You are currently browsing the monthly archive for October 2015.
Tema: Mendedahkan Gerakan Pemurtadan Ummah
Apa seronok, bertuah dan untungnya seseorang yang berkerja sebagai kakitangan atau pegawai kerajaan?
Mereka sebenarnya menggalas tugas dan tanggungjawab yang DYMM Seri Paduka Baginda Yang DiPertuan Agong bersumpah ketika naik takhta jawatan YDP Agong. Apakah sumpah yang YDPA itu?
YDPA diwajibkan bersumpah berdasarkan teks yang ada dalam Jadual Keempat Perkara 37 di atas nama suci Allah …
“Wallahi, Wabillahi, Watallahi“
“ … Kami berikrar mengaku dengan sesungguh dan dengan sebenarnya memeliharakan pada setiap masa Agama Islam dan berdiri tetap di atas permintaan yang adil dan aman di dalam Negeri”
Sumpah janji YDPA ini diperturunkan kepada Perdana Menteri, kemudian kepada para Menteri, kepada Ketua Setiausaha Negara serta sekalian KSU, para pengarah, ketua-ketua Jabatan seterusnya keseluruhan pegawai dan kakitangan kerajaan.
Bermakna, tidak kira apa jawatan, tidak kira apa bangsa malah tidak kira apa agama anutan barisan Menteri serta pegawai dan kakitangan kerajaan tersebut, mereka terikat dengan tugas YDPA, iaitu, untuk “memeliharakan pada setiap masa Agama Islam“.
Adalah berSALAHan dengan ikatan tugas dan tanggungjawab mereka itu jika dalam melaksanakan kerja dan tugasan mereka yang melanggar ikatan sumpah memeliharakan pada setiap masa Agama Islam.
Namun, ramai yang tidak sedar implikasi sumpah yang mereka lakukan ketika menerima jawatan. Mereka lupa akan sumpah itu kemudian mereka melakukan atau menyuarakan pandangan yang bertentangan dengan sumpah atas nama suci Allah itu.
Itulah MURNInya tugas dan tanggungjawab “HIFZUDEEN” untuk memelihara agama Islam PADA SETIAP MASA. Bukan memelihara agama lain tetapi memelihara Agama Islam. Hatta agama anutan mereka (bagi mereka yang bukan Islam).
Peruntukan dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan secara KHUSUS menetapkan bahawa untuk usaha dan dana untuk tujuan agama hanya ada untuk Agama Islam.
Bermakna, jika anda seorang penjawat awam, bermula dari keluar rumah ke tempat kerja, sepanjang masa bertugas samada di pejabat atau di luar pejabat, hinggalah balik ke rumah, anda sedang melaksanakan kerja untuk MEMELIHARAKAN AGAMA ISLAM. Suatu perlakuan ibadat pada sebahagian besar dari masa anda seharian. Masha Allah. Untung dan bertuahnya anda yang menjadi penjawat awam. Tidakkah anda rasa seronok?
Tetapi, janganlah pula diisikan masa-masa di pejabat itu dengan perkara-perkara yang membazir waktu serta yang tidak menepati sumpah YDPA.
Ceriakan hari-hari dan masa-masa anda di pejabat mahupun ketika melaksanakan tugasan luar pejabat. Anda melakukan suatu ibadat … perbetulkan niat anda. Moga diterima amalan kita.
Ini satu saranan yang baik oleh Helen Ang supaya Kerajaan siasat bahawa ada unsur-unsur “money laundering” dalam pembicaraan kes penyalahgunaan kuasa/dana di City Harvest Singapura yang dikatakan sebahagiannya telah disalurkan melalui Gereja Subang Jaya City Harvest.
Govt must investigate Subang Jaya City Harvest church over the RM6.4 million
Singapore authorities found at least RM6.4 million (S$2.1 million) of City Harvest church funds were used to finance the Crossover Project “under the guise of donations to its affiliated church in Kuala Lumpur”.
It sounds a lot like money laundering.
The Straits Times mentioned this detail – again – about the alleged complicity of the church’s Malaysian branch in a news report
yesterday headlined ‘City Harvest Church sees 25 per cent drop in members since 2009‘.
The KL affiliate of the City Harvest church is located in Subang Jaya.
Subang Jaya City Harvest church implicated from the outset
From the very start of the Singapore investigations, the City Harvest church in Subang Jaya was implicated in the corruption probe.
This piece of information on the City Harvest church’s criminal breach of trust (CBT) has been released to the public as early as mid-2012. The Straits Times on 26 June 2012 carried an article headlined ‘City Harvest’s Crossover Project lies at heart of CoC inquiry‘ which said:
“Funds from the church were diverted to finance the project under the guise of donations to its affliated church in Kuala Lumpur between December 2007 and May 2010.
“The church – City Harvest Church Kuala Lumpur – then transmitted the monies to support the project in the United States (US).”
CoC refers to the Commisioner of Charities.
BELOW: City Harvest pastors collect a lot of tithe (zakat) from the teeming mass of sheeple … The Devil Wears Prada and loves other branded things
3G: Gold, Self-Glory and Gospel is greedy scam by preachers
I blogged about the potential element of CBT relating to the involvement of City Harvest KL (Subang Jaya) in my 4 July 2012 posting titled ‘Skandal gereja Singapura-KL, murtad, superstar dan gejala cuci otak‘.
This piece of news has been in the public domain more than three years and even reported multiple times in our neighbour’s premier broadsheet. And mind you, the Straits Times is a Singapore government-controlled newspaper.
That the J-Star has not picked up on such a sordid saga of grave public interest only reflects a conspiracy of silence – a pattern that’s been discernible whenever it concerns reports which put evangelical Christianity and DAP evangelistas in a bad light.
Nest of Evangelistas, DAP are dajjal
All six of the City Harvest church elders and pastors have been found guilty in the Singapore court of all the charges against them. The prosecution featured 1,400 documents as exhibits in the course of 141 days of hearing.
The sensational case ran close to 3-and-½ years and was the most costly trial ever to be conducted in Singapore.
Yet all has been quiet on the Malaysian front over this mega scandal. BN must do something about this trend by the MCA-owned EvangeliSTAR newspaper to black out and bury any info that is unfavourable to the Born Again Christian cult.
It’s high time Muslim NGOS concerned about the covert Christianization of vulnerable Malays press our Malaysian authorities to act.
The MACC should immediately liaise with their efficient Singapore counterparts who have successfully nailed the ‘Christian’ culprits. The City Harvest crooks are all looking at long jail sentences.
ABOVE: Church selling Bersih 4.0 T-shirts in its compound on a Sunday (screen grab from StarTV)
Now that the Singapore case has concluded with a guilty verdict, it should be the turn of Malaysian holy water dispensers in Subang Jaya to be put under scrutiny.
The Malaysian government must similarly investigate the RM2 churches too on their subversive activities, for example, in promoting the illegal 4.0 Bersih rally.
The authorities also ought to investigate the links between DAP evangelical politicians and these churches.
TETAPI lazimnya puak-puak pelampau evangelis Kristian akan cuba SEMBUNYI berita memalukan sebegini.
Kalau di Malaysia – pengemar City Harvest adalah ADUN DAP/Speaker DUN Selangor – Hannah Yeoh
Baca liputan BBC di bawah.
Di sini adalah kiriman saya berhubung isu ini sebelum ini.
- Paderi Kong Hee City Harvest Didakwa Seleweng $50 Juta Dana Gereja Untuk Promosi Isterinya
- Kes Penyelewengan $50 Juta Oleh Gereja Cuba Disembunyikan
Singapore City Harvest megachurch leaders guilty of fraud
Six leaders of a huge Singaporean church have been convicted of fraud in a case worth S$50m ($35m; £23m).
The judge ruled City Harvest Church’s pastor, Kong Hee, and others used church finances to fund the music career of his wife, Sun Ho, or falsified accounts to cover it up.
The defendants had argued Ms Ho’s pop music career was a way of reaching out to non-Christians.
They have been bailed until sentencing, but could face up to life in jail.
City Harvest – considered a megachurch – is one of Singapore’s wealthiest evangelical churches, with an estimated 30,000 members in Singapore and 15 services every weekend.
It says it has 48 affiliates in countries including Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Taiwan, Brunei and Australia.
In a statement posted on the church’s website, Ms Ho said they were “disappointed by the outcome” and the six were taking further legal advice.
She thanked church members for their “unwavering faithfulness in loving God and loving one another” and called for “a unity that is unbreakable”.
As the six leaders appeared in court, the church tweeted messages asking for supporters’ prayers.
‘Weight of evidence’
Prosecutors said the misuse of funds happened between 2007 and 2008.
The six leaders and financial staff were accused of funnelling $24m Singaporean dollars from a building fund into fake investments, which were then used in a project to use Ms Ho’s music for evangelism. Prosecutors said another S$26m was spent covering up the investments.
The defendants all maintained that they did nothing wrong.
But Judge See Kee Oon said the background facts of the case were “largely undisputed” and that the “weight of evidence shows they were acting dishonestly”.
Kong and a former church committee member John Lam were found guilty of three charges of criminal breach of trust.
Senior Pastor Tan Ye Peng, committee member Chew Eng Han and two former finance managers, Serina Wee and Sharon Tan, were each convicted of several charges of criminal breach of trust and and falsifying accounts.
Ms Ho, who was in court to support her husband, launched her music career in 2002. She has several albums in Mandarin to her name and is known in China and Taiwan.
She has also worked with US music industry figures such as songwriter Diane Warren and rapper Wyclef Jean, who produced her English album.
Insha Allah Pertubuhan MUAFAKAT Sejahtera Masyarakat Malaysia akan menganjurkan satu program bersiri bertajuk: Seminar Pendedahan Ancaman Rencana Kristianisasi (SPARK) dan akan diadakan pada 10 Nov 2015, hari Selasa, pada hari cuti umum.
Program bertema “Mendedahkan Gerakan Pemurtadan Ummah” akan bermula pada 8:30 pagi dan akan berakhir pada pukul 1:30 tengah hari.
Lain-lain maklumat akan disusuli dalam masa terdekat insha Allah. MOHON catatkan dalam takwim saudara-saudari.
Apakah sebenarnya yang telah ditulis oleh Boo Su-Lyn dalam Malay Mail Online pada 2hb Oktober 2015?
Tajuk tulisannya sudah jelas – HAPUSKAN PERKARA 11 (4) PERLEMBAGAAN PERSEKUTAAN [Abolish Federal Constitution’s Article 11(4)].
Apa yang disebut dalam Perkara 11 Fasal 4?
Undang-undang Negeri dan berkenaan dengan Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Labuan dan Putrajaya, undang-undang persekutuan boleh mengawal atau menyekat pengembangan apa-apa doktrin atau kepercayaan agama di kalangan orang yang menganuti agama Islam.
Ertinya Perkara 11 Fasal 4 adalah suatu peruntukan yang mengawal dan menyekat penyebaran agama lain kepada orang-orang Islam.
Ini bermakna penulis tidak mahu apa-apa sekatan terhadap kerja-kerja jahat untuk memurtadkan orang-orang Islam.
Apakah sudah cukup hanya dengan sekadar permohonan maaf yang dikeluarkan oleh Malay Mail Online hari ini? “Apology and retraction of column entitled ‘Abolish Federal Constitution’s Article 11(4)’ – Malay Mail Online” –.
Yang PARAHnya, dalam kenyataan MMO, ianya TIDAK LANGSUNG menyebut penulis mohon maaf di atas artikel tulisannya. Hanya sekadar menyatakan bahawa dia sedar ianya sensitif.
The writer wishes to point out that she is aware of the sensitivities in Malaysia regarding the topic of religion. She has no intention of insulting Islam.
Inilah sebenarnya SIKAP penulis. Sememangnya mahu menghina – walaupun dia sebut “no intention of insulting Islam” – itu hanyalah “lip service” atau “after thought”.
Tulisan berkaitan sebelum ini:
Rupanya Malay Mail Online (MMO) sudah kecut perut!
Mengapa MMO mengambil masa 5 HARI untuk sedar SENSITIVITI tulisan Boo Su-Lyn?
Apakah implikasi keputusan kes Azmi Shahrom yang mencabar Akta Hasutan semalam mempunyai implikasi besar ke atas artikel MMO tersebut?
Apakah begitu mudah untuk menghina serta mencabar AGAMA PERSEKUTUAN kemudian menarik dari laman maya?
Carian terkini artikel tulisan Boo Su-Lyn diterbitkan oleh Malay Mail Online sudah ditiadakan.
Bangkit.Info ada mengulas berkaitan tulisan Boo Su-Lyn: http://www.bangkit.info/2015/10/padam-api-dengan-air-liur-menteri.html
Umum sudah maklum bahawa kemusnahan World Trade Center (WTC) pada 9hb September 2001 (9/11) adalah suatu perancangan rapi peringkat tertinggi Amerika Syarikat. Bukti-bukti perancangan dalaman pentadbiran Bush sudah tidak boleh disangkal lagi – terlalu banyak pakar yang telah mengemukakan hujah kukuh secara teknikal dan saintifik bahawa mustahil untuk dua buah “kapal terbang penumpang” mampu menghancur kompleks WTC.
Namun, “konspirasi” meruntuhkan suatu tanda mercu kemegahan di kota New York itu bukanlah kali pertama dirancang oleh kumpulan elit sulit yang mengawal pentadbiran Amerika.
Hari ini sesiapa sahaja boleh mendapat maklumat tentang Operation Northwoods – suatu dokumen rahsia perancangan strategik agensi perisikan tentera Amerika dalam propaganda dan provokasi perang mereka ke atas negara Komunis Cuba pada tahun 1962. [“Operation Northwoods: Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba”]
Operation Northwoods dirancang rapi oleh pimpinan teratas tentera Amerika dengan sanggup membunuh rakyat biasa Amerika sambil menimbul huru-hara di beberapa lokasi bandaraya utama Amerika dengan memberi persepsi bahawa Cuba sedang menyerang negara mereka dan mereka wajar untuk bertindak balas.
Di antara rancangan jahat mereka untuk menyalahkan Cuba dan untuk menjustifikasikan perang ke atas Cuba ialah:
- Membunuh pelarian dari Cuba di Amerika seolah dibunuh oleh perisikan Cuba.
- Menenggelamkan kapal/bot pelarian Cuba di tengah-tengah laut seolah jenayah itu dilakukan oleh tentera Cuba.
- Meletupkan kapal milik Amerika Syarikat di tengah laut atau kapal terbang di udara sambil memberi gambaran bahawa ianya kerja espionage Cuba.
- Melakukan keganasan letupan di sana sini di bandaraya Amerika untuk membuktikan bahawa agen-agen Cuba sudah menyelinap masuk ke negara mereka dan sanggup melakukan kerosakan awam dan harta benda.
Semua ini juga dilakukan bagi mendapat sokongan masyarakat antarabangsa untuk Amerika Syarikat menyerang dan menjustifikasikan supaya Fidel Castro digulingkan.
Rancangan ini akhirnya dibantah dan dibatalkan oleh Presiden J.F. Kennedy apbila dibentang oleh Setiausaha Pertahanan Robert McNamara pada March 1962.
Malah ada andaian kukuh mengatakan bahawa pembunuhan JFK ada kaitan dengan tindakan beliau untuk tidak bersetuju dengan rancangan kumpulan elit perisikan Amerika ini.
Saya ingin petik salah satu rancangan jahat mereka iaitu untuk menunjukkan tentera udara Cuba tidak berperikemanusiaan menembak jatuh kapal terbang awam Amerika.
8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be subsituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow IACO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to “sell” the incident.
Perancangan di atas adalah taktik “sama” dengan apa yang telah berlaku kepada kapal terbang yang kononnya jatuh/melanggar WTC/Pentagon … sudah dirancang hampir 40 tahun sebelum penipuan 9/11. Ada “kapal terbang gantian” (duplicate) yang akan terbang pada satu lokasi sama bagi mengantikan kapal terbang asal. Yang melanggar WTC/Pentagon (dalam kes Cuba – yang ditembak jatuh) adalah kapal terbang gantian.
Kemusnahan WTC juga dirancang untuk mendapat simpati antarabangsa serta justifikasi menyerang Afghanistan dan kemudian Iraq.
Buatlah carian dan bacalah sepenuhnya dokumen 15 muka surat itu untuk kita faham apa yang dikhabarkan ke telinga dan mata kita sebenarnya ada perancangan sulit yang penuh rahsia di sebaliknya. Serta ambillah iktibar dari Al Quran surah Al Hujarat ayat 6.
Baca yang berkaitan sebelum ini:
Suatu masa dahulu, kita kerap mendengar tentang pendedahan “The Jewish/Zionist Protocol” (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion atau The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion), yang disabitkan dengan himpunan “minit perbincangan” pemuka-pemuka dan tokoh-tokoh zionis dalam merancang percaturan dunia untuk tujuan menawan dan mengawal seluruh umat manusia.
Walaupun ada sesetengah pihak yang cuba menyangkal dokumen tersebut tetapi bagi mereka yang meneliti perubahan dunia dan sosio-ekonomi-politiknya, kita akan semakin yakin ada “tangan-tangan ghaib” yang merancang pelbagai usaha sulit. Bagi sesetengah orang, ianya adalah suatu teori konspirasi. Namun, banyak yang disebut dalam senarai 24 protokol tersebut kini menjadi kenyataan walaupun dokumen tersebut dikata terhasil dari mesyuarat sulit perancangan tokoh-tokoh Zionis lebih 100 tahun lalu.
Dalam percaturan geo-politik era pasca “Perang Dingin” (selepas jatuh kerajaan-kerajaan Komunis), kita juga dapati terdapat pelbagai dokumen yang mendedahkan perancangan “tangan-tangan ghaib” kuasa besar. Sebahagian besar dokumen ini adalah dokumen rasmi kerajaan Amerika dan agensi-agensi mereka yang boleh didapati secara terbuka kepada umum, tetapi ada juga dokumen-dokumen rahsia yang akhirnya dibocorkan oleh sesetengah pihak.
Kita ambil contoh perancangan “Project for the New American Century” (PNAC). PNAC adalah suatu perancangan jangka panjang pihak “neo-conservative” (neocons) Amerika yang cuba membentuk suatu kawalan ke atas dunia melalui persenjataan dan ketenteraan serta penguasaan industri tenaga dengan menjatuhkan mana-mana “rejim” yang menjadi penghalang kepada hegemoni Amerika. [Apakah kita masih tidak nampak apa yang telah berlaku ke atas negara-negara utama sumber tenaga? “Regime Change“]
Jika kita himbau perancangan yang dibuat hampir 20 tahun lalu dengan situasi geo-politik dunia hari ini, maka boleh kita katakan bahawa neocons ini telah berjaya dalam perancangan jahat mereka.
Kemudian kita juga boleh lihat satu lagi badan pemikir Amerika, Rand Corporation. Rand telah menerbitkan dua buah buku penting yang mendedahkan perancangan Amerika untuk merubah negara-negara Islam menjadi sebuah negara “Civil Democratic Islam” (CDI). Melalui monograf CDI tersebut, ia telah mengenal pasti pelbagai aliran dan kumpulan Islam dalam sesebuah negara serta mengariskan perancangan dalam menyusun percaturan mereka. Ini termasuk disebut khusus cara untuk melaga-lagakan kumpulan-kumpulan Islamis (encourage disagreements dan discourage alliances).
Buku CDI juga menyarankan bagaimana kaedah berkesan untuk menjatuhkan sesebuah “rejim” negara Islam dan mengantikan serta mengangkat pemimpin yang selari dengan kehendak Amerika ( … to the alignment of U.S. policymakers …).
Susulan dari kajian CDI tersebut, Rand mengeluarkan satu lagi kajian dan saranan kepada kerajaan Amerika untuk mengambil pengajaran dari campur-tangan Amerika dalam menjatuhkan kerajaan-kerajaan komunis dan akhirnya dominasi Amerika pasca perang dingin terhasil.
Dalam perancangan licik Amerika, agen-agen mereka menyelinap masuk dalam pelbagai kesatuan pekerja (trade unions) dan pertubuhan-pertubuhan awam, NGO (atau disebut sebagai Civil Society Organization CSO). Melalui agensi-agensi seperti National Endowment for Democracy (NED), National Democratic Institute (NDI), International Republican Institute (IRI), trade union seperti AFL-CIO dan seumpamanya, berserta dengan bantuan dana yang besar, mereka telah berjaya menjatuh negara-negara blok Komunis untuk Amerika meletakkan pemimpin dan pentadbiran pilihan mereka.
Dalam buku “Building Moderate Muslim Networks” (BMMN), ianya mendedahkan perancangan Amerika untuk membantu kumpulan/individu “Islam Moderat” untuk melaksanakan sebagaimana apa yang Amerika telah berhasil menjatuhkan pemerintahan komunis di Eropah. (Untuk mengenali ciri-ciri “Islam Moderat” – sila baca: The “Moderate Baruas”)
Malah di dalam buku BMMN, ia menyebut dengan jelas dan menyatakan bahawa peranan yang dimainkan oleh CIA dalam menjatuhkan beberapa buah negara Amerika Latin pada era 1960an dan 1970an itu akan dilaksana oleh agensi NED untuk memecah-belahkan serta melakukan pergolakan dalam negara-negara Islam.
Bezanya yang disebut mereka ialah, dulu kerja-kerja jahat espionage CIA dilakukan secara “RAHSIA”, kini, NED lakukannya secara “TERBUKA”. (“A lot of what we [NED] do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA” – Dr. Allen Weinstein – pengasas NED)
Kita akan cuba lihat nanti pergolakan yang tidak berkesudahan di negara-negara Islam di Timur Tengah dan Afrika Utara pasca “Arab Spring”. Apakah hancurnya negara-negara Islam itu termasuk dalam perancangan mereka. (Bahan pembentangan slaid: Kemusnahan Negara-negara Islam – Perancangan Strategik Musuh) Insha Allah akan dikembangkan dalam kiriman akan datang.
Umat Islam di Tanah Air ini sangat perlu mengambil sikap kepedulian terhadap ancaman dari perancangan jahat musuh. Kita MESTI waspada serta menyedarkan orang-orang di sekeliling yang masih alpa.
p.s. Amerika Syarikat sanggup korbankan rakyat sendiri … baca apa yang terkandung dalam perancangan jahat mereka untuk serang Cuba – Operation Northwoods – Perancangan Jahat Pra-9/11 WTC
Syukur Alhamdulillah, Mahkamah Persekutuan, sebulat suara, telah memutuskan bahawa peruntukan undang-undang syariah negeri Selangor yang menetapkan adalah perbuatan jenayah bagi orang Islam menerbitkan dan mengedarkan buku agama yang bercanggah dengan undang-undang Islam adalah tidak bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan.
Baca penghakiman penuh di bawah.
DALAM MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA
(BIDANG KUASA ASAL)
- ZI PUBLICATIONS SDN BHD
- (COMPANY NO. 398106-W)
- MOHD EZRA BIN MOHD ZAID … PEMPETISYEN-PEMPETISYEN
KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR … RESPONDEN
- KERAJAAN MALAYSIA
- MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR … PENCELAH-PENCELAH
RAUS SHARIF, PCA
ZULKEFLI AHMAD MAKINUDIN, CJM
ABDULL HAMID EMBONG, FCJ
AHMAD MAAROP, FCJ
ABU SAMAH NORDIN, FCJ
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
1. This petition was filed pursuant to Article 4(4) of the Federal Constitution and leave was granted by this Court on 8 April 2013. The petitioners are seeking for a declaration that section 16 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995 (the impugned section) is invalid. The impugned section reads as follows:-
“16. Religious publication contrary to Islamic law.
(1) Any person who –
(a) prints, publishes, produces, records or disseminates in any manner any book or document or any other form of record containing anything which is contrary to Islamic law; or
(b) has in his possession any such book, document or other form of record for sale or for the purpose of otherwise disseminating it,
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding three thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.
(2) The Court may order any book, document or other form of record referred to in subsection (1) to be forfeited and destroyed notwithstanding that no person may have been convicted of an offence in connection with such book, document or other form of record.”
2. The petition is premised on the basis that the impugned section has the effect of restricting and/or has the potential to restrict freedom of expression, a matter upon which Selangor State Legislative Assembly (SSLA) has no power to legislate. It is a matter which only Parliament has the power to legislate pursuant to Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution.
3. In this petition, the petitioners named the Selangor State Government as the respondent. Subsequently, the Federal Government and the Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (MAIS) were added in as interveners to the proceedings.
4. The background facts leading to the filing of the petition are these. The first petitioner, ZI Publications Sdn Bhd is a publishing company. The second petitioner, a Muslim named Mohd Ezra bin Mohd Zaid is the majority shareholder of the company. He is also the director of the company.
5. In May 2012, the first petitioner published a book “Allah, Kebebasan dan Cinta” (the Book), the Malay translation of a book titled “Allah, Love and Liberty” written by a Canadian author, Irshad Manji.
6. On 29 May 2012, the Enforcement Division of the Selangor Islamic Affairs Department raided the first petitioner’s office and confiscated 180 copies of the Book on suspicion of commission of offences under the impugned section.
7. Consequently on 7 March 2013, the second petitioner was charged before the Syariah Court Selangor with offences under the impugned section. Hence, this petition was filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration that the impugned section is invalid as the SSLA has no power to enact such law.
Issues to be determined
8. The petitioners submitted the following issues to be determined by this Court:-
(a) Whether the SSLA has the power to enact a law which is restrictive and/or has the potential to restrict freedom of expression (First Issue);
(b) Alternatively, whether the SSLA can enact the impugned section in contravention of Part II of the Federal Constitution (Second Issue); and
(c) Whether Parliament’s powers to enact laws in relation to matters in the State List can only be exercised in the circumstances set out in Article 76(1) (a), (b) and (c) of the Federal Constitution (Third Issue).
First Issue and Second Issue
9. We will deal with the first two issues together. These concern the legislative power of the SSLA. Before we delve further, it is necessary for us to refer to the relevant provisions of the law relating to these issues. The starting point is Article 74 of the Federal Constitution which reads as follows:-
“Article 74. Subject matter of Federal and State laws.
(1) Without prejudice to any power to make laws conferred on it by any other Article, Parliament may make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the Federal List or the Concurrent List (that is to say, the First or Third List set out in the Ninth Schedule).
(2) Without prejudice to any power to make laws conferred on it by any other Article, the Legislature of a State may make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List (that is to say, the Second List set out in the Ninth Schedule) or the Concurrent List.
(3) The power to make laws conferred by this Article is exercisable subject to any conditions and restrictions imposed with respect to any particular matter by this Constitution.
(4) Where general as well as specific expressions are used in describing any of the matter enumerated in the Lists set out in the Ninth Schedule the generality of the former shall not be taken to be limited by the latter.”
10. It is clear that Article 74(2) of the Federal Constitution conferred the legislature of a State to make laws with respect to any matter enumerated in the State List or even the Concurrent List.
The matters enumerated in the State List which is relevant to the issues under discussion is item 1 which reads:-
“List II – State List.
1. Except with respect to the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, Islamic law and personal and family law relating to succession, testate and intestate, betrothal, marriage, divorce, dower, maintenance, adoption, legitimacy, guardianship, gifts, partitions and non charitable trusts; wakafs and the definition and regulation of charitable and religious trusts, the appointment of trustees and the incorporation of persons in respect of Islamic religious and charitable endowments, institution, trusts, charities and charitable institutions operating wholly within the State, Malay customs, Zakat Fitrah and Baitulmal or similar Islamic religious revenue, mosques or any Islamic public places of worship, creation and punishment of offences by persons professing the religion of Islam against precepts of that religion, except in regard to matters included in the Federal List, the constitution, organisation and procedure of Syariah Courts, which shall have jurisdiction only over persons professing the religion of Islam and in respect only of any of the matters included in this paragraph, but shall not have jurisdiction in respect of offences except in so far as conferred by federal law; the control of propagating doctrines and beliefs among persons professing the religion of Islam, the determination of matters of Islamic law and doctrine and Malay custom.”
11. It was the respondent’s position as well as the interveners that the impugned section was enacted pursuant to Article 74(2) read together with item 1 of the State List, Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution which allows the SSLA to make laws with respect to creation and punishment of offences by persons professing the religion of Islam against precepts of that religion, except in regard to matters included in the Federal List. It is also their position that the impugned section is consistent with section 2 of the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965, a federal legislation conferring criminal jurisdiction to the Syariah Courts in this country in respect of offences against the precept of Islam by persons professing that religion. Section 2 of the said Act provides:-
“2. The Syariah Courts duly constituted under any law in a State and invested with jurisdiction over persons professing the religion of Islam and in respect of any of the matters enumerated in List II of the State List of the Ninth Schedule to the Federal Constitution are hereby conferred jurisdiction in respect of offences against precepts of the religion of Islam by person professing that religion which may be prescribed under any written law:-
Provided that such jurisdiction shall not be exercised in respect of any offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding three years or with fine exceeding five thousand ringgit or with whipping exceeding six strokes or with any combination thereof.”
12. Before us, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that the act of the respondent in enacting the impugned section is contrary to the constitutional framework for freedom of expression in Malaysia as enshrined under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. It was submitted that only Parliament that can enact laws to restrict speech and expression in Malaysia. Alternatively, with regard to the SSLA’s purported power to legislate with respect to “… creation and punishment of offences by persons professing the religion of Islam against precepts of that religion …” enabling it to enact the impugned section, it was submitted that the said power does not extend to matters included in the Federal List.
13. Consequently, it was submitted that as the Federal Government: is empowered to legislate on (a) “Newspaper; publication; publishers, printing and printing presses”; (b) criminal offences based on its legislative power relating to “… criminal law and procedure …” on range of matters including “… the creation of offences in respect of any of the matters included in the Federal List or dealt with by federal law …”, and as criminal offences generally related to printing are already dealt with by the federal law known as the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, the respondent therefore cannot enact offences on printing and printing presses.
14. The central issue is whether the impugned section is contrary to the constitutional framework of freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. Article 10(1)(a) provides that “every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression”. However, Article 10(1)(a) is subject to Article 10(2) which reads:-
“(2) Parliament may by law imposed –
(a) on the rights conferred by paragraph (a) Clause (1) such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or of any Legislative Assembly or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence.”
15. It can be seen clearly that Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution did not guarantee absolute freedom of speech and expression. This was not disputed by the petitioners, except it was argued that any such restriction can only be done by Parliament and not the legislature of any State. It was argued that the impugned section as enacted by the SSLA, has the effect of restricting such freedom of expression which the SSLA has no jurisdiction to do so.
16. With respect, we disagree. It is an established principle of constitutional construction that no one provision of the Federal Constitution can be considered in isolation. That particular provision must be brought into view with all the other provisions bearing upon that particular subject. This Court in Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd v Kekatong Sdn Bhd & Anor  2 MLJ 257, applied the principle of considering the Constitution as a whole in determining the true meaning of a particular provision. This Court held:-
“A study of two or more provisions of a Constitution together in order to arrive at the true meaning of each of them is an established rule of constitutional construction. In this regard it is pertinent to refer to Bindra’s Interpretaion of Statue 7th Ed which says at page 947-948:-
“The Constitution must be considered as a whole, and so as to give effect, as far as possible, to all its provisions. It is an established canon of constitutional construction that no one provision of the Constitution is to be separated from all the others, and considered alone, but that all the provisions bearing upon a particular subject are to be brought into view and to be so interpreted as to effectuate the great purpose of the instrument…”
“It follows that it would be improper to interpret one provision of the Constitution in isolation from others …”
17. Thus, in the present case, we are of the view that Article 10 of the Federal Constitution must be read in particular with Articles 3(1), 11, 74(2) and 121. Article 3(1) declares Islam as the religion of the Federation. Article 11 guarantees every person’s right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it. With regard to propagation, there is a limitation imposed by Article 11(4) which reads:-
“(4) State Law andin respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.”
18. In Mamat Daud & Ors v The Government of Malaysia  1 MLJ 119, this Court in its majority judgment had held that Article 11(4) is the power which enables states to pass a law to protect the religion of Islam from being exposed to the influences of the tenets, precepts and practices of other religions or even of certain schools of thoughts and opinions within the Islamic religion itself. It was also stated in that case that to allow any Muslim or groups of Muslim to adopt divergent practice and entertain differing concepts of Islamic religion may well be dangerous and could lead to disunity among Muslims and, therefore could affect public order in the States. Hence, it was held that it was within the power of the State to legislate laws in order to control or stop such practices.
19. Article 74(2), as stated earlier is the power conferred on the legislature of a State to make laws in respect to any matter enumerated in the State List, Ninth Schedule. And item 1 of the State List clearly allows the legislature of a State for “creation and punishment of offences by persons professing the religion of Islam against precepts of that religion …”. Thus, there can be no doubt that the Federal Constitution allows the legislature of a State to enact law against the precepts of Islam.
20. Another important provision of the law, which needs be taken into view is Article 121(1A) which was introduced in 1988. It provides that the High Courts which were established pursuant to Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts; a provision clearly intended in taking away the jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts.
21. We are of the view Article 10 is to be read harmoniuosly with the above-mentioned Articles. There can be no doubt what the SSLA did in this case was within the constitutional framework of the Federal Constitution. Clearly the SSLA was not enacting offences on printing or printing presses. The SSLA was enacting offences against the precepts of Islam. What offences and punishment that can be enacted under the item 1 of the State List was duly considered by this Court in Sulaiman bin Takrib v Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu (Kerajaan Malaysia, intervener and another application  2 CLJ 54 (Sulaiman bin Takrib). Abdul Hamid Mohamad CJ pointed out that the creation and punishment of offences under item 1 of the State List have four limitations:-
(a) It is confined to persons professing the religion of Islam;
(b) It is against the precepts of Islam;
(c) It is not with regard to matters included in the Federal List; and
(d) It is within the limit set by section 2 of the Syariah Courts Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1996.
22. In Sulaiman bin Takrib, the petitioner, a Muslim was charged with offences under section 10 and section 14 of Syariah Criminal Offences (Takzir) (Terengganu) Enactment 2001 (Terengganu Enactment). The charge under section 10 was for acting in contempt of a religious authority by defying or disobeying the fatwa regarding the teaching and belief of Ayah Pin that was published in the Government Gazette of the State of Terengganu on 4.12.1997. The charge framed under section 14 was for possession of a VCD, the content of which was contrary to Hukum Syariah.
23. One of the issues raised by the petitioner in that case was that the power to create offences under item 1 of State List of the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution was limited to the creation of offences against the precepts of Islam and that offences under section 10 and section 14 of the Terengganu Enactment were not offences against the precepts of Islam and the Terengganu State Legislative Assembly was not empowered to enact the said provisions. It was also contended that the offences in question were “criminal law” and thus within the Federal jurisdiction to legislate.
24. Abdul Hamid Mohamed, CJ in addressing the issue held that “precepts of Islam” include “law” or “syariah” and the Federal Constitution uses the term “Islamic Law” which in the Malay translation is translated as “Hukum Syariah”. It was pointed out that all the laws in Malaysia whether Federal or State, use the term “Islamic Law” and “Hukum Syariah” interchangeably. Thus, on the offence created by section 14 of the Terengganu Enactment, the key words “contrary to Hukum Syariah” means the same thing as precept of Islam. Even if it is not so, by virtue of the provision of the Federal Constitution, the words “Hukum Syariah” as used in Terengganu Enactment and elsewhere where offences are created must necessarily be within the ambit of “precept of Islam”. Thus, it was held that the offence created by section 10 of the Terengganu Enactment is also an offence regarding the precept of Islam. Since the offences were against the precept of Islam and since there is no similar offence in Federal law and the impugned offence cover Muslims only and pertaining to Islam only, it clearly could not be argued that they were “criminal law” as envisaged by the Federal Constitution.
25. The decision in Sulaiman bin Takrib was followed by this Court in Fathul Bari bin Mat Jahya & Anor v Majlis Agama Islam Negeri Sembilan & Anor  4 CLJ 717 (Fathul Bari). In that case, the first petitioner was charged in the Syariah Subordinate Court Negeri Sembilan for an offence under section 53(1) of the Syariah Criminal (Negeri Sembilan) Enactment 1992 (the Negeri Sembilan Enactment) for conducting a religious talk without a “tauliah”, while the second petitioner was charged with abetting the offence. Both the petitioners sought to challenge the validity and constitutionality of the said section 53. It was argued that the section 53 was invalid for breaching Article 74(2) and item 1, State List, Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution and since section 53 did not fall within the realm of item 1, the Syariah Court of Negeri Sembilan therefore had no jurisdiction to try an offence under the section. It was further contended by the petitioners that the teaching of the religion of Islam without a “tauliah” is not an offence against the pillars or precepts of Islam and the State Legislature therefore had exceeded its legislative authority when it enacted section 53 and made it such an offence.
26. Arifin Zakaria CJ, speaking for the Federal Court held amongst others that the purpose of section 53 of the Negeri Sembilan Enactment was to protect the integrity of “aqidah”, “syariah” and “akhlak” which constitute the precepts of Islam. The requirement for the tauliah is necessary to ensure that only a person who is qualified to teach the religion is allowed to do so. This is a measure to stop the spread of deviant teachings among Muslims. It is commonly accepted that deviant teaching among Muslims is an offence against the precept of Islam. Hence, it follows that the State Legislature of Negeri Sembilan had acted within its legislative power in enacting section 53 of the Negeri Sembilan Enactment.
27. We have no reasons to depart from the previous decisions of this Court in the above two cases. In the present case, the purpose of the SSLA in enacting the impugned section is clear, i.e. to control religious publication which is contrary to Islam. It is also a measure to prohibit the dissemination of any wrongful belief and teaching among Muslims, through publication of any book or document or any form of record containing anything which is contrary to Islamic law. What is contrary to Islamic law is without doubt against the precepts of Islam. Thus, the SSLA was acting within its legislative power in enacting the impugned section. It is an offence against the precepts of Islam and precepts of Islam is not found in the Federal List. In consequence, there is no merit in the petitioners’ argument that in enacting the impugned section, the SSLA was in fact enacting on a matter in the Federal List.
28. Based on the above, we find that the impugned section enacted by SSLA clearly falls within the scope of precept of Islam. It is not a matter included in the Federal List and the punishment imposed is within the limit set by section 2 of the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965. The impugned section is therefore valid and not ultra vires the Federal Constitution.
29. The third issue raised was whether Parliament’s power to enact law in relation to matters in the State List can only be exercised in the circumstances set out in Article 76(1)(a)(b) and (c) of the Federal Constitution. The said Article reads as follows:-
“76(1) Parliament may make laws with respect to any matter enumerated in the State List, but only as follows, that is to say:-
(a) for the purpose of implementing any treaty, agreement or convention between the Federation and any other country, or any decision of an international organisation of which the Federation is a member; or
(b) for the purpose of promoting uniformity of the laws of two or more States; or
(c) if so requested by the Legislative Assembly of any State.”
30. In light of our conclusion on the first and second issue, we are of the view that there is no real necessity to deal with the third issue. The arguments raised on the third issue was purely academic in nature and answering it would not affect the position of the parties or would not have any bearing in the outcome of this petition.
31. In conclusion we wish to highlight that a Muslim in Malaysia is not only subjected to the general laws enacted by Parliament but also to the State laws of religious nature enacted by Legislature of a State. This is because the Federal Constitution allows the Legislature of a State to legislate and enact offences against the precepts of Islam. Taking the Federal Constitution as a whole, it is clear that it was the intention of the framers of our Constitution to allow Muslims in this country to be also governed by Islamic personal law. Thus, a Muslim in this country is therefore subjected to both the general laws enacted by Parliament and also the State laws enacted by the Legislature of a State.
32. For the above reasons, we hold that the impugned section as enacted by the SSLA is valid and not ultra vires the Federal Constitution. The petition is dismissed.
33. After hearing parties we make no order as to costs.
Dated this 28th day of September 2015.
Court of Appeal Malaysia
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Chan Wei June
Solicitors for the Petitioners:
Messrs. Bashir & Co.
Counsel for the 1st Respondent:
Ahmad Fuad bin Othman
Mohamad Mustaffa bin P Kunyalam
Rafiqha Hanim binti Mohd Rosli
Solicitors for the 1st Respondent:
Selangor State Legal Advisor
Counsel for the 2nd Respondent:
Suzana binti Atan
Solicitors for the 2nd Respondent:
Attorney General Chambers
Counsel for the 3rd Respondent:
Mubashir bin Mansor
Wan Ahmad Dzaffran bin Wan Kamaruddin
Alif Ridhwan bin Mohd Yusof
Solicitors for the 3rd Respondent:
Hisham Sobri & Kadir