accordance with its laws and Constitution which have been promulgated or which may be promulgated from time to time in the future. Further We do solemnly and truly declare that We shall at all time protect the Religion of Islam and uphold the rules of law and order in the Country.”

In accordance with this oath, the religious administrations had been set up and their authorities were bequeathed the responsibility to protect and regulate the Religion of Islam by the Rulers and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who are all acting as the Head of the Religion of Islam as subjected to Article 3 (2) in the federal constitution.

And concerning with the fundamental liberties of Malaysians, Article 5 (1) states that: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law”.

As Muslims, we want Islamic law, even more than civil law, to meet the highest standards of justice precisely because it claims to reflect divine justice. Therefore, those who act in the name of Islam through the administration of Islamic law must bear the responsibility of demonstrating that justice is done, and is seen to be done.

When Islam was revealed to our Prophet saw in 7th century Arabia, it was astoundingly revolutionary and progressive. Over the centuries, the religion has guided believers through harsh and challenging times. 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. Only with this, can justice, as enjoined by Allah swt, prevail.

If the members of G25 claim that the understanding, codification and implementation of the teachings of Islam must continue to evolve for justice to prevail, are they demanding for the divine justice to adapt to the the advancements of human civilization? Shouldn’t we Muslims humbly submit to Allah’s divine justice however inflated our egos are with the pride of our ‘great achievements’?

And finally:

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

So has the rise of supremacist individuals and personnel who wrongfully accuse law asserting voices of being unconstitutional despite being so themselves, causing confusion and worsen conflicts rather than attempting to solve them…..

*Please click here for the link to the Malaysian Federal Constitution*


Seperti buah padi, makin berisi makin rendah; jangan seperti lalang, makin lama makin tinggi

A common problem faced by developing countries is getting their ‘developed’ peers to respect their sovereignty. Indeed, our forefathers have long warned us against arrogance and imperiousness in the Malay saying quoted above. Technologically advanced and developed countries tend to belittle the significance and importance of their less developed counterparts, perhaps unconciously believing that their success in managing their own people earn them the rights to rule (or guide, as they say) the helpless.

Although countries worldwide need to establish good, well rounded relationships with each other, like in interpersonal friendship, there is a limit to how far we could intervene in another country’s decision making. When one party tries to force their domination over the others, whether their intents were based on malice or goodwill, it could easily escalate to bullying.

The generally accepted standards of the world set by international bodies such as the United Nations are very majorly those of their founders; the developed Western countries. Just as they want us to accept their norms in our own places, they first need to realise that we too have the sovereignty over our own country. Just as they wish to decide for themselves on what is going on in their grounds, we too have our own vision for our future.

In the latest case of Anwar Ibrahim’s imprisonment for sodomy, in an unpatriotic and disrespectful act against the country that gave them food, shelter and support, Anwar’s supporters are trying to lobby foreign powers to force the Malaysian government to release their idol both publicly and privately. Under the various claims from ‘political imprisonment’ to ‘archaic laws’, they are calling for the intervention of foreign powers into Malaysia’s internal affairs.

As no humans are flawless, it is possible for developed countries to take their power for granted and unintentionally fall into the trap of bullying their developing counterparts. Let us all remind them that while it seems more imposing to force their will onto other rightful countries, they would likely to be more respected if they first learn to respect the sovereignty of other countries.

To all Malaysian, let us all show our support to the sovereignty of our own country and that no foreign bodies have the right to impose their wills over us. Sign the petition here!

Picture credits to Ahmad Ali Jetplane


One of the most overlooked responsibilities of Muslim leaders is that they are answerable for the faith and beliefs of the Muslims that they lead and as well as the position and dignity of Islam. It is especially so for Malaysia, whose Federal Constitution has stated that Islam is the religion of the federation (NOT the official religion).

This is the fact that Dr. Reza Aslan, a confused outsider with a skewed idea of how Islam should be, but claimed himself as a theology expert could never understand.

From The Malaysian Insider:

Putrajaya is setting itself up as a “parent” rather than an elected government, in banning the use of the word Allah among non-Muslims and dictating how Malaysian Muslims should practise their faith, prominent Iranian-American theologian Reza Aslan said.

In October, the Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim) said that Malaysia as a nation “officially” adhered to the Shafie school of thought, in response to the backlash over the “I want to touch a dog” event which proved popular among Muslims.

(read the rest here: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/putrajaya-should-not-dictate-muslims-beliefs-says-reza-aslan)

It is also interesting how Dr. Aslan blamed the Putrajaya for the Allah issue when the Head of the Religion of Islam is in fact the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong. By pointing his finger at Putrajaya instead of Jakim alone, it is safe to assume that either Dr. Aslan or The Malaysian Insider or both of them, were politically biased (not that it’s a big surprise).

Please take notice the words coloured in red where The Malaysian Insider wrote, “…in banning the use of the word Allah among non-Muslims…”. That statement is incorrect. The word Allah is not banned from use among non-Muslims but instead they are banned from referring Allah to anything but the Muslim God alone.

The article also mentioned:

He said that centralised religious authorities should not exist in countries that profess to adhere to Islam, adding that such a practise was akin to usurping the authority of the Prophet Muhammad.

“Islam allows me to follow any mufti that I please. We don’t have a pope, we don’t have a bishop who tells us what we can do.

“The very notion that a group of old men gets to decide for me or for you what is the proper interpretation of my faith, that goes against the very fabric and nature of Islam,” Reza told The Malaysian Insider in a phone interview.

“Anyone who tells you there is only one version of Islamic behaviour or ideology or morality is speaking out of pure ignorance,” said Reza.

As you can see from his statement above, it is obvious that his views are that of a liberal and of a person who seems to be so egotistic to believe that only he knows what Islam really is. He is apparently ignorant of the fact that the Muslims in Malaysia are Sunni Muslims;”people of the tradition of the Prophet Muhammad and the consensus of the Ummah”, meaning that we follow a consensus and not make up our own rules as he did.

And atop of that, he declared in another interview that Islam is simply nothing but a man made institution.

See 19:42 of the video:

Islam is a man-made institution. It’s a set of symbols and metaphors that provides a language for which to express what is inexpressible, and that is faith. It’s symbols and metaphors that I prefer, but it’s not more right or more wrong than any other symbols and metaphors. It’s a language, that’s all it is.

Also, at 05:14 of the video, he said:

Somehow Harris is a better expert at what Islam is or means than the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world.

When (Sam) Harris shares his imaginary idea of Islam, Dr. Reza says that this one person is better than “the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world”; but when commenting about the Islamic authorities of Malaysia; he argues how the minority voice can claim that they are right. Remember what he said earlier in The Malaysian Insider article?

and then you tell me that 99.9% of Muslims who don’t think what you think, who don’t feel what you feel, are not Muslims. That only you and your version is the correct one.

If he does not believe that his version of Islam is the correct one, he would not enforce its principles now, would he?

This is not the first time Reza Aslan has shared (or forced) his opinions on Islamic matters in Malaysia, especially on the Kalimah Allah issue despite he believes that Islam could be interpreted as any way a person wishes to. And as before, his statements had been very self contradicting as well as embodying the voice of a liberal Muslim.

I wonder what is the opposition media ‘The Malaysian’s Insider’s motive in featuring such an ‘expert’? This certainly says a lot about the supporters of the oppositions’ stances on the principles of Islam.


(fast forward to 4:00)

Her mother is not the candidate. I don’t know why are we on a wild goose chase.

-Lim Kit Siang

The question is not whether her mother was or was not involved with Perkasa but how credible Dyana is as a politician contesting for the Teluk Intan seat.

Dyana lied when she said “My mother was not even in the 1st AGM of Perkasa”

(fast forward to 0:31)

(credits to Uncle Jinggo for the image)

It is apparent in this picture shown here that not just her mother helped at the registration table of the 1st AGM of Perkasa but she was actually there with her mother.

Why didn’t she simply admit that her mother was at the 1st AGM of Perkasa as a committee member and added “My mother is not the candidate” in the first interview?

If she’s constantly lying without a second thought now, can you trust her to not lie again?

Let’s get back to the second video and fast forward to 0:39

She did not join Perkasa

Now listen to another of her interviews and fast forward to 0:50

 

She was involved in Perkasa, I know, yes.

And when she was pressed, she said:

It was just an issue of misunderstanding, because I wasn’t sure the form, she fill in the form or not, or whether membership starts after first AGM or not, you know. And she, she was not, she was no longer involved after, even before the first AGM. So again, the question about membership or not, I’m still very, ver- very vague. I really don- not sure.

Again, I ask, if she wasn’t sure, then why did she lie and said flat out that her mother was not a member of Perkasa? Why can’t she say that she was not sure? Is it because she is afraid that people would look at her as a politician who, by the way is intending to step out as a leader, does not even care enough to know about her mother’s activities and involvements? Then she has a very good reason to be afraid. Would she care enough about the people and their problems?

Or an even scarier possibility is that it is simply because she decided that the AGM took place 6 years ago so surely no one would have evidences of her mother (and herself) participating in the AGM. Then we know that she’s a flat out liar.

By the way, did you notice that she was very, ver- very nervous in the interview?

Bak kata pepatah Melayu: Berani kerana benar, takut kerana salah…


(fast forward to 4:00)

Her mother is not the candidate. I don’t know why are we on a wild goose chase.

-Lim Kit Siang

hannahtwitter-teh

images (1)

images (2)

images

Why are we on a wild goose chase? Maybe I could enlighten you, Kit Siang…

Capture

Capture2 Capture3

Najib’s wife is not the candidate, Kit Siang… why are you on a wild goose chase?

Now let’s stop chasing the goose, shall we? Let’s chase a politician instead. Someone you may know :D

(credits to Helen Ang)

(credits to Helen Ang)

(credits to Helen Ang)

(credits to Helen Ang)

Refer to: http://helenang.wordpress.com/2014/05/25/amboi-hannah-yeoh-tayang-prada/


Originally posted on Karim's Blog:

Dijemput semua sertai – bermula 8:00 untuk sarapan dan pendaftaran.

Alhamdulillah segala persiapan telah dibuat dengan yang terbaik yang termampu.

wacana ASWJ-2014
Kerusi telah ditambah untuk menampung 1,200 peserta.

View original


I just wish I could just say it
But my tongue is frozen stiff
With the million words caged
At the back of my throat.
My heart aches at the thought
My mind tells me to go on
My brain is torn in between
Paralysed in hesitation

Their eyes are all around us
Their provocations ring in my ears
Their aggravation breaks my composure
Their accusations are loud and clear
We stand in the spotlight
They watch our every twitch
They speculate our every move
They judge our every breath

Every good thing comes to an end
Some more drastic than others
Those with dull lives search
For the drama that they yearn
And with their smirks and grins
They pushed us inside
They use us as their puppets
To entertain their sick needs

Every hug is for their smiles
Every word is for their tears
I’m just so glad that you will forget
The things that happen, my dear
For such memory is an agony
That reruns like a broken tape
I just wish that you will keep
The good memories of days past

We humans are imperfect beings
Some tried harder than most
I don’t know if you did what’s right
But you did what you thought was best
And your story continues through me
Goodbye is simply temporal
For you would live on inside me
But I still wish that I could say it…

I can’t believe that it’s actually the last day of April. I definitely did not win this challenge as I wrote on scarcely half of the days but I definitely enjoyed it. There were some lucky days when I barely had to think for the words came pouring fast. On other days, I greatly annoy my sisters with my groans and complains :D Well, it certainly was a nice ride and I would like to try to complete it again next year, Insya Allah.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 86 other followers

%d bloggers like this: