Monday, July 31, 2017

Mufti Perak: Bubur boleh diajar kembali menjadi nasi

MM Online - Perak Mufti claims court ruling on Muslim naming would encourage adultery (extracts):

Peguam dan aktivis terkenal Siti Kasim berkata Mufti Perak Tan Sri Dr Harussani Zakaria melakukan perkara sama seperti memfitnahnya dan oleh itu boleh dihukum 80 sebatan, menurut Al-Quran

for more, read
though you don't have as he is already known as a bullsh*tter, wakakaka

KUALA LUMPUR, July 31 — Muslims will not avoid illicit sex if they are allowed to later legitimise children born out of wedlock, said Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria.

The Perak Mufti said this according to a report by the Star Online news portal today.

“So why should we go against it? I hope some ulamak will be careful as the matter has been decided thousands of years ago based on the Quran and hadith.

Firstly, I want to correct the mufti on Islam, wakakaka. Anyway, he has quite frequently failed to get his so-called "facts" correct, yes, ever since he blamed a woman (Raja Sherina) for his own fabrication about the mass conversion of Muslims in Perak some years back.

That seditious sinister SMS lie nearly set religious-motivated riots ablaze in his State, which saw him panicked (no, he was not scared of the police for his sedition, but) when he was rightfully snubbed by the late Sultan, Almarhum Raja Azlan Shah.

SIS had excoriated him on that instant, saying the mufti had frequently spoke with forked tongue, recklessly quoting un-named people, wakakaka.

His inaccurate, nay, in fact incorrect nonsense has been '... the matter has been decided thousands of years ago'.

What a lot of crap. Islam was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) by Allah swt in the 7th Century which makes it only 1,400 years ago (approximately).

Yes, it was in 610 CE that Prophet Muhammad began receiving what Muslims consider to be divine revelation, so what nonsense has the mufti been sprouting to say the matter has been decided thousands of years ago as if it was several thousand (which means at least a minimum of two thousand) years ago.

As a mufti he cannot afford to nor should he ever bullshit to his parish, even on matters such as the pedigree of Islam, but which he has frequently done so, wakakaka.

Okay, I feel less stressful now I have corrected his usual bullshit which was niggling me, so let's move on to another of his bullshit or lack of logic.

Consider his pronouncement that Muslims will not avoid illicit sex if they are allowed to later legitimise children born out of wedlock.

What an idiot! Muslims have illegitimate children (born out of wedlock) because they have ALREADY committed illicit sex, dumbo!

And not being able to bless any likely kids born out of wedlock with a decent patronymic is NOT going to stop them from having pre-marital sex.

That's the moronic lack of logic by the mufti. It's like him arguing that 'bubur boleh diajar kembali menjadi nasi'.

He is seen as more into socially punishing and humiliating the innocent kids who have been the results of illicit sex by Muslim adults, than he is in blessing those unfortunate but (I reiterate) innocent children with decent patronymics which then won't straightaway stigmatise (set some mark of disgrace or infamy upon) them as 'social pariahs' or 'immoral reprobates', those born without legal dads.

And to make his heartless arguments more 'authoritative' (which they aren't by virtue of intrinsic illogic, wakakaka), he naughtily tambah the pedigree of some medieval hadith or fatwa by recklessly saying the matter has been decided thousands of years ago.

Yes, the mufti lacks the compassion of Allah swt, which reminds us of Kassim Ahmad's advice to Muslims to obey only the words of Allah swt in al Quran and not the words of those priesthood caste.

Like many modern reformists, after comparing the teachings of Hadith to the Quran, Kassim experienced a paradigm change.

He shook the Malay world with his Hadith: A Re-Examination in which he challenges the infallibility of the purported words of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

BTW, 'purported' means just reported by someone (and not the Prophet himself) who claimed those words were from Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) but without proof (hearsay), in other words, the ahadith

His recent book, Islamic Renaissance has been published by Brainbow Press.

Kassim Ahmad also warned us that the priesthood caste who only arose 300 years after the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), would present themselves as the absolute authoritative interpreters of Islamic laws, even when its source is from the Hadith and not al Quran


  1. Muslim politicians and "holy men" think that their fellow Muslims,are so fragile,stupid and impotent that they can swing like grass whichever direction the wind blows.Like one day they can be straight and the next morning they belong to the LGBT community.

    Then there is also the Muslims themselves to blame.Instead of asking these stupid know nothings to stick it up their asses,they kept their mouths shut like mutes.So,serves them right too.

  2. There I a strong concensus among Malaysian Muslims that on personal and family matters, if there is a conflict between civil law and Islamic principles, Islamic principles should prevail.

    This does not apply to non-Muslims nor infringe on their rights, so non-Muslims should not interfere in this matter.

    1. this is the usual tired argument, namely, thta non-Muslims should not interfere in Muslim affairs as Islamic affairs do not affect non-Muslims.

      That's a fallacy that Islamic affairs do not affect non-Muslims as have been seen in (simple case) MacDonald's prohibition to non-halal birthday cakes, the confiscation of paintbrushes for fear they have been made of pigs hair (mana boleh sapu paint brushes owned by non-Muslim traders), teh fallout over custody of children between mixed marriages, the kidnap of Suzie Teoh, then an underage Chinese school student by her Muslim teacher and the reluctance of judges to rule on the legal fact of the underage kidnapping and illegal wedding, so on so forth.

      We cannot use this argument for the reason that the Malaysian community is of mixed ethnicity and mixed religions where our social interactions cannot be prevented by some ridiculous social-cultural insulation.

      As Malaysian citizens we are entitled to comment on rulings by our courts and those who show contempt of fits rulings because closing an eye to disrespect for our civil courts will see the demise of law and order in our nation. Thus we as citizens must uphold the hallow institutions like the judiciary, parliament and rule of law

    2. The difference in the legal definition of the legitimacy of a child for Muslims and non-Muslims is already an established legal fact in Malaysia.
      For Non-Muslims, it is defined under the Legitimacy Act 1961, Amended 1971
      For Muslims, it is governed by Fatwas in each State's Islamic administration. A child born of Muslim parents less than 6 months after their marriage, is by legal definition illegitimate.

      The remainding question of law is whether the Director General of the National Registration department has the power to direct that the child may not carry the father's name under "bin" and be named "bin Abdullah" instead.

    3. A fatwa has no legal standing within the legality of Malaysian laws, especially when it contradicts a Court ruling, thus the court ruling is supreme to a fatwa and must be adhered to. The NRD DG in preferring to obey the fatwa in contradiction of the Appeals court's ruling is thus guilty of contempt of court and should be charged and if found guilty, jailed

    4. I concur with "Warrior" in that this issue does not really concern non-Muslims. Although personally, I feel that the issue has been overblown and there is always a workaround around the particular civil law ruling, i.e. the NRD could just simply omit "Bin Abdullah" to the name of the child and not add any "Bin " to the child's name. Regardless, the fatawa notwithstanding, the legitimacy of a child in Islamic law is not a "play play" matter and this is clearly an encroachment on Muslim rights in this country.

    5. How blur can u be? Can't look at the BIG picture ke?

      'the legitimacy of a child in Islamic law is not a "play play" matter and this is clearly an encroachment on Muslim rights in this country.'


      Muslim child IS M'sian & should be governed by M'SIA laws as enacted in the FedConst.

      In this case, the COA has ruled correctly, as fatwa has NO, ZILCH legal standing in the courts of law whether civil/syariah.

      So, mana ada encroachment on Muslim rights??

      If there is ANY encroachment, then the RIGHTS of all M'sians r been eroded by the insistence of upholding a non-binding fatwa, that even the ummat is disputing le!

      Apa u hisap ke???

      Oooop...bagi u, tau tak, hisap rokok adalah melanggar fatwa le!!!