Kenyataan Akhbar MuslimUPRo – 25 Okt 2013

Kenyataan Akhbar MuslimUPRo

25 Oktober 2013

Sesi Semakan Berkala Sejagat bagi Malaysia di Majlis Hak Asasi Manusia, Geneva, Switzerland pada 24 Oktober 2013

Sesi pusingan kedua tahun 2013 pembentangan laporan Semakan Berkala Sejagat (UPR) kepada kumpulan kerja UPR sesi ke 17 melibatkan giliran Malaysia telahpun selesai pada hari Khamis, 24 Oktober 2013 jam 6 petang (waktu Geneva). Semakan tersebut yang berlangsung selama tiga jam telah menyaksikan kehadiran ramai di kalangan 47 negara-negara yang menggangotai Majlis Hak Asasi Manusia (OHCHR) serta tidak kurang 50 negara-negara anggota Pertubuhan Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu (PBB) yang lain. Sesi bagi giliran Malaysia tersebut telah dipengerusikan Naib Presiden Majlis Hak Asasi Manusia PBB, H.E. Ms. Iruthisham ADAM dari negara Maldives, manakala ketua perwakilan Malaysia telah diwakili Dato’ Ho May Yong, Timbalan Setiausaha Hal Ehwal Pelbagai Hala dan wakil-wakil dari pelbagai agensi dan jabatan kerajaan yang berkaitan.

Buat pertama kali, pihak gabungan Pertubuhan-pertubuhan Islam dalam Proses UPR (MuslimUPRo) telah hadir sebagai pemerhati bagi pertubuhan masyarakat sivil (NGO) dan delegasi tersebut telah mendapat akreditasi untuk bersama-sama berada di dalam Dewan Plenari Majlis Hak Asasi Manusia bagi proses UPR tersebut. Seramai lima wakil pemerhati MuslimUPRo, diketuai Azril Mohd Amin beserta Dato’ Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar, Nasharudin Mat Isa, Abdul Rahim Sinwan dan Dr. Yusri Mohamad telah berada di sesi tersebut seawal jam 2 petang. Ini menzahirkan komitmen MuslimUPRo untuk meneliti setiap saranan atau tuntutan di dalam laporan stakeholder yang telah dikemukakan lebih awal serta respons dan persoalan-persoalan yang dikemukakan negara-negara anggota berkaitan rekod HAM Malaysia.

Deraf laporan bagi Malaysia akan hanya mula diedarkan pada hari Isnin, 28 Oktober 2013. Walaubagaimanapun berdasarkan pemerhatian delegasi MuslimUPRo sendiri, terdapat pelbagai isu yang tetap menjadi fokus kami khususnya yang berkaitan kedudukan Islam di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Untuk rekod, MuslimUPRo telah menggariskan enam perkara utama yang menjadi keprihatinan kami di dalam laporan COMANGO yang membentuk sebahagian laporan stakeholder kepada proses UPR tersebut. Di dalam konteks ini, isu-isu utama yang berkaitan yang telah ditimbulkan semasa sesi UPR ialah mengenai hak kebebasan beragama dan hak bagi golongan LGBT.

Pihak MuslimUPRo akan mengemukakan analisis yang lebih mendalam sebaik mendapat salinan deraf laporan bagi Malaysia kelak. Walaubagaimanapun, pihak MuslimUPRo ingin merakamkan ucapan penghargaan kepada delegasi kerajaan Malaysia di atas pembentangan yang adil dan mencakupi pelbagai isu yang dapat memberikan gambaran umum terhadap situasi hak asasi manusia di Malaysia. Perlu diingat bahawa proses UPR ini bukanlah suatu semakan teknikal. Tambahan pula, kedaulatan Malaysia merupakan asas yang kukuh untuk Malaysia melaksanakan hak memilih perkara-perkara bersesuaian dengan realiti sejarah, latarbelakang agama dan budaya setempat di dalam melaksanakan prinsip-prinsip dan tindakan hak asasi manusia.
Malaysia juga masih boleh menerokai ruang pembaikan yang luas bagi sesi UPR ketiga pada tahun 2017. Apa yang pasti ialah tidak semua hak-hak asasi yang didakwa sebagai standard sejagat boleh diterimapakai oleh sesebuah negara. Malaysia pada hakikatnya telah menzahirkan komitmen yang baik di dalam sesi UPR ini. Ini tergambar secara jelas apabila kebanyakan negara-negara di dalam proses UPR tersebut memperakui komitmen Malaysia di dalam mencapai taraf kehidupan dan jaminan hak asasi yang lebih baik mengikut acuan yang adil dan sewajarnya, sesuai dengan kedudukan Malaysia sebagai sebuah negara Islam dan negara yang dihormati di kalangan negara-negara anggota ASEAN.

MuslimUPRo ingin secara khusus mengucapkan tahniah kepada wakil dari Jabatan Peguam Negara yang telah menerangkan secara jelas, padat dan berhemah berkaitan kontroversi isu kalimah Allah yang telah diputuskan Mahkamah Rayuan pada 14 Oktober 2013. Pembentangan yang sederhana tetapi jitu tersebut telah menyatakan alasan-alasan penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan yang perlu dihormati kesemua pihak berkepentingan atas prinsip bahawa Malaysia, sepertimana negara-negara berdaulat yang lain, mempunyai mekanisme kehakiman tersendiri yang perlu dihormati. Tahniah juga kepada wakil dari Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia (JAKIM) yang telah mengemukakan pembentangan yang baik, khususnya berhubung penegasan kedudukan Islam sebagai agama persekutuan serta keunikan sistem pentadbiran kehakiman Islam yang berjalan selari dengan sistem sivil.

Kebanyakan isu utama yang ditimbulkan negara-negara anggota ialah berkaitan tuntutan agar Malaysia menandatangani International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. Aspek ini menjadi antara keprihatinan utama MuslimUPRo. Artikel 18 ICCPR adalah berkaitan kebebasan beragama dan perlu dibaca dengan Artikel 18 Deklarasi Hak Asasi Manusia Sejagat (UDHR) yang menakrifkan kebebasan beragama termasuk kebebasan untuk meninggalkan agama seseorang. Tidak kurang 10 negara telah menyatakan saranan untuk Malaysia menandatangani ICCPR. Negara-negara seperti Slovakia, Ukraine, Belanda, Australia, Hungary, Jepun, Switzerland, Sierra Leonne, Slovakia dan Palestin kesemuanya telah menuntut Malaysia menandatangani ICCPR. Manakala negara Iran secara khususnya telah mencadangkan agar Malaysia menghapuskan diskriminasi terhadap penganut agama minoriti. Adalah jelas bahawa ini merupakan bahasa diplomasi Iran bagi mengizinkan penganut agama Syiah menyebarkan fahaman mereka kepada masyarakat awam.

Beberapa negara juga telah menyarankan agar Malaysia melaksanakan penundaan (moratorium) terhadap hukuman mati mandatori di dalam undang-undang negara. Negara-negara yang menyarankan hal tersebut termasuklah Sweden, Ukraine, Jerman, Switzerland, Bulgaria dan Sepanyol.

Selain itu, isu LGBT juga terus mendapat perhatian negara-negara anggota dalam saranan kepada Malaysia. Negara-negara seperti Austria, Belgium, Perancis, Jerman, Belanda dan Croatia telah mengemukakan saranan supaya Malaysia menghapuskan undang-undang berkaitan jenayah liwat sebagai saluran menjamin kebebasan hak-hak golongan LGBT. Jika diteliti, ternyata trend saranan sebegini adalah konsisten dengan tuntutan-tuntutan yang dikemukakan NGO pro hak LGBT di Malaysia dan di beberapa negara lain.

Melihat pada saranan yang meluas untuk menekan Malaysia menandatangani ICCPR dan menghalalkan hak-hak LGBT, maka adalah tidak benar seperti dakwaan media pro pembangkang yang memutarbelit fakta bahawa isu-isu tersebut tidak relevan dan tidak disebut secara meluas di sesi UPR. Malah, MuslimUPRo tetap menegaskan bahawa laporan COMANGO yang dikemukakan sebagai sebahagian asas yang menjadi laporan stakeholder kepada sesi UPR adalah tidak bertanggungjawab kerana mengemukakan tuntutan-tuntutan yang tidak menghormati kedudukan Islam sebagai agama persekutuan. Jika isu-isu tersebut tidak menjadi masalah besar di sesi UPR tersebut, masakan COMANGO bersikap defensif serta mengadu kepada Majlis Hak Asasi Manusia bahawa kononnya mereka ditekan dari apabila mengemukakan hak-hak yang didakwa sebagai tidak munasabah.

MuslimUPRo ingin menegaskan komitmen kami di dalam mempertahankan kedaulatan Islam sebagai agama persekutuan, serta kemahuan kami untuk melihat hak asasi manusia yang munasabah dan mempunyai asas keabsahan (legitimate basis) dilaksanakan secara bijaksana oleh Malaysia menurut ruang lingkup perlembagaan persekutuan. Hal ini juga perlu melihat pada Perisytiharan dan Program Tindakan Vienna 1993 yang menitikberatkan perhatian terhadap realiti budaya, agama dan sejarah sesebuah negara di dalam melaksanakan prinsip-prinsip dan tindakan hak asasi manusia. Malah, hakikat bahawa Malaysia adalah sebuah negara anggota Pertubuhan Kerjasama Islam (OIC) yang dihormati tidak memungkinkan perlaksanaan hak asasi manusia secara total dan semberono.

AZRIL MOHD AMIN
Ketua Delegasi MuslimUPRo

Debate Over Use of ‘Allah’ in Malaysia Continues

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia – A recent court ruling that prohibits a publication of the Roman Catholic Church in this Muslim-majority country from using the word “Allah” to represent the Christian God has far from settled the contentious issue.

A banner outside the Court of Appeal on the day of the verdict translates as, “The name of Allah belongs to Islam.” – Celine Fernandez

On Oct. 14 Malaysia’s court of appeal reversed a lower court ruling handed down in 2009 when it said that despite widespread use of the word Allah among Malay-speaking Christians, it was “not an integral part of the faith and practice of Christianity.”

The ruling has sparked outrage among some Christians, who feel their right to practice their faith has been trampled on. The archbishop of Kuala Lumpur, Murphy Pakiam, who brought the case against the government, said that the three judges were “grossly misinformed” in concluding that the word Allah was not “essential” to the Christian faith.

An Islamic non-governmental organization, Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia, has responded to the outcry by telling Christians to migrate to another country if they can’t accept the sovereignty of Islam.

The Catholic Church says it will file an application for appeal against the ruling in the next 30 days. But S. Selvarajah, one of the lawyers for the Catholic Church, said it could take two to three months before the Federal Court decides whether to allow the appeal to be heard.

If it does decide to hear the appeal, Malaysia’s highest court is set to make a final judgment in the case in the coming months.

“In every case, we expect the right thing to be done but in this case, it was not,” said Mr. Selvarajah.

Haniff Khatri Abdulla represents a group siding with the government in a legal dispute over whether a publication of the Roman Catholic Church has the right to use the word Allah to refer to the Christian God. The Court of Appeal ruled last week that it may not.

Haniff Khatri Abdulla is a lawyer representing the Malaysian Chinese Muslim Association, or MACMA, a group siding with the government in the legal dispute. In a recent e-mail exchange with The Wall Street Journal’s Celine Fernandez he shared his thoughts on behalf of the lawyers representing the six state Islamic religious councils who are appellants in the case.

Edited excerpts to follow:

WSJ: How does the court’s ruling impact the rights of all religions as protected by the federal Constitution? In other words, should Muslims have more rights under the Constitution than Christians or other believers? Is that ultimately the effect of this ruling?

Mr. Haniff: Firstly, the Court of Appeal judgment is in line with the supreme law of the land, being the Federal Constitution, which pursuant to Article 3 (1) therein states as follows: “Islam is the religion of the federation, but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the federation.”

This does not mean that any other religion apart from Islam cannot be practiced in its fullest, since each and every member of the non-Islamic religion has the right to practice each and every integral part of its religion without interference by the state. This is also stated very clearly under Article 11(3) of the Federal Constitution.

Therefore, any non-Islamic religious group has the absolute right to practice its religion so long as it can, when legally required, substantiate that the element of its practice that comes into question, is an integral part of its religion.

Hence, to put the question in its correct perspective, it is not about Muslims having more rights under the Federal Constitution than believers of other faiths, but it is about Islam having been accepted as the religion of the federation, being placed at a higher position than any other religion, under the constitution, the supreme law of the land.

That is why the Court of Appeal, correctly, had to define the sub phrase in Article 3(1) of the constitution, being “but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony” to mean that the position of Islam cannot be compromised by the practice of another religion, if that practice is not an integral part of that religion.

The findings of the Court of Appeal, based on the evidence available before it, that the use of the phrase “Allah” is not an integral part of the Christian religion, would therefore constitutionally disallow Christians of Malaysia from using that specific phrase in reference to  God in Christianity context.

WSJ: Critics of the ruling say it will undermine Malaysian unity and isn’t in keeping with the country’s history of adhering to a more moderate form of the faith. Do you disagree?

Mr. Haniff: Firstly, it is difficult for me to respond to this question because, to my humble understanding, there is no such thing as practicing a religion in moderation or otherwise. It is either one practices a religion or not, there is no half way.

It is also my humble understanding that the unity of Malaysians has always been preserved on the basis that in Islam we are required to respect every other religion, so long as it does not require Muslims to compromise in their  religion.

Prior to, and since independence, there were not many occasions in which the courts were asked to determine issues involving claims or cross claims of religions or religious beliefs.

However, as each member of the society tends to believe that their rights have to be recognized, despite the basic structure of Malaysian society having already being defined by the Federal Constitution, we find more and more disputes of this nature being brought before the courts. When that happens, it then becomes the duty of the courts to resolve these disputes, regardless of the sensitivity and emotions surrounding them, in line with prevailing provisions of the constitution, statutes and laws. Courts cannot constitutionally sweep disputes under the carpet.

It is not the ruling of the Court of Appeal which will undermine the unity of Malaysians, because it is for each and every Malaysian to appreciate and understand the constitution, which has kept, and should keep, Malaysians united.

WSJ: Father Lawrence, the editor of the Herald [the Roman Catholic publication at the heart of the case], said he was “dismayed and disappointed” that a judgment could be made allowing the use of Allah in the Malay-language Bible but preventing it from use in the weekly publication. How do you respond to that comment?

Mr. Haniff: Again, it is very important to understand the full scope and extent of the Court of Appeal decision. The issue of whether the Malay-language Bible should or should not contain the phrase “Allah” was not a subject matter before the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

A Court of law, can only determine issues which are before it based on the evidence and arguments adduced and tendered by parties appearing before it. Hence, this Court of Appeal was not the forum to determine the issue of whether the Malay-language Bible should or should not be using the phrase “Allah”.

That is why, I would conclude that the decision of the Court of Appeal only goes as far as prohibiting the Archbishop from using the phrase “Allah” in the Herald, and nothing beyond that.

WSJ: The Christian Federation of Malaysia says that about 60% of the approximately 2.6 million Christians in the country of 28 million use the word “Allah” to refer to God. The Herald has said it needs to use the word to respectfully reflect the preferences of its Malay-speaking readers. Why shouldn’t the Herald be allowed to do that?

Mr. Haniff: Without disputing the statistics quoted in your above question, one must not be swayed by emotions or sensitivities when faced with a conundrum of resolving a cross claim of this nature by way of legal dispute. In any general legal dispute before a court there will always be one party who will not be satisfied with the court verdict. That is the norm.

Nevertheless, it is not the issue of the preferences of the Malay-speaking readers of the Herald which is to be considered in resolving this legal dispute, but it is the issue of whether the correct translation of the word God in  English  into the Malay language is “Allah”. This is why I would stress that if any person objectively reads the judgments of the Court of Appeal, one would come to the conclusion that this matter is not about the battle of scriptures, but purely an issue of language and translation, and nothing beyond that.

WSJ: In some Muslim countries, including nearby Indonesia, Christians use the word “Allah.” Why is there such intense opposition in Malaysia? What do you fear would happen should the Catholic Church be allowed to use the word in its newspaper?

Mr. Haniff: This often-quoted analogical reference to Indonesia or even to the Arab speaking nations, is not only wrong in the circumstances of this dispute, but is also, legally in error. The position in Indonesia must be seen in the light of the development of the society in Indonesia, post-independence. That structure of the society is definitely and undeniably not prevalent in Malaysia.

Furthermore, as already clarified, Malaysia has its own written Federal Constitution which has identified the basic structure of Malaysian society, amongst which Islam is placed as the  religion of the federation.

WSJ: The Catholic Church has said it will appeal. Why are you confident your side will prevail?

Mr. Haniff: Your question is premature since legally speaking the solicitors for the various state religious councils and Malaysian Chinese Muslim Association (MACMA), are yet to be served with the appeal papers.

Also, there are two stages before the Herald can bring their appeal to the Federal Court. First the Herald must file an application to the Federal Court to seek leave to allow them to Appeal to the Federal Court. Only upon the Herald’s success seeking leave from the Federal Court, will the Herald be able to lodge the official Notice of Appeal to the Federal Court, upon which the appeal is then deemed to have begun.

source: http://blogs.wsj.com

Jangan tunduk tuntutan COMANGO

Oleh AZRIL MOHD AMIN
PENULIS ialah Naib Presiden, Persatuan Peguam Muslim Malaysia merangkap Ketua Delegasi MuslimUPRo (Gabungan Pertubuhan-pertubuhan Islam Dalam Proses UPR) ke Geneva, Switzerland.

SITUASI hak asasi manusia di negara-negara anggota Pertubuhan Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu (UN) diteliti masyarakat antarabangsa melalui mekanisme unik Majlis Hak Asasi Manusia (HRC) yang memantau dan menilai rekod hak asasi manusia dan menangani pencabulan hak asasi manusia. Mekanisme ini dikenali sebagai “Universal Periodic Review” atau UPR (Semakan Berkala Sejagat) yang harus ditempuhi setiap 192 negara anggota PBB setiap empat tahun.

Proses UPR ini memberi peluang kepada semua negara anggota untuk mengisytiharkan tindakan-tindakan yang telah diambil untuk memperbaiki keadaan hak asasi manusia dan untuk mengatasi cabaran dalam menikmati hak asasi manusia. Empat puluh lapan negara dinilai setiap tahun dalam tiga sesi yang berbeza.

Ulasan yang dijalankan oleh kumpulan kerja UPR yang terdiri daripada 47 ahli HRC adalah berdasarkan laporan nasional yang disediakan oleh kerajaan yang sedang menjalani semakan, maklumat yang terkandung di dalam laporan hak asasi manusia oleh pakar dan kumpulan bebas (seperti prosedur khas, Badan-badan perjanjian hak asasi manusia dan lain-lain entiti PBB) dan maklumat daripada pihak berkepentingan yang lain, termasuk institusi hak asasi manusia kebangsaan dan pertubuhan bukan kerajaan (NGO).

UPR akan menilai sejauh mana negara yang disemak menghormati hak kewajipan manusia yang ditetapkan dalam Piagam PBB, Deklarasi Sejagat Hak Asasi Manusia, instrumen hak asasi manusia yang ditandatangani sesebuah kerajaan, janji dan komitmen sukarela yang dibuat kerajaan (dasar hak asasi manusia nasional dan/atau program yang dilaksanakan), dan undang-undang kemanusiaan antarabangsa yang terpakai.

Malaysia menerima 62 cadangan dalam laporan hasil, yang termasuk, antara lain, ratifikasi triti antarabangsa, kajian semula undang-undang yang sedia ada dan sistem kehakiman, dasar-dasar negara dan strategi hak asasi manusia, hak ekonomi, sosial dan budaya, hak asasi manusia golongan mudah terjejas, pekerja asing dan pemerdagangan orang.

Malaysia menolak 22 cadangan dan tidak menyatakan komen pada 19 cadangan. Respons kepada 19 perkara yang tidak diberi komen telah disediakan pada Jun 2009, bersempena dengan pembentangan laporan hasil UPR mengenai Malaysia, di Sesi Biasa Majlis Hak Asasi Manusia ke-11.

TUNTUTAN-TUNTUTAN COMANGO (GABUNGAN NGO-NGO HAK ASASI MANUSIA) UNTUK PROSES SEMAKAN BERKALA SEJAGAT MALAYSIA 2013

Malaysia semakin menghampiri sesi UPR pusingan kedua pada 24 Oktober 2013 di Majlis Hak Asasi Manusia, Geneva, Switzerland. Terdapat beberapa laporan yang dihantar secara berasingan kepada majlis tersebut oleh badan-badan seperti Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Majlis Peguam, International Commission of Jurists dan lain-lain NGO hak asasi manusia, tetapi isi kandungan laporan COMANGO (iaitu gabungan NGO-NGO Malaysia dalam proses UPR) membentuk sebahagian besar tuntutan yang terkandung di dalam dokumen-dokumen yang menjadi asas rujukan rekod hak asasi Malaysia pada pusingan kali ini.

Adalah dikesali bahawa COMANGO mengambil kesempatan untuk memanipulasi sesi semakan ini dengan memberikan persepsi yang salah tentang Malaysia, khususnya berkaitan kedudukan sebenar pencapaian hak asasi manusia (HAM). COMANGO juga mengemukakan beberapa tuntutan berbahaya yang ternyata bertentangan dengan realiti budaya dan sejarah masyarakat Malaysia, serta pada hakikatnya menzahirkan percubaan mereka untuk mengikis kedudukan istimewa Islam sebagai agama negara seperti yang termaktub di dalam Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Di antara tuntutan-tuntutan berbahaya di dalam laporan tersebut adalah:

i. Perenggan 1: Malaysia dituntut untuk menandatangani dan memeterai International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR). Contoh unsur berbahaya yang terkandung dalam ICCPR terdapat pada Perkara 18 iaitu berhubung hak kebebasan beragama. Lihat komentar berikut: “The Committee observes that the freedom to “have or to adopt” a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one’s current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views, as well as the right to retain one’s religion or belief…”. Implikasi penerimaan ICCPR ini bakal mengizinkan pemurtadan berlaku secara berleluasa.

ii. Perenggan 6.8 berkenaan tuntutan untuk Malaysia menandatangani dan memeterai International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) yang didakwa “menyediakan rangka kerja undang-undang untuk mengadaptasi obligasi antarabangsa ke dalam undang-undang domestik”.

Pematuhan terhadap ICERD ini hanya akan menyebabkan Malaysia mengikut telunjuk dan acuan sekular Barat yang memaksakan penafsiran istilah racism atau perkauman ke atas sesuatu negara berdaulat. Hal ini mengenepikan tindakan-tindakan domestik yang pada hakikatnya mengambil kira realiti dan sejarah serta aspek keagamaan dan sosio-budaya tempatan. Justeru tidak sepatutnya diberikan label negatif dan bersifat stereotaip khususnya oleh media yang berniat jahat terhadap sesebuah negara.

iii. Malaysia ditekan untuk mengiktiraf hak-hak berlandaskan SOGI – Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity iaitu hak-hak LGBTIQ (Lesbian, Bisexual, Gays, Transgender, inter-sexed & queer-persons). Dakwaan-dakwaan kononnya golongan ini dinafikan hak-hak mereka ditimbulkan pada perenggan 6.1.1 dan 6.1.2 laporan tersebut. Terdapat juga tekanan-tekanan untuk menghapuskan seksyen 377A Kanun Kesiksaan berhubung jenayah liwat.

iv. Malaysia juga dipaksa tunduk pada kandungan di dalam Prinsip-prinsip Yogjakarta 2006 yang memberikan kebebasan mutlak kepada mereka yang mempraktikkan amalan seks songsang. Sekiranya hak-hak LGBT ini diizinkan, maka langkah pertama yang mesti dilakukan Kerajaan Malaysia ialah menghapuskan undang-undang berhubung kesalahan jenayah liwat.

Ini adalah langkah yang membuka ruang untuk pengenalan undang-undang perkahwinan sesama jenis yang setakat ini telah dibenarkan di 14 buah negara seluruh dunia, dan negara jiran Thailand sedang menimbangkan untuk memperkenalkan undang-undang yang sama.

v. Perenggan 6.2 mendakwa bahawa Perkara 153 Perlembagaan Persekutuan berkenaan hak-hak istimewa kaum Melayu adalah bersifat perkauman dan diistilahkan sebagai ‘alat politik’. Ini bersalahan dengan kontrak sosial dan juga ciri-ciri utama yang membentuk Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

vi. Perenggan 9 mempersoalkan Enakmen-enakmen Kesalahan Jenayah Syariah, dan khususnya perenggan 9.5 mendesak pemansuhan atau pindaan terhadap kesalahan-kesalahan jenayah syariah dan enakmen-enakmen yang didakwa ”mengganggu hak peribadi.”

vii. Perenggan 10 mewujudkan kekeliruan-kekeliruan terhadap isu kebebasan beragama di Malaysia. Di antaranya termasuk kes tuntutan penggunaan kalimah Allah oleh penganut Kristian yang masih belum diputuskan secara muktamad oleh Mahkamah tertinggi di Malaysia. Laporan tersebut juga mempersoalkan larangan terhadap penganut ajaran syiah menyebarkan fahaman mereka dalam kalangan orang Islam. Selain itu, hak seorang bapa beragama Islam untuk mengislamkan anak-anak di bawah umur UMUR juga dijadikan isu hak asasi manusia.

Tuntutan-tuntutan sebegini bukan sahaja berlawanan dengan kedudukan Islam sebagai agama Persekutuan dan kedaulatan negara, tetapi juga dibuat melalui platform yang tidak sah seperti COMANGO. Malah, ‘pertubuhan-pertubuhan’ yang menganggotainya juga perlu disiasat secara mendalam oleh kerana jika diteliti, hanya 12 dari 54 keanggotaannya berdaftar dengan Pendaftar Pertubuhan Malaysia. ‘Pertubuhan-pertubuhan’ ini tidak mewakili suara majoriti masyarakat Malaysia, namun begitu menampakkan gagasan mereka seolah-olah besar dan berpengaruh.
Artikel Penuh: http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/Rencana/20131010/re_07/Jangan-tunduk-tuntutan-COMANGO#ixzz2hGZhs9n3
© Utusan Melayu (M) Bhd

********

Azril’s previous writings:

• Malaysia’s 2nd Evaluation under the Universal Periodic Review, 24th October 2013
• Tuntutan-tuntutan COMANGO untuk Proses Semakan Berkala Sejagat Malaysia 2013
• Ahli Parlimen Muslim diminta dedahkan kandungan taklimat UPR oleh COMANGO
• Penilaian Malaysia di “Universal Periodic Review” 2013
• UDHR and the position of Islam in Malaysia’s Federal Constitution
• Islamic NGOs To Submit Proposals Concerning Human Rights To Government
• Why and By Whom is Marriage being Redefined?

**********

• Video: Taklimat Proses UPR dan Ancaman Tuntutan COMANGO Oleh Sdr. Azril Mohd Amin 

**********

Lain-lain pautan berhubung isu UPR dan ancaman COMANGO adalah:

• Apa itu UPR (Universal Periodic Review)?
• Apakah Tuntutan Hak Asasi Manusia Terhadap Malaysia?
• COMANGO – Talibarut Asing?
• Tuntutan COMANGO Menyanggah Perlembagaan Persekutuan
• UPR: Pendirian Malaysia Sebelum Ini
• Sejarah Hitam Pengasas Dokumen Deklarasi UDHR?
• COMANGO Tuntut Beri Hak Kepada Amalan Seks Songsang LGBTIQ
• Apa Shaykh Hakim Murad Kata Tentang Human Rights
• Isu-isu utama berkenaan Semakan Berkala Sejagat Malaysia (UPR) Oktober 2013

Selamat Menjalani Ibadat Haji – Selamat Menyambut Hari Raya Korban

Kepada para bakal haji yang kini berada di Tanah Suci, diucapkan selamat menjalani ibadat haji. Semoga dipermudahkan segala urusan serta diberi kesihatan tubuh badan untuk melaksanakannya.

Semoga mendapat Haji Mabrur.

Kepada seluruh umat Islam yang lain selamat menjalani ibadat-ibadat awal bulan Zulhijjah dan selamat menyambut Hari Raya Eid ul Adha.

Pemimpin Agama Buddha dan Kristian di Malaysia Sokong LGBT?

Suatu yang menghairankan dan tidak masuk akal. Betul! Memang sukar untuk percaya.

Namun itulah hakikatnya apabila kita teliti dokumen terkini (2013) tuntutan COMANGO (talibarut asing)ke Geneva dalam proses UPR. Dokumen yang menuntut hak untuk pengamal seks songsang untuk bebas mengamalkan kecacatan mental mereka direstui oleh oleh dua persatuan agama. Pertama ialah Christian Federation Malaysia dan satu lagi ialah Young Buddhist Association.

Dalam dokumen sebelum ini (serahan tahun 2009) MCCBCHST (atau majlis puak-puak kafir di Malaysia ini) turut menjadi penanda tangan bersama dalam dokumen tersebut.

Yang peliknya tidak pula saya tahu ada mana-mana agama dalam dunia ini yang setuju penganutnya menjadi penjenayah seks songsang yang melakukan pelbagai amalan seks yang mengaibkan lagi diklasifikasikan oleh Persatuan Sakit Mental Amerika sebagai orang berpenyakit mental yang perlu diubati.

Tetapi yang paling terkejut adalah apabila Persatuan Guru-guru Tadika Semenanjung Malaysia turut menyokong perlakuan seks songsang.

MAKA kepada para ibu bapa … hati-hati menghantar anak-anak anda – JANGAN HANTAR ke tadika yang bernaung di bawah persatuan yang mengalakkan budaya seks songsang. Nanti anak-anak anda pulak diajar sedemikian. Susah kalau dah ketagih!

Tolak Tuntutan COMANGO di UPR

Sedih melihat media-media PRO-LGBT & PRO-MURTAD yang banyak melaporkan perjuangan, puak-puak yang mendapat dokongan anasir luar, COMANGO dalam UPR di Geneva sedangkan media-media kita dan para bloggers kita kurang memberi penjelasan sewajarnya untuk memperbetulkan keadaan dan fakta salah mereka demi mempertahankan Islam dan Perlembagaan kita.

Ayuh kawan-kawan semua pergiatkan lagi kesedaran saudara mara dan sahabat handai kita agar fahami ancaman dari pelbagai tuntutan puak2 talibarut asing COMANGO yang menuntut kebebasan untuk murtad, kebebasan utk penyebaran ajaran sesat Syiah dan kebenaran untuk LGBT termasuk melakukan seks songsang yang pelik2.

TOLAK tuntutan COMANGO di UPR
Beritahu wakil-wakil rakyat anda.
Hebahkan di masjid/surau kariah anda.
Sebarkan di kalangan teman sekerja anda.
Usah berpeluk tubuh dengan keselesaan yang kita ada hari ini.
Hari mendatang tidak menjamin kesejahteraan anak cucu kita.

Sokong perjuangan MuslimUPRo

Sila ‘Like” page ini:

https://www.facebook.com/muslimupro

Sebarkan …

Baca tulisan terkini Sdr. Azril Mohd Amin (Ketua Delegasi MuslimUPRo ke Geneva): Pertahankan kedaulatan Islam di sesi Semakan Berkala Sejagat (UPR) 2013

**********

Baca juga artikel lain yang berkaitan UPR:

• Apa itu UPR (Universal Periodic Review)?
• Apakah Tuntutan Hak Asasi Manusia Terhadap Malaysia?
• COMANGO – Talibarut Asing?
• Tuntutan COMANGO Menyanggah Perlembagaan Persekutuan
• UPR: Pendirian Malaysia Sebelum Ini
• Sejarah Hitam Pengasas Dokumen Deklarasi UDHR?
• COMANGO Tuntut Beri Hak Kepada Amalan Seks Songsang LGBTIQ
• Apa Shaykh Hakim Murad Kata Tentang Human Rights
• Isu-isu utama berkenaan Semakan Berkala Sejagat Malaysia (UPR) Oktober 2013

Haji Ifrad – Grafik

Haji Ifrad yakni mengerjakan Haji dahulu dalam bulan-bulan haji kemudian mengerjakan Umrah.

sumber: Tabung Haji

Semoga bermanfaat.

sumber: http://www.tabunghaji.gov.my/documents/10180/1796b208-22a1-441a-b871-62945f172ff8

Haji Ifrad – Cara-cara Mengerjakannya

Haji Ifrad yakni mengerjakan Haji dahulu dalam bulan-bulan haji kemudian mengerjakan Umrah.

sumber: Laman Lembaga Zakat Selangor (MAIS) http://www.zakatsel.com.my  PERBUATAN  HUKUM  Boleh dilakukan dari 1 Syawal hingga 9 Zulhijjah Di mana-mana sebelum Miqat  Mandi sunat ihram  Sunat  Memakai pakaian ihram  Wajib  Sembahyang sunat ihram  Sunat Di Miqat Haji  Niat  Rukun  Niat ihram di Miqat  Wajib Lepas niat hingga tahallul  Meninggalkan perkara-perkara larangan semasa berihram  Wajib Lepas niat hingga mula melontar  Talbiah  Sunat Di Baitullah  Tawaf Qudum  Sunat  Di Mas’aa  Sa’ei Haji  Rukun  9 Zulhijjah Di Arafah  Wuquf  Rukun  Malam 10 Zulhijjah Di Muzdalifah  Bermalam di Muzdalifah  Wajib  Mengutip anak batu  Sunat 10,11, 12,13 Zulhijjah Di Mina  Melontar Jamrah Aqabah *  Wajib  Bercukur/bergunting *  Rukun  Bermalam di Mina  Wajib  Melontar 3 Jamrah pada 11,12,13 Zulhijjah  Wajib  Selepas Wukuf Di Baitullah  Tawaf Haji **  Rukun Di Mas’aa  Sa’ei (jika belum) **  Rukun  Tertib melaksanakan rukun  Rukun * Tahallul Awal ** Tahallul Thani

Lagi maklumat HAJI dari laman Lembaga Zakat Selangor:

http://www.zakatsel.com.my/baru/ibadah/syarat_haji.asp

Strenghtening the Muslim position at the Universal Periodic Review

Article 3(1) of the Malaysian Federal Constitution states that “Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation”. It has long been misconstrued as a mere official declaration. As a matter of fact, it designates Islam as the religion of the nation. It goes right to the heart of the federation, her raison d‘etre.

Therefore, the Islamic position which must be supported by Malaysian governmentpolicy is as follows. Given that there are NO “human rights” available to humanity except by the permission of Allah SWT, we must believe that the human mind, unaided by Divine Revelation, is utterly incapable of understanding or even protecting “human rights” as if they were an entirely extra-religious body of philosophical knowledge.

Further, it is impossible, indeed illegal, for us to repeal Islamic values, or to pick-and-choose among them, as the consumer-oriented secular world would like, or as recent technological advances would seem to make possible. And yet, some Malaysian Muslims feel that we must accept the western movement toward secular and liberal human rights approach such as unbridled freedom of religion, LGBT rights and same-sex marriage, and absolute freedom of expression, to stay a part of the modern world. This could be seen from some the responses we have received to our short-term campaign leading towards Malaysia’s UPR session on the 24th October 2013.

It is indeed time to “stand and be counted”. There MUST be an alternative to reactionary approach, other than joining the liberal secular world. Ours is a principled dissent and we MUST start that alternative NOW. Strident opposition to the secular and liberal proponents in the United Nations and elsewhere is not enough. Nor is continuing in-fighting among Muslims over this issue. We MUST understand that the major pillars of the Islamic Aqidah & Shari’ah is non-negotiable, and we must make our stand clear at the United Nations.

We therefore need to join with those researchers and healers who begin with the inadmissability of unbridled freedom of religion, LGBT rights and same-sex marriage, and absolute freedom of expression among humans, and then find ways to return victims of those tendencies to their deeper human nature, as clearly described in Al Qur’an and the prophetic teachings. We cannot merely shout “haram!” We must offer “halal” alternatives to the widespread mutilation of human nature nowadays spearheaded by politics and technology.

In human history, this was the noble duty of the Prophets and the scholars. And yet, with a courageous allegiance to the principles revealed in Al Qur’an, Sunnah and other major sources of Islamic laws, it may be yet done before Muslims become hopelessly traitorous to their own deepest values in the name of “democracy”, “tolerance” or “personal freedom”, or even “getting along with the modern world”. And Allah knows best, as He tests our faith over this issue.

Azril Mohd Amin is vice president, Muslim Lawyers Association of Malaysia and Head of Delegation, MuslimUPRo (Muslim NGOs in the UPR Process)(https://www.facebook.com/muslimupro) at Geneva, Switzerland

Azril’s previous writings:

• Malaysia’s 2nd Evaluation under the Universal Periodic Review, 24th October 2013
• Tuntutan-tuntutan COMANGO untuk Proses Semakan Berkala Sejagat Malaysia 2013
• Ahli Parlimen Muslim diminta dedahkan kandungan taklimat UPR oleh COMANGO
• Penilaian Malaysia di “Universal Periodic Review” 2013
• UDHR and the position of Islam in Malaysia’s Federal Constitution
• Islamic NGOs To Submit Proposals Concerning Human Rights To Government
• Why and By Whom is Marriage being Redefined?

**********

• Video: Taklimat Proses UPR dan Ancaman Tuntutan COMANGO Oleh Sdr. Azril Mohd Amin 

**********

Lain-lain pautan berhubung isu UPR dan ancaman COMANGO adalah:

• Apa itu UPR (Universal Periodic Review)?
• Apakah Tuntutan Hak Asasi Manusia Terhadap Malaysia?
• COMANGO – Talibarut Asing?
• Tuntutan COMANGO Menyanggah Perlembagaan Persekutuan
• UPR: Pendirian Malaysia Sebelum Ini
• Sejarah Hitam Pengasas Dokumen Deklarasi UDHR?
• COMANGO Tuntut Beri Hak Kepada Amalan Seks Songsang LGBTIQ
• Apa Shaykh Hakim Murad Kata Tentang Human Rights
• Isu-isu utama berkenaan Semakan Berkala Sejagat Malaysia (UPR) Oktober 2013

Malaysia’s 2nd Evaluation under the Universal Periodic Review, 24th October 2013

http://azrilmohdamin.com/

Malaysia is fast approaching the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) session, to be held on October 24, 2013 at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland. There were some reports sent individually to the Council by bodies such as the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Bar Council, the International Commission of Jurists as well as other human rights-based NGOs. However, the contents of the COMANGO (a combination of Malaysian NGOs in the UPR process) report form the bulk of the demands contained in the documents used as a point of reference for Malaysia’s human rights record this time around. Some of the more dangerous claims to be found in the report are:

i. Paragraph 1: Malaysia is pressured to sign and ratify the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR). One example of the harmful elements contained in the ICCPR can be found in Article 18, on the rights of religious freedom. Please see the following comment: “The Committee observes that the freedom to ” have or to adopt ” a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one’s current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views , as well as the right to retain one ‘s religion or belief …”. The full commentary can be viewed here. The implications of acceptance on the ICCPR will allow for rampant apostasy.

ii. Paragraph 6.8 relates to claims for Malaysia to sign and ratify on International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), with recommendations to “…provide the institutional legal framework for adopting international obligations into domestic laws”. Compliance with ICERD will only result in Malaysia following the lead of the Western secular views, thus dictating a redefinition on the term of “racism” to apply to Malaysia. This overrules domestic actions which take into account the realities and historical background as well as local religious and socio-cultural aspects. As such, this should be deemed or labelled negatively and stereotyped by the press or media as merely malicious agenda toward a nation.

iii. Malaysia is pressured to recognize SOGI-based (Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity) rights, namely the rights of LGBTIQ (Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgendered, inter-sexed and queer persons). The claims of this group allegedly being denied their rights are raised inparagraphs 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 of the report respectively. There are also pressures to abolishsection 377A of the Penal Code on criminal sodomy.

iv. Malaysia is also forced to submit to the contents of the 2006 Yogyakarta Principles which gives absolute freedom to those who practice unnatural or deviant sexual practices. With regards to these LGBTIQ rights, please refer to earlier writings here  and here . If these LGBT rights are permitted, then the first step that must be taken by the Malaysian Government is toabolish legislation on criminal sodomy. This will pave the way for introduction of legalizing same-sex marriages, which so far has been allowed in 14 countries around the world. Neighbouring Thailand is currently considering introducing similar legislation.

v. Paragraph 6.2 claims that Article 153 of the Constitution in respect to the privileges of the Malays as being racist in nature and termed as a ‘political tool’. This notion is in contravention of the social contract as well as the main features that make up the Federal Constitution.

vi. Paragraph 9 questions the enactments of Shariah Criminal Offences, particularly paragraph 9.5 which urges the repeal or amendment of the Shariah criminal offenses and enactments that are allegedly claimed as denying the rights to privacy.

vii. Paragraph 10 creates confusion on issues of religious freedom in Malaysia. This include the case on the use of the term “Allah” by Christians, which has yet to be decided by the Malaysian highest court. The report also questioned the ban on Shiite followers and their spreading of teachings among Muslims. Additionally, the rights of a Muslim father to convert his underage children to Islam have also been made into a human rights issue.

Given that the UPR process takes place every four years (the first time since 2009), then it is appropriate that the federal government, as well as Islamic organisations (NGIs) always examine the submitted claims so as to avoid contradictory claims toward the position of Islam and the historical and cultural context of the Malaysian society.

Such claims as made in the report are not only contrary to the position of Islam as the religion of the federation, as well as to the country’s sovereignty, and also to the fact that they are made through illicit platforms such as COMANGO. In fact, such organizations and their members need to be investigated in depth, since upon closer scrutiny, only 12 of the 54 members are registered with the Registrar of Societies, Malaysia. These ‘organisations’ do not represent the majority of the Malaysian society, yet they seem large and influential due to their frequent mention. The existence of these entities is also illegal, since they are not legally registered.

http://azrilmohdamin.com/