Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Federal Constitution’


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*

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


The leaders of Pakatan Rakyat, including those from the Malaysian Islamic Party, PAS had agreed to allow the Malaysian Christians to use the word Allah in the Malay version bible.

Gereja-Allah-300x225

Disappointed over the issue, the Sultan of Selangor, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah held an urgent meeting with the Mufti of Selangor and the high ranking members of MAIS and JAIS and decided that Allah could not be allowed to be used by any religions other than Islam. The secretory of MAIS, Datuk Mohd Misri Idris said, “The Sultan of Selangor has made a decision and decreed that the word Allah is a sacred word specific for Muslims and prohibited to be used by any non-Muslim religion in Selangor as stated in a fatwa and gazetted on Feb 18, 2010.”

In response, PKR’s Anwar Ibrahim criticised the statement by saying that, “MAIS has nothing to do with the Selangor government. That is why all of their critics were pointing towards Pakatan… never towards UMNO.”

It is obvious that Pakatan Rakyat had shown constant lack of respect towards the Sultan. (Please read,Sultan Not Invited To Selangor Merdeka Celebration, Who’s Fault?) so it is not surprising for Anwar to openly (though indirectly) question the authority of the Sultan as the Head of The Religion of Islam as it had been written in the Article 3 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. Article 3(2) states that:

In every State other than States not having a Ruler the position of the Ruler as the Head of the religion of Islam in his State in the manner and to the extent acknowledged and declared by the Constitution of that State, and, subject to that Constitution, all rights, privileges, prerogatives and powers enjoyed by him as Head of that religion, are unaffected and unimpaired; but in any acts, observances of ceremonies with respect to which the Conference of Rulers has agreed that they should extend to the Federation as a whole each of the other Rulers shall in his capacity of Head of the religion of Islam authorize the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to represent him.

In their published administration master plan, Buku Jingga, the Malaysian opposition (unregistered) coalition named Pakatan Rakyat gave honeyed promises to the Malay Muslims that the first two of their main objectives are:

1. To defend the Federal Constitution, Islam as the religion of the Federation while other religions can be practiced peacefully anywhere in the country, the special position of the Malays and the indigenous people anywhere including Sabah and Sarawak, and the legitimate interests of other races in accordance to Article 153. 2. To defend the role and responsibility of the institution of Constitutional Monarchy.

But in just one lash of his tongue, Anwar who is the leader of the Malaysian opposition had gone against both of these objectives. As written in the Article 3(2) of the Federal Constitution, Sultan Sharafuddin has full authority to prohibit the use of the word ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims, in his capacity as the Head of Religion (Islam) in Selangor. And nobody has the rights to belittle his majesty’s decree.

It is obvious that Anwar had gone against the Federal Constitution by questioning the role and responsibility of the institution of Constitutional Monarchy in his statement on Sunday. This shows the Pakatan Rakyat’s etiquette.

anwar-ibrahim

Anwar Ibrahim had shown his true colours in Bersih 3.0 when he practically drove the demonstrators into danger by instigating the crowd into a violent mad rush as they crashed into the police barricades, almost causing a stampede! And after throwing his supporters into a dangerous situation, Anwar was caught on camera grinning with satisfaction before disappearing from the scene; leaving his supporters to fight with the police without him and endangering their lives in such a ruthless and violent situation.

The same goes with PAS leaders. Calling themselves as ‘very Islamic’, they at the same time commit actions that had not only humiliate the Muslims and but also Islam. Crazily involved, planning and taking part in all kinds of unIslamic and useless political protests and demonstrations, PAS leaders ironically, rejected and even condemned the Himpunan Sejuta Umat; an event which was organised by Muslim NGOs calling the Muslims to strengthen their faith and to fight against apostasy.

Is the fight for Putrajaya is much more important in the eyes of the PAS’s leaders and members than the fight for Islam and the faith of the Muslims? I guess the answer is, “Yes!” PAS leaders are moving away from their once supposed goal of fighting for Islam, and are now making their decisions based on the topmost value upheld by PKR and DAP; total freedom.

The total freedom in voicing out their demands whether they are rational or otherwise in any way they wish to, including violent demonstrations as the Bersih 3.0. The freedom to swear as they like to anyone they choose, to show complete disrespect, to be ignorant and arrogant because it is their own rights as humans. The total freedom in their actions; to pull out a piece of rag and claiming that it is worthy to replace the flag of their own country, humiliating and denouncing their own nation on the night when the Malaysians are celebrating one of the biggest history of the country, Malaysian’s Independence.

What will be next for PAS? How about the total freedom in choosing who one wishes to be as what PAS’s allies in Bersih had been fighting for? Or in another word, the total freedom to practice homosexuality or to change one’s gender?

My siblings and I had often tried to point this out in our writings in trying to wake up our countrymen but we had been labelled as ‘UMNO bloggers’ whose views and thoughts are biased and brainwashed. My little sister, Aeshah in fact had been accused of being a ‘retarded BN supporter’ and was asked how much had she been paid by UMNO.

It really baffles me how PAS’s, PKR’s and DAP’s Malays can be so gullible to believe that the spoon that was thrustered into their mouths were filled with honey while it contains poison. When will those Malays be able to open their eyes and try to understand the Federal Constitution?

As Uncle Azril Mohd Amin had written:

Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution unequivocally bestows upon Islam a special status that does not avail to other religions within the Federation. This arises from the fact that the said Article, clearly, exalts Islam. As a result of the exaltation, Islam exerts a dominating influence within the Federation’s social, political and cultural affairs in a way that sets it above the rest of the religions practised within the Federation.

Read Full Post »


Nurul Izzah speaking at the ‘Islamic State: Which version? Whose responsible?’ forum

The vice president of PKR, Nurul Izzah raised an uproar when on the 3rd of November 2012, she claimed that everyone, even the Malays, should be granted freedom in practicing religions of their choices. As a panel member of the forum ‘Islamic State: Which Version? Whose Responsibility?’ organised by the ‘Oriental Hearts and Mind Study Institute’ and the ‘Islamic Renaissance Front’, she was asked if Malays should have religious-freedom like the Non-Malays. In reply, she said:

“When you ask me, there is no compulsion in religion… how can anyone say, ‘Sorry, this (religious freedom) only applies to non-Malays’? It has to apply equally.”

Please listen to her statement in the video below:


In the statement, she had obviously declared “it (religious freedom) has to apply equally”, meaning to every person disregarding their race or ethnicity including the Malays as she also said, “how can anyone say, ‘Sorry, this (religious freedom) only applies to non-Malays’?”

In the Article 160(2) of the Federal Constitution, a Malay is defined as one who professes Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language and conforms to Malay customs.

So why is she denying that she encourages Muslims to renounce Islam? She is now trying to sue Utusan Malaysia, Berita Harian as well as a number of bloggers for slander, stating that:

“I regret there are people trying to twist my statement as if I disparage the issue of faith or accept Muslims who choose to apostate.”

Is she trying to say that while she wants everyone including Malays should be granted religious freedom, she at the same time doesn’t support the Muslims who choose to apostate? Though Malays are, by the definition written in the federal constitution, must be Muslims? And yet she claims that people are ‘twisting her statements’.

It doesn’t make any sense, does it? And how odd it is for a person who claims to fight for justice, when the news portal that reported her statement before Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian did was not being blamed for twisting her words. Is it because the news portal Malaysiakini is linked to the oppositions as claimed by many?

She is starting to sound exactly like the PKR leader who also happens to be her father, Anwar Ibrahim. Like father, like daughter – both sharing the idealism of Islamic liberalism and  religious pluralism, and both bombarded false accusations of defamation and slander mercilessly to the reporters who simply wrote down their statements, word by word.

Like father, like daughter

Despite that fact, they still have the heart to claim that Pakatan Rakyat and Party Keadlian Rakyat are fighting for ‘Human Rights’. In the same forum, to the questions on the rights of the LGBT community, Nurul Izzah stated that we should not ‘victimise’ anyone. Of course to Nurul Izzah, the LGBTs, who goes against the laws of nature and laws of Allah by their own choice, should be given their ‘rights’ but the reporters who reported what she said should be sued if her own statements went against her.

But of course, her dear father, Anwar Ibrahim would also agree with her that human rights and press freedom does not apply to folks from Utusan Malaysia or anyone who dares to tell the truth thus may stand in their way from reaching Putrajaya.

Malaysiakini wrote that “she said, what should be sought is “quality” where Muslims’ faith is strong. ‘Even me, being schooled in Assunta (secondary school) with a huge cross in the hall and an active singing Catholic society did not influence me,’ she said.”

Obviously, it did… or she wouldn’t dare to say that Allah Himself said in the Quran that there is no compulsion in religion to all including the Muslims. How could her aqidah stays strong when she dared to make such a statement? Where is the ‘quality’ and what kind of ‘quality’ is she referring to?

Read Full Post »


Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz said that MALAYSIA has never been declared a secular nation and the Federal Constitution made no mention of the word ‘secular’.

He was replying to John Fernandez, Seremban’s Member of Parliament from the DAP party (DAP-Seremban), who wanted to know if Malaysia was a secular state based on a Supreme Court decision in 1988.

Nazri said the position of Islam as a federal religion was also noted in several provisions under the Con­stitution, which include the development and propagation of Islam amongst Muslims and that civil courts had no jurisdiction over the powers of Syariah courts.

“There is also the oath taken by the Yang di-Pertuan 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’.

This is not the first time the issue had been brought up. The members of the opposition parties had always claimed Malaysia to be a secular nation despite that in the Article 3 (1) it had been clearly stated that Islam is the Religion of the Federation.

Since the definition of secularism itself is the ‘indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations’, it is impossible to say that Malaysia is a secular country when it has already been stated in the Constitution that ‘Islam is the religion of the Federation’. Thus this is contrary to popular belief that Islam is simply the ‘official religion’ of Malaysia which it is only subject to ritual and ceremonies.

Uncle Haji Mahamad Naser Disa of the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Council legal bureau and Uncle Azril Mohd Amin of the Muslim Lawyers Association of Malaysia had numerous times spoken to clarify this matter (see: Hijrah Minda: Agenda Transformasi Islam by Uncle Naser Disa). Uncle Zainul Rijal, president of the Muslim Lawyers Association of Malaysia had recently written an article on the place of Islam in the Constitution which was published in The Malaysian Bar and Utusan Malaysia.

He wrote that according to the experts of the Constitutional Law of Malaysia, there are seven main factors which formed the backbone of the Federal Constitution, the first one being Islam as the religion of the federation, and that each of them cannot be eroded from the Constitution. In fact, all of these seven factors should to be defended by all parties, be it a leader or even the ‘rakyat’ themselves. (read more here: Kedudukan Islam)

Despite this fact, the Democratic Action Party wrote in its manifesto (on the DAP Website: Vision & Mision): “DAP remains unswerving in its commitment that Malaysia shall remain as a democratic, secular and multi-religious nation.” One may question why the leaders of the opposition parties insist on claiming Malaysia is a secular nation. The way I see it, this is their dirty tactics and ploys in order to achieve their goals; to dethrone Islam of its place in the federation and to declare Malaysia as a secular country like Singapore (see Sang Saka Malaya Controversy and VideoDAP: Malay-si-a?)

Thus saying, as long as the current Constitution stands without being change, Malaysia shall remain standing as an Islamic nation whether or not it agrees DAP, PAS or PKR.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: