Sidang Media PEMBELA Bantah LGBT February 29, 2012Posted by membelaislam in LGBT.
Tags: LGBT, sidang media, UNHRC
add a comment
1 Mac 2012 (Khamis)
Bermula jam 10:00 pagi
BILIK SEMINAR – Masjid Wilayah Persekutuan,
Jalan Duta, Kuala Lumpur
Sidang media ini adalah bagi menentang Resolusi 17/9 tuntutan hak LGBT di United Nations Human Rights Council di Geneva pada bula bulan Mac ini.
PEMBELA menjemput seluruh pimpinan NGO-NGO di Tanah Air ini untuk hadir bersama sebagai tanda sokongan dengan bantahan ini.
Rukun Negara 1st Principle is Against LGBT February 28, 2012Posted by membelaislam in Uncategorized.
add a comment
It is not just Islam that prohibits LGBT, actually most of the other religions also of the view that, SOGI/LGBT are an immoral act and they are strongly prohibit and condemn it.
Among the religions are as follows:
Judaism prohibits the act of sodomy based on the Torah (first five books of the Hebrew Bible). It is the primary source for Jewish views on homosexuality. It states as follows:
“[A man] shall not lie with another man as [he would] with a woman, it is a toeba (“abomination”).”
Christianity teaches that sexual union between husband and wife is primarily for procreation, though sexual pleasure is important as well. The bible prohibits homosexual sex and sodomy, though it is mostly silent on heterosexual sodomy.
The Old Testament, states as follows:
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.”.
“If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” .
Based on these Bible verses, it shows that the sexual activity known as sodomy is not approved by their God.
Buddhists generally believe that all sexual desire is something to overcome, like other forms of attachment. Buddhists do not believe that humans have an obligation to procreate, and celibacy is seen by many Buddhist traditions as a step on the path to enlightenment. Buddhist teaching doesn’t normally distinguish between what type of sex is appropriate and what is not, though some believe Buddhism prohibits oral and anal sex.
The Buddha did not teach about homosexuality or homosexual behavior. But, Dalai Lama, the Tibetan Buddhism leader, has made statements against homosexual relationships and has said that lesbian and gay sex is “sexual misconduct”.
Sikhism has no written view on the matter, but in 2005, a Sikh religious authority described homosexuality as “against the Sikh religion and the Sikh code of conduct and totally against the laws of nature,” and called on Sikhs to support laws against gay marriage.
Based on the above explanation, it clearly shows that SOGI/LGBT are not in line with the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation under the Federal Constitution. Islam strongly prohibited and condemned SOGI/LGBT. We need to state unequivocally and unambiguously that SOGI/LGBT is a deviant behavior as clearly and explicitly stated by the Quran and Hadith. Besides, the other religions also have the same stand with Islamic religion in prohibiting SOGILGBT.
Sexuality, religion and ethics February 28, 2012Posted by membelaislam in Uncategorized.
add a comment
dari The Star
Sexuality, religion and ethics
Dr Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad
The Seksualiti Merdeka (SM) festival has virtually ground to a halt with the blanket ban on its activities by the authorities. Its organisers, comprising professional bodies and NGOs, can no longer openly proceed with their programmes like talks, workshops, book launches, art exhibition, performances, etc.
The SM campaign, or “Sexuality Independence”, held annually since 2008, seeks to promote awareness as well as celebrate the human rights of people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities – lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT), intersex and asexual.
As human beings, they enjoy the freedom to engage and indulge in any activities they like.
Upholding the theme “Queer without fear”, SM calls for better protection against discrimination or persecution inflicted on these groups by virtue of their sexual inclinations.
Its proponents believe that all Malaysians, in fact all mankind, have the right to live and love without fear.
This movement is actually a manifestation of a secular humanistic ideology. As a body of ideas, this philosophy will never die.
Through advancements in ICT and the new social media, its worldview will spread, gain momentum, and at times its various faces will surface here and there. This phenomenon is a threat to be reckoned with.
In terms of confrontation, most of the doctrines and practices of this movement, if not all, clash head-on, firstly, with religious teachings, especially Islam. Secondly, they are against ethics and morality, and thirdly, they go into conflict with rules and law.
One may observe that the SM drive is camouflaged under the banner of human rights. The most important human rights principle involved here is freedom. The secular human rights principles, as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948, rejects God, i.e. the role of religion, and guarantees absolute freedom to man.
Islam does not grant total freedom to man. Freedom comes with certain prior duties and responsibilities.
Islam has coined the term ikhtiyar for freedom. Its root word is khayr, meaning good, correct, beneficial and right things. So, if one applies one’s reason to choose something evil, wrong, or harmful, that’s not freedom, but destruction, injustice.
Religion teaches that reason alone is not sufficient to determine good and evil.
It requires a certain form of endorsement or approval from a higher authority.
In many religions, this determination is derived from the words of God or gods. In Islam, this is revelation (wahy).
Religion also does not refer only to personal or private bondage or relationship with God. True religion covers and governs all aspects of a human’s life, in both the private and public domains. If one’s relationship with God is excellent, its spill-over effects will necessarily appear to the external sphere as well.
Religion, through education, aims at producing not just good citizens, but above all, good persons, who by observing religious instructions, give result to good society, good nation.
Having said all the above, one may wonder why religion continues to be regarded as part of the problem, not part of the solution, in enhancing human rights and interests.
One possible explanation suggests that people are becoming more overwhelmed by secularism. They want to sever ties with God and religion. To them, these elements restrict their rapid progress and development.
Instead, they believe in the supremacy of reason to the effect that man is the sole measure of all things. Therefore, they hail the declaration by Friedrich Nietzsche, the 19th century German philosopher, that God is dead. They have killed Him!
Next, religion entails ethics and morality. There is no real value system outside religion.
When the advocates of SM attempt to recognise the lewd activities of LGBT as legitimate acts, they crumble the very foundations of both.
It’s equally perplexing to note that SM is championed by figures who are learned in law.
But I would say that they do not act according to their knowledge, or they have developed wrong interpretations.
They certainly know that our Federal Constitution recognises a number of human rights as fundamental liberties of all citizens.
But in the exercise of these liberties, Article 10, for example, clearly spells out that the right to freedom of speech and expression, or the right to assemble peacefully, must not be carried out in the manner that may threaten the security of the federation, public order or morality.
If it does jeopardise security, peaceful living and ethics, the authorities may impose measures or laws to control such activity. As the supreme law of the land, any inferior statutory provisions that go against any constitutional provision must be considered null and void.
In addition, Section 4(4) of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 prescribes that reference may be made to UDHR 1948, but it must be done “to the extent that it is not inconsistent with the Federal Constitution”.
The problem is that the organisers of SM view the international documents on human rights with greater respect than their own national Constitution, as if these are their holy scriptures.
They seem to ignore other statutes being enforced in this country. Section 377 of the Penal Code, for instance, prohibits any sexual action that goes against the order of nature.
We may also argue that if we were to allow SM to proceed, that would contradict all five principles of the Rukun Negara: belief in God, loyalty to the King and country, the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law and courtesy and morality.
With all the above arguments, we may safely conclude that there is no room for any sound human being to agree with the SM organisers.
All their objectives and actions are inconsistent with religious teachings, ethics and morality, law of nature, the Federal Constitution and other Acts of Parliament.
We may enjoy life, but let’s do it with responsibility, observing the aforementioned parameters. Freedom has its limitations.
We are propagating the freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Thank God we live in a country where religious awareness and ethical consciousness are still running deep in our society and can be found in abundance.
The battle between good and evil must continue, and the former must prevail.
UN Resolution on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity February 28, 2012Posted by membelaislam in Uncategorized.
add a comment
Human Rights Council Passes First-Ever Resolution on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
(Geneva, June 17, 2011) In a groundbreaking achievement for upholding the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the United Nations Human Rights Council has passed a resolution on human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity (L9/rev1).
The resolution, presented by South Africa along with Brasil and 39 additional co-sponsors from all regions of the world, was passed by a vote of 23 in favour, 19 against, and 3 abstentions. A list of how States voted is attached. In its presentation to Council, South Africa recalled the UDHR noting that “everyone is entitled to all rights and freedoms without distinction of any kind” and Brasil called on the Council to “open the long closed doors of dialogue”.
Today’s resolution is the first UN resolution ever to bring specific focus to human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and follows a joint statement on these issues delivered at the March session of the council. It affirms the universality of human rights, and notes concern about acts of violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This commitment of the Human Rights Council sends an important signal of support to human rights defenders working on these issues, and recognizes the legitimacy of their work.
“The South African government has now offered progressive leadership, after years of troubling and inconsistent positions on the issue of sexual orientation and gender identity. Simultaneously, the government has set a standard for themselves in international spaces. We look forward to contributing to and supporting sustained progressive leadership by this government and seeing the end of the violations we face daily”. (Dawn Cavanagh, Coalition of African Lesbians)
The resolution requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a study on violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and calls for a panel discussion to be held at the Human Rights Council to discuss the findings of the study in a constructive and transparent manner, and to consider appropriate follow-up.
“That we are celebrating the passage of a UN resolution about human rights violations on the basis of sexual orientation is remarkable, however the fact that gender identity is explicitly named truly makes this pivotal moment one to rejoice in,” added Justus Eisfeld, Co-Director of GATE. ”The Human Rights Council has taken a step forward in history by acknowledging that both sexual and gender non-conformity make lesbian, gay, trans* and bi people among those most vulnerable and indicated decisively that states have an obligation to protect us from violence.”
“As treaty bodies, UN special procedures, and national courts have repeatedly recognized, international human rights law prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity.” (Alli Jernow, International Commission of Jurists)
The resolution is consistent with other regional and national jurisprudence, and just this week, the 2011 United Nations Political Declaration on HIV and AIDS recognised the need to address the human rights of men who have sex with men, and the Organization of American States adopted by consensus a resolution condemning violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Earlier in this 17th session of the Human Rights Council, the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Rashida Manjoo, reported to the Council that:
“[C]ontributory factors for risk of violence include individual aspects of women’s bodily attributes such as race, skin colour, intellectual and physical abilities, age, language skills and fluency, ethnic identity and sexual orientation.”
The report also detailed a number of violations committed against lesbian, bisexual and trans women, including cases of rape, attacks and murders. It is therefore regrettable that a reference to “women who face sexuality-related violence” was removed from the final version of another resolution focused on the elimination of violence against women during the same session.
“Despite this inconsistency, we trust the UN resolution on sexual orientation and gender identity will facilitate the integration of the full range of sexual rights throughout the work of the UN.” (Meghan Doherty, Sexual Rights Initiative)
A powerful civil society statement was delivered at the end of the session, welcoming the resolution and affirming civil society’s commitment to continuing to engage with the United Nations with a view to ensuring that all persons are treated as free and equal in dignity and rights, including on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity.
“Now, our work is just beginning”, said Kim Vance of ARC International. “We look forward to the High Commissioner’s report and the plenary panel next March, as well as to further dialogue with, and support from, those States which did not yet feel able to support the resolution, but which share the concern of the international community at these systemic human rights abuses.”
Membantah Tuntutan Hak LGBT February 28, 2012Posted by membelaislam in Uncategorized.
add a comment
Kami menyeru seluruh penduduk Malaysia terutamanya yang beragama Islam sedar dan bangkit membantah usaha-usaha tersebut.
Ayuh sertailah Pertubuhan-pertubuhan Pembela Islam (PEMBELA) dalam siri membantah usaha dan gerakan terancang untuk membenarkan anak cucu kita bergelumang dengan maksiat dan gejala sosial yang di luar tabie dan fitrah kemanusiaan.
Ikutilah blog ini untuk perkembangan seterusnya dalam masa terdekat.
- Sidang Media
- Menyerah memorandum bantahan kepada kerajaan
- Kempen tanda tangan membantah tuntutan hak LGBT
- Sesi Penerangan
- Ceramah dan roadshow
- Seminar Membantah Tuntutan Hak LGBT
- Khutbah Jumaat bagi menerangkan kepada umat Islam bahaya gerakan LGBT
- Bantah awam
Flirting with Disaster: An Analysis on the Demand for Religious Freedom in Malaysia February 21, 2012Posted by membelaislam in Uncategorized.
add a comment
MARCH 30 — We are grateful to Almighty God for bringing together Christian leaders from across churches in Semenanjung, Sabah and Sarawak to address the current controversy surrounding the impounding of Bahasa Malaysia Bibles, the Alkitab, at Port Klang and Kuching. This decision weighs heavily on us because of the implications not only for Christians but for all Malaysians.
We are united in our reaffirmation of the freedom of religion and worship. Therefore, our position is that there should be no restrictions, proscriptions or prohibitions whatsoever on the bible or the use of the language of our choice in the practice of our religion, as it was in the days before and after the formation of Malaysia.
Christians, like any other Malaysian, are not demanding for anything beyond our constitutional and fundamental human rights as enshrined in Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution and Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The current controversy surrounding the Alkitab is just one of many issues that concerns Christians.There has been a systematic and progressive pushing back of the public space to practise, to profess and to express our faith. For example, the wearing and displaying of crosses and other religious symbols, the use of religious words and the construction of places of worship have been restricted.
When Christians express this concern, we do so not just for ourselves but on behalf of all Malaysians. Our faith forms a critical component of our identity as Malaysians in nation-building as enshrined in the first pillar of our nation’s Rukunegara: Belief in God. More here
Bishop Ng Moon HingChairman and the Executive CommitteeThe Christian Federation of Malaysia
For more than half a century, the United Nations and numerous international organizations have affirmed the principle of religious freedom. For just as many decades, journalists and human rights groups have reported on persecution of minority faiths, outbreaks of sectarian violence and other pressures on religious individuals and communities in many countries. But until now, there has been no quantitative study that reviews an extensive number of sources to measure how governments and private actors infringe on religious beliefs and practices around the world.Global Restrictions on Religion, a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion; Public Life,finds that 64 nations – about one-third of the countries in the world – have high or very high restrictions on religion. But because some of the most restrictive countries are very populous, nearly 70 percent of the world’s 6.8 billion people live in countries with high restrictions on religion, the brunt of which often falls on religious minorities.
Some restrictions result from government actions, policies and laws. Others result from hostile acts by private individuals, organizations and social groups. The highest overall levels of restrictions are found in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran, where both the government and society at large impose numerous limits on religious beliefs and practices. But government policies and social hostilities do not always move in tandem. Vietnam and China, for instance, have high government restrictions on religion but are in the moderate or low range when it comes to social hostilities. Nigeria and Bangladesh follow the opposite pattern: high in social hostilities but moderate in terms of government actions.
Among all regions, the Middle East-North Africa has the highest government and social restrictions on religion, while the Americas are the least restrictive region on both measures. Among the world’s 25 most populous countries , Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan and India stand out as having the most restrictions when both measures are taken into account, while Brazil, Japan, the United States, Italy, South Africa and the United Kingdom have the least.The Pew Forum’s study examines the incidence of many specific types of government and social restrictions on religion around the world. In 75 countries (38%), for example, national or local governments limit efforts by religious groups or individuals to persuade others to join their faith. In 178 countries (90%), religious groups must register with the government for various purposes, and in 117 (59%) the registration requirements resulted in major problems for, or outright discrimination against, certain faiths. More here
The survival of the church in Egypt has also been hampered by the 1856 Ottoman Decree that is still in force which prohibits the construction or repair of churches, including the repair of a toilet, without a presidential decree. While mosques are allowed to flourish, the construction of non-Muslim places of worship are curtailed. In January 1998, President Mubarak transferred his authority on issuing building permits to the regional governors. It remains to be seen if the granting of permits by the regional governors will have any significant impact. Most Christian pastors interviewed by ICC remained skeptical. Restricting church construction has been used by the government as a means to limit church growth, and such restrictions have been encouraged by the Muslim leadership.
Another great frustration to Christians is the government-issued identity card. From the time of birth, every Egyptian citizen is issued an identity card that states his or her religion. The card will either state Muslim or Christian. If one has a card bearing the identity of Christian on it, they are discriminated against in terms of jobs, and many things similar to the 1960 civil rights offenses toward African Americans. Non-Muslims may change their identity to read “Muslim” but Muslims are not allowed to change their identity to read “Christian.” Moreover, there are no restrictions on non-Muslims converting to Islam, but Muslims face serious legal problems and social pressure if they convert. While there have been no recent charges brought against converts in the past two years, previously the government has used provisions in the penal code that prohibit falsifying documents as a means to punish converts who attempted to change their religious affiliation. A common charge that had been brought against converts cites the penal code violation that prohibits religion to “ignite strife, degrade any of the heavenly religions, or harm national unity or social peace.” More here
You can’t even fix your church toilets without getting approval.
Lets not go into more gory details on their sectarian violence
And these people are all Arabs….
This brings me to another unique position that Malaysia is in….the plurality of our society
When Egypt erupted, some folks were jumping on the bandwagon that Malaysia runs a similar risk…
I put forward a post to provide a framework for us to look at the situation
A Malay can Covert to Christianity and be free to Profess, Practice and Propagate Christianity under the guarantees of our Article 11 go here
In that post as well I referred to a possibility that if there is a significant conversion of the Malays to other religion, more specifically Christianity that would be tantamount to an Act of War against the Yang Di Pertuan Agong
Following the hidden rule of the statutory interpretation of Art.3.is the protection of Islam as the religion of the State and the YDPA as the Supreme Head of the religion of Islam is well protected against any aggression, subversion or propagation against him, his government, his agent, his Muslim subject, his heir and his state by instigating any Anti Islamic activities.
Thus, could it be that if such a new situation arise Penal Code s.121 could be used because any aggression instigation against His Majestic official religion of the state is an act of aggression against his Majestic and thus it is wagging a war against the YDPA as defined in s.121 of the Penal Code (Act 574).
I believe we are at an initial tipping point now…..
Hidden hands are operating in shadows…..
Just look at the timing of the Al-Kitab issue, how convenient…. after quite sometime they suddenly brought it up as a potential political capital for the Election in the Christian Majority Serawak….
All of a sudden a flurry of support from the Pakatan Rakyat on the subject….
Eerie silence from BN camps on the matter….not only that every single move they make it leads to another hole….
Let me ask you a simple question…
The Restrictions on the Usage of Allah and other “Islamic” words are enforced via the State Enactments rite?
Refer Article 11.4 of our Federal Constitution
State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam
Ask yourself how long have PAS ruled Kelantan with considerable Majority
Why didn’t they change the State Law if they really support the Usage of Allah?
What about Pakatan ruled Selangor and Kedah?
If you really support its usage
I DARE YOU TO CHANGE THE STATE LAW
Which Quadrant in the Religious Restriction Vs Social Hostilities do you want our Country to Migrate to?