Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Fightback has begun

TMI - In civil v Shariah debate, Malaysia’s constitution is secular, forum told 

Malaysia’s constitution is secular and it is not an Islamic state, said prominent lawyers and a politician today, in response to recent attempts to give Muslim law a bigger presence in the country’s legal system.

As such, said Bar Council member Datuk Khutubul Zaman Bukhari, any state enactment passed or fatwa (decree) issued that is contrary to this principle would be ultra vires or in contradiction with the constitution.

Khutubul, who heads the Bar Council's Shariah Law committee, said this was further established by a ruling made by former Federal Court Lord President Tun Salleh Abas in a court case. 

Echoing Khutubul’s opinion, another panel member, former Cabinet minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah said the problem stemmed from the fact that some politicians did not realise that the constitution was secular.

this good bloke was ABU-ed for a bloke like PAS' Ustaz Nasrudin Hassan At-Tantawi who's known for his obsession against Valentine's Day, who made the moronic accusation that babies abandoned through illicit births had been the results of Valentine's Day and New Year's Day celebrations, and who made reckless baseless attack against a Pakatan ally, Lim Guan Eng

For more, read 
ABU kicked out Saifuddin Abdullah for Ustaz Nasrudin Hassan

Stupid bunch of ABU shitheads

“The problem is that some people want the constitution to behave like it is an Islamic state constitution when it is not.

“You cannot look at the constitution and force it to do something that it was not meant to do,” said Saifuddin, who is chairman of the Global Movement of Moderates (GMM).

The fightback has begun, thanks to 25 Eminent Malaysians!

Read also my previous post Give 'em enough rope ... and the comments, wakakaka.

you wimps can't even handle a few mullahs?
look dumbos, I sorted out a pack of royals lah, you wuss



  1. Whats your najib take on this?
    Secular or islamic country?

  2. The country needs strong leaders of Mahathir's calibre.There are some good and bad sides of Mahathir.Strong leadership is one on his good side.None of his critics can deny this.At present I see none of this type of leaders in BN or PR.

    1. Oh put a cork in it. Hehehe.

    2. Oh strong that the judiciary became a poodle to his bidding, so strong that he gave the green light to his education minister to run rough shot over the Chinese schools the outcome of it being over 100+ landed in jail, so strong that he could change the demographics of a state seemingly overnight by issuing a blue card, so strong that it is rumoured that he had a little black book on all his ministers to keep them in line, so strong that he could waste over 100 billion with impunity the rakyat's money. Just because he managed to de-claw the royals does not give him licence to start the rot in this country.

      All the rot started with this 'strongman'. And now he's still strong even in retirement.....look at his billionaire sons ( nobody could touch them as they continue to get filthy rich by the minute), look at how he control the media, look at how he's trying to bring down yet another sitting PM.

      The answer is not another strongman. But also not that current sitting wimp, lol

  3. Most (not ALL of course, because there will always be exceptions in life) mullahs are noted to have a big mouth but a small brain. And they love putting their foot in it. ;-)

    That's because religious study is an "easy" subject as compared to hard subjects like science and mathematics. Most students who take up religious study can be assured of a pass.

    The mullahs are untouchable because they are a protected species. They have a symbiotic relationship with their powerful protectors: they protect their protectors, and in turn their protectors protect them. That's why the mullahs can blurt out all kinds of astonishing claims but suffer no consequences.

  4. It is shariah vs civil. It is NOT about the Federal Constitution, or is it?

    It is about secular vs religious. It is NOT about Islamic Renaissance, or is it?

    It is indeed about faiths. But it is NOT about a clash of faiths, which is now has come to the level that forces us to take side, or is it?

    It is not about Islamic State vs a Secular State, or is it?

    I have always thought that a dual banking system (Islamic vs Conventional) should not be allowed to exist because this will dislocate the economy. But I was wrong. Now, if I were to follow the above logic and success, why can’t we have a dual legal system then? Mind you, we are amongst the largest sukuk issuers in the world.

    Let us be reminded that people and businesses adapt and adjust, and even more quickly in inevitable conditions.

    By the way what’s wrong to have ulamas or the “priesthood caste” if they strictly follow the due process of the law? Look dumbos, it is just a debate lah, you wuss. Wakakaka…

    - hasan

    1. The priesthood caste has exploited its teflon coating to brazenly and unconstitutionally intrude into domains governed by civil laws, even presumptuously claiming their brand is on par with civil laws, where the Constitution doesn't allow them that claim. Until recent times, the two sets of laws exist together BUT with the rule that civil laws have primary powers and syariah laws being subordinate to it.

      Because of the increasing but unconstitutional claims of the mullahs for syariah laws, there is a constitutional/legal issue existing, and only because of sinister politics and bullying through the unquestionable powers of religion.

      I am glad this constitutional intrusion has been brought to the forefront for a resolution. Even if the powers that be lacks the guts and the foresight to resolve it, at least it's a major first step for Malaysiankind.

    2. - hasan,

      You might already have seen it, but if not, Farouk A. Peru's open letter to the 25 prominent Malays (re-published in OutSyed The Box blog) provides a penetrating and brilliant analysis of the matter. The following remarks in his letter stand out:

      "....... Shariah law is developed under an imperialist system. The Islamic empire of the time was expansionist and needed its law to be supreme in order to strengthen its imperial grip. It is worth noting that these laws are usually against the letter and spirit of the Quran."

      "The second thing to note is that Shariah law is also against the Federal Constitution itself. The biggest example of this is the issue of freedom of religion. While this freedom is guaranteed in the Federal Constitution, it is forcibly taken away from Malay-Muslims by Shariah law."

      "....... Shariah laws are not the legal expression of Islam but rather a force which undermines Islam's very spirit."


  5. tokio-rain,

    you would not understand even if I were to explain to you word by word.Hehehe.

    1. Better not. You got monsterorisis, where the mouth move faster than the brain. Hehehe.

  6. If Muslim school children get to interact with more non-Muslims at an early age, the exclusivity, the mistrust of non-Muslims may be less.... who's to say ?

    But the Chinese say they will not send their children to attend National schools because they are too "Malay"....

    Chicken first or egg first ?

    1. Where's the chicken, where's the egg????

      Yr comment typically spells out the short-sightedness of yr pro-National school understanding.

      The problem, NOW, been;

      1st - The standard of the National schools r clearly dubious. Even those elite sekolah kawalan, especially those excellent colonial remanent mission schools r now a shadow of the past.

      2nd - The consistent arabalization of the national school. There is nothing wrong having Muslim students. But it is definitely VERY BAD NEWS when a school implements strict mono-religious practices throughout, never for a minute knowing that the school SHOULD be secular as there r other faith-followers within the school populace.

      This is where yr interpretation of the National schools r too "Malay"!

      So, once again where's the egg & where's the chick?????