Protect rights of non-Muslims, Moderates Movement head tells religious authorities‎

BY HASBULLAH AWANG CHIK

Global Movement of Moderates Foundation chief executive officer Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah says non-Muslims should feel safe living in a country governed by Muslims, as Islam is a religion‎ of peace. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, June 21, 2014.State religious authorities must return to Islam's true teachings and ensure interfaith harmony is preserved in the country, the Global Movement of Moderates Foundation (GMMF) said, in light of the ongoing Bible tussle between Islamic bodies and Christians in Selangor.

GMMF chief executive officer Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah said non-Muslims should feel safe living in a country governed by Muslims, as Islam was a religion‎ of peace.

"We must return to the true teachings of Islam. For instance, there is no compulsion in religion. This means, among others, that we cannot force upon others how they should practise their religion.‎

"Muslims in power in a certain area should guarantee the safety and harmony of other faith adherents so they may practise their religion," the former Umno supreme council member told The Malaysian Insider.

‎The Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Mais) is refusing to return the 321 Bibles that the Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais) seized from the Bible Society of Malaysia (BSM) in January, despite Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail's decision to close the case.

‎Mais chairman Datuk Mohamad Adzib Mohd Isa said BSM could be charged under the Selangor Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation among Muslims) Enactment 1988 as the Bibles contained the word “Allah” – which contravened the enactment.

On Thursday, the Sultan of Selangor, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah said Jais must refer the issue of the seized Bibles to the public prosecutor.

The sultan's private secretary, Datuk Mohamad Munir Bani, said the sultan had called for the row over the BSM's holy books‎ to be resolved through the courts.

‎However, Saifuddin said that while the A-G may evaluate the issue based on federal laws, and Mais based on state laws, Muslims should also use their wisdom in handling the issue.

He said the Prophet Muhammad, whom Muslims believe was the messenger of God, had provided the best example on how to interact with non-Muslims.

‎"(When resolving such issues) I would rather refer to Muslims' wisdom in managing their lives in a multi-religious society, rather than the legal perspective.

"When interacting with Christians, Prophet Muhammad was very wise. He did not disturb their churches nor their practices," said Saifuddin.

On Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar's refusal to take action in the interfaith child custody cases, Saifuddin said the inspector-general of police must not be seen as taking sides.

"Khalid must act. He must make a choice. An IGP cannot carry out his duty based on his faith, but his position. 

"An IGP could be Muslim, Christian or a Buddhist, but he must still act according to the country's laws. If the law says he must take action, then he must do so," said Saifuddin.‎

Khalid was served a court order on Wednesday directing him to search and surrender Prasana Diksa (Ummu Habibah) to her Hindu mother M. Indira Gandhi.

Indira's lawyer, M. Kulasegaran, said a copy of the order was given to the Perak police chief to track down the child, who was with her father, Muslim convert Muhammed Ridzuan Abdullah.

Saifuddin said it was difficult to understand Khalid's defiance, as all laws should be followed.

"I don't understand why Khalid is acting this way. The IGP cannot be on anyone's side and must abide by the law.

"If (he) doesn't like it, (he) should ask Parliament to amend it," said Saifuddin.

On Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's advice that couples in custody rows refer to the Federal Court, Saifuddin said: "It is difficult to comment. Because they both (Najib and Khalid) are contradicting one another."‎

Last week, DAP legal bureau chief Gobind Singh Deo lodged a police report against Khalid over his refusal to act on the civil court's orders in two child custody cases where the parents were of different religions.

Gobind said the IGP's‎ decision not to carry out the court orders had wide-reaching repercussions as it would erode public confidence in the judiciary as well as the justice system in the country.
‎
The Puchong MP added that police had a duty to execute any valid order issued by the courts, and failing to do so would place the judiciary under threat.

"A state of lawlessness would emerge as the authority of the courts has been challenged by apparent inactivity from the police," he said, after lodging a police report at the Batu 9 police station in Kajang. – June 21, 2014.

Anwar Ibrahim: The judiciary did it!

 By:

P Ramakrishnan  

ALIRAN

The Court of Appeal did not disappoint skeptical Malaysians who have always viewed the judiciary with suspicion. This guilty verdict was predicted even before the case appeared in the Court of Appeal.

Umno would be happy that Anwar was finally stopped from contesting in the Kajang by-election. What they could not achieve politically has now been realised through the judiciary.

The guilty verdict was delivered late and Anwar was sentenced to five years jail; nevertheless, a stay of execution was granted pending appeal with bail of RM10,000. This may rule out Anwar from filing his nomination papers on Tuesday, 11 March 2014. But if Anwar presents the nomination papers on the day, which he is entitled to under the Constitution, the Election Commission may not exercise its judicial discretion to allow him to contest.

The majority of Malaysians will have to endure this unjust and unfair outcome, which would kill off Anwar’s political career. But they must never, ever lose hope that perhaps this is what we needed to finally convince us that it is truly time to get rid of this corruption-ridden Barisan Government that has destroyed all that we value and love.

This burden of responsibility will begin in Kajang when polling takes place on 23 March 2014. Malaysian citizens in Kajang must reflect the abhorrence felt to the BN rule by overwhelmingly voting for the Opposition candidate whoever that may be. Let this by-election be a referendum on Najib’s leadership and a public censure against BN’s policies. Let’s make it abundantly clear that we are opposed to the BN’s leadership and its divide-and-rule policies.

Napoleon 1 remarked, “To be just is not simply doing right, the governed must be convinced that it is right.

As far as caring Malaysians are concerned, what was done was not right and we are not convinced that it was so.
 

Why 2014 is not 1969 and 513 won’t replay

Wong Chin Huat

 Clearly, many politicians do not believe that the specter of May 13 had been buried after the 2008 Tsunami and/or the 2011 Bersih 2.0 Rally. Or perhaps, they just don’t want to do so.

And the firebomb attack of the Church of Assumption in Penang perhaps just makes a stronger case for this fear of riot.

Lest anyone overlook, Umno’s weapon to defend its regime is not just 3Rs – Race, Religion and Royalty – to mobilise the Malay-Muslims. It has actually 4Rs, the fourth one is of course Riot, which aims to scare the ethnic minorities and middle-ground voters across the board.

To threaten riot in the past would require a “perceived challenge” on the sensitive issues like Bumiputeraism, Islam and royalty. Under Najib the Moderate, the threshold has been much lowered. Even vegetarian offers can make bloods boiling.

The logic now goes:

1. Although my leader likes “kangkung”, you feeding my leader “kangkung” is insulting him.

2. Since my leader is a Malay, you insulting him is insulting all Malays.

Insulting Malays? That is of course a good enough excuse to stage an intimidating protest to demand an apology for feeding the great leader Kangkung or to threaten a replay of May 13. And our police who are known to be tough on protesters just watched and did nothing, ensuring the complete unrestrained freedom of assembly for the anti-kangkung protesters.

Unlike the expensive “The Wolf of Wall Street”, this “Wolves of the Kangkung Street” drama is much low cost. It nevertheless strikes to drive home one message: May 13 is near; we must do whatever necessary to avoid this!

How to avoid May 13? Basically two solutions are offered.

The first is a return to authoritarianism. For politicians like Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the communal tension today has all got to do with liberalisation and democratisation. If we roll back free speech and human rights (of course, the likes of Perkasa and Isma will always have their maximum right), bring back ISA, everyone will toe the government’s line, and Perkasa and Isma don’t have to demonstrate, and peace shall prevail.

The second is grand coalition. The talk of national reconciliation, if happened behind closed doors and smoked rooms, may well be the first step of some power-sharing arrangement. Just not long ago we read reports about the failure of such negotiations which started soon after May 5, and no one openly denied it.

Both these solutions point to one common goal – peace without politics. When everyone gets silenced, or when every major party gets to share power in the government, of course we won’t hear any quarrels, because we virtually won’t have politics. And without politics, we won’t have democracy!

Before politicians continue to fool us to think that 2014 can be the replay of 1969, let us look back at what happened in 1969.

Malay – not Chinese – desertion of Alliance

To set the record straight, there was no more Chinese desertion of the Alliance (the forerunner of BN) in 1969 than in 1964.

In the 1964 Malayan parliamentary election, the four non-Malay-based opposition parties – namely the Socialist Front, the People’s Action Party (PAP), the United Democratic Party (UDP) and the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) – won 25.82% of votes.

By the 1969 election, the SF was dissolved, its Chinese-majority component Labour Party boycotted the election while its Malay-majority component Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM) soldiered on in a small number of constituencies. UDP too met its demise while its key leader Lim Chong Eu set up a new party called Gerakan. As a result of the expulsion of Singapore in 1965, PAP was succeeded by Democratic Action Party (DAP). Only PPP stayed the same.

But adding together the three non-Malay-based opposition parties, DAP, Gerakan and PPP, one would get 25.88% of votes in the Peninsula, marking a 0.06% point increase compared to their forerunners five years ago.

What actually happened in 1969 was a desertion of the Alliance by Malay voters. In 1964, PAS and the only other Malay opposition party, Parti Negara, won between them 14.99% of Malayan votes. (PRM is counted as part of Socialist Front here).

By 1969, Parti Negara finished its journey while PRM joined the field of Malay-based opposition parties. PAS and PRM together won 25.02% of Penisular Malaysia votes, marking an increase of 10.03% points compared to the Malay-based opposition in 1964.

Specifically, PAS won 9.10% points more of Peninsular Malaysia votes while Umno lost 4.64% points. And the ratio of Umno:PAS vote share had diminished from more than 8:3 to less than 3:2.

A two-party system in Malay politics was almost established, and Umno’s monopoly of Malay representation almost ended, if not because of the May 13 riot.

What has not changed – illusion created by electoral system

Why did we always see the 1969 election as one of Chinese revolt against Umno?

Merely because of our electoral system. The gain of PAS merely translated from nine parliamentary seats to 12 while the three non-Malay-based opposition parties saw a jump from 6 to 22.

In 2013, PKR and PAS respectively won 20.39% and 14.77% of federal votes. Together, they won nearly 20% points more than DAP’s 15.71%. However in terms of seats, PKR and PAS merely won 6% points more than DAP.

The “Chinese Tsunami” in 2013 and 1969 (although Najib was not there to coin the word) was very much a perception created by our highly-distorting electoral system. Like visual illusions, the electoral system successfully created a post-election impression of Malays being under siege.

But this is as much as 2013 is similar to 1969.

What has changed – inter-communal solidarity

What has fundamentally changed between 1969 and 2013 is the ethnic relations. Contrary to so many people’s view of worsening ethnic relations today, this is not true.

In 1969, while there were anecdotes of Malays and Chinese protecting their neighbours from the other side of the ethnic divide from attacks of their fellow co-ethnics, there was not anything comparable to Pakatan Rakyat.

There was not any move between PAS and three non-Malay opposition parties to form a coalition to defuse the political tension. Then, Gerakan leaders handed an olive branch to Umno, but not to PAS.

Certainly there was no PAS’ Unit Amal or Angkatan Muda Keadilan (AMK) to vow dying to protect the Chinese from any Malay ultra-nationalist thugs.

The very reason why May 13 would not replay in Malaysia is the very fact Mahathir laments – there will be no Malay unity to start an ethno-religious warfare.

While a small group of Malays may be blood thirsty and may even want to package their violence in the name of Allah, true Muslims will stand up and stop them.

Many Chinese were politically transformed after the baptism of tear gas and water cannon in Bersih 2.0 rally, the first street rally since 1969 which saw massive Chinese participation.

While most of these Chinese might have grown up being brainwashed that both Malays and politics were dangerous, they realised some Malays in politics – like PAS’ Unit Amal and other Bersih supporters – not only were far from dangerous, but the most trustworthy allies.

Many still remember the legendary anecdote of how a Malay man who found a way out of Tung Shin Hospital at its backyard and shouted to his fellow protesters who were running away from police violence: “Cina lari dulu!”

Why? The most moving version was “If there must be bloodshed today, let it be Malays’ blood. Malaysia cannot afford to have a second May 13!”

To me, a new nation Malaysia 2.0 was born when this unsung hero – no one knows his name – offered himself to save his fellow countrymen and women of different ethnicity and faith.

He and plenty other Malaysian patriots out there are the very reason why Malaysia won’t have a second May 13. It’s a shame that some Pakatan leaders actually forgot about the difference that Pakatan has helped greatly to make.

Happy and Fearless New Year!

According to Chinese ancient legend, “Year” was a monster that came to snatch people and eat them alive once a year. And firecrackers were the weapon to scare the monster away.

For this Chinese New Year, I wish all Malaysians, no matter how old or young you are, to be free from this fear of May 13. Light the firecracker in your heart if necessary.

You cannot find the firecracker?

So how? Macam mana?

Just join the next demonstration. When you find yourself standing up with other Malaysians peacefully demanding a better life – not just cheaper kangkung – your fear will vanish!

Dr Wong Chin Huat is a political scientist at Penang Institute. He believes the most relevant question to ask in Malaysian politics may not be "why", but "so how

When Malaysians should ignore Dr Mahathir’s thoughts on Kajang

THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

It is a free country. Correction. It is a relatively free country. As such, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad is free to articulate his views on anything, the weather in the North Pole to the quality of leadership in the country.

But Malaysians are free to disagree and reject whatever escapes from his lips these days.

Even a show of disdain would not be out of place for this political chameleon, who, day by day, shows a convenient ability to forget that many of the country's ills were sowed and took root during his time.

When he laments about the self-serving nature of Umno politicians and the money-grabbing culture of politics today, Dr Mahathir hopes that we forget about the obscene wealth amassed by his ministers and members of his inner circle.

When he talks about how Christians are being unreasonable by insisting on using the word “Allah”, Dr Mahathir hopes that we forget that his government in the late 1980s allowed the prohibition on the use of the word by Christians be held in abeyance.

When he complaints about rising racial and religious tension, Dr Mahathir hopes that we forget that he is the patron of Perkasa, the right-wing group that has only one brief: to divide this country.

Now, the former prime minister is giving Malaysians his two cents’ worth on the Kajang by-election.

He is entitled to poke fun at Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and call him whatever he wants. But the minute he talks rubbish, he should be called out.

Today, he urged the voters of Kajang to give MCA a chance. Why?

Because according to him the Barisan Nasional (BN) component party is trying to make a comeback after its dismal performance. Really?

One can only guess with his elastic sense of right and wrong, bartering for positions between Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai is evidence of a party on a comeback trail.

Can you imagine how selfish and self-absorbed these two MCA leaders are that they are carving out largesse for themselves even after their party was rejected by the community for being self-serving?

Liow is listless while Dr Chua... well, the less said about Dr Chua, the better.

But here is Dr Mahathir, hoping that Malaysians will give these self-serving individuals another chance.

But nothing should surprise Malaysians about Dr Mahathir. He will always speak his mind and offer unsolicited advice.

As a general rule, Malaysians should do the opposite of what he wants. After all, the man has an elastic view of what is right and wrong. – January 31, 2014.

Besmirching Allah’s Name By Trying to Protect It

By Imam Muhammad Musri
 
I’m not Malaysian. I haven’t visited Malaysia. Nor have I engaged in intense academic study about Malaysia. So I don’t claim to be an expert on all the local dynamics that led Malaysia’s high court in October 2013 to declare it illegal for non-Muslims to refer to God as Allah, which led recently to hundreds of Bibles being seized from a Christian group because they used the world “Allah” to refer to God.
But I am a Muslim scholar and an Imam who has memorized the Qur’an. And I’m fully convinced that the Malaysian court’s decision runs counter to the core values and spirit of Islam. Moreover, I call on the Malaysian high court when it hears the appeal on February 24, to correct what I believe is a tragic mistake.
My understanding is that, because of their use of the word Allah to refer to God, certain non-Muslims have been accused of trying to mask their true identity and, by stealth, woo Muslims away from the Islamic faith.

To the degree that the accusations are true, such behavior should be condemned–not because other faith traditions don’t have the right to engage Muslims in religious dialogue in the hope of converting them, but because misrepresentation is always unacceptable. Honesty is a clearly established moral expectation in the holy writings of every major world religion.
Fraud deserves appropriate penalties. But making it illegal to refer to God as Allah is not an appropriate solution for fraud — if indeed fraud is the real problem. Could the real problem be the anger of poor Malay Muslims over the rising prices of fuel and basic commodities? And could this be an attempt by some in the Malaysian government to deflect that anger?
In the same way that God is referred to as Dios in Spanish and Dieu in French, Allah is the name for God in Arabic. Dios, Dieu and Allah are not three distinct beings in a pantheon of gods. They’re simply references to the deity that in English we call God.
When cultures overlap, it’s not uncommon for words to pass from one culture to another — which is precisely what has happened in Malaysia. Because Islam has for so long been the predominant religion of the region, centuries ago the name “Allah” became the standard term used by Malaysians to refer to God.
Non-Muslim faiths use the name “Allah” in their spoken liturgies and printed materials. It’s the word used for God not only in the Malaysian, but also Arabic, Urdu, Farsi, Turkish, and many other translations of both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.
People called God as “Allah” before the Prophet Muhammad began teaching Islam. In the Qur’an (43:87), God stated: “And if you (Muhammad) asked them who created them, they would surely say, Allah!” Therefore, everyone has the right to call God “Allah” not just Muslims. As a Muslim, I feel honored that when our beloved faith arrived in Malaysia centuries ago it made such an impact that the entire population adopted our term for God.
What concerns me about the court’s decisions is that a word that has been so fully embraced, and that should symbolize the ultimate in love and justice, could in the minds of some come to symbolize hate and oppression. Punishing for the use of a word that’s so ingrained in the daily life and worship of non-Muslims guarantees a backlash.
The Malaysian high court’s decision goes contrary to what “Allah” commended in the Qur’an (3:64) Muslims to do: “Say: O’ People of the Book! Come to a common word between us and you: that we worship none but Allah!” The court’s decision is not only wrong, but it is besmirching Allah’s Name!
___
Imam Muhammad Musri is president of American-Islam and of the Islamic Society of Central Florida, one of “The Three Wise Guys” on the Orlando-based public radio program “Friends Talking Faith,” and a member of the advisory board of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.