Our Federal Court is during it again, making authorised pronouncements though authorised basis. The ultimate example is a five-man panel's statute that it's current for a state law (i.e. a Negeri Sembilan Criminal Enactment 1992) to shorten a training of Islam usually to those accredited or licensed by a state eremite authority.
The state eremite management found a appellants in this box guilty of training Islam though accreditation. What, exactly, did a appellants do to even get charged with this offence? At a duty to celebrate Prophet Muhammad's birthday some years back, they gave a speak in that they voiced their views about aspects of Islam. To a state eremite authority, giving a speak about Islam is a same as training Islam. So to speak about your own sacrament is right away prohibited.
In weighing a merits of a case, a crafty judges were more interested in a supposed "big picture", i.e. making certain there have been no deviant teachings in Islam as well as giving a state a management as well as authorised energy to strengthen a integrity as well as sanctity of Islam. That is formed upon what a state eremite management told these judges that a views as well as opinions of these unlawful speakers would put Islam in jeopardy.
Our Federal Court judges have obviously lost about leisure of speech as well as countenance underneath a Constitution. These issues have been of no relevance to them, so there is no need to residence these points during all. They seem to be saying that underneath a Constitution, a Muslim has no right to speak about Islam if he has no licence from a state management to do so. A Muslim has no right to demonstrate his views upon his own religion, not even to a small group of people. Like a dog, he needs a licence to live day to day.
Strangely enough, to clear their findings these judges additionally spoke about a hadith, about incidents involving Prophet Muhammad as well a! s his em issary, as well as about swelling a sacrament in faraway lands. But wait for given when have been these Federal Court judges licensed to speak about Islam? They should be prosecuted for charity their views upon eremite matters though management from a state eremite body.
What a judges have motionless is not usually ridiculous though additionally damaging to a religion. Smart as well as knowledgeable Muslims will not be licensed by a licensing body to speak about a religion. More enlightened ideas will be curtailed as well as slowly, a sacrament will decay. They have usually succeeded in safeguarding sameness so most for their plans to strengthen Islam.
Our judges should usually speak about a law as well as a Constitution. They should request a law first. They should know that usually Parliament can shorten a elemental right of any one from sportive his leisure of speech as well as expression, upon any subject. That, during least, was what a strange makers of a Constitution had intended. Now thanks to a judges, state legislative authorities can additionally shorten elemental liberties. We have abandoned polite laws altogether, during slightest for a Muslims. So who says Malays/ Muslims have been absolved as well as first-class citizens in this country? - Zaid untuk Rakyat
Read More @ Source More Barisan Nasional (BN) | Pakatan Rakyat (PR) | Sociopolitics Plus |
Courtesy of Bonology.com Politically Incorrect Buzz & Buzz
No comments:
Post a Comment