WHY WAS PERKASA NOT OUTLAWED
The Coalition for Clean & Fair Elections (BERSIH 2.0) has been declared an unlawful
organisation effective yesterday, the Registrar of Societies (ROS) said today (July 2, 2011).
In a statement, ROS Director-General Abdul Rahman Othman said the declaration was made by Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein under section 5 of the Societies Act 1966. Investigations showed that BERSIH 2.0 was not a registered organisation, he said.
The statement said BERSIH 2.0 had been moving actively, creating unease among the people. It said the coalition had also been spreading pamphlets containing propaganda with the aim of toppling the government.
Its activities had brought about negative impact on the country’s image and threatened public order, security, economic prosperity and the country’s sovereignty, and undermined harmony among the people, it said.
‘BERSIH create unease among races’
According to a statement by the Home Ministry, the BERSIH 2.0 coalition is not a registered society. “However, BERSIH 2.0 has fulfilled the definitions of a registered body under Schedule 1 of Societies Act 1966.”
But it found that BERSIH has:
- Moved actively and incited an environment of unease and worry by the peoples of all races in the country.
- Spread seditious propaganda to the people with the purpose of toppling the government through distribution of certain literature.
- Through its activities, have given a bad effect to the image of the country, and can threaten public order, safety, economy and sovereignty of the country, thus affecting the harmony of a multicultural society.
“Henceforth, the Home Minister has declared the Bersih 2.0 society to be an illegal society under Section 5 of the Societies Act effective July 1.”
Hindraf outlawed in 2008
BERSIH 2.0 plans to organise rallies in Kuala Lumpur, Sabah and Sarawak on July 9 to call for clean and fair elections.
In October 2008, the Hindu Rights Actions Force (Hindraf) was declared an illegal organisation. Then Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar said the decision to outlaw Hindraf was made after facts and evidence that showed the organisation was being used for unlawful purposes and posed a threat to public order and morality.
Hindraf organised a massive rally calling for a better deal for Indian Malaysians on Nov 10, 2007 – two weeks after 40,000 turned out for the first BERSIH rally.
Registrar of Society Act 1966
5. Power of the Minister to declare a society unlawful
(1) It shall be lawful for the Minister in his absolute discretion by order to declare unlawful any society or branch or class or description of any societies which in his opinion, is or is being used for purposes prejudicial to or incompatible with the interest of the security of Malaysia or any part thereof, public order or morality.
(2) An order made under this section shall be published in the Gazette and shall operate to cancel immediately the registration of any such society or societies, if already registered under this Act; and no society against which an order made under this section applies shall be so registered.
(3) The provisions of section 17 shall apply in respect of a local society affected by the order made under this section.
I’m sorry everyone, I do apologize.
I certainly don’t want to inflame passions unnecessarily or get people mad. I just want to state a fact that we should all be aware of and all be able to deal with in a sensible fashion, free from incendiary hyperbole and devoid of misinformation, distraction, lies and outright intimidation. After all, if one has truth on one’s side then why resort to any of those tactics which instantly give away the fact that the one propagating said lies, etc. would be summarily rejected by any and all reasonable persons, along with those ideas which apparently need to be wrapped in deception in order to get any traction at all.
So again, it is with complete and utter respect and deference for anyone who might hold an opposing point of view that I direct this little, admittedly bit-o’-fluff blog, knowing that anyone in possession of even the rudiments of reasonableness would surely be in agreement with me that facts are facts and civility should reign over contrived division and ad hominem attacks, and openly — nay, proudly — reject the purely tactical actions of groups with no interest in constructive, benevolent policies which would help all citizens rather than a privileged few, but rather whose sole purpose is to consolidate power and wealth at the expense of the very citizens they purport to represent (and who do so through the widespread and coordinated application of the aforementioned lies, etc.).
So, with the unarguably earnest pronouncement you’ve just read, along with the assurance that my own personal goal in regard to this admittedly fluffy, eminently disposable screed — being the mere sharing of one man’s opinion (though an opinion which is actually shared by many, many, many, many millions of fellow citizens of all stripes, persuasions and professions) — please oh please be advised that you might not agree with what I have to say and that, most wonderfully, in America is absolutely fine and should in no way incite a kind of brain-boiling rancor or censure or pitchfork and torch kind of response that such opinions have caused with alarming frequency. We are all, I am assuming, citizens bound by the precepts so gloriously stated in our Declaration of Independence: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, etc., etc., etc.
Last week, Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, was cleared by an Amsterdam Court of all charges of insulting Muslims and inciting hatred and discrimination against them. The trial of the only internationally known Dutch politician drew major media attention in many countries. The verdict is generally being hailed as a triumph for almost unbridled free speech. Concerning Israel, the Jews and what may be said about them in The Netherlands, this judgment could invite very problematic consequences.
The developments in the court case were bizarre. The public prosecution had concluded years ago that Wilders should not be prosecuted. The Amsterdam Court, however, forced the prosecution to charge Wilders. This started a three-year procedure. The first round ended abruptly in October 2010. Then judges of the Amsterdam Court deposed their colleagues sitting on the Wilders case, because they had shown bias against him. Thus, a new court had to start the hearings from the beginning in February. The public prosecution requested Wilders’ acquittal as it had also done in the first round.
The charges included a long list of statements by Wilders, one of which was: “The Koran is the Mein Kampf of a religion which aims to eliminate others and which calls the others – the non-Muslims – unreligious dogs.” On another occasion he had said: “The core of the problem is fascist Islam, the sick ideology of Allah and Mohammed, as written down in the Islamic Mein Kampf, the Koran.”
Regarding Muslims, Wilders had said inter alia: “Close the borders. No more Muslims should be let into the country, many Muslims should leave the Netherlands and criminal Muslims should lose their Dutch nationality.”
The court found that while Wilders may have on occasion spoken in a hurtful and coarse way, he should be able to propagate his views as part of public political debate. After the verdict, Muslim and other organizations announced that they want to take the issue up with the United Nations Human Rights Council. In the meantime, Wilders continues to receive many death threats, mainly from Muslims, and must be heavily guarded.
One has to analyze Wilders’ policies separately from the way he expresses them. He has been a pioneer in pointing out that the greatest threat to humanity comes out of the Islamic world. This goes far beyond the more than hundred million adherents of Bin Laden’s worldview, suicide and other bombers, as well as the many crimes against humanity in countries such as Yemen, Syria, Libya and so on. However, to consider all Muslims as a global threat is an unfounded and populist generalization.
Wilders has been a consistent defender of Israel. The Freedom Party supports the Dutch minority government of Liberals and Christian Democrats from the outside. This government has, as part of its official program, the improvement of Dutch-Israeli relations. Wilders plays an important role in making sure that this is indeed the case.
The Freedom Party has, together with two small Christian parties, taken a lead role in the fight against anti-Semitism. With regard to physical and verbal attacks on recognizable Jews in The Netherlands, Muslims and in particular youngsters of Moroccan origin, have a disproportionately large share in these crimes, compared to their size in the population. The Freedom Party’s spokesman on anti-Semitism issues Joram van Klaveren, is making consistent efforts to convince the government to pay for the security of Jewish institutions. Financing their own security is a heavy burden for the small organized Jewish community, which numbers about 8,000 members.
The Freedom Party, however, plays a very negative role in the current debate on a private bill introduced by the Party for the Animals to prohibit religious slaughter without stunning an animal first. Initially, Wilders’ party’s support for the bill was seen as part of its anti-Islam policies. In the interim, it has been found that the percentage of Dutch Muslims who are not willing to eat Halal meat from stunned animals is very small.
The Freedom Party has supported this prohibition enthusiastically, knowing full well that orthodox Jews will be its main victims. In the parliamentary debate, its spokesman Dion Graus has called religious slaughter “ritual torture.” He also stated that his party is not against Muslims, as the proposed prohibition also hurts Jews. Thus once again, Jews have become an instrument in Dutch politics.
When analyzing what consequences the Amsterdam court decision may have for Jews and Israel, one needs to be informed about Dutch anti-Israeli propaganda, which has succeeded in convincing more than 38% of the Dutch population that Israel intends to commit genocide against the Palestinians. This information was found in a major poll undertaken by the University of Bielefeld in Germany. Anti-Israeli inciters regularly publish in most leading Dutch media.
The religious slaughter debate has unleashed a sewer of anti-Semitic talkbacks in several mainstream Dutch papers. After the verdict in the Wilders case, many of these as well as statements comparing the Torah and Talmud to Mein Kampf, and claims that Judaism is a sick religion, cannot be legally challenged.
ISLAM AND PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS
Standing Up for What is Right: Freedom, Democracy and Justice
On the authority of Abu Sa’id al-Khudri who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings upon him) say:
When any one of you sees anything that is disapproved (of by Allah), let him change it with his hand. If he is not able to do so, then let him change it with his tongue. And if he is not able to do so, then let him change it with his heart, though that is the weakest (kind of) faith.
Allah designated for this Ummah (Muslim community) people who will protect His din (Divine Authority), and who will facilitate their affairs and make them on a level of sincerity and understanding. Among them Allah raised the ulama, people of understanding, people trustworthy working day and night around the world, people who whenever they see fitnah (vices), they fight it, whenever they see taghut (those who fight God), they will call for jihad to fight it.
Allah established this din
by the Companions and their Followers. He designated this Ummah
with ulama like Sufyan Al Thawri, Sufyan Al Uyayna, Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Imam Al Uza’i, Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi’i, Imam Ahmad and many other later scholars.
Seeking knowledge is fard (obligatory) but seeking knowledge is of two types; one is Fard ‘ayn (individual obligation) and one is Fard kifayah (collective obligation). The knowledge that is obligatory to seek is Ilm al Dharuri, the knowledge that one cannot fulfill one’s obligation if not understood or studies. The other knowledge is Fard Kifayah, to understand or study it and it does not take priority over other duties.
We have to understand the foundation of the din (Religion of God). People usually ask for a particular solution to a problem, but in any topic concerningibadah (Worship), you have to study the pillars of it, the wajibat (necessities) of it, the foundations, prohibitions, the recommendations etc.
Similarly if we want to study about Al Mudhaharah (demonstration) we have to know about its objective, its means, because it is not just a matter of saying it is ‘allowed’ or ‘not allowed’.
If we study this topic, we find that the Shari’ah terms are very important. Nobody will dispute or disagree that to help Muslims is fard and to cooperate with Muslims is fard, that it is fard to support our Muslim Ummah.
Mudhaharah in the Arabic language is “support”, it is narrated in Sunan al-Darimi that Ali ibn Talib said: “I fought on the day of Badr and supported (dhaharah) the Muslims.”
Allah asks us to have wala (loyalty) to the believers, part of that is to support them. Allah says:
Allah forbids you to have relationship with those who fight you because of your Din … and those who support them.
When we mention demonstrations, we are speaking about support and this is one of the best forms of support for the one who is far away from us and we cannot reach them. Demonstrations are a means to support our Din (Way of Life chosen by God).
We need to understand the term Mudhaharah
(demonstrations). Imam Al-Khattabi defined the
term demonstration and he understood from it that the support in demonstrations must be in relation to the jihad
and battlefield, Allah says:
If they seek help from you in the Din, support them,
Meaning if they ask you to fight, you must fight and the demonstration is boosting the morale of the Muslims in a time of weakness, it is a form of creating a high profile for Islam; it is a form of support. It is a noble thing not something evil.
Demonstration motivates the Muslims and it makes them aware about their Muslim brothers. The demonstration is a form of rejecting the evil, a form of commanding good and forbidding evil.
That is exactly what the Prophet (peace and blessings upon him) did. Demonstration is not something Bid’ah (innovated outside Islamic Shariah) and it does have evidences and anybody who speaks about demonstrations must understand the reality of the demonstration.
Demonstrations in early Muslim history
We find it in Kitab Al Hulya Al Awliya (vol 1), Ibn Abbas narrated, he asked:
“O Messenger of God, are we not on Haq (Truth) whether we die or stay alive?” The Prophet said, “Indeed, by the one whose hand is my soul, you are on the Haq whether dead or alive”. So Ibn Abbas said, “So why are we hiding? By the one who sent you with the truth, we should come out!”.
And they went out in two lines, Hamzah in one and Umar al-Khattab with the other. They came out until they went to the Ka’bah and the Quraysh looked to Hamzah and Umar and they were so depressed. The Prophet called Umar that day ‘Al Farouq’.
It is mentioned in Al Isabah
that Muhammad ibn Uthman ibn Abi Shybah narrated from Ibn Abbas the story about how Umar came to Islam and that, “He went out with Hamzah in two lines with the Muslims”.
So the Prophet gave consent and went out with them in a demonstration, so is that haram? That is the danger of the one who speaks without ilm (knowledge) about the evidences.
We find further evidence in the incident when the verses on treatment of women were revealed, some men started to beat their wives and the women came out in a huge demonstration and complained that some men took advantage and beat their wives.
Moreover, Prophet Nuh (Noah) used to call the people day and night and go door to door, Muslims went to Abyssinia and they took a stand publicly in front of the King and the Prophet consented.
Moreover there was a huge gathering and demonstration in the Bay’ah(pledge of loyalty) to the Prophet under the tree. Demonstration is not a new phenomenon.
EGYPTIAN UPRISING … Muslim women in Egypt at the forefront of the protests against Mubarak’s dictatorship
Some people may complain “What is the benefit?” They should realise that the demonstration is not dispraised. So if there are people who do not like it, they should remain silent and should not attack those who do it. These people only want to cover up the fact that they are cowards. They never command good or forbid evil at all, but are afraid that they will be arrested or will be called ‘terrorists’.
All Muslim scholars encourage demonstrations against evil
In fact we do not come across any scholars claiming that demonstrations areharam, rather the fatwas (decrees) for demonstrations are everywhere. Shaykh Abu Muhammad Al Maqdisi said that it is allowed and praised those who do them.
Even Salman al Awdah (Saudi Islamic scholar) said, “We find nothing wrong with it; it is a form of condemning the evil .”
As long as it is free from anything haram , the original rules for these kinds of things is that it is permissible and the incident of the Prophet and the Companions in Makkah is well documented.
Shaykh Ali Al-Khudr also said: “Demonstrations are to come out collectively in an organised way for a particular objective; the original rules are that it is permissible. The Muslims are to other Muslims like a block, they support each other, it is a form of jihad, to call for jihad, to command good and forbid evil. That gathering is a demonstration and it is the Sunnah of the Prophets.”
And he also called it the means leading to the wajib (the obligatory acts).
A PROTEST IN THE US … Islam condones any acts to mobilise the masses for something noble
If we go to all the ulama, even those who we disagree with, they say that it is permitted. It is only
some scholars of the Saudi dynasty, whom it suits them to shout “haram!” if there is a demonstration against the Saudi dynasty, and to say that it is “halal” or even fard
if it is in favour of their dynasty.
Those who say it is permissible, they are all found in prison like Shaykh Sulayman Al-Alwan, who said publicly: “It is permissible by the evidence that our Imam, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, was put in prison, and the ulama and their disciples came outside and that was the biggest demonstration, it was the uprising of the Hanabilah (followers of Imam Ahmad Hanbal) to release him.”
Some people like to speak about it from the angle of benefit and interest, so they always speak about bringing benefit to the Muslim community; we can say, Allah says,
If they ask you for help, help them
And the Prophet said: “Support your Muslim brother (verbally, financially, physically) whether oppressor or oppressed”
So supporting your Muslim brothers collectively, openly and publicly is allowed and that is why ibn Taymiyyah in his time saw the people demonstrate for his release from captivity and he wrote that it reminded him of the demonstration of the Hanbali followers.
Even Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab with his students demonstrated publicly and gathered together ending with fighting, it is a form of jihad, a form carrying da’wah (spreading the word of God), a form of commanding good and forbidding evil; it is not bid’ah. It was done by the Prophet and by his Companions.
‘Not haram just because non-Muslims do it’
It is not the case that “whatever the non-Muslims do, then it becomes haramin our religion”. Rather it is only the haram acts which are forbidden. For example, demonstrations involving swearing are not allowed.
UNISLAMIC … Demonstrations using swear words are prohibited in Islam
It creates awareness about the current situation because there is no other media, it is an alternative media; it reminds them about what they should do, it motivates those people who do nothing, it boosts the morale, it has a strategic outcome, it puts pressure in order for people to interact; that support in the form of demonstrations will put pressure on the government; it is an opportunity as well for the ulama to meet the masses and the masses to meet the ulama, it is a form of demonstrating the knowledge and there is no single qualified scholar who forbade it.
We need to forget about those fake ‘salafis’, they are people who are muqallid (those who blindly imitate). The benefit in demonstrations is a lot; the ulama on the street is different than seeing them on satellite, it will send signals to those oppressed that there is an Ummah that will not leave them, an Ummah that supports them.- Harakahdaily
So here it is:
The right wing seems to be made up of dangerous, possibly sociopathic, treasonous, democracy-hating ass-pies.
Again, knowing that even people who may not find agreement with me on that particular statement would respond with civility, reasonableness, deference and respect, especially in light of being given as justification for my statement (as only one among many such justifications I and the tens of millions of my fellow citizens might indeed give) the recorded and observed fact of unrelenting and blatantly opportunistic opposition to our current duly elected President to the extent that such opposition goes well beyond the boundaries of reasonable political processes and actually hampers the daily necessary act of governance as well as negatively impacting the natural goodwill and can-do nature of the American People, by using a manipulated media to disseminate the aforementioned lies, etc. to all of us — people — who want only to be ably and humbly led by fellow citizens duly elected with awe and reverence to the great experiment in Liberty known as The United States of America. Anything else would be a cynical plot to take advantage of that people’s genuine desire for freedom and democracy, to live their lives in peace and security, and to provide even better lives for their children.
And if anyone reading this disagrees with my opinion (and thus the opinion shared with many many many millions of their fellow, law abiding, patriotic citizens) then it would only be reasonable, right and proper to prove why my belief on this matter is at all false and to do so in a civil, articulate fashion, devoid of character assassination, manipulation of data, weird and obvious “trolling” and just general “crazy talk.”