In a recent interview by the Malaysian Insider, the de-facto leader of PKR, Anwar Ibrahim had ‘expressed his concerns’ over the Selangor Non-Islamic Religions Enactment 1988. Quoting from the Malaysian Insider:
Q: So what should Pakatan Rakyat do with enactments such as Selangor Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Among Muslims) Enactment 1988, which seems to be the core problem in this issue?
A: The enactment has an attachment and the problem is with that. The enactment is for the protection of Muslims from efforts to proselytise but the attachment in terms of the words is generally excessive. I was in Penang speaking to religious scholars when I told them how do you explain a resident on Jalan Masjid who uses Jalan Masjid on his or her address?
So they immediately know the problem. I think this must be addressed. Unlike immediately responding to demands of non-Muslims groups, you must also know about the incessant propaganda among Muslims that has led to some of them to believe that they are under siege.
I can’t believe that of all people, the person who claims that he is the best person to become the Prime Minister of Malaysia and who is now trying to become the Menteri Besar of Selangor, would make such a silly statement regarding an enactment made in none other than Selangor itself.
Oh, come on!
The Section 9 of the Non-Islamic Religions Enactment 1988 says that the words (including Allah) cannot be used to express or describe anything of or pertaining to any non-Islamic religion. Quoting from the e-Syariah website:
A person commits an offence if he–
(a) in any published writing; or (b) in any public speech or statement; or (c) in any speech or statement addressed to any gathering of persons; or (d) in any speech or statement which is published or broadcast and which at the time of its making he knew or ought reasonably to have known would be published of broadcast,
uses any of the words listed in Part I of the Schedule, or any of its derivatives or variations, to express or describe any fact, belief, idea, concept, act, activity, matter, or thing of or pertaining to any non-Islamic religion.
When a resident on Jalan Masjid uses the word masjid on his address, he uses it to describe a location. He doesn’t use it to express something pertaining to a non-Islamic religion. Just like in the ‘state songs argument’, where the person would say that it would then be impossible for a non-Muslim to sing the state songs with ‘Allah’ in the lyrics, this argument is baseless. This is due to the fact that Allah mentioned in the lyrics is referring to the Islamic God. It is not subjected to the singing individual’s religion since Islam is the religion of the federation, as had been stated in the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution.
Not surprisingly, Anwar repeated the argument in the same interview.
Q: Like in the Selangor case, the Selangor state anthem has the word ‘Allah’… so does that mean that non-Muslims should not sing the anthem?
A: That is what has been raised. The point taken or the position of the Selangor religious department that is the law as it stands. But then the appendix to the law and manner of action is missing. So you have to see whether you should prosecute a person who puts down his address as Jalan Masjid. So far that has not happened. But that is the flaw in the legislation.
As I have copied from the e-syariah website, the Section 9 of the enactment clearly states that a person commits offense by using the words to express or describe anything of or pertaining to any non-Islamic religion. Anwar says that “the flaw is in the legislation”—it is not; the flaw is in those who innocently or not-so-innocently misinterpret the enactment.
Do your homework, get back to the facts, brother.
And this is exactly why we must never simply rely on the word of mouth (or media).
The Malaysian Insider published an amusing but interesting article in it’s ‘rencana’ section titled, ‘Betul ke Umno penyelamat dunia dan akhirat?’
The reason why I find the article interesting is because of the irony of it. If you switch a few notable terms in the article (like say, from Umno to Pas) you would realise that the pot is calling the kettle black. To prove my point, I would post here the ‘edited’ version of the article in bold with the switched words underlined and in green. You can view the original article here.
(The article is in Malay but since most of my readers are Malaysians and this is a local issue, I would not bother to translate the article. My apologies to all non-Malaysian readers.)
Tuduhan bahawa kerajaan mempolitikkan isu Syiah yang dihebohkan sekarang ini tidak ada asasnya. Itu hanya permainan politik pimpinan Pas yang kini semakin terhakis daripada pandangan rakyat.
Note: The original article states that the issue between Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah (Sunni) and Syiah “has nothing to do with the faith (akidah) or the Islamic struggle” and the argument is wrong because the differences between the Sunni and the Syiah is on the basis of faith itself. Both Syiah and Sunni do not acknowledge the other in their beliefs.
Pemimpin yang menggunakan nama parti Islamsejakpilihan raya yang lalu sehingga sekarang ini tidak pun mengamalkan cara pemerintahan menurut kehendak Islam itu.
Orang Islamdalam Pas itu telah dan masih melanggar pantang larang sebagai seorang Muslim itu. Ketandusan idea politik mereka menyebabkan ada pihak yang mahu di kalangan kita orang Islam ini bergaduh, kerana sejak beberapa ketika dahulu Pas itu ‘survive’ di atas perpecahan orang Melayu yang beragama Islam itu.
(According to the teaching of Islam, Pas and Umno whose members are Muslims, must sit down and discuss (bermuzakarah) on matters related to Islam. When UMNO agrees to the idea; Pas’s leaders are divided into two teams and a number of leaders who vocally support the muzakarah idea were either kicked out of the party and being labelled as traitor.)
Note: In this article, Aspan Alias wrote that the Malays are generally Muslims. This is incorrect because Article 160 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia clearly defines a Malay as a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language and conforms to Malay custom. Thus according to the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, a Malay has to be a Muslim in order to declare themselves as a Malay.
Malahan Pas yang didaftarkan pada tahun 1951 dahulu diasaskan oleh perpecahan orang Melayu dan kiniahli Pas semakin berpecah. Pastidak mungkin ‘survive’ dalam situasi tenang dan aman, kerana jika keadaan politik itu aman, maka Pas takut rakyat memberikan fokus untuk menilai prestasi mereka terhadap rakyat.
(Until the end of the video, Ustaz Azahar, a popular Pas figure, did not dare to give the true answer to the question of how true is the fact that PKR (an ally of Pas) practice Liberalisme of Religion for not only PKR but a number of Pas’s key leaders are also liberal Muslims.)
Pas sentiasa merasakan mereka sedang berjalan dalam keadaan gelap gelita dan sunyi dan terpaksa membuat bising dengan menyanyi atau membakar mercun untuk memecah kesunyian yang amat mereka takuti. Semasa kampung saya belum mendapat kemudahan eletrik, keadaan pada malam hari amat gelap.
Sesiapa yang berjalan di dalam gelap itu merasakan di depan dan belakang mereka ada hantu atau harimau dan berbagai-bagai lagi yang mereka takuti. Selalu saya mendengar di jalan-jalan kecil yang sunyi dan gelap gelita itu anak-anak muda menyanyi dengan sekuat hati bagi memecahkan kesunyian dan menghilangkan sedikit rasa takut dan gementar itu.
Bermacam-macam lagi saya dengar. Ada yang menyanyikan lagu P Ramlee, malah ada juga menyanyikan lagu Mat Sentul. Ada yang membakar mercun dan berbagai-bagai cara untuk menghilangkan rasa takut itu sementara sampai ke rumah atau tempat lain.Pendeknya mereka akan berbuat bising untuk menghilangkan rasa takut itu.
Tetapi sekarang keadaan itu tidak berlaku lagi kerana elektrik sudah sampai di setiap rumah dan di jalan raya pula sudah ada lampu yang dipasang oleh Lembaga Letrik Negara atau sekarang ini TNB. Anak-anak muda sekarang tidak tahu kerana mereka tidak mengalami keadaan itu. Lahir mereka ke dunia ini sudah ada lampu eletrik dan air. ‘Air dalam bosi, potik ditopi di tongah menyalo’.
Tetapi masih ada lagi manusia yang masih mempunyai rasa takut dan tidak meyakinkan itu, tetapi bukan dirasai oleh orang kampung saya. Perasaan itu masih ada di dalam jiwa pemimpin Pas dan ramai ahli-ahlinya. Perasaan takut seolah-olah ada hantu di depan dan di belakang dan dalam kesunyian mereka itu membuatkan mereka mencari apa sahaja jalan untuk memecah kesunyian untuk menghilangkan rasa takut dan gementar itu.
Mereka sekarang tidak menyanyikan lagi lagu P Ramlee atau Mat Sentul, mereka menyanyikan lagu ala rap yang bertajuk, ‘Undi Pas MasukSyurga’.
Mereka mahu menghilangkan rasa takut mereka dengan berbuat bising. Selalunya orang yang penakut ini akan bercakap besar dan garang seperti yang kita dengar di kalangan mereka yang entah macam mana duduk di atas dan memimpin kita itu. Pemimpin seperti ini terpaksa melakukan banyak perkara pelik bagi menutup kelemahan mereka yang mudah dilihat oleh orang ramai.
Kenapa Pas memilih untuk menjadikan isu agama sebagai cara mendinding diri mereka daripada kejatuhan itu diketahui ramai? Pas tahu cabaran kepadanya ialahUmno. Parti itu merupakan parti yang digeruni oleh Pas walaupun dalam ucapan pemimpin mereka, mereka cuba untuk melindungi rasa takut mereka dengan kata-kata ego dan pengecut mereka. Mereka tidak berani untuk menunjukkan jiwa besar dengan mengakui kelemahan mereka.
+
Passarat dengan pemimpin palsu yang hanya menunjuk-nunjuk kehebatan mereka sedangkan rakyat semakin hari semakin memahami hakikat ini. Mereka menyembunyikan kekayaan mereka supayarakyattidaktahu adalah hasil manipulasi kepercayaan dan wang rakyat juga dalam sistem pentadbiran yang begitu sarat dengan penipuan dan salah guna kuasa itu.
Bagi saya, isu tuduhan Pasinitidak elok kita abaikan sahaja kerana ia dipergunakan olehPasyang mengaku Islam tetapi larangan Islam itu dilakukan secara terbuka. Bagi mereka, Pas sahaja yang dibenarkan melanggar segala kehendak agama itu.
Pas seolah-olah maksum dan tidak ada siapa yang mesti meragui mereka. Dan yang lebih dahsyat lagi merekalah pejuang dan pelindung agama kita.
Mereka lebih hebat daripada aulia dan anbia yang ditugaskan menjaga dunia dan alam ini selepas kewafatan Nabi Muhammad lebih seribu tahun dahulu.
Bagi mereka Pas adalah segala-galanya. Tidak makbul doa seseorang itu dan tidak sampai hajat sesiapa pun tanpa dikehendaki oleh Pas. Pas sahaja yang menentukan nasib semua orang dunia dan akhirat.
Saya baru sahaja tahu yang dunia dan alam ini diwariskan kepada Pas untuk menjaganya. Kalau tidak ada Haji Hadi, Nik Aziz dan MatSabu serta Khalid Samad, tentu kacau-bilau dunia ini.
Kalau boleh, masukkan Anwar Ibrahim sekali sebaris dengan mereka, mungkin pasti kita semua selamat di dunia dan akhirat. Mati kita mungkin mati dalam iman, bak kata P Ramlee dalam filem Ali Baba Bujang Lapuk. Di akhir kalam nak mati pun kita akan bangun seketika, dan senyum.
Mengikut jalan cerita dalam filem itu mereka yang sudah merompak pun mati mereka dalam iman. Itulah cerita yang dilakonkan kembali oleh pemimpin-pemimpin Pas sekarang ini. Selamat menonton!
(By the way, I have never heard an Umno leader claiming “Umno penyelamat dunia dan akhirat”, have you?)
Reminder: I did not write this article; I simply ‘switched’ the words 😀
The Malaysian Insider reported that Karpal Singh calls for the de-registration of all political or professional bodies which operate along racial and religious lines, saying the move would work in the interest of unity. “The government cannot allow associations to operate along racial and religious lines. It is a very serious matter,” said Karpal.
However, I greatly disagree in this matter. First and foremost, Karpal Singh needs to go back to his roots and remember the history of the acceptance of the Chinese and Indians in Malaysia. During the days when the African-Americans were segregated from the whites, the Malaysian government have already recognised the Chinese and Indians as their citizens. As a part of the social contract, the Chinese and Indians accepted the special position of Malays as the indigenous people of Malaya. In those days, countries were not being constantly pressured by outside bodies like the United Nations or the mass media. The compassion of our kings and leaders shine through the fact that even without influences from those human rights activists, they gave the Chinese and Indians such an honour that they would hardly get elsewhere at the time.
Secondly, Islam is granted a special place in the Federal Constitution such as written in Article 3 (1): “Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.” This article clearly states that Malaysia is not a secular nation as the idea of secularism separates state from religion. In Karpal’s statement, he says that, “Perhaps the time has come for all racial and religious political parties and professional organisations which operated along racial and religious lines, to be de-registered.” To ban an organisation which operates along the religion of Islam simply because it is a ‘religious line’ is a clear offense against the Federal Constitution of Malaysia which is the supreme law of this country.
Thirdly, the presence of racial based political parties is not just to protect the special positions of the Malays but also to represent the Chinese and Indians of Malaysia. Although it is true that the government tries to be fair to all citizens of Malaysia, it is impossible for a person to fully understand the needs of another who conform to different cultures. By having different racial based parties under one coalition, it ensures that each of the representatives of the race has a say in the government. This system is also used in the United Nations where the representatives are not just a random blend of different people but to ensure fairness, each of the countries have their own delegates to represent the people of their nation.
And by the way, if this is Karpal’s stance, does it means that Karpal or the DAP wish for the Chinese and Indian schools to be disintegrated and for the children to study under the national curriculum like how it is done in Singapore? If so, had Pakatan Rakyat won the 13th General Elections, would DAP betray their Chinese and Indian supporters by abolishing the Chinese and Indian schools?
PETALING JAYA: Singapore has warned Malaysian politicians to stay out of its affairs, in the light of the arrests of 21 Malaysians for demonstrating in the island republic.
A joint statement by the Ministries of Home (MHA) and Foreign Affairs (MFA) said demands by Malaysian Members of Parliament for Singapore to let off those arrested was seen as foreign interference.
“Actions to involve foreign parties are attempts to seek special treatment and to further politicise what is essentially a domestic law and order issue in Singapore,” it said in a statement on its website.
Singapore added that it had always taken a strong stand against foreign issues or politics brought into the island nation.
It added that it did not interfere in domestic affairs of other countries, and expected similar treatment in return.
Previously, Malaysians gathered at Singapore’s Merlion Park on May 8 and 11 to protest against the May 5 general election results.
They were a rendition of the Blackout 505 rallies that took place in major cities around Malaysia.
On May 11, 21 Malaysians were arrested by Singaporean police. The work pass of one and visit passes of two others were revoked. The remaining 18 are currently being investigated by authorities there.
Several Malaysians have since approached their political representatives, including DAP’s Kulai MP Teo Nie Ching, for aid.
Last week Thursday, several Pakatan Rakyat MPs also petitioned the Singapore High Commission in Kuala Lumpur for leniency against the 21.
Meanwhile, in response, Teo said she was only fighting for the one whose work pass was revoked, arguing that the person was unfairly punished.
She said that the particular person only attended one rally, adding that Singapore’s reaction was too harsh.
“It’s not that we want to interfere with (Singapore’s) internal affairs. If (the one person) only attended one protest, then that is unfair,” she said.
Teo said that eight of the 21 had approached her over the matter, and with some telling her that they accepted their punishment.
She added that there was a spate of miscommunication in the episode, and asked Singapore to re-investigate the case.
“We’re only pleading for the one person…I don’t think this amounts to interfering. They are Malaysian citizens, and we have a duty to them,” she said.
Alhamdulillah, I really hope that Barisan Nasional would continue to uphold the Federal Constitution as it had for 55 years long. With 46 more seats with pending results, I hope that Barisan Nasional would also succeed in attaining a two-thirds majority in this election, Insya Allah.
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.”
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 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.
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)
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.
I was shocked to read an article on Harakah Daily dated May 31, 2012 entitled, ‘Mapim: Najib layak digelar bapa liberal Malaysia’ or ‘Mapim: Najib is fit to be called the father of Liberalism in Malaysia’ for being on stage together with some members of a K-Pop group at the National Youth Day Celebration last week. Mapim or the Malaysian Consultative Council of Islamic Organizations accused the Malaysian Prime Minister, Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Abdul Razak of ‘endorsing’ the idea of Pluralism and Liberalism in Malaysia and suggested that he should be called ‘Ketua Liberalis Malaysia’ or The Head of Malaysian Liberalist because the K-Pop girls was dressed in shorts and top tanks.
In Malaysia, the words Pluralism and Liberalism usually refers to Pluralism in religion and Islamic Liberalism. So by calling the Dato’ Sri Najib as ‘Ketua Liberalis Malaysia’ for the reason above, I wonder if they actually understand the true meaning of ‘Islamic Liberalism’ or whether it is just another plan to tarnish the good name of the Prime Minister. Liberalism in Islam or Islamic Liberalism refers to being liberal in our ‘aqidah’ or belief.
A liberalist may has her or his own ideas or doctrineabout Islam, believing that the traditional Islam creates a blockade that prevent people from thinking ‘liberally’. So, it matters ‘aqidah’ and not only wrong doing or ‘maksiat’. An example of a liberalist is Irshad Manji, a Canadian ‘lesbian Muslim’ who believes that praying 5 times a day is totally man-made thus serving no purpose and Allah loves the homosexuals as they are ‘born that way’. Another popular liberalist is Salman Rushdi.
As for a pluralist, she or he believes that all religions are true as all paths of all religions shall lead to the same end as quoted by Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim on March 18, 2010 at the London School of Economics. Again Pluralism in Islam goes back to ‘aqidah’, Pluralist may perform all their duties and responsibilities as Muslims but by believing that every body actually pray to the same god they are pluralists. That comes back to the issue of using the word ‘Allah’ by other religions in Malaysia. In this case it is clear that Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim and not Dato’ Sri Najib who fights to let all other religion to use the word ‘Allah’ to refer to their their gods.
Seeing the matter on this light, I cannot understand the ‘liberalism’ idea that was said to be spread and encouraged during the event. It is true that K-Pop members were not properly dressed and Najib shouldn’t have been on the same stage with them and the government should set a proper dresscode for such events but it is very wrong to use the incident to accused the PM ‘spreading liberal Islam’ unless if the PM made a statement that he wants to reform the Muslims’ dress code to the ones worn by the K-Pop groups. So, what happened was wrong doing and nothing to do with ‘aqidah’.
Speaking about the Himpunan Sejuta Belia, it is very funny that only the unIslamic and the non beneficial programs such as the drag race and K-Pop were featured in the opposition medias but there was almost no words about the fact there were many educational activities such as ‘Young Entrepreneur’, ‘Education Fair’ and even Islamic activities like ‘Kolokium Tokoh Belia Islam’, Solat Hajat, Majlis Tahlil, Doa Selamat and Himpunan Pendakwah Muda’ marked under ‘aktiviti modal insan’ which was held during the event. Why did they only specifically highlighted the bad part of the event and did not even mention the beneficial activities. Again, I ask, is this another of their ‘political agenda’?
I do not ‘endorse’ those unhealthy culture and I call for UMNO to change and look into better entertainment approaches but I want to slam those who called the PM ‘Ketua Liberalis Malaysia’ and for writing:
“Jika ada pihak yang mengangkat isu wujudnya gerakan liberal di negara ini, maka kami berpendapat Perdana Menteri membayangkan bahawa beliau adalah ketua kepada budaya dan pemikiran liberal di Malaysia,” kata setiausahanya Mohd Azmi Abdul Hamid.
Liberalist and pluralist are serious offences in Islam and they could be consider as murtad or apostate. So calling a Muslim PM as ‘Ketua Liberalis Malaysia is really uncalled for and may suggest a very bad intention to tarnish not only Dato’ Sri Najib but also UMNO and Malaysia as an Islamic country.
The total freedom in 
Aiman Amani's Weblog 