I thought of staying out of Facebook for a while after coming back from holiday but someone had to go and write some dumb open letter to the “people of Malaysia”. Still I might I have not bothered giving it much attention but then I believe that at least one or a few of the prominent names were conned into putting their name to this Open Letter. Indeed I plan to meet one of them whom I know for a fact does not have a Facebook account and is not aware of all the details, especially the fahaman sesat of SIS and what liberals are really up to. I’ll try to explain to him the half-truths that this Open Letter does not tell and unsubstantiated allegations. I ask friends to please doa that I will be able to convince that one person to withdraw his name from the list. Petunjuk dan hidayah is only from Allah and with your doa I may succeed insyaallah. And if I do succeed then it shows many more may not have understood the real purpose of this Open Letter written by DATUK NOOR FARIDA ARIFFIN, the CO-FOUNDER OF SIS, the liberal extremist organisation declared SESAT in a fatwa.

To me and many people, this Open Letter is quite pathetic. No allegation has been substantiated with facts. We should also not be fooled by  the loud noises from the liberal network that makes it seem that the Open Letter is widely received positively (according to TMI lah) when I believe most Muslims are actually disgusted judging by shares and comments on Facebook. All liberals are of course thrilled by it — even non muslims are asking how they can help the liberals — and they will try to make their numbers seem large and of course they will try to give the false perception that only a minority disagree, whom they label extremists and bigots (Yawwwn….). Oh well, I suppose it would be impolite to not reply to the “Letter to the people of Malaysia: Champion open debate and discourse on Islamic law”:

We, a group of concerned citizens of Malaysia, would like to express how disturbed and deeply dismayed we are over the continuing unresolved disputes on the position and application of Islamic laws in this country. The on-going debate over these matters display a lack of clarity and understanding on the place of Islam within our Constitutional democracy. Moreover, they reflect a serious breakdown of federal-state division of powers, both in the areas of civil and criminal jurisdictions.

The one thing I notice about whining liberals is that they ‘focus’ on making general statements and sweeping allegations. They make wild claims and then get all emotional and run around like headless chickens when we start dismantling their false claims with facts. For example, which particular Islamic law in the country is an “unresolved dispute”? If there is a lack of clarity and understanding then it is only due to Noor Farida’s and SIS’s own intellectual deficiency, confusion and resentment towards Islamic Law.

We refer specifically to the current situation where religious bodies seem to be asserting authority beyond their jurisdiction; where issuance of various fatwa violate the Federal Constitution and breach the democratic and consultative process of shura; where the rise of supremacist NGOs accusing dissenting voices of being anti-Islam, anti-monarchy and anti-Malay has made attempts at rational discussion and conflict resolution difficult; and most importantly, where the use of the Sedition Act hangs as a constant threat to silence anyone with a contrary opinion.

Straightaway Noor Farida does not waste time finding fault with the religious bodies and the Sedition Act. Perhaps to avoid being accused of lying, she says “seems to be”. Seems to be??? Anything can “seem to be” anything to anyone. Honestly, this letter should have been trashed when she said “seem to be” but never mind, let’s bear with the whining. Conveniently no mention is made of those who want to get drunk, those who want to be able to have sex with anyone they wish, males who want to sodomise males, those who are seditious and males who want to dress up like girls, all in the name of ‘moderation’ and ‘democracy’. Which and how do “various fatwa” violate the Constitution? Noor Farida doesn’t tell you in this letter because she knows she will easily be exposed for lying. She wisely refrains from naming the “supremacist NGOs” but we know who she means — the ones whose members are multiple times more than SIS and who are the voices of the Muslim majority, more particularly the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah. Nonetheless, the fact is if you are anti Islamic Law then essentially you are anti Islam. You can’t separate the two. Just as you can’t say you will only follow the Quran so you will ignore hadith, whereas the Quran commands you to obey the Messenger (saw), whose sayings, actions, examples etc are recorded in authenticated hadith. You can’t follow the Quran correctly without hadith. In other words, Noor Farida is a hypocrite — her beliefs and actions belie her words. Penipu.

“Orang-orang munafik lelaki dan wanita, sesetengahnya serupa dengan yang lain. Mereka menyuruh (berbuat) yang mungkar dan melarang berbuat makruf dan menggengam tangannya (bakhil). Mereka lupakan Allah s.w.t lalu Allah s.w.t melupakan mereka. Sesungguhnya orang-orang munafik itu adalah orang fasik.” (Al-Taubah 9:67)

“The hypocrite men and hypocrite women are of one another. They enjoin what is wrong and forbid what is right and close their hands. They have forgotten Allah , so He has forgotten them [accordingly]. Indeed, the hypocrites – it is they who are the defiantly disobedient.”

There is no need for Noor Farida to argue on semantics. When you disrespect Islamic injunctions and are biadap towards the monarchy then don’t whine when you are “accused” of being anti Islam, anti monarchy or anti Malay. It’s just a matter of extent. For example, many who are anti America will still buy the iPhone. Many who are anti Israel will still stuff themselves with Big Macs and Starbucks coffee.

These developments undermine Malaysia’s commitment to democratic principles and rule of law, breed intolerance and bigotry, and have heightened anxieties over national peace andstability.

Apart from the Salafis/Wahabis, the only intolerance and bigotry I see is from liberals like SIS and Zaid Ibrahim — forever moaning and whining as though they are oppressed. Indeed liberals are extremists – they want to be extremely free from the inconvenience of Islamic law. And when everyone gets to be extremely free it will be a matter of time before they want to be free to encroach into each other’s privacy, territory and rights. That’s what then actually  ‘heightens anxieties over national peace and stability’. If you don’t know that then you are stupid. If you already know that then you are a mischief maker. Take your pick.

As moderate Muslims, we are particularly concerned with the statement issued by Minister Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom, in response to the recent Court of Appeal judgement on the right of transgendered women to dress according to their identity. He viewed the right of the transgender community and Sisters in Islam (SIS) to seek legal redress as a “new wave of assault on Islam” and as an attempt to lead Muslims astray from their faith, and put religious institutions on trial in a secular court.

What is a ‘moderate Muslim’? Someone who prays 3 times a day? Someone who fasts half a day each day in Ramadhan? Someone who prays 5 times a day and gets drunk twice a week? Someone who adheres to half of Islamic laws and violates the other half? Ahhh yes…. the second part of the paragraph gives us an idea of how moderate a Muslim Noor Farida is: a male Muslim should be allowed to dress up like a girl. Anyone who thinks a man should not wear a bikini, baju kebaya or baju kurung must be intolerant and a bigot. Oh hang on, you think it’s even more moderate if the man dressing up as a girl also wears a hijab to tutup aurat is it? Oh, there’s more… a female wants to look butch and dress up like a man therefore the hijab does not apply to her. If Noor Farida doesn’t believe that endorsements of such DESPICABLE and REVOLTING acts are not attempts to lead Muslims astray — by fooling them into thinking it is not unIslamic — then the writer of this Open Letter is precisely trying to lead not only innocent Muslims astray but encouraging disgusting homosexual relations. Noor Farida shows disrespect not only towards Islam but also Christianity. Yup, read the Bible on what the holy book says about cross dressing. Which religion says a man is free to look like Barbie Doll? Which toilets do they go to, the ones for gents or ladies? Should the butch female be allowed to pee standing into a urinal? I think this would give rise to more “unresolved disputes” which Noor Farida seems to be so concerned about, if you ask me.

Such an inflammatory statement from a Federal Minister (and not for the first time) sends a public message that the Prime Minister’s commitment to the path of moderation need not be taken seriously when a Cabinet minister can persistently undermine it.

Noor Farida and SIS wants to own the definition of not only a ‘moderate Muslim’ but also ‘inflammatory’. The Minister made a factual statement and it was out of concern for the Ummah. Only liberals e.g. SIS, being extremists, would find it inflammatory. I would say most Muslims – who easily outnumber the 25 – welcome the Minister’s statement and found nothing inflammatory about it. Most of us also welcomed the overdue fatwa from a state religious body that declared SIS’s twisted doctrine as sesat. I am also sure that the Prime Minister’s “commitment to the path of moderation” did not include letting men dress up like girls or letting two bearded men french kiss each other.

These issues of concern we raise are of course difficult matters to address given the extreme politicisation of race and religion in this country. But we believe there is a real need for a consultative process that will bring together experts in various fields,including Islamic and Constitutional laws, and those affected by the application of Islamic laws in adverse ways.

We also believe the Prime Minister is best placed with the resources and authority to lead this consultative process. It is urgent that all Malaysians are invested in finding solutions to these long-standing areas of conflict that have led to the deterioration of race relations, eroded citizens’ sense of safety and protection under the ruleof law, and undermined stability.

With all due respect to the Prime Minister, if there is to be a consultative process, it should be by a panel of those qualified in Islamic Law, particularly in Shafie jurisprudence (since this is Malaysia), and the Constitution. If it has to be a Minister to chair the panel then I would propose Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom. Actually that is what the liberals are afraid of (i.e. because of his “inflammatory” statement) and therefore want the Prime Minister to lead it. Even the Prophet (saw) asked the people to learn from the Sahabah and not necessarily solely from the Prophet (saw) himself. Let’s hope Datuk Jamil Khir will be as brave as Abdullah Mas’ud (ra):

Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (ra) was the first man to recite aloud the words of the Quran before a gathering of the Quraish. The companions of the Prophet (saw) were together one day in Makkah. They were still few in number, weak and oppressed. They said, “The Quraish have not yet heard the Quran being recited openly and loudly. Who is the man who could recite it for them?”.  “I shall recite it for them”, volunteered Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (ra). “We are afraid for you”, they said. “We only want someone who has a clan who would protect him from their evil.”. “Let me,” Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (ra) insisted, “Allah shall protect me and keep me away from their evil.” He then went out to the mosque until he reached Maqam Ibrahim. It was dawn and the Quraish were sitting around the Kaabah. Abdullah (ra) began to recite Surah Ar-Rahman. The Quraish looked at him intently and some of them asked, “What is Ibn Umm Abds aying? Damn him! He is reciting some of what Muhammad (saw) brought!”

They began to slap his face but he continued reciting. When he concluded his recital, his face was covered with welts and blood. “By Allah,” said Abdullah (ra), “the enemies of Allah are more uncomfortable than I am at this moment. If you wish, I shall return tomorrow and do the same.”  “You have done enough,” they said. “You have made them hear what they dislike.”

So YB Datuk Jamil Khir should do what he has to do without worrying about backlash from liberals. It is to be expected that the liberals and kafir harbi dislike and consider, as Noor Farida says, ‘inflammatory’ what the Minister said. Rest assured that they will dislike and find inflammatory anything the Minister, religious authority or “supremacist NGO” says or does to uphold Islam and protect the Ummah.

There are many pressing issues affecting all of us that need the urgent leadership and vision of the Prime Minister, the support of his Cabinet and all moderate Malaysians. They include:

1) A plural legal system that has led to many areas of conflict and overlap between civil and syariah laws. In particular there is an urgent need to review the Syariah Criminal Offences (SCO) laws of Malaysia.

These laws, which turn all manner of “sins” into crimes against the state have led to confusion and dispute in both substance and implementation. They are in conflict with Islamic legal principles and constitute a violation of fundamental liberties and state intrusion into the private lives of citizens.

There is nothing wrong with having a review to consolidate laws so that they are more in sync with Islamic laws and the Constitution. But that’s not really what Noor Farida and SIS want. They want Islamic laws to be repealed so that people have more freedom to sin with impunity. Noor Farida does not specify which “sins” but we can guess that drinking, sodomy, males dressing up like girls are some “manner of sins” which people should be allowed to commit freely. They don’t want Islamic laws intruding into their private lives. Hey, what about us who want our children and family members to avoid those sins? What about my rights as head of the household who wants the family to be shielded from unrestricted liberal lifestyles? We can try to teach our children to know the difference between right and wrong and to avoid sin (unless you’re a liberal) but we also want the government to have in place laws to keep our children away from sin. If rebellious youth won’t listen to their parents then at least the law may deter them from approaching vice (such as boys dressing up like girls to attract boys). Remember that even Adam and Eve succumbed to temptation though eventually forgiven by Allah. Worldly temptations for the youth today are immeasurably worse and furthermore they certainly won’t be as remorseful as Adam and Eve for disobeying not one simple command but one after another (especially after getting drunk). For example, just look at Anwar Ibrahim. Notice that Noor Farida wants the Syariah Criminal Offences to be reviewed and not the civil laws. If she was truly concerned with fairness and justice then why not also call for the civil laws to be reviewed as well? I told you she was a hypocrite, didn’t I?

In 1999, the Cabinet directed the Attorney-General’s Chambers to review the SCO laws. But to this day, they continue to be enforced with more injustices perpetrated. The public outrage, debates over issues of jurisdiction, judicial challenge, accusations of abuses committed, gender discrimination, and deaths and injuries caused in moral policing raids have eroded the credibility of the SCO laws, the law-making process, and public confidence that Islamic law could indeed bring about justice.

I’m too lazy to look for facts on the terms of reference of the AGC to review the SCO laws but neither has Noor Farida bothered to give examples of “injustices perpetrated”. Just more unsubstantiated allegations and accusations. This Open Letter has no credibility among the intelligent public — there is simply no substance. Only liberals and lost souls celebrate this open-ended letter. It might have been written differently if all 25 put their heads together to write it but obviously it was mostly the work of Noor Farida and SIS, who then called whoever they knew to put their name to it.

2) The lack of public awareness, even among top political leaders, on the legal jurisdiction and substantive limits of the powers of the religious authorities and administration of Islamic laws in Malaysia.

You see where Noor Farida is heading? She wants LIMITS on Islamic laws. She is not asking for fairness or justice but LIMITS on Islamic law. Why? Because Noor Farida and SIS resent Islamic law. Noor Farida pretends that the concern is the “continuing unresolved disputes on the position and application of Islamic laws in this country” and the “lack of clarity and understanding on the place of Islam within our Constitutional democracy”. As Muslims, shouldn’t we believe that Islamic laws are fair and just? Irregardless, liberals will always make claims of there being “unresolved disputes” and “lack of clarity and understanding” for as long as Islam does not conform to their lifestyle. Again she is only interested in suppressing Islamic law and says nothing about inadequate civil laws. The hypocrisy is glaring.

The Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any law enacted, including Islamic laws, cannot violate the Constitution, in particular the provisions on fundamental liberties, federal-state division of powers and legislative procedures.

All Acts, Enactments and subsidiary legislation, including fatwa, are bound by constitutional limits and are open to judicial review.

There Noor Farida goes again talking about wanting to LIMIT legislation based on Islamic law. I don’t think I need to explain Noor Farida’s deception and liberal agenda further. Dah terang lagi bersuluh.

3) The need to ensure the right of citizens to debate the ways Islam is used as a source of public law and policy in this country. The Islamic laws of Malaysia are drafted by the executive arm of government and enacted in the legislative bodies by human beings. Their source may be divine, but the enacted laws are not divine. They are human-made and therefore fallible, open to debate and challenge to ensure that justice is upheld.

Why on earth should ordinary citizens have the right to debate on law and policy when even the Barua Council is very confused about the law and Constitution? Actually citizens are already debating on Facebook lah so what’s the problem?

Also, now Noor Farida is confusing herself – the source is divine but the laws are not? What??? I mean why should the law itself be “divine” to be legitimate? When Allah says sodomy is a punishable sin then what’s the problem if the government enacts a law to make sodomy punishable? Do liberals expect Allah to appoint angels to enact the laws? Oh, that’s not good either because angels also are not divine. Has Noor Farida heard of ijma’? Does she know that the primary sources of Islamic Law are the Quran, Sunnah, ijma’ and qiyas? Do she know that ijma’ is considered infallible according to the Quran and Sunnah? Okay let’s (incorrectly) assume that ijma’ is not infallible. Now then, if there is already ijma’ (scholarly consensus) and further endorsed by hundreds of thousands of Islamic scholars/ulamak over the past 1,000 years and modern times on Islamic rulings then how would ignorant citizens like SIS members be better qualified than those jurists? Oh ok, let’s say Noor Farida was referring to the laws that are enacted in Malaysia being fallible… Sure, the lawmakers are human beings and are not infallible but that is only a pathetic excuse to assume there must be major flaws. Then why let a heart surgeon perform a bypass on you if he is not infallible? Anyway, again Noor Farida is making general presumptions without providing any evidence as to how Islamic law has resulted in injustice. Namely, where is the evidence that enacted Islamic laws have caused more harm then benefit — for example, how did society suffer when a couple were caught for adultery?

4) The need to promote awareness ofthe rich diversity of interpretive texts and juristic opinions in the Islamic tradition. This includes conceptual legal tools that exist in the tradition that enable reform to take place and the principles of equality and justice to be upheld, in particular in response to the changing demands, role and status of women in the family and community.

Aik? Suddenly it’s about the “role and status of women”? This Open Letter might as well have just be signed off my SIS only. It has SIS written all over it. Interestingly, why do we not see other prominent names like Marina Mahathir and Zainah Anwar? Don’t they agree with this Open Letter? Or are they afraid that this Open Letter will lose all credibility if their names are also in the list?

5) The need for the Prime Minister to assert his personal leadership as well as appoint key leaders who will, in all fairness, champion open and coherent debate and discourse on the administration of Islamic laws in this country to ensure that justice is done. We especially urge that the leadership sends a clear signal that rational and informed debate on Islamic laws in Malaysia and how they are codified and implemented are not regarded as an insult to Islam or to the religious authorities.

There Noor Farida goes again wanting the Prime Minister to take the lead. Why? Because they know the Prime Minister is TOO NICE and is more likely to give in to the extreme demands of liberals. The only reason liberals want to debate on Islamic law is to delay efforts to make laws more Islamic. They want debates and reviews to go on forever. Remember the kalimah Allah case. Even after the Federal Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision, the kafir harbi organisations insisted on a review of the Federal Court’s decision. THEY WILL NOT ACCEPT DEFEAT EVEN IF THE DECISION THAT WENT AGAINST THEM WAS MORALLY RIGHT, LEGALLY CORRECT AND CONSTITUTIONAL. Ironically after starting out with wanting to limit the jurisdiction of Islamic law and claiming “… religious bodies seem to be asserting authority beyond their jurisdiction; where issuance of various fatwa violate the Federal Constitution and breach the democratic and consultative process of shura…”, Noor Farida now says blah-blah-blah “are not regarded as an insult to Islam or to the religious authorities”. Liars and hypocrites tend to contradict themselves, don’t they.

These issues may seem complex to many, but at the end of the day, it really boils down to this – as Muslims, we want Islamic law, even more than civil law, to meet the highest standards of justice precisely because it claims to reflect divine justice. Therefore, those who act in the name of Islam through the administration of Islamic law must bear the responsibility of demonstrating that justice is done and is seen to be done.

I think it’s this paragraph and perhaps the next that persuaded the others to put their name to this Open Letter. Heck, I think I would have signed off on this too. The words are true but the intention is false. Noor Farida says one thing but wants another e.g. for men to be able to dress up like girls —  how can that ever be Islamic? Why then would she want to LIMIT Islamic laws? Indeed why then did Noor Farida say earlier “In particular there is an urgent need to review the Syariah Criminal Offences (SCO) laws of Malaysia but nothing about civil laws? Does this really reflect that Noor Farida wants Islamic law more than civil law? Again, don’t bluff lah.

“And when it is said to them, Do not make mischief in the land, they say: We are but peacemakers. Verily! They are the ones who make mischief, but they perceive not.” (Al-Baqarah 2:11-12).

I hope Noor Farida is getting all this.

When Islam was revealed to our Prophet (SAW) in 7th century Arabia, it was astoundingly revolutionary and progressive. Over the centuries, the religion has guided believers through harsh and challenging times. It is our fervent belief that for Islam to continue to be relevant and universal in our times, the understanding, codification and implementation of the teachings of our faith must continue to evolve. Only with this, can justice, as enjoined by Allah SWT, prevail.

This last paragraph sounds almost like part of a presidential speech but it is as touching as listening to Anwar Ibrahim’s reformasi speech. Again Noor Farida is being very general. She cannot be specific about which particular laws she finds problematic that therefore needs to be recodified. This further confirms that the liberals are trying to deploy delaying tactics. They want the whole body of law to be reviewed and this would distract if not prevent the religious authorities from enacting more Islamic laws. Indeed if the Prime Minister agrees to this nonsensical request for debates and reviews, the liberals will next file court applications to prevent states from enforcing even existing Islamic laws.

“And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah’s guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper.”(Al-Baqarah 2:120).

Same lah with SIS, the liberals and quranists (anti hadith) who will never be pleased with Islamic laws until Muslim men are free to walk around dressed up like girls.

In clsoing I would like to ask YAB Prime Minister to ignore this Open Letter because:

(a) It contains only rhetoric, logical fallacies and false presumptions

(b) Allegations are not substantiated with facts

(c) It is a strategy to delay enactments of more Islamic laws to prevent vice

(d) It seems to be a step towards efforts to suspend existing Islamic laws pending conclusion of any debate/review

(e) Some of the prominent Muslims may not have been told the whole truth

(f) The letter has totally disregarded and disrespected roles and powers of the Rulers provided under the Constitution

(g) The 25 names are not the voice of the Ummah

(h) Men should not be allowed to dress up like girls

One last thing: I challenge Noor Farida to list down existing Islamic laws that violate the Constitution and to explain how so. Let’s tackle each item on that list. I am all refreshed from my family holiday and with the help of learned friends — experts in the law, Constitution and Islamic law — I am confident we will be able to respond clearly with facts for each item in the list to debunk Noor Farida’s false allegations. Indeed my learned lawyer friends have already shown how the Court of Appeal erred in the transgender case. So kalau debate kat Facebook pun tak lepas, don’t waste the PM’s time or the nation’s time with an open debate.

Wassalam.