“PAS untuk kita semua.”
Ada lagu lagi, siap dengan nyanyian sekerat dalam bahasa Cina beserta sekerat dalam bahasa Tamil.
Pakatan menyetujui hudud, kata Hadi
“Majlis Presiden Pakatan Pembangkang 2011 sebulat suara memutuskan pelaksanaan hudud adalah hak PAS,” tegas Hadi Awang presiden parti Islam itu — ‘Laksana hudud hak PAS: Hadi‘ (Berita Harian, 27 April 2014).
Allah
untuk semua
.
“Islam itu tidak boleh diletakkan di atas pokok,
digantung di dahan kayu, atau dilekatkan di atas dinding.
Ia mesti ada pendokongnya.”
— Mohd Asri Muda, presiden PAS (1969-1982)
.
Islam mesti ada pendokongnya, bukan?
Dan kalau tidak PAS, siapa lagi?
Nak hudud, laksanakan sahaja.
Jangan ibarat tin Milo kosong.
PAS ada berani?
Dok bising, bising, bising aje
Tapi bila digertak DAP, terus kecut
Kenapa PAS hendak beza-bezakan?
Islam adalah agama sejagat
PAS untuk semua
Allah untuk semua
Hudud untuk semua!
Hudud untuk semua!
Hudud untuk semua!
Hudud untuk semua!
Tegakkan syiar Islam
Bekas pragawati Playboy Felixia Yeap akan berpuasa bulan Ramadan ini.
Bila MB (Mem Besar) Selangor nak berpuasa, ya?
Petua: Muslimah yang rajin berpuasa mampu mengurangkan berat badan. Orang yang pendek pun boleh nampak tubuhnya lebih lansing macam Felixia nanti.
Betul-betul masuk Islam
Felixia Yeap mengesahkan bakal mengucap dua kalimah syahadah pada Julai depan, mengikut laporan Harian Metro beberapa hari lepas (25 Apr 2014).
Bila agaknya pula Mem Besar Selangor nak menunjukkan keikhlasannya? Dah lah masjid dan surau menjadi second home bagi Hannah Yeoh.
Parti yang bersekongkol dengan munafik yang pandai bermuka-muka maka jadilah sama munafiknya.
“Haram jika PAS terus bersama DAP”, ujar Ustaz Abdullah Zaik Abd Rahman.
Presiden Isma itu kelmarin memberi nasihat bahawa syarat tahaluf siyasi antara kedua-dua rakan sebantal – tetapi mimpi lain-lain – itu tidak sah kerana DAP sebenarnya pantang melihat Islam berada di atas.
Kalau mahukan ‘Allah’, terimalah hudud sekali
Evangelista DAP begitu beriya-iya mahukan ‘Allah’.
Lantaran itu mereka wajib mendakap hudud juga.
Islam bukan agama yang boleh diperlakukan Cina sesumpah Malaysia ikut suka-suka hati mereka.
Jangan dibiarkan Cina Kristian untuk melentur Islam sebagaimana mereka ‘UBAH’ Nabi Isa — rasul yang dibuat mereka jadi Jesus Christ the Singing & Dancing Superstar.
(494 patah perkataan)
Helen Ang 
If Hudud are going to be implemented, it should be the law of the land, and suitably applied to everybody on and belongs to the land, not just Muslim.
Hudud for all should be supported.
I wonder how the dapsters will react if its true, that it really happens come July, the playboy model embraces Islam. This is going to be really interesting.
Allah for all ?
Well, it depends on the situation. If the situation demands for votes come election time, of course its Allah for all but if not, then its Allah for you not us.
By the way, do you still remember the DAP assemblyman who called for Islamic state ? I remember vaguely that he’s the rep for Sekinchan. If not Sekinchan, then which seat ? He said he visited kelantan many times and says that Pas rule is okay what. You know his name ? he’s the poster boy for Hudud for all if DAP wants proof from Hadi Awang.
re: “I wonder how the dapsters will react if its true, that it really happens come July, the playboy model embraces Islam.”
I hope the Malay bloggers will spread this piece of news widely in the social media. One up for the ummah in the numbers game.
And a pretty catch too :) who at least wears the tudung litup properly, unlike the Selendang Squaders who pakai tudung but expose half their hair.
re: “he’s the poster boy for Hudud for all”
Here he is, the DAP Sekinchan rep Ng Suee Lim
I guess DAPsters and the evangelistas got what they wished for and deserve. They claimed that Allah is Jesus and God. So what PAS is doing is only following the lead established by these evangelistas to the next logical conclussion – that if Christians have embraced Allah then they should have no problem in embracing Islam and its laws such as Hudud. So what’s the fuss all about?
BTW, did you notice how the so-called PAS liberals such as Khalid Samad, Dr. Dzulkefly Ahmad and Mujahid and so on seemed to have gone MIA on the issue of Hudud. I would have expected them to visit these churches in Subang Jaya and Penang to promote hudud among the evangalistas during Sunday Mass.
Re BTW, did you notice how the so-called PAS liberals such as Khalid Samad, Dr. Dzulkefly Ahmad and Mujahid and so on seemed to have gone MIA on the issue of Hudud. I would have expected them to visit these churches in Subang Jaya and Penang to promote hudud among the evangalistas during Sunday Mass.
I would say that they are liberals in the sense that they pursue their interests liberally as long as the principal agenda is not compromised in any way.
If my reading comprehension is correct, from what I gather from what RPK wrote, hudud in essence has Judeo-Xtian root to it. Perhaps it does. Many orientalists claim that Islam ‘copies from previous books’.
Trailing from that line, our Evangelistas should support hudud. But I do not think they would. They are actually deviants. They cannot even follow basic precepts of OT on ‘no wine and swine’ …
re: “our Evangelistas should support hudud”
They ubah-ubah the religion(s) as they please to suit their taste.
Their taste tends to casino-like churches and pop-concert worship services.
Whether they like it or not, muslims can still accept the civil law, where else the majority of non muslims simply reject the Hudud. Who is more tolerant?
Civil law does not chop off hands.
Nonetheless, those clamouring for ‘Allah’ and those who masquerade as Muslim in appearance and in their attention-seeking activities should, by the same token, embrace hudud. Sama rasa, sama rata.
‘Civil law does not chop off hands.’
Helen, justice does not follow your whims and fancies and nor do they follow mine.
But of course this does not deny our informed participation on the issues. And I don’t think that I’m as informed as I need be to give my two cents. Do you?
re: “And I don’t think that I’m as informed as I need be to give my two cents. Do you?”
Did you vote in my hudud poll? If you did, then you already gave your input as a stakeholder.
Yes I did. I sedar diri Helen. I did that and that’s all to it.
Helen, I’m sure you are aware that, just because one drives a car, does not imply that he/she is capable of fixing his/her own car nor can he/she build one to serve the purpose.
And we are all aware of your opposition on the bill. Nobody is forcing you to accept something that you won’t. Why can’t you just do the same?
I’m not forcing you to back off from your personal support of hudud. Just don’t force it on the country (starting Kelantan) because everyone will be affected.
‘Just don’t force it on the country (starting Kelantan) because everyone will be affected.’
Yet to be seen Helen. I’m sure you are aware of the democratic process taking its course, nobody is forcing it on the country. After all we are not living in Hitler’s Germany nor are we in People’s Republic of China, are we?
re: “After all we are not living in Hitler’s Germany nor are we in People’s Republic of China, are we?”
Well, the language of the People’s Republic of China is the one learned and spoken among a large segment of the population here who are at the same time most contemptuous of Bahasa Kebangsaan-Perkara 152, and
as for living in Hitler’s Germany — actually, if you’re cognizant of some of the vitriol that is being continually spat out by a section, it does sound as if they believe that Umno is equivalent to Nazis.
Take the Puan Speaker’s joust at “Ketuanan Umno” for instance. It’s one of a piece with accusations of “Aryan domination” of the master German race over the minorities (Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc).
“Aryan domination”
Guilty as charged!
Don’t say I didn’t warned you Helen, about Ancient India not being where (geographically) India, the modern/new (bharat) republic is today.
Hindia Purva (ancient, old, previous, former, original, east, eastern) is the East Hindia made into British and Dutch companies!
http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=pUrva&script=&direction=SE&link=yes
“Hudud: Even as we would judge with the law, let us contemplate our own conscience.”
A Sufi story: Learning Humility from the Gnostic Bayazid al-Bistami
There was a certain ascetic who was one of the great saints of Bistam. He had his own followers and admirers, but he himself was never absent from the circle of Bayazid al-Bistami (Abu Yazid al-Bistami). He listened to all his discourses, and sat with his companions.
One day this ascetic remarked to Abu Yazid, “Master, for thirty years I have been keeping a constant fast. By night too I pray, so that I never sleep at all. Yet I discover no trace of this knowledge of which you speak. Even so, I do believe and I love this preaching.”
“If for three hundred years,” said Abu Yazid, “you fast by day and pray by night, you will never realize one atom of this discourse.”
“Why?” asked the disciple.
“Because you are Veiled by your own self,” Abu Yazid replied.
“What is the remedy for this?” the man asked.
“You will never accept it,” answered Abu Yazid.
“I will so,” said the man. “Tell me, so that I may do as you prescribe.”
“Very well,” said Abu Yazid. “This very hour go and shave your beard and hair. Take off these clothes you are wearing, and tie a loincloth of goat’s wool around your waist. Hang a bag of nuts around your neck, then go to the marketplace. Gather all the children you can find, and tell them, “I will give a nut to everyone who slaps me.” Go round the whole city in the same way; especially where people recognize you. That is your prescription for self-realization.”
“Glory be to God! There is no god but God,” cried the disciple on hearing these words.
“If a Nonbeliever uttered that formula, he would become a Believer,” remarked Abu Yazid. “By uttering the same formula you have become a polytheist.”
***[Felixia & Co. please take note]
“How so?” demanded the disciple.
“Because you count yourself TOO GRAND to be able to do as I have said,” replied Abu Yazid. “So you have become a polytheist. You used this formula to express your own importance, not to glorify God.”
***[The Prophet taught that EGOTISM is the unseen polytheism in man]
“This I cannot do,” the man protested, “give me other directions.”
“The remedy is what I have said,” Abu Yazid declared.
“I cannot do it,” the man repeated.
“Did I not say you would not do it, that you would never obey me?” said Abu Yazid.
[from the “Memorial of the Saints” of Sheikh Fariduddin Attar.]
Bagus slogan ni Helen. Come to think about it, if PAS thinks that the hudud law is fair then why they afraid to say it should apply to non-Muslims as well. Because a fair law is color blind and religion blind.
Jawapannya mudah sahaja, hudud dimainkan untuk mendapat undi Melayu yang malas fikir cara lain untuk mengurangkan jenayah.
re: “Because a fair law is color blind and religion blind.”
Thanks Zack. I’ll use what you say.
“Because a fair law is color blind and religion blind.”
Indeed.
‘Justice is one of the core tenets of Islamic teachings. Whatever is just is necessarily a part of the religion of Islam.
Ibn Al-Qayyim said: Allah the Exalted has made clear in his law (sharia) that the objective is the establishment of justice between His servants and fairness among the people, so whichever path leads to justice and fairness is part of the religion and can never oppose it.’
‘In Islam, even the highest official, the Caliph, is subject to the same rules of justice as all humanity. There is a famous incident in which Ali Ibn Abu Talib lost a court case to a Christian because he lacked evidence, even though Ali was the Caliph at the time.
Sha’bi reported: Ali ibn Abu Talib found a Christian man with his armor. He decided to take up the matter legally, so he brought the dispute to the judge, Shuraih. Ali said, “This is my armor and I have not sold it nor given it away.” Shuraih said to the Christian, “What do you say about what the leader of the believers has said?” The Christian replied, “It is my armor, but I do not consider the leader of the believers to be a liar.” Shuraih turned to Ali and said, “O leader of the believers, do you have proof?” Ali laughed and said, “Shuraih is correct. I do not have proof.” So Shuraih ruled in favor of the Christian.’
‘Despite the emphasis of Islam on justice, it is recommended for Muslims to be merciful and forgiving when injustice is committed against them. For example, Islamic law gives the murder victim’s family the right to seek legal retaliation. However, it is better to remit this right by way of charity and mercy.’
‘We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives up his right as charity, it is expiation for him.’
Surah Al-Mai’dah 5:45
‘O you who believe, be persistently standing firm in justice as witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So do not follow desires, lest you not be just. If you distort your testimony or refuse to give it, then verily, Allah is aware of what you do.’
Surah An-Nisa 4:135
‘Verily, Allah orders justice and good conduct and giving to relatives and He forbids immorality and bad conduct and oppression. He admonishes you that perhaps you will be reminded.’
Surah An-Nahl 16:90
‘Verily, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due and when you judge between people to judge with justice. Excellent is that which Allah instructs you. Verily, Allah is ever Hearing and Seeing.’
Surah An-Nisa 4:58
‘Therefore, we must stand for justice for all people and the fulfillment of their rights, but we should stand for mercy when injustice is committed against us and our rights are violated.’
I’m sure Muslims, PAS or otherwise has the interest of all stakeholders, Muslims and non-Muslims as far as Hudud is concern. Mocking it or asking for langkah mayat aku dulu stance on Hudud, wont do any of us any good.
Yet I still believe this should be discuss by the experts in the field.
more reading on the references
http://www.faithinallah.org/justice-and-fairness-for-all-in-islam/
Mereka keliru, pada sangkaan mereka, bila curi tangkap terus potong tangan. Walaupun penjelasan sudah diberi, mereka macam tak faham lagi atau memang tujuan mereka memang sengaja nak hina hudud.
Berapa banyak tangan yg kena potong oleh peragut dan penyamun, adakah ini tak kejam?
Ada buat kajian statistik berapa ramai tangan yang dipotong oleh peragut dan penyamun?
Ada baca tulisan Prof Mohammad Hashim Kamali tentang perselisihan pendapat ulama tentang hukuman potong tangan untuk pencuri?
Bagaimana kalau orang yang melaksanakan hukuman yang dipanggil hudud tetapi sebenarnya bukan hudud? Adakah mereka ini sama tarafnya dengan sengaja nak hina hudud juga?
The Arabic word translated as “cut” in 5:38 is “iqtaa” and occurs 14 other times in the same verb form (QaTaA) in The Quran, and with the exception of 59:5 and possibly 69:46 all other occurrences mean the non-physical or metaphorical action of “cutting off relationship” or “ending” [2:27, 3:127, 6:45, 7:72, 8:7, 9:121, 13:25, 15:66, 22:15, 27:32, 29:29, 56:33].
The derivatives that are read in the 2nd verb form (QaTTaA) occur 17 times. This form, which expresses intensity or frequency of the action, is used both to mean physical cutting off [5:33, 7:124, 20:71, 26:49, 13:31] and metaphorical cutting off [2:166, 6:94, 7:160, 7:167, 9:110, 47:15, 47:22, 21:93, 22:19, 23:53] as well as physically cutting/marking [12:31, 12:50]. It is interesting to note that even though 12:31 uses the more intensive verb form and both “cut” and “hands” together, it does not mean “cut off”. The less intensive form is used in 5:38.
Secondly, the Arabic word for “hands” (aydi) is often used in The Quran in a metaphorical/metonymical manner [some examples are 2:195, 2:237, 3:3, 3:73, 5:64, 6:93, 8:70, 9:29, 23:88, 28:47, 30:36, 38:45, 48:10, 48:24, 111:1], and often has a meaning of power/means. It should also be noted that this word is in the Arabic plural meaning 3 or more hands, whilst only two people are referenced: the male and the female thief. Some have commented that this plural usage causes problems for the common interpretation of hand cutting.
Thus, it is possible to understand the punishment for thieves in three alternative ways, (1) cutting off their hands, or (2) cutting or marking their hands, or (3) cutting their means to steal, or cutting their hands from committing the crime. It is up to the society to choose one of these meanings or a combination of them depending on the severity of the crime and their ability to enforce the penalty.
It should be said however that the only working example given in The Quran of theft and its punishment is in the story of Joseph, in which option 3 is done by detaining the one guilty of theft, so that they can work to repay/compensate for the theft.
http://misconceptions-about-islam.com/cut-off-hands-theft.htm
‘Mereka keliru, pada sangkaan mereka, bila curi tangkap terus potong tangan. Walaupun penjelasan sudah diberi, mereka macam tak faham lagi atau memang tujuan mereka memang sengaja nak hina hudud.’
Xynal Hamzah, saya setuju dengan pandangan anda. Inilah sebenarnya.
The saying is berpantang maut sebelum ajal.
LOL, I’m dyslexic.
Ini capital dan corporal punishment in torah, which is the old testament for the Christians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_and_corporal_punishment_in_Judaism
Note the punishment include dipenggal kepala, dibakar hidup2 dan dicekik sampai mati untuk kesalahan seperti zina.
My point is that the severity is equivalent if not more severe than that during the prophet time. When a couple committed crime during the prophet time orang itu dihukum dengan hukuman ikut buku agama dia sebab hukuman itu lebih dahsyat atau sama darjahnya. Nabi tak melakukan kezaliman.
Tapi yang Pas nak beza-bezakan ini kenapa?
PAS dan DAP untuk semua,
Allah untuk semua,
hudud untuk Kelantan sahaja
Air untuk masa terhad sahaja
Zalim Anwar tak jumpa Obama
Lagu PR nyanyian semua.
When men ally themselves for ulterior motives, the clouds turn dry and the judges turn blind. By song and dance, the soul is not lifted above its worldly desires.