7:11AM Mar 19, 2015
By May Chee
A Kelantan Umno assemblyperson said that non-Muslims should explain why they will not accept “Allah’s laws” but still want to use the Arabic name for God.
I wonder, as a lawmaker, which part of the following, he can’t fathom.
Freedom of Religion is enshrined in the Malaysian constitution:
(1) Article 11 provides that every person has the right to profess and to practise his or her religion and (subject to applicable laws restricting the propagation of other religions to Muslims) to propagate it.
(2) The constitution also provides that Islam is the religion of the country but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony.
I am a Christian, a Catholic to be precise, and I also call God, ‘Allah’, an Arabic name for God that predates Islam. This term is also used by the Babists, Bahais, Indonesian and Maltese Christians, Mizrahi Jews and Sikhs.
Would you, Kelantan Umno, find it funny if I asked you to explain why you will not accept, say, the Mosaic Law or Canon Law, etc, etc?
Some people appear to be like wise men who pretend to justify God, while forgetting the reality; projecting the widespread image of a believer who accepts with resignation, yet, without trying to understand.
Laws are creatures of their time; proper to the people and of value for a period of their history. We can’t hold on to sacred laws if and when they become oppressive, can we? We can't bury our heads in the sand or seek in religion, an evasion from family tasks and social duties, can we?
Shouldn’t religious organisations, or for that matter, any organisation, change and constantly adjust to new structures and developments?
I, for one, do not think that the law and its commandments have the power to renew the human person. Following the best rules is not central, in my humble opinion, but that we must constantly move ourselves to discover, meditate and understand the will of God in the events of our lives.
God also has sons and daughters among those who do not believe and I believe, He will judge them as He does for us, according to the path on which He has placed them.
God of all nations
Those of us who believe in a monotheistic God, a universal God, (at least, for me) believe that He is God of all nations and that He will not oblige us to give up our own cultures to live as others ( those who also deem themselves, believers) do.
To me, the divine way of restoring justice is not by condemning, but by saving, through love.
To me, the justice of God is a merciful intervention that makes us whole and, free.
To me, the mystery of salvation is not religious words or laws that refer to a violent God, but a God who conquers evil in such a way that those who never knew love will be saved, by love.
I believe that it's better for us to overcome common prejudices and respect the conscience of others.
I believe that no law or religious authority should be followed against our conscience.
I believe the service of love will make hearts agree when minds cannot come to an understanding.
I do believe in many things but the deal is this - I can't force them down your throat, Kelantan Umno, can I ?
Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/292471
KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 28 — PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu denied today a report in Malaysia’s best-selling Chinese vernacular paper quoting him as saying that the party will seek to enforce Islamic penal law should the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) opposition pact take over Putrajaya in the next general election.
Sin Chew Daily had splashed on its front page today a report headlined “PAS will implement hudud if it comes into power”, citing the Islamist party’s No. 2, popularly known as Mat Sabu, as saying he will seek to amend the Federal Constitution to enable the Islamic penal code to be implemented.
Mohamad (picture)told The Malaysian Insider that when he was contacted by a reporter from Sin Chew, he never mentioned the word “hudud” in the telephone conversation.
“When the newspaper reporter contacted me, the word hudud never came out at all.
“Perhaps he does not understand Malay very well,” he told The Malaysian Insider when contacted to confirm the news.
Mohamad said he had been alerted to the Sin Chew article by several Chinese acquaintances earlier this morning.
He added that he had repeatedly made clear that PAS’s wish to amend the law will be done through the parliamentary process and will not conflict with the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
“Whatever PAS wishes to do must have PR’s agreement.
“We maintain the agreement that has been agreed upon by all parties in PR,” he said, referring to the common policy framework signed by PAS and its political allies PKR and the DAP when they formed the PR opposition pact shortly after the landmark Election 2008 to counter the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition.
The three parties had grabbed 82 out of 222 parliamentary seats and 206 out of a total 576 seats in the state assemblies in the 12th general election, the biggest win for the opposition since 1969.
Hudud has long been a thorny issue for the coalition bloc, with the DAP steadfastly opposed to its enforcement in a secular government.
The previous partnership between PAS and the DAP under the Barisan Alternatif tag was broken ahead of the 1999 general election due to disagreements over hudud.
The DAP quit the alliance after PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang, who was then Terengganu mentri besar, had announced his party’s plan to set up an Islamic state and carry out hudud.
PAS’s former deputy president Nasharudin Mat Isa and the DAP chairman Karpal Singh recently took their ideological quarrel over the issue public.
Mohamad’s denial comes on the heels of Kedah MCA chief Datuk Chong Itt Chew who a week ago claimed that he too had been misquoted by a reporter from Malay daily Sinar Harian.
On August 21, the Malay tabloid had published a report titled “MCA Kedah sokong hudud” (Kedah MCA supports hudud) on its front page, quoting Chong as telling political foe the DAP to drop its opposition to hudud law as the Islamic penal code would not affect non-Muslims.
Chong had denied the same day Sinar’s report citing him, saying he had not uttered the word “hudud” in a phone interview with the paper’s reporter and accused the Malay daily of having twisted his words.
