Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

Well done Shanaz, welcome to the club. There are so many of us thinking exactly the way you do, but fear going open because of the threats. I am sure you will soon be receiving your threatening emails from the likes of ABU SAKI or PALM ONE to tell you that you will be rotting in hell.

The problem is that although there are many enlightened people like you, your voice will be silenced by the terror and fear that BADAI and the likes will instill upon you. I hope that you will be strenghtened if they start attacking you.

You take care now.

Hi there !

I am here not to judge anyone,
I am here not to tell people they are rotting in hell
I am here not to give threat or to silence anyone,
BUT I AM HERE TO TELL THE TRUTH TO THOSE WHO WANT TO HEAR THE TRUTH AND THOSE WHO ARE IN SILENCE PRAISE THE GOD WHO ARE INVISIBLE.

I am not to question the aim of Article 11 group who make a call to 'educate' Malaysian citizens of their natural and inherent rights to convert or uncovert as they wish.

I am here to 'educate' about the ORIGINS OF NATURAL RIGHTS TO UNCOVERT OR CONVERT IN ISLAM.

If it is true that the rights to be a member of any religion is inherent from the first time one draws his/her breath at his/her breath, then IT IS A MIRACLE! As we can choose and tell our parents what religion we want to be a member. Can the Article 11 make a field research to ask those new born babies about this?

Apart from 'unto you your religion and unto me my religion' there is also 'Why turn your back after you believe'. Please check again the Baqoroh and also 'Dies as a muslim' and also 'The religion of God is Islam'

Next is, are we to be questioned in the grave and in His court about the Constitution? Or are we to be questioned of our awareness of our 'rights' entrenched in the Constitution?

Do GOD HIMSELF the SUPREME talk to the Article 11 about the right to convert and unconvert? Or do the Article 11 has made their case in front of Him about this? Or do the Article 11 has the blessings of Him to speak about that?

I prefer to exercise the natural rights that are endowed on me by the GOD in the Koran rather than to argue my case before Him in His court according to the constitution.

It is so funny that to say that Article 11 takes precedence over the Koran and now so suddenly under the pretext of the Constitution they speak for all religions. They have brought shame to the Constitution.

Our Constitution says that Islam is the official religion of the Federal. It does not say that it takes precedence over the Koran, it only says that anything inconsistence with the consitution is null and void. Since the Koran is not inconsistence with the Constitution, Doesn't the Constitution says that personal liberty is suspended during emergency and by law?

Think again. The call that is made by the Article 11 is actually a confusion of the Constitution.

I think the Article 11 need to do more research on the Constitution before it takes the bold move forward.

With respect, Article 3 does not say that Islam is the official religion of the Federation.

Article 3 reads as follows "Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony."

In Che Omar Che Soh 1988, the Supreme Court has effectively held that despite this Article the Constitution preserves secular law as the supreme law of the land.

The Alliance in their memorandum to the Reid Commission recommended as follows:- "The religion of Malaysia shall be Islam. The observance of this principle shall not impose any disability on non-Muslim nationals professing and practicing their own religions and shall not imply the State is not a secular State.’

(You will no doubt recall that the Alliance was the name for the coalition of the United Malays National Organisation, the Malayan Chinese Association and the Malayan Indian Congress who were at that time the undisputed voice of the Malayan people in their fight for independence, having won 51 out of 52 seats in the 1955 elections.)

And lastly, Article 150(6A) of the Federal Constitution prohibits Parliament from making laws inconsistent with those matters on which State legislatures can make Islamic laws or "inconsistent with the provisions of [the Federal] Constitution .. relating to religion, citizenship or language."

So, even in an Emergency religious liberties cannot be abrogated.

I trust this clarifies matters.

Is BADAI registered with the Registrar of Societies (ROS)? If yes, I wonder how the ROS can approve such a offensive name like "Anti-Interfaith Commission".

1. Puteri Shehnaz Majid, you pled that "in this lifetime, as a citizen of this country, please allow me the right to exercise any and all freedoms guaranteed to me under the Constitution."

Indeed, it is your right and you are humble enough to plead to exercise that right.

I like your humility and the excellent standard of your articulation. As Nik Elin said, be brave when "they" email and SMS. I have nearing the end of my biological life and I can say that I have had no regrets in standing up for what is right. Yes, I have paid the price, but I still believe it is a price worth paying. Let not our vision be clouded by the dross of the world.

2. That the Constitution is supreme is clear, Jaspita. That is the founding document of this country. Otherwise, at Merdeka, we would have the Koran as our constitution. Then we would have been the FIRST Muslim nation in the world with the Koran as a constitution, beating even the countries in the Islamic crescent in the Middle East., or West Asia if you will.

3. I have serious doubts whether BADAI is a registered organisation, and would love to be proved at least wrong in this instance.

4. There are a few points that I wish to make but I must make do for now because I believe I am dealing with sufficiently intelligent people not to state the obvious.

Thanking Shanmuga for highlighthing the Che Soh' case. When it is said that Islam the religion of the Federal it means it is official, it is the saying of the Constitution which the law of the Land and that is why Article 150(6A) is existed.

When the Parliament is prohibited to make laws that are inconsistent and from 'campur tangan' in State's matter like religion; so that any law under the religion shall be not inconsistent with the Constitution: meaning that even if under the pretext of 'The Supremacy of the Constitution' the Constitution itself allows in respect of its own religion i.e. Islam to be as it is. As such, it is redundant to say that the rights to convert or unconvert covers those who profess Islam.

Yeah, yeah ... Stephen... I must dissent ... in our country the Constitution is not that supreme compare to the Parliament. In Malaysia, it is the Parliamentary Supremacy is exercised instead of the Supremacy of the Constitution. In the past, courts have taken this approach.

eventhough we have a constitution but our politics is based strongly on the Westminter's model i.e. the Parliamentary Supremacy, the Constiotution stays as it is the Law of the Land and it may no be supreme as in the real sense of Federalisme.

Well Stephen, when the constitution declare that its religion is Islam, impliedly it says "I am not above the Koran".

The terms "parliamentary supremacy" and "constitutional supremacy" are terms of art.

Both concepts have their rightful place in the overall scheme of things although tension marks their operation.

For instance, "constitutional supremacy" has a municipal law and an international law aspect.

Religion is one of the few residual matters that have been left to the constituent states of Malaysia, including the Federal Territory which is deemed to be a state, since Independence, although land and water issues that are within the purview of the constituent states are being increasingly "federalised".

That argument is untenable in the light of the fact that the abrogation of any such inalienable rights specified in a SECULAR state must be fully spelled out with a sufficient level of specificity.

That argument is untenable in the light of the fact that the abrogation of any such inalienable rights specified in a SECULAR state must be fully spelled out with a sufficient level of specificy.

I rest my case. I seek not to indulge in further argument, unless constitutional law academics are prepared to do so.

Let me end by saying that in an academic sense, the Federation of Malaysia is a misnomer. Malaysia is a political union. The United States of America is a federation.

What are the essential features that mark a federation? What are the essential features that mark a union?

Well, Jaspita, let us return to our books.

My dear Jaspita

Although we have not met and we do not know each other, our discussion denotes the fact that while we may disagree, we can still conduct our disagreement in an agreeable way.

Disagreeing in an agreeable way is the path forward. Such a rule of engagement marks our civility.

All Malaysians must be prepared to agree to disagree.

This is a much safer course of action than to mount a protest and jettison a forum, wouldn't you agree?

Well Stephen,

So do the terms 'Secular Nation' and 'Islamic Nation'; they too a term of art. Re-think on that.

So too there is a much safer 'approach' to 'educate' the rights to 'convert' and 'unconvert'. Instead of 're-educating' Islam it is far better to leave Islam in that 're-education' programme by the Article 11 in that respect.

In respect of Federalisme and Union, please read the book by our late Tun Muhammed Suffian, former Lord President of the then Malaya - The Malaysian Constitution. There, you will know how the term of art is articulately described.

Stephen dear,

The term disagreeing in agreeable way is also term of art. Art can be ugly if the artist is ugly. Now, there is a beauty art if the artist is a beautician.

A nation is known by its constitution or parliament or by its law; it is defined by the 'artists' who sit in power; and then there is small artists who want to 'sell' their 'arts' under the 'pretext' of universal art. I rest my case.

Well, I don't remember any amendment being made to article 3 and article 11 since the they were duly approved by the colonialists in 1956. During that time, Tunku Abdul Rahman was of the view Malaysia was a secular state. During Tun Mahathir's reign, he declared Islam was an Islamic state. During Pak Lah's time, he introduced Islam Hadhari. All these declaration were done under the current text of Art 3 and 11. This shows art. 3 and 11 adapt well to the changes.

For me, the Islam as being revealed by the God and Prophet Muhammad can succintly implemented under the current framework of the constitution provided the Criminal Syariah Court (Jurisdiction) Act 1965 be amended.

The fear of non-Muslims towards Islam is obviously unfounded. The tolerance of Islam against other religions were manifested in the history of the Prophet and the Khulafa' Ar-Rashidin. It doesn't arise any occasion that Art. 11 takes precedence over the Quran. I believe that Art can go in line with the divine revelation. For the 'unto you your religion and unto me my religion'- the verse shows how Islam tolerated to other religion. Islam doesn't stop from you to believe in other religion if that what you choose. The problem now is when one tries to interfere with the affairs of Islam including how the law should be when one wants to apostate while Islam already has the guidelines or policy to apostate. These policies are elaborated at length by Islamic jurists. The question is, how do you expect a civil court to handle the matter while they were not trained in Islamic jurisprudence, let alone the question of their capability to read arabic text.