by Joshua Wu Kai-Ming | Jul 8, 2014 | Law, Politics
Former Perkasa deputy president Datuk Zulkifli Noordin (henceforth DZN) labelled those who commented against the recent Federal Court ruling on the Allah issue as “rude and insolent” and questioned whether these people wanted another May 13-like riots.
Apparently when the High Court rules in favour of the Catholic church, it is alright to question the decision, and thus appeal to a higher court
In response to the decision of the High Court allowing the Herald to use “Allah” in its publication, DZN stated “I can’t understand how any Muslim can support this judgment”.
When it comes to the Federal Court’s refusal to grant The Herald leave for appeal, it is NOT alright to question the decision (eventhough the Catholic church can legally file for a judicial review)
DZN urged the religious extremists to respect the court decision, the Federal Constitution and the sensitivity of other religions including Islam and Christianity
Respect the sensitivity of other religions? That is rich coming from the guy who gave a religious sermon belittling Hinduism in March 2013!
Anyone smell the hypocrisy here? Basically the principle applied is ‘anything not in my favour is questionable while anything in my favour should not be questioned’
In all his wisdom (or lack of it), DZN labelled those who opposed his principle as “rude,” “insolent” and even went to the extent of questioning whether those people wanted a 13th May 2.0
He is annoyed by the speck of sawdust in his brother’s eye but is oblivious to the plank in his own eye!
DZN went on to say that the religious extremists challenged the Muslim community by threating to continue using the word Allah in churches and in their worship
Apparently DZN was not aware (at the time of blogging) that Putrajaya issued a statement clarifying that the Federal Court’s ruling on the Allah issue applied only to the Catholic weekly, Herald.
The statement added that Malaysian Christians can still use the word Allah in church and that the government remains committed to the 10-point solution
Whoops, looks like DZN jumped the gun when he blamed the “religious extremists.” So who is next in line to be blamed? The government for coming up with the 10-point solution? The courts for not making this decision binding upon all future use of “Allah” by non-muslims?
Although Selangor has the 1988 Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Among Muslims) Enactment banning the use of the word “Allah” by non-muslims, it is important to note that Sabah & Sarawak does not have such an enactment, hence the use of the word “Allah” by Christians there is perfectly fine and cannot be construed to be provocation as it is not illegal
*Read it also at The Malay Mail Online
by Joshua Wu Kai-Ming | Jun 18, 2014 | Politics
Considering the never ending remarks about DAP being anti-islam and anti-malays, I decided to assess whether it is true or not. My assessment is based on DAP’s objectives, policies, and declarations which can be found on its website
1. DAP’s objectives are as follows:
1. a Malaysian Malaysia concept by forging Malaysian race with universal moral values,
2. offering equal access and opportunity;
3. democratic governance and rule of law;
4. creating wealth and distributing wealth equitably; and
5. fighting against corruption
2. DAP’s policies relevant to the topic at hand are stated below
(i) “On nation building
Abolition of the division of “bumiputra” and “non-bumiputra” and the implementation of ethnic equality”
(ii) “On economic development
replacement of the ethnic quota system with a policy of “merits and needs”
(iii) “On Youth
abolition of ethnic quota system in education, the Universities and University Colleges Act and all other laws and regulations that retard the full development of the potential of Malaysia citizens.”
Their first and second objective can be contentious. I elaborated on the concept of Malaysian Malaysia in a much earlier post. Basically, Malaysian Malaysia is about equal rights between all citizens
One can allege that DAP is anti-malay because if the concept of Malaysian Malaysia is implemented, it would mean the removal of all special privileges given to bumiputeras (e.g. positions in public service, scholarships).
Furthermore, does ‘equal access and opportunity’ mean the support for a non-malay Prime Minister in the future? If it does, those uncomfortable with the idea would definitely see this is an anti-malay propaganda
Chief Justice Brian in Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co once said “for even the devil does not know what the thought of man is.” Likewise, no one can know DAP’s true intention for advocating the Malaysian Malaysia concept.
DAP’s third, fourth and fifth objective is laudable, as it is in line with the principle of fairness
DAP’s policy in point (i) was affirmed in the 1967 Setapak Declaration. Clearly DAP opposes the distinction between bumiputera and non-bumiputera.
Bumiputeras who are pleased with the status quo would use this as a supporting point that DAP is anti-malay. After all, if DAP was not anti-malay, why remove the distinction?
The real reason behind the opposition to the distinction is that DAP believes it is a hindrance to the process of nation-building (as per the Setapak Declaration 1967)
Well, it doesn’t seem anti-malay or anti-islam. However, DAP should elaborate on how the distinction affects the process of nation-building in order to convince its critics
Regarding point (ii), meritocracy is generally a widely accepted system as it stands for giving a benefit/benefits to all those who deserve it.
No favouritism is involved when it comes to meritocracy. Point (ii) was articulated in the 1981 Petaling Declaration
Prima facie, point (ii) erodes the rights of the bumiputeras. However, DAP is fighting for the ethnic quota system to be replaced by a policy of “merit and needs.” This cant be seen as anti-malay because the change would also benefit malays who are in need
It is important to note that point (i), (ii), and (iii) of DAP’s policies all touch on Article 153 of the Federal Constitution which is about the special position of malays and the natives of Sabah & Sarawak.
It wouldn’t be wrong to say that some of the things DAP truly fights for is unconstitutional.
Based on its objectives, policies, and declarations, DAP doesn’t come across as anti-islam. There is nothing stated about removing Islam as the religion of the federation or anything to that extent
However, as to whether DAP is anti-malays, it boils down to a matter of perspective. If you are in one accord with the likes of Perkasa, and ISMA, you would likely view DAP as anti-malays
by Joshua Wu Kai-Ming | May 16, 2014 | Misc
This article is in response to the seminar at UiTM in which Indonesian lecturer Insan L. S. Mokoginta gave 10 reasons why Christians should be Muslims
He said that, “Christians are betraying God unless they convert to Islam” and that “Every Jesus follower should enter Islam, if not it would be a betrayal to Jesus” (hence, the title of the article). He made some pretty bold statements which shall be critiqued
When I Google searched his name, I found out he wrote a book entitled, “101 Bukti Yesus Bukan Tuhan” (101 Proofs Jesus Isnt God). That link leads to the very points he brought up in his book. An interesting read but pointless nonetheless. He uses the Quran as well as cherry picked Bible verses to amplify his point that Jesus is but a mere prophet
In my article “Jesus: The Son of God or God?”, I provided the ultimate rebuttal to his points based on the Bible. What I dont get is, how can one use the Quran and say it is proof Jesus was not God? Of course the Quran will say Jesus is not God because it advocates that Jesus is a prophet sent by Allah
If I were to use the Bible to dispel the claim that Muhammad is a messenger from God, I would succeed as no verse in the Bible talks about Muhammad, his birth, his coming, the revelations, etc. Just because the Quran believes Jesus is a prophet, this doesn’t make the Christian’s belief preposterous. The Muslims can believe what they want, but let the Christians believe what they want as well
Using the Quran and cherry picked Bible verses as proof Jesus that is not God is like using Brunei’s hudud laws to support a claim that a person who committed adultery (a.k.a zina) in Britain is guilty & should be stoned to death/flogged 100 times. This makes absolutely no sense! If I have the time, I so go through the 101 points and rebut them all!
“Citing passages from the Bible, Insan also listed 10 examples to support his argument, including a verse in the Book of Leviticus, from the Old Testament, which allegedly forbids the consumption of pork as pigs are
“unclean.” Again this issue has been addressed by yours truly in my article: “Is It Wrong For Christians To Eat Pork?”
Instead of going around claiming Christians are not true followers of Jesus, perhaps Insan L. S. Mokoginta should start reading my articles and other articles out there that have adequately addressed these recycled allegations.
“Islam is the only “true religion” acknowledged by Allah, he added.” This is quite a ridiculous statement to make. Of course Allah would say Islam is the only true religion. Just like the Bible says Jesus is the only way to heaven and how Buddhists believe in karma and reincarnation
Each religion has its own sets our belief. It is not right to say, “mine is right and yours is wrong because my holy book says I’m right.” It’s time to wake up from your delusional slumber Mr Insan L. S. Mokoginta!
by Joshua Wu Kai-Ming | May 14, 2014 | Misc
While Islamic NGOs are shouting at the top of their lungs about Christianisation in Malaysia, all we read in the news is the exact opposite
1. Christian villagers tricked into converting to Islam
2. Forced conversion at UiTM seminar
3. Non-muslim students quizzed about Islamic issues
4. Sarawak Christian students allegedly asked to differentiate holy water from ‘air zam zam’
Does anyone else see the irony in this? Islamic NGOs like Muafakat give the impression Muslims are the victims of various strategies by Christians to get them to convert (e.g. through contextualization) when the aforementioned articles show us otherwise
Of course legally it’s not wrong for muslims to propagate to non-muslims but it’s morally wrong if you force people to convert. What happened to there being no compulsion in religion? (Surat Al-Baqarah 2:256)
The purpose of this article is just to highlight the irony. ISMA, Perkasa, Muafakat, and the likes are all painting a false picture that Malays and Muslims in Malaysia are under siege. I do not know whether it’s for popularity or if they have some ulterior motive
But what I do know is that if left alone, Malaysians may start turning against one another. How is this any different from the brainwashing techniques used by communists to spread their ideology? If I keep telling you that others are taking advantage of you and that you must do something about it, sooner or later you will conform to the lies I have fed you
I urge the rational thinking Malaysians to unite. Raise your voice and be heard. Take back the country from the extremists!
by Joshua Wu Kai-Ming | May 10, 2014 | Misc
One thing I noticed from the barrage of comments by non-muslims supporting hudud is that once it is implemented, there will be a lot of corrupted politicians who are amputated. It is a grave misconception as corruption is NOT a punishment covered by hudud
As I never received any formal education regarding the subject, I did what any reasonable person would do. I googled “hudud” and read up various articles by different Islamic scholars to gain an insight as to the topic at hand
As such, what I say is based on the different articles available online. Do feel free to verify what I am about to say by clicking on the links provided 🙂
The literal meaning of the Arabic word “hudud” is “limit” or “restriction.” (http://www.wikipedia.org/hudud). Muslims believe it is the punishment for crimes determined by Allah, stated in the Al-Quran as well as by Muhammad through his hadith (http://www.ustazabdulwahab.wordpress.com/jenayah/hukuman-hudud/)
A: Offences covered under hudud (in alphabetical order):
1. Apostasy (Irtidād)
2. Banditry/Highway Robbery (Qat’ al-Tariq)
3. Drinking alcohol (Syarbul Khamr)
4. False accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse/Slander (Qadhf/Qadzaf)
5. Rebellion (Bughah)
6. Theft (Sariqa)
7. Unlawful sexual intercourse (Zina)
B: Punishments by way of Hadd are of the following forms (also in alphabetical order):
1. Amputation of a limb or limbs
– apostasy, banditry/highway robbery, rebellion
3. Death by stoning
– unlawful sexual intercourse
3. Flogging by one hundred or eighty stroke
– drinking alcohol (80 lashes), false accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse (80 lashes), unlawful sexual intercourse (100 lashes)
(sources: www.iium.edu.my/deed/hadith/muslim/017_smt.html, www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e757)
C. Requirements for conviction
Only eye-witness testimony and confession are admitted. For eye-witness testimony, the number of
witnesses required is four, and only free, adult Muslim men are eligible to testify in hudud cases. (In non-hudud cases the testimony of women, non-Muslims and slaves could be admitted in certain circumstances).
A confession had to be repeated four times, the confessing person had to
be in a healthy state of mind, and he or she could retract the confession at any point before punishment.
However, while these standards of proof made hudud punishments very difficult to apply in practice, an
offender could still be sentenced to corporal punishment at the discretion of the judge (tazir), if he or she was
found guilty but the standards of proof required for hudud punishments could not be met (http://www.wikipedia.org/hudud)
For a much more detailed explanation on the elements of the crime, requirements of the witnesses, proof of the crime, how the punishment is carried out, etc, go to www.ustazabdulwahab.wordpress.com/jenayah/hukuman-hudud/