Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Posted: 09 Nov 2011 04:20 PM PST

The scions of powerful and famous politicians are 'a bunch of pirates playing out their rapacious greed'.

With the surrounding controversy now engulfing the NFC, I have come to realize that business people like the children of the 'Welfare Minister' thrived on money allocated by the government on very favorable terms.

Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz, Free Malaysia Today

Last year when reading one of those glossy magazines, I chanced upon an article about some fancy and posh fine dining establishment, having steaks as the principal menu item.

The article pointed out to the achievements of some young entrepreneurs in setting up fine dining and upscale steak houses.

Something that you find when reading what food critics normally say about famous steak establishments like Morton's for example.

The article tossed phrases such as 'enervating decor, inspiring ambiance and fine cutlery' and all that.

The article identified the young entrepreneurs as children to the Minister of Welfare, Family and Community Development Shahrizat Abdul Jalil.

I thought these were heartwarming achievements indeed as I knew of these young people when they were small children.

Rapacious greed

I remember reading further that their supply of beef came from an integrated farm which the family runs somewhere in Negeri Sembilan.

Fantastic I thought, as I took that as a credit to the father of the children who is a doctorate degree holder and who taught at UPM – when it was known as University Pertanian.

He must have majored in some agricultural sciences and the opening of a cattle farm would be a close fit to his area of specialty.

I have every reason to believe as do many Malaysians, that their business, both the upstream (cattle farm) and the downstream part (upscale restaurants) will be a success story.

I held on to my subjective perceptions, until I come to realize that all the beef comes from the National Feedlot Centre (NFC).

I was simply appalled to learn that daily, some 20 cattle are slaughtered to be supplied to the family-owned fine-dining restaurants – Meatworks, Senor Santos and Brawns.

Eventually this money misused and misapplied negligently and perhaps even wrongly.

These scions of powerful and famous politicians are just a bunch of pirates having a chance play out their rapacious greed.

They become celebrities on top of that, because the Malaysian public endear themselves quickly to fairy tale success stories.

Blatant unfairness

Our children will not have that chance and free rides as the children of the famous and powerful.

We and our children have to slog it out.

Because of this blatant unfairness and possible misappropriation of funds, the public has got every right to feel indignant over the pompous response of those responsible over the NFC.

Here are the reasons why.

The National Feedlot Centre (NFC) was envisioned to become a center of production for beef and beef products in Malaysia.

As a High Impact Project under Ninth Malaysia Plan, National Feedlot Centre project will be instrumental in attaining the 40% self-sufficiency for beef production by 2010.

So how is the record so far?

NFC has failed to do so and while failing at that, has sucked out a lot of our money.

We must feel pained by this failure and must ensure that those responsible for stealing public funds will not think that they can get away unpunished.

The National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd is owned by Agroscience Industries Sdn Bhd with participation from the Government of Malaysia.

Its business is the development of a planned, integrated and sustainable Malaysian beef industry by setting up a fully integrated livestock farming and beef production facility.

How does it intend to accomplish this aim?

It does this by managing the importation of livestock, feedlotting, slaughtering, processing, packing and marketing of beef in Malaysia.

Posted: 09 Nov 2011 01:20 PM PST

"If you say your system is fine and that it doesn't need (electoral) reform before the 13th general elections, I dare you to bring in international observers. And let them determine if our elections are free and fair."

By Kean Wong (New Mandala)

It's probably been the busiest fortnight in Australia for Malaysian affairs all year. But you would have missed it if the Australian mainstream media was any guide, Radio Australia aside.

As Parti Keadilan Rakyat's communications chief and state MP Nik Nazmi left the east coast after a successful speaking tour, Prime Minister Najib Razak and wife Rosmah Mansor flew in soon afterwards to Perth for the CHOGM show.

On the other side of the continent, Malaysia's civil society icon Ambiga Sreenevasan was in the middle of her three-city, meetings- and dinners-heavy lecture tour of leading university law schools, while her colleague in the Bersih2.0 reform movement Dr Wong Chin Huat addressed Malaysians in Perth outside the CHOGM confinement.

Yet thanks to the Gillard government's peculiar skills in conceiving and selling a 'Malaysia solution' to its vexed problem of asylum seekers and an electorate's paranoia over Australia's borders – and the Abbott opposition's superior ability to use such alien tropes to thwart any federal government resolution – much Australian public discussion about Malaysia remains focused on a tawdry people-swap deal that's worth nearly a billion ringgit to the Najib government.

The Australian deal is seen by many in Kuala Lumpur as a much-needed investment for prime minister Najib Razak's campaign to stay in power, as Malaysians are consumed in a febrile political climate, anxious over early elections expected within the next six months.

Prime Minister Najib must have been pleased to share some Perth springtime at the CHOGM show last weekend, playing statesman with other leaders and meeting Malaysians at a picnic, while leaving behind however briefly Putrajaya, its usual jockeying for seat selection on the eve of elections, and rumours of internal party feuds over his leadership.

It's also why both Ambiga and the oppositionist Nik Nazmi were quickly quizzed about the so-called 'Malaysia solution' in Australian media interviews, and PM Najib found it necessary to defend the deal and demand co-ownership of it in the Australian media on the eve of his Perth arrival.

Najib defended Malaysia's reputation in its treatment of refugees and its broader democratic values in the Sydney Morning Herald, and explained the joint-venture project would "smash the business model of the people traffickers".

Moreover, Malaysia was a "progressive, liberal nation", that was not "some repressive, backward nation that persecutes refugees and asylum seekers". His government treated "genuine refugees" with "the utmost dignity and respect while they await resettlement elsewhere".

But these claims about Malaysia don't stand up to scrutiny, said the Bersih2.0 leader Ambiga Sreenevasan, especially when Malaysians themselves are still denied many of their constitutional rights. The senior lawyer and ex-Bar Council chair has long fought for Malaysia to live up to its human rights rhetoric and obligations, and she said it's particularly pertinent today when Malaysia continues to sit on the UN Human Rights Council.

In her four lectures at the law schools of Melbourne, Sydney, UNSW and the ANU, Ambiga raised the eight key demands of the Bersih2.0 movement for free and fair elections. She also recounted the systematic intimidation, death threats, and other attempts to delegitimise the Bersih2.0 coalition in the days leading up to the 9 July demonstrations in Kuala Lumpur. She shared some of the highlights of her discussions with Australian officials and parliamentarians in Canberra, and urged better Australian engagement with Malaysians' quest for electoral reforms.

On behalf of Bersih2.0, Ambiga challenged the Najib government to invite foreign election observers for the looming 13th general elections, in light of the Prime Minister's claims that Malaysia is a "progressive, liberal nation". She urged the Prime Minister to make good his recent promises of political liberalisation, and allow the newly-formed Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) on electoral reform to fulfill its tasks.

"You can see the demonisation that the government did over Bersih, but you can also see how the people really feel about Bersih – look at the disconnect," Ambiga told the packed ANU lecture hall last week, as she read out some of the thousands of personal testimonies from Malaysians who marched for electoral reform that July day.

"We're apolitical, we're not aligned to any political party," she said about Bersih2.0 and its supporters. "What we stand for is what is right. We want transparency – we want a better Malaysia. And we're now prepared to stand up and ask for it."

"We really are fed up with how our politics is run in our country. We don't like the dirty politics, we don't like the language of racism, we don't like people running down others because of their religion and their race. We want a mature level of discourse, we want to see statesmanship."

During the lively discussion period after her ANU speech, Ambiga said the "rakyat" (Malaysian people) overcame their fear of each other and united in the face of riot police, tear gas and other state-sponsored violence on 9 July.

Suppressing the contagious idea of free and fair elections will continue to be difficult for the Najib government to do, she said, more so in an era of ubiquitous social-media usage in urban areas and the damaged credibility of government-linked organs such as the licensed television networks and newspapers. Ambiga repeated her scepticism about the prime minister's "reform" of the media laws, and said the promise of relaxing the licensing rules "was no reform at all – where is the concession there if they say they can revoke it at any time?".

Answering a question about repairing and improving institutions such as the judiciary and the bureaucracy, Ambiga said rooting out corruption was a key way in addressing this challenge.

"There definitely has to be a 'bersihkan' process, a cleaning up that has to start now. There's no point having the MACC (the anti-corruption body) and these institutions when at the end of the day, the people can tell the prosecutions are lop-sided – it's selective prosecution.

Apostasy in Malaysia: The hidden view

Posted: 09 Nov 2011 01:16 PM PST

Of course, there are other Muslim scholars who disagree with those mentioned above. However, that is beside the point. The point is this: In view of these other voices that are no less Islamic, why do Malaysian Muslim politicians tell us only one perspective?

By Joshua Woo (New Mandala)

The two banners displayed at the Shah Alam Stadium during the Himpunan Sejuta Umat (Gathering of a million faithful) assembly on 22 October 2011 read "Say no to apostasy, don't challenge the position of Islam" and "Together let's prevent apostasy".

The chief organiser of the assembly, Mohd Azmi Abdul Hamid, remarked that the gathering is meant to gather Muslims together to make a stand against the threats of apostasy.

The organizers and the participants of the assembly saw apostasy as serious threat even though, according to the Islamic Renaissance Front, "there has yet to be any well researched agreement on the actual number of apostates in Malaysia. The suggested numbers have ranged anywhere from 135 (according to Ustaz Ridhuan Tee) to 260,000 (according to Tan Sri Dr Harussani Zakaria)." In addition, the population census provided by the Statistic Department indicates that there "has not been a single Malay convert or apostate." If this is true, then it is obvious that there is no substantial threat of apostasy to the Muslim community in the country.

Nonetheless, I wonder whether apostasy is univocally forbidden in Islam, as we are so often told by local Muslim politicians.

To find out, we conduct a literature review of the question, "should apostates be punished and apostasy from Islam disallowed?

Some Muslims, by referring to Qur'anic passages (such as 5.33, 5.54, 9.11-12, 16.106, and 22.11) and the Hadith (i.e. Sahih al-Bukhari), tell us that apostates should be punished and apostasy from Islam should be forbidden. Is this the only Islamic understanding on the issue without alternative?

In response to this, Abdullah Saeed, the Sultan of Oman Professor of Arab and Islamic Studies at the University of Melbourne, and his brother, Hasan Saeed, the Attoney-General of the Maldives, comment that, "The overall picture that emerges from a variety of verses in different contexts in the Qur'an is that apostasy is a 'sin' for which there is no temporal punishment." [i] These Qur'anic verses and Hadith passages are referring to criminals who waged war against the early Muslim community in the ancient Arab, and not to any apostates.[ii]

The former Secretary General of the International Union for Muslim Scholars, Salim el-Alwa, representing the guild of Islamic scholarship remarks similarly, "We do not find in the texts of the noble Qur'an related to apostasy any temporal punishment [specified] for the apostate. However we find therein repeated threats and strong warnings of punishment in the Hereafter. […] Apostasy in the view of the Qur'an is a major sin even though Qur'anic verses do not impose a temporal punishment."[iii]

Shabbir Akhtar, who once lectured at the International Islamic University, writes in his recent book, "In Muhammad's day, private apostasy was commonplace; the Quran specifies no worldly penalty for it."[iv]

Specifically on the Hadith, Mohammed Hashim Kamili, the Founding Chairman of the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies who was also Professor of Islamic Law and Jurisprudence at the International Islamic University from 1985 to 2004, comments that, "Hadith makes clear that the apostate must also boycott the community (mufariq li'l-jama'ah) and challenge its legitimate leadership, in order to be subjected to the death penalty."[v]

To these Muslim scholars, there is a world of difference between mere apostates who renounce Islam and those who actively raise military campaign against the ancient Muslim community. The injunction to punish 'apostates' in the Qur'an and Hadith are referring to the latter, not the former.

Such distinction has been noted by various Islamic intellectuals such as Al-Shawkani, the famous Yemeni Muslim scholar[vi]; Abdul Mouti Bayoumi from Al-Azhar University and the Islamic Research Academy (currently known as the Academy for Islamic Jerusalem Studies); Nurcholish Madjid, a prominent Indonesian Muslim intellectual[vii]; Subhi Mahmassani, the Muslim scholar who authored the significant study on Islamic law 'The Philosophy of Jurisprudence in Islam'[viii]; Hasan Al-Turabi, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood (also known as the Society of the Muslim Brothers) in Sudan[ix]; Rashid al-Ghannushi, a Tunisian Islamist[x]; and Tariq Ramadan, HH Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani Professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies at Oxford University.

So, does this mean that Muslims can renounce their faith if they want to?

The Grand Mufti of Egypt, Ali Gomaa, who was Professor of Juristic Methodologies at Al-Azhar University, is reported to have said that Muslims can leave Islam to embrace other religion. "[T]hey can because the Quran says, 'Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion,' [Quran, 109:6], and, 'Whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve,' [Quran, 18:29], and, 'There is no compulsion in religion.' [Quran, 2:256]."

Initially some Muslims have doubted the Grand Mufti's statement. And this has led the Grand Mufti to issue a subsequent clarification: "I have always maintained the legitimacy of this freedom and I continue to do so. [...] I discussed the fact that throughout history, the worldly punishment for apostasy in Islam has been applied only to those who, in addition to their apostasy, actively engaged in the subversion of society."

This understanding coheres well with Sayyid Tantawi, the late Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Mosque and Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar University. He is known to attest that "a Muslim who renounced his faith or turned apostate should be left alone as long as he does not pose a threat or belittle Islam."The other prominent Muslim scholar who took similar stand was Mahmud Shaltut, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University from 1958 to 1963.[xi]

The Council on American-Islamic Relations' public statement—drafted with the consultation of the Fiqh Council ofNorth America—states the same position: "Islam advocates both freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, a position supported by verses in the Quran [10.99, 18.29, 42.48, and 2.256]. […] Religious decisions should be matters of personal choice, not a cause for state intervention. Faith imposed by force is not true belief, but coercion. Islam has no need to compel belief in its divine truth. As the Quran states: 'Truth stands out clear from error. Therefore, whoever rejects evil and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold that never breaks.' (2:256)"

Irfan Ahmad Khan, the President of the World Council of Muslims for Interfaith Relations, who served as Professor of Philosophy at Aligarh Muslim University, points out that it is self-contradictory to bar Muslims from leaving Islam. Here is a lengthy quote from him: "[T]here are people who stand for freedom to change one's religion only when someone is entering into their own faith community. These people would not allow the members of their own faith community to convert to any other religion—even if they would do so out of their own free will. From the perspective of 'freedom to change religion', their policy involves a double standard. A self-contradictory principle is inherent in this policy [...] It is a matter of principle that in choosing one's religion, every individual should be free of all external pressures and temptations. In fact, it is due to this freedom that one is responsible for what one believes. [...] Therefore, no one has any right to use pressure of any kind to make a person change or stop from changing his/her religion. An individual out of his/her own free will should himself or herself do entering into a religion or coming out of a religion."

For similar reasons, Ibrahim B. Syed, the President of Islamic Research Foundation International, comments that, "[T]here is no bigger misconception—strengthened with misunderstanding of Islamic beliefs over the years—other than the belief that Islam doesn't tolerate apostasy. [...] The Qur'an is completely silent on any worldly punishment for apostasy and the sole Tradition that forms the basis of rulings is open to many interpretations."

In his interview with the Prospect Magazine, Tariq Ramadan, Islamic professor from Oxford University, commented that, "Many around the Prophet changed religions. But he never did anything against them. There was an early Muslim, Ubaydallah ibn Jahsh, who went with the first emigrants from Mecca to Abyssinia. He converted to Christianity and stayed, but remained close to Muslims. He divorced his wife, but he was not killed. It is different for someone who becomes a Muslim during a war with the purpose of betraying Muslims. They are committing treason. This is why the context is so important because the Prophet never killed anyone because he changed religion. From the very beginning, Muslim scholars understood this. Islam does not prevent someone from changing religion because you feel that this is not right for you, or if you are not happy."

The literature above are remarks made by some of the world's top Islamic scholars. These are faithful Muslim intellectuals who affirm the truthfulness of the Qur'an and the Shahadah just like every other Muslims—they are not liberal scholars or secularists who have no commitment to the religion.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Khamis, 10 November 2011

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan