Memberi izin tak beerti redha.

Tentang Majlis Fatwa, saya memilih autoritatif berbanding autoriti.

Persatuan Peguam Peguam Muslim Malaysia

(Muslim Lawyers Association of Malaysia)

Date: 5th January 2010

The birth of Allah’s Son- Part 1

The Malays, as one foreigner once summed up, are a people who rest under the
coconut tree with the sun shinning brightly and cheerfully upon them whilst
the wind blow softly against their faces.

This observation is meant as a compliment to the temperament of the Malay
Muslims. As compared to Muslims of other countries, the Muslims of Malaya
did not go through a period of great conflict and bloodshed to obtain
independence. As a result, you have a Muslim community who is tolerant and
receptive to other religion and races.

The constitutional position of Islam and the Malays can be understood by
making an analogy to a house owner who welcome visitors into their house and
allowed their visitors the right to use the living room, dining room, the
bedrooms, the garden, and all other areas, except, the house owner was to
say, “Never ask for the right to use my own master bedroom. It is my special
privilege.” After a few decades, the house owner has shared everything in
his house except for his own master bedroom. He finds that his visitors,
having enjoyed unlimited access and use of all the parts in his house are
now knocking on the doors of his master bedroom, demanding for the right to
use his own master bedroom, his last bastion.

The case of the weekly Herald has jolted the largely Malay Muslim community
into the realisation that their last bastion, their master bedroom (ie Islam
and Malay privileges) is now very much at stake. The positive outcome from
the Herald fiasco is the unity of majority of the Muslims coming to the fore
to protect and defend a matter held dear to their very essence, their
religion, culture and sense of identity.

The Herald had since 1986, illegally used the words “Allah” to refer to God
in its publication. Under Control of Undesirable Publications of the
Printing Presses And Publications Act introduced in 1984, the Kementerian
Dalam Negeri (KDN) has the power to introduce the Garis Panduan Penerbitan
Kementerian Dalam Negeri (“Guideline”) to regulate publications such as the
Herald. According to the Guideline, words such as “Allah”, “Kaabah”,
“Baitullah” and ‘Solat” are not allowed to be used by religions other than
Islam. The KDN then issued a letter dated 19.05.1986 instructing and
advising the weekly Herald not to use the words contained in the Guideline.
Such words are deemed as sensitive to the Muslim community and may cause
disharmony, disunity and confusion among the community especially the Malay
Muslim community.

However, instead of adhering to KDN’s instructions and advice to cease
publishing the word “Allah”, the weekly Herald repeatedly breached the
Guideline by reproducing the publication in the Herald containing the words
“Allah”.

The Archbishop of the Titular Roman Catholic Church (“the Church”) himself
admitted in his Affidavit that a total of eight letters were sent to the
Herald by KDN advising them to cease the use of the word “Allah” in their
publication which went unheeded. The word “Allah” is banned for use by non
Muslims under the anti propagation laws of states in its schedule of
offensive words. Despite a clear statutory provision disallowing the use of
Allah by non Muslims, the Herald continued in acts of infringement of the
anti propagation laws and blatantly disregarded the Guideline since 1986
until 2007. Since no immediate and decisive action was taken by KDN in
response to this transgression of state law and consistent breach of the
Guideline, the Church was emboldened enough to file a Judicial Review dated
19.03.2008 for the following declarations:-

(i) that the Church is entitled to use the word ‘Allah’ in
The Herald, a weekly Catholic publication of the Church;

(ii) that the Guideline by the Kementerian Dalam Negeri is
illegal; and

(iii) that the use of the word “Allah” is not exclusive for the
religion of Islam.

The Herald meanwhile, posted their publication online until it came to the
attention of the Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (“MAIS”) and the Muslim Chinese
Association of Malaysia (“MACMA”) who were deeply concerned on the effects
of the publication on the Muslims in general, especially as they were made
to understand by the Church that the publication was to be solely for
internal circulation of members of the Church. With its posting online by
the Herald however, meant that the general public and those outside of Kuala
Lumpur including the world at large would have unlimited access to the
Herald. MACMA feared that the publication would cause confusion among
converts due to the terminology used. It may also open the floodgates for
other beliefs to challenge the Guidelines and use the word “Allah” in their
practise.

As a body entrusted with the protection of the rights and interests of Islam
and the largely Malay Muslims, MAIS viewed these developments with alarm and
concern. MAIS is empowered under state legislation to dispense their duties
as the lawful representative of the Sultan of Selangor including to advise
the Sultan of Selangor on any matter impacting the unity and interests of
the Muslims. Having presented to the Sultan of Selangor the gravity of the
matter, the Sultan of Selangor found the situation to be sufficiently
compelling for MAIS’s intervention. With the blessings and unequivocal
support of the Sultan of Selangor, MAIS filed applications to be admitted as
interveners for both the Summons and Review. Their action was emulated by
other Majlis Agama Islam of the States of Wilayah Persekutuan, Terengganu,
Johore, Pulau Pinang and Melaka. Throughout the case, solicitors and MAIS
officers handling the case attest to the ease by which they were able to
advise and brief the Sultan of Selangor and to obtain further directions.
The deeds of the Sultan of Selangor shall be crafted in our historical
manuscripts as a monarch who has displayed a deep conscience and
understanding of his role as protector and custodian of Islam and Malay
rights, in the case brought by the Church.

The intervener applications by MAIS, MACMA and Majlis Agama Islam of States
were provided for by statutory provisions under the Rules of the High Court.
Unfortunately, the Court did not allow their application even though MAIS
argued for their inclusion under the various provisions in the Rules of High
Court, including provisions for special entry to oppose the judicial review.
The Court did not recognise the statutory duties of MAIS under state
legislations as the lawful body to advise and aid the Sultan of Selangor in
such matters of judicial review relating to the rights and interests of
Islam and the largely Malay Muslims.

The Court made a pronouncement that MAIS have no basis to justify that they
have a direct interest in the case, in total disregard to MAIS’s statutory
function as adviser and aid to the Sultan of Selangor in matters of Islam
and Muslim rights. Thus, MAIS was denied the opportunity to put forth their
arguments before the Court by the Judge presiding the case, Datuk Lau Bee
Lan. This situation proved fatal to MAIS’s intervener application and was a
major factor that led to a decision in favour of the Herald. The Court
decision meant that the words “Allah” and consequently, “Allah’s Son” were
allowed to be used in the Malay pages of the Herald weekly. The Court
decision has also set a precedent that where it deems fit, parties who
expressly transgressed and breached laws, may still come to Court
challenging the authorities’ right to enforce laws under the guise of
“constitutional rights”. This is one of the greatest mockeries to our
judicial system.

Consequently, the reaction of the Muslim community to the Court decision
dated 31.12.2009 is largely one of disbelief, anger and humiliation; a deep
wound that if it were at all to recover, would require a long healing
process.

Information Secretariat

Persatuan Peguam Peguam Muslim Malaysia

Date: 11th January 2010

The Birth of Allah’s Son-Part 11

The Judge presiding the case of the Herald, Datuk Lau Bee Lan, in her
decision disallowing MAIS, MACMA and Majlis Agama of States as interveners,
made special mention of the fact that the applicants in this case were
unable to provide concrete evidence that the use of the word “Allah” is
sensitive to the Muslim community and would cause disharmony, disunity and
confusion among the Muslim community. As such, it may be inferred that the
Judge was of the opinion that the usage of the word “Allah” by the Herald
and the Church would not be of material consequence as far as the Muslim
community is concerned.

Events that unfolded during the days immediately succeeding the decision
proved otherwise. NGOs, Islamic organisations and various other
organisations whether politically connected and apolitical were greatly
moved by this outright disregard of the Muslim’s community sensitivities.
The government, initially unsure of the correct stand to be taken, followed
the stance set by our former premier in this issue, where Tun Mahathir in
his statement immediately after the Court decision was handed down stated
that “..the word “Allah” is specific for Muslims..” and “.in Peninsular
Malaysia we have never heard of Christians using the word Allah when
referring to God in the Malay language, why are we using the word now?..”.
Tun Mahathir’s sentiment is shared by many Muslim groups in Malaysia who
questioned the motives behind the application by the Church to use the word
“Allah” in the Herald which may, subsequently lead to the use of the word of
“Allah” in a Malay language version of the bible. The other versions of the
bible, which is the English, Chinese and Tamil language do not include the
word “Allah” in their publications. As such, it seems that the word “Allah”
and as such, “Allah’s Son” are meant to be used exclusively for a Malay
language version and targeted for the largely Malay Muslim community.

The demonstrations of opposition to the Court decision that took place all
over the country culminated in sporadic attacks against Churches in Kuala
Lumpur, Selangor, Perak, Malacca and Sarawak, hinting to possible civil
unrest if left unabated. A news report dated 11th January 2010 in the Star
which states “.Some 1,700 members of the Protestant Church packed the hall
for the joint Mandarin and English services from early yesterday.” points
blankly to the age old customary usage of English and Mandarin in their
Church services, which reinforces the suspicion of the Muslim community
towards the intention of the Church in using the word “Allah” in the Malay
language pages of the Herald-Weekly and the Malay version of the bible.
Members of Churches testify through at least one blog
(http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/120961 ) as follows:- “It is for the use
of ‘Allah’ in worship and publication in Bahasa, not in English.Yes, they
had use God and will continue use God in English worship/publication but in
Bahasa, they want to use ‘Allah’ back”.

In respect to the attacks against the Churches, there have been notable
efforts by the government to pacify the Christian community whereby monetary
compensation and contribution to repair the Churches were offered. The
Muslim community generally do not condone the attacks and belief that these
attacks are isolated incidences and committed by extremist individuals.
However, similar efforts by the government to pacify the Muslim community
are wanting and the Christian community have not come strongly forward to
state their disagreement with the application by the Titular Roman
Archbishop to use the word “Allah” in Malay language pages of the
Herald-Weekly. In order to contain extremist individuals and comfort the
wounds of the Muslim community inflicted by the Church’s Court application,
a more decisive stand has to be made by the government authorities.

Although the stand by the government authorities in this issue is uncertain
and lacking in direction, the Yang Dipertuan Agong Al-Wathiqu Billah Tuanku
Mizan Zainal Abidin ibin Almarhum Sultan Madmud Al-Muktafi Billah Shah
(“Yang Dipertuan Agong”) came forward to point the direction that the
government is supposed to drive in this issue. In the statement issued by
the Yang Dipertuan Agong dated 9th January 2010, the Yang DiPertuan Agong
reminded all parties to respect Islam as the religion of the Federation and
emphatically stated that the use of the word “Allah” shall precisely follow
that as understood and complied in the Islamic context. The statement made
by the Yang DiPertuan Agong had to a certain extent, provided some semblance
of relief from the black abyss that currently envelopes the muslim
community.

The statement by the Yang DiPertuan Agong that Islam is the religion of the
Federation is of great significance in its meaning and effect. Under the
Constitution, Islam holds a special position that is unquestionable. This
special position is entrenched in Article 3 of the Federal Constitution that
states, “Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be
practised in peace in harmony in any part of the Federation.” Therefore,
Article 3 establishes the sovereignty of Islam as the religion of the
Federation and the rights of other religions to be practised shall not
encroach on the rights of Muslims to practise Islam nor cause disharmony to
Islam. The description of Islam as a religion above others under the
Constitution is aptly described by Judge Mohd Nor Abdullah in a decided case
in the year 2000 (Meor Atiqurahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Sihi & Ors
[2000] 1 CLJ 393), where Islam is likened to a majestic tree known as the
“Pokok Jati” which is tall, strong and luminous. It stands and walk before
others, its presence is in the main arena with its voice heard loud and
clear. If its nature is not as such, then it cannot be said to be a religion
above others in the Constitution.

The Yang DiPertuan Agong, in taking the office of Yang DiPertuan Agong, is
subject to the Oaths he had pledged as stipulated in the Fourth Schedule of
the Constitution. In accordance to the Oaths taken under the name of Allah,
the Yang DiPertuan Agong has an undisputable sacred duty as custodian and
protector of the religion of Islam and Malay rights.

In the case of the Herald, the Yang DiPertuan Agong, having been advised by
Constitutional experts, came instantly to the defence of the Islamic
religion and being an institution by itself, was the first to pledge support
for the Sultan of Selangor in the intervener application. The Majlis Agama
of Terengganu, being the state directly under the Yang DiPertuan Agong was
initiated as a party through its Majlis Agama Islam to the intervener
application. For states that have no Sultan such as Malacca, Pulau Pinang
and Wilayah Persekutuan, the Yang DiPertuan Agong took upon himself to
instruct the Majlis Agama of these states to join in the intervener
application. The Sultan of Johor, meanwhile, came into the intervener
application through the advice of their Mufti.

The main thrust of the Yang DiPertuan Agong’s and Majlis Agama States’
concern is the confusion that the misuse of the word “Allah” would cause
among the Muslims and non Muslims alike. The concept of Allah as understood,
embraced and practised by the Muslim community in Malaysia is totally
distinct and separate from the concept as understood by the Church
conceptually, culturally and theologically. Whereas, the concept of Allah
embraced by the Muslim community in Malaysia as defined in the context of
Muslim and Malay tradition is Allah in a MONOTHEIST (TAUHID) sense as
opposed to the concept of TRINITY of God as understood by the Church.

In the aftermath of the Church attacks, calls were made for the Muslim
community to remain calm and not to disrupt harmony. Some opinions chided
the Muslim community for their intolerant behaviour towards the Court
Decision and even advised that the issue of the use of the word “Allah” in
the Malay language pages of the Herald-Weekly has been unjustly magnified.
The nation has forgotten one critical aspect in all of this mayhem; the
Muslim community did not start the encroachment of the rights of other
religious communities. Instead, the act of the Church in bringing the matter
to Court is seen by the Muslim community as a belligerent and provocative
act and this fact should be acknowledged by all, as a first step towards
healing wounds.

Information Secretariat

Persatuan Peguam Peguam Muslim Malaysia.

dalam kes sabah dan sarawak, kenape takde sape pun bantah yer??? baru nak sedar ke ape ni?

Berhenti bersikap defensif. Giatkan dakwah.

Allah s.w.t. menegaskan bahawa keyakinan itu akan menjadikan mereka beriman. Dan itu yang didakwahkan kepada semua manusia.

Saya melihat isunya bukan pada guna kata nama Allah s.w.t. itu, tetapi konsepsi.

Ini bukan soal membenarkan mereka guna kerana lama, meredhai dsbgnya…ini soal legislation.

Tapi tak kan. Kita tahu dalam sirah Nabi-Nabi tindakan kekerasan juga digunakan. Nabi Ibrahim memusnahkan semua berhala dan menggantung hanya satu kapak pada berhala paling besar semasa kaumnya pergi keluar. Begitu juga Nabi Muhammad ketika penawanan kota Mekah memusnahkan semua patung-patung berhala. Kalau fahaman semua agama itu baik dan sama bermahajalela seperti sekarang tindakan Nabi ini akan dilihat sebagai buruk dan tidak berperikemanusiaan. Tapi itulah Islam.

Bukankah dengan membenarkan nama Allah digunakan oleh golongan Kristian sama seperti membenarkan mensabitkan Allah dengan benda lain atau dengan kata lain syirik. Tak perlu nak mencari alasan kerana benda ni dah jelas.

Dengarnya kerajaan sudah pun membuat keputusan membenarkan Sabah dan Sarawak menggunakan nama “Allah” untuk tuhan mereka. Jadi nampaknya memang undi yang menang bukan agama. Agaknya berapa ratus dan ribu tahun orang kafir musyrikin dah guna nama “Allah” dan dah menyekutukan “Allah”. Kalau ikut logik manusia liberal nih, biarlah sebab dah 300 tahun mereka gunakan nama “Allah”. Kalau macam tu biarlah maksiat ni, pelacuran ni adalah pekerjaan tertua di dunia. Itulah logiknya kalau diguna pakai secara ekstrim. Buat apa nak betulkan benda yang rosak. Biar semua ikut status quo. Tak gitu saudara?
Saya tak redha nama “Allah” digunakan sewenang-wenangnya dengan cara menyekutukanNya. Sampai bila-bila. Biarlah orang panggil saya ekstrimis. Saya tak redho.