Setiap Artikel Malaysiawaves ke Email Anda.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Dipersilakan untuk Like Facebook Page T. Besi

Search Malaysiawaves

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Addressing RPK's Concern with Islamic Penal Code/Hudud

Raja Petra Kamaruddin wrote a piece on the recent hudud controversy. Surprisingly he is not against “hudud” outright like most liberals do. (The piece is entitled THE HYPOCRISY IN MAN)

I especially agree to this particular suggestion from Raja Petra:

“Run a referendum. 10 million Malaysians are minors. 16 million Malaysians are of voting age. Get the 16 million Malaysians to decide. And let that referendum of 75% tell us what they want. And if 12 million Malaysians, representing 75% of eligible voters, vote in favour of Hudud, then let this be the law of the land. If not, forever hold your tongue and let the matter be given a decent burial.”
I am all for a referendum. Let all Malaysians decide whether they want the Islamic shariah laws or not. If they agrees, then the implementation of the law can be carried out without any noise being made by anyone after that. It’s a law that is specifically agreed upon by Malaysians.
However, there are a few concerns raised by Raja Petra in the article. Here, I will try to address them with historical facts.
Raja says:

“No, Hudud is not evil. Hudud is better than what we have now. But it can be worse if we want to make it so. And chances are the evil in man will make it worse. That is what makes the matter dicey.”
“Hudud” has been in practiced for 1400 years. From the first time it was first implemented by the Prophet, it has never stopped from being practiced until today.
My argument is simple. If Hudud is open to abuse and prone to evil in man, why hasn’t hudud been rejected by Muslims throughout the entire 1400 years?
If Hudud is easy to be abused, then it would not even last for more than 5 years after it was first implemented.
But it is an estadblished historical fact that “hudud” was removed from daily Muslim lives by colonial powers who invaded Muslim lands. Colonial powers like the British, French, Spanish, Portugese, Dutch etc. In fact these colonial powers used to execute and massacare Muslims for resisting their effort to replace “hudud’ with secular laws.
After independence, Muslim lands were ruled by secular elites created by the colonial powers from among the Muslims. These secular elites of the Muslims continued the Colonial anti Islamic law policies. And they are as vicious (if not more) as their former colonial masters. Not to mention more determined and motivated.
Power was always divided between the Ulama and the secular leaders. Power was never concentrated to the executive alone thanks to Shariah.

Muslim Secular Elites Are More Motivated In Preventing Hudud Than Their Colonial Masters

Now, why are the secular elites of the Muslims more motivated? Shariah has been the sole factor in preventing totalitarianism in the various Islamic Caliphates and Governments throughout the 1400 years of Islamic polity.
Throughout the 1400 years, various Muslim rulers are denied total control of their respective government through the implementation of Shariah.
Shariah is always the domain of the Islamic scholars (ulama) and as such Muslim rulers cannot pass laws and regulations as they please.
At the same time, the various Muslim rulers have their rule checked by the Ulama institutions and their movement are always limited.
When secularism is introduced in Muslim lands, the various secular Muslim rulers are aware of the threat that Shariah possess. They know that their total dominance can be compromised the day Shariah is introduced.

So, secular Muslims work overtime to prevent Shariah from being implemented in their respective “countries”. And the former colonial masters knows this and has properly briefed these secular elites of the threat that Shariah holds against their rule.
As a result we hear countless and repeated stories of islamists being jailed, murdered, raped, incarcerated, slandered, detained without trial and many more. Shariah is a threat to the dictatorial rule of various Muslim secular elites of the world. Therefore, Shariah must be prevented or these secular muslim rulers must be subjected to the same fate of the Muslim rulers before them.

Another historical fact that Muslim secular elites are very well aware of is the fact that despite the many times Muslim rulers and government have been toppled in the last 1400 years, the ulama rule was never touched or protested by the Muslim population. Despite the change in government, the same ulama running the shariah remains. The same institution is maintained and the same system is defended.
When the Colonials invaded Muslim lands, the first institution they destroyed was the ulama institution among the Muslim relegating the ulama to the role of mere teachers of Islam and nothing more.

Again, rule of Ulama on the Muslims is the direct handiwork of Western colonial powers who had invaded Muslim lands. Not a move taken by Muslims.
So, non Muslims should not be worried about Hudud or Shariah. It is a tried and tested system and not open to abuse. It’s proven beyond any doubt of it’s ability to deliver justice and to promote security and peace.

Tulang Besi

65 comments:

Anonymous said...

Tulang Besi,
I have a doubt over a scenario. Let's say a muslim raped a non-muslim where semen was found in the vagina and there were no 4 pious muslims to be witnesses.

How is it going to be? Under Hudud laws, is he going to be sentenced as a free man?

Mike

Anonymous said...

you said music isnt haram according to some fatwa.

why do so many say it is haram then?

how can there be a dispute?

if there can be a dispute about something like music, how about other parts of islamic law?

who will decide and who will decide who the deciders will be.

Anonymous said...

by the way,

do YOU think music is haram?

Tulang Besi said...

Dear mike,

Rape is not a crime subjected to hudud.

It is classified under taazir because the burden of proof is too heavy.

Otherwise, so many will get scot free easily if rape is put under hudud

Anonymous said...

Pak Lah, your paternal grandfather, Syeikh Abdullah Badawi Fahim, was one of the founding fathers of PAS. This means PAS exists today because of your family. And the fact that Syeikh Abdullah went on to become the first Mufti of Penang is no small achievement. This proves your grandfather was able to set aside his political differences and serve the government he opposed for the sake of Islam and the nation. Today, how many are able to do this?

By the way, your grandfather served under my grandfather, Raja Sir Tun Uda, the Governor then, and Puan Seri Endon Mahmood’s family was close to my family even before you married her. So, in that sense, we are ‘family friends’, although political adversaries, and maybe you should be my Abang Lah rather than Pak Lah.

Your maternal grandfather, Ha Su-chiang, was a Chinese Muslim from Hainan. Your late wife, Endon, is said to have Japanese blood while your current wife, Dato’ Seri Jeanne Danker a.k.a Jeanne Abdullah, is of Portuguese descent. Have we ever had such a multi-cultural Prime Minister before this (notwithstanding the four Prime Ministers before you were also not ‘pure’ Malays, if we really want to get technical)?

I feel your family background is unique and can serve as the best example of what a multi-cultural Malaysia should look like. If I had my own way I would ban same-race marriages. Malaysia should pass a law that you must marry outside your race and not marry someone from your own race. Anyway, that would certainly not be realistic and is just my wishful thinking.

vinnan said...

Hudud worked in a system where the cast majority were Muslims and the minorities were staring at an Islamic sword. Plese stop your bullshit about how Hudud can work in Malaysia.

Tulang Besi said...

dear vinnan,

Can u please quote an example?

Anonymous said...

I agree with RPK's view and I don't think his views are that of the rigid fundamentalist Muslims.

I am not against "hudud" sort of barbaric punishments, but i do not agree that any "hudud" type of punishments should be RIGIDLY FIXED as god's law for eternity and that it cannot be changed.

Such barbaric punishments are temporarily suitable for less matured societies till they progress higher into more humane societies.

I agree with RPK that given the circumstances with so much hoo..hahs being made, a referendum be held and let it be the law of the land not Islamic law. I would suggest every 5 years to decide the issue. If the majority want it, so be it, though i would not support it at all.

In the first place, the "hudud" sort of law is human-made. A super-intelligent God (if it exists)would not resort to anything rigid as change is inevitable.

At the rate of progress of average human spirituality and other fields, do you think chopping of hand for theft is necessary 5000 years from now.

An all knowing god would not have issued rigid laws, otherwise it would have made him stupid. "Hudud" sort of punishments can only be human-made.

A smart god (if it exists) would have made laws that are general and leave to humans to implement them flexibly in accordance to the circumstances, location and situation they are in.

For example, a Multinational Group (God), would issue only group policies and leave it to the subsidiaries companies (believers) to implement their specific SOPs in accordance to local conditions.

God (if he exists) should appear at present and issue general laws that are suitable for currrent conditions to avoid unnecessary arguments about his existence. Where is God?

vinnan said...

How about Saudi Arabia? Let's look at one country at a time.

Serious Shepherd said...

Perhaps we should just ignore comments from those who do not memorize the Rukun Negara let alone practicing its principles.

Parameswara did not become a Muslim after staring at any Islamic sword. Yet the Malacca Sultanate practised Hukum Kanun Melaka that incorporates hudud law.

Tulang Besi said...

Anonymous vinnan said...

How about Saudi Arabia? Let's look at one country at a time.


What about Saudi Arabia? Before you answer, tell me, what u know about Saudi Arabia, is it from personal experience living there or just what you heard and read from the liberal media?

Oh the funny thing is that despite all claims, people are coming to invest in Saudi Arabia in the billions of USD.

Also, didn't Gordon Brown visited Saudi Arabia asking Saudi Arabia to save some of Britain's banks recently?

Anonymous said...

Just to tie a few comments into one group of questions...

what in the world does investments in Saudi Arabia have to do with hudud? Are you saying that the flow of capital constitutes an acceptance of a country's human rights environment?

And what exactly is a 'liberal media'?
that's an old canard that should be discarded immediately. There only a for-profit media that steers public opinion for private gain.

And instead of saying rape is not subject to hudud but taazir, why not explain the difference clearly as well as why an adoption of hudud law would not mean a similar adoption of taazir principles? After all, I don't think people are only concerned about hudud, but the implementation of Islamic law as a whole.

and what about music, I too am curious as to why you have stated elsewhere in this blog that it is not haram.

Bang Chob

vinnan said...

What in the world has investing in banks got to do with hudud laws. Please lah, like I said stop giving us this rubbish about hudud laws being fair and so on. I KNOW of foreign maids who were sexually abused in Saudi Arabia but could not do anything due to hudud laws. Anything thing else you want to know about your barbaric hudud laws.

Tulang Besi said...

For one, if hudud is so unjust and open to abuse, it will result in chaos and instability in a country.

What self respecting multinational would want to invest in a country that is unstable like Saudi Arabia?

Secondly, if hudud is backwards, then it would force the saudis to think in the 6th century mindset.

But....they are very modern and for someone who lived there i can assure you that they ride in cars and not camels.

They also live in brick houses and not tents

So, Hudud is not for barbarians after all.

and even as we speak, dutch, english, portugese, americans, belgians multinationals are zeroing on Saudi for their next destination for investment.

I hope this helps.

Oh my conclusion: hudud doesn't promote or breed backwardness. Saudi is my proof.

Most of what liberals say about Saudi are from third parties sources.

Tulang Besi said...


And instead of saying rape is not subject to hudud but taazir, why not explain the difference clearly as well as why an adoption of hudud law would not mean a similar adoption of taazir principles? After all, I don't think people are only concerned about hudud, but the implementation of Islamic law as a whole.


Simple. crimes that falls under Hudud and Qisas is specific.

Other than the one in the list, they all fall under taazir.

Tun Salleh Abas says our penal code can be taken as taazir.

Tulang Besi said...


I am not against "hudud" sort of barbaric punishments, but i do not agree that any "hudud" type of punishments should be RIGIDLY FIXED as god's law for eternity and that it cannot be changed.


Sorry but hudud is not time bounded.

WHy? Don't modern men commit adultery? infanticide, murder, theft, apostasy, robberry etc?

If they are so modern they won't commit these crimes.

I never had problems with hudud when I lived in Saudi because i don't commit all the crimes mentioned above.

Simple.

Anonymous said...

It is impossible to 'understand' when one has already made up his mind. Especially when the mind is closed so tightly

Anonymous said...

And we wonder who is more 'barbaric'

vinnan said...

Saudi is so liberal their women are not allowed to move around on their own because it is the law or should I say Islamic law. Barbaric over and over again.

vinnan said...

Like I said what has making money got to do with being liberal. MNCs only care for the profits they can make. This still leaves Hudud barbaric.

Tulang Besi said...

Anonymous vinnan said...

Like I said what has making money got to do with being liberal. MNCs only care for the profits they can make. This still leaves Hudud barbaric.


And like I said, if Saudi is so barbaric, why then are they so advance that MNC's are willing to invest there in the BILLIONS.

The MNC's are not just Americans but Dutch, Swedish, FInnish, Danish, Portugese, Spanish etc.

Barbaric nations are backwards. THey won't be able to appreciate the products that these various Western MNC's are selling.

What kind of barbaric nation would want to buy a 4x4?

Again, 99% of Saudi critics are those whose never lived in Saudi even an hour of their entire misspent lives.

They talk from their own wild imagination.

Incidently, i actually flew on a 747 and landed in a Saudi airport.

barbaric nations don't have airports let alone runaways long enough for a 747 to land.

Anonymous said...

hudud laws are not applied to the non muslims so why are you guys barking about? tak faham la

Anonymous said...

And like I said, if Saudi is so barbaric, why then are they so advance that MNC's are willing to invest there in the BILLIONS.

Your thinking seem to be vague. Who is talking about barbaric nations here?

So far, we are referring to 'barbaric' to certain actions and principles.

In modern societies, there will still be humans who commit 'barbaric' acts, perhaps worst than what is normally termed 'barbaric'. However these acts are not common, not recognized nor endorsed by the majority.

Hudud laws are different as they endorsed barbaric acts as laws that cannot be changed and forced it upon humans.
The reason given is that hudud is god's law. I think this is an insult to God, which is supposed to be all powerful and omni-benevolent.

Anonymous said...

hudud laws are not applied to the non muslims so why are you guys barking about? tak faham la

The above exposes your immaturity as a human.

Most blogs which are unmodulated (show some maturity for the owner) are meant for open discussions. Otherwise the owner should moderate all posts.

Discussions are exchanging of words only not bullets, why are you so bothered and worked-up about it.

Faizal Zakaria's Blog said...

Selamat Tahun Baru :-)













(( Renungkan )) Ke Mana Kita Mahu Pergi?
http://TeamPemudaUMNO.blogspot.com
Forum Generasi Muda
http://Forum1Malaysia.blogspot.com
Pakatan Antara Parti Lawan Tidak Kekal
http://pro-faizal.blogspot.com

Tulang Besi said...



Hudud laws are different as they endorsed barbaric acts as laws that cannot be changed and forced it upon humans.
The reason given is that hudud is god's law. I think this is an insult to God, which is supposed to be all powerful and omni-benevolent.


And you keep missing my point. Barbaric punishments is meant for barbaric crimes still being committed by man today i.e. fornication, adultery, theft, robbery and treason.

Anonymous said...

And you keep missing my point. Barbaric punishments is meant for barbaric crimes still being committed by man today i.e. fornication, adultery, theft, robbery and treason.

There is a big difference between barbaric punishment and what you called 'barbaric' crimes.

Fornication, adultery, theft and robbery and treason are not 'barbaric' in principle. We do not term eating as barbaric just because the barbarians did it long time ago.
We may term the methods the above acts are done as barbaric but not the acts themselves.

The above acts are part of human nature and the vary with time. They should be punished in accordance to the situation that changes.

However, hudud follows the barbaric methods of punishments. It use primitive methods as fixed laws to apply to modern society.

As an example, all humans will eat and during the barbaric age, they will cook and eat using barbaric methods which are less hygienic.

As society matures and progress, humans changes and used more hygienic methods to cook and eat.

It is the same for punishments, modern society will change and use more humane methods for punishments.
But hudud is stuck with barbaric methods that cannot be changed with time.

The problem is not with hudud but there is a catch-22 that do not allow hudud to be modified and enable it to change with them.

Because of this catch-22, that is why TB and others has to carry the burden of defending its rigidity like hell.

Tulang Besi said...

Fornication, adultery, theft and robbery and treason are not 'barbaric' in principle.

Actually they are. They were committed by the "barbarians" and they are still being committed today.

So, barbaric punishment for barbaric crimes are fitting don't u think so

Anonymous said...

Actually they are. They were committed by the "barbarians" and they are still being committed today.

You did not read my post properly. I'll explain again.

Barbarians during their barbaric period, eat and shit. We don't call eating and shitting 'barbaric'. It is their methods that is barbaric.

Theft is common in societies during barbaric times and now. We must differentiate between theft and its method of punishments.

While modern society has changed with time, hudud is stuck with primitives methods of punishments.

'Being rigid and not changing with time' is a bad and negative word at all times.

Something is wrong if one insist on being rigid for eternity.

Anonymous said...

How come all the 'other' barbaric practices as mentioned here evolved into practices that is accepted by the society today (eg: we don't normally see a girl child is killed upon birth nowadays) BUT the 'barbaric' crimes mentioned by Tulang Besi is still rampant? So what is so good about the so-called 'non-barbaric' punishments when these 'barbaric' crimes are still rampant?

Don't say that these 'barbaric' crimes are human nature as if we are all doomed to accept them under the so-called 'non-barbaric' laws. Because then it would be negative as you put it.

Yes, something is wrong. Something is wrong when everything else from the 'barbaric' practices 'evolved' but not the 'barbaric' crimes. Don't you think something is wrong? Why so hardheadedly go against the so-called 'barbaric' laws, look at the big picture. With the current man-made laws, the eutopia man are craving for is not going to happen.

Will Hudud laws provide us the eutopia? It is an avenue to be discussed with an open mind, not by staying in the tunnel with a closed mind that's for sure.

Anonymous said...

On the same note, what is so great about the world we live in today? What is so great about the capitalist system or whatever other systems that are pushed into our throats by some quarters? Isn't there something better for mankind?

Are we doomed to work like slaves to enrich 10 percent of the society until we die? Are were doomed to accept that man continues to screw up the environment? Are we doomed to accept the crimes around us, that it is not safe for someone to walk the streets alone? Are we doomed to pay a high price for almost everything, even for drinking water? Are we to accept it as a fact that at the end of the day, no one is going to help us for free, not even for the medical assistance we need? Are we doomed to accept that the depreciating of value of things we buy such as cars is always faster than the loan we had to take? Are we going to accept that the superior nations continue to bully the lesser ones? Are we doomed to live behind iron grills on our doors and windows of houses even at the 18th floor? etc

So many questions, yet no answers. Isn't there something better for mankind? How long until we find something better? Someone suggested that if all nations in the world took part in a project to build solar power plants in the deserts, we could then have free electricity for the whole world. But no, it will 'help' some greedy rich people in the world to make more money. So much for the 'great' man-made systems we live in. So unbarbaric.

Tulang Besi said...

Will Hudud laws provide us the eutopia? It is an avenue to be discussed with an open mind, not by staying in the tunnel with a closed mind that's for sure.

Hudud laws will provide rule of law in all situations.

And it is effective in preventing crime.

Anonymous said...

sore loser expression!!!!!

Anonymous said...

The above exposes your immaturity as a human.

Most blogs which are unmodulated (show some maturity for the owner) are meant for open discussions. Otherwise the owner should moderate all posts.

Discussions are exchanging of words only not bullets, why are you so bothered and worked-up about it.

CONTOH SORE LOSER EXPRESSION!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Tulang Besi,
Not point argue over the finer detail of Hudud law implementation. As long as the character of the nation changes, I say it very LOUD to you. A big No! I believe, Tunku Abdul Aziz, a muslim would agree with me.

I disagree with RPK of having referendum on this. Constituition of Malaysia must cover everybody including muslims and non muslims. Stick to the original constuition just as Karpal and LKS have mentioned over and over again. Malaysia a SECULAR nation with Islam as offical religion plus people of other faiths free to practise their faiths.

Furthermore, you have your syariah law. That's good enough! Civil law must remains Paramount. Turkey, 90% muslims. Secular! Turkish ARMY start coup d'etats whenever Turkish government tries to be funny to change their constuition. TURKISH army (most muslims) defended WITH GUNS till the very end of defending Turkey a secular nation. God, we do need them here. I envisage Malaysia as a second Turkey.

Turkey, 90% muslim. SECULAR. Malaysia only 55% muslim, why not SECULAR. Indonesia with pancasila ideology, SECULAR.

As for this KT election, I do not understand with Hadi's announcement. What kaedah2 Islam you are talking about? Mohammad Sabu not Islam enough? Syed Azman not Islam? So, please No Hudud. Especially UMNO doesn't dare to implement Hudud. PAS as well. I understand your ultimate objective. PAS understands its limitation. Understand the limitations. Steer Clear.

At this moment, I would still support PAS for KT. I would be much happier if people like Khalid Samad would fill up PAS. We need moderate PAS MPs / Aduns

PAS wanna create greater awareness among muslims. Go ahead. Cultivate your relationship with God Islam way. Too bad, muslims don't believe in holy spirit. Better than law written on stone. Good thing you know. Anyway, it's your faith.

Regards,
looes74

Anonymous said...

Oh by the way, MCA, Gerakan & MIC folks are just as guilty. Mahathir has declared Malaysia an Islamic nation. It's blasphemeous! I mean it.

Just as RPK said, Ong Tee Keat, you don't cabut from this legacy

Anonymous said...

what nonsense...

Anonymous said...

Civil law must remains Paramount. I agree.
If not lawyers nanti susah mau cari makan. Can go into farming what.

Anonymous said...

And like I said, if Saudi is so barbaric, why then are they so advance that MNC's are willing to invest there in the BILLIONS.

The above has nothing to do with hudud. MNCs invest in Saudi because of they know that the so-called kafir USA will protect Saudi at all costs and ensuring stability.

Using Islamic-related-Saudi, they can also enable easier penetration into the Arab market.

Besides the stability, there is cheap direct oil energy.

Chopping of fingers is too small a criteria to decide on billions of dollars of investment.

To safeguard your primordial fear, you are willing to compromise your intelligence and even kill your most loved ones if Islamic law state so.

Anonymous said...

Hudud laws will provide rule of law in all situations.
And it is effective in preventing crime.


Don't insult your own intelligence lah.

You are forced to accept and promote hudud sort of law because you are caught in a catch-22 situation.

Because hudud is stated in the holy texts which was supposedly to be perfect from god, so refusing to accept it would be denying god's credibility.

If not for the above, you as a normal person would never accept such primitive sorts of punishments.

In the first place, god does not exist and holy texts are compiled by humans who wrote about these punishments in accordance to their time.

Logically, chopping off hands for theft will not be applicable in 5000, 10,000 or 50,000 years time where human spirituality and technology would have progres by quantum leaps.

Biochips can be implanted into human brains to prevent and steer them from crimes.

There could be a million and one ways to prevent and deter crimes, other than primitive barbaric methods from 1500 or 5000BCE years ago.

In 1000 years time (maybe earlier), it will be proven beyond any doubt that hudud is time-based.

Anonymous said...

CONTOH SORE LOSER EXPRESSION!!!!!

Instead of the above silly remarks why not provide rational statements to support your views.

Tulang Besi said...

Don't insult your own intelligence lah.

You are forced to accept and promote hudud sort of law because you are caught in a catch-22 situation.


I am actually insulting your intelligence (or lack of)

My statement is based on facts and based on my own personal experience.

People like you who critisices hudud has never actually lived under hudud laws.

Yet you speak like you're an expert.

Tulang Besi said...


You did not read my post properly. I'll explain again.

Barbarians during their barbaric period, eat and shit. We don't call eating and shitting 'barbaric'. It is their methods that is barbaric.

Theft is common in societies during barbaric times and now. We must differentiate between theft and its method of punishments.


So theft is not barbaric anymore?

Anonymous said...

So theft is not barbaric anymore?

You are obviously lost due and messed up due to the catch-22 dilemma.

Is cyber-theft barbaric? Is breaking into sophisticated electronic bank vaults barbaric?

Theft = the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another;
Dictionary.com

I hope you can get this time, it is the methods and approaches used in thefts and punishment that determine whether it is barbaric or not.

You must use more mature thinking and differentiate the principal meaning of 'theft' and 'punishment'.

Theft by definition is not barbaric, but the methods used can be considered barbaric.

Punishments by definition are not barbaric, but the methods used will determine the punishments as barbaric or not.

Hudud types of punishment are by nature 'barbaric' based on the methods used and adopted from primitive times.

Anonymous said...

People like you who critisices hudud has never actually lived under hudud laws.
Yet you speak like you're an expert.


You don't need an expert lah.

Any normal human being not under threat of primordial fear via holy texts can tell you that primitive sorts of punishments should only apply to primitives or certain contexts and not progressive human beings.

Primitives types of punishment should not be carved in stones as change is inevitable.

Fact: Change is the only constant.
No matter how sacred holy texts are, they cannot escape this axiom.

Resolve your catch-22 and you will flow with the currents of human progress.

Anonymous said...

God's law cannot be changed.

To test the above logically?

Do you think in a million years into the future, humans should have their hands chopped off for theft?

Chopping off hand and legs, stoning to death will obviously be very very primitive by then.

IMO, by the next 100 years, hudud will be exposed as time-based rather than eternal.

Anonymous said...

Once you agree to RPK's suggestion of referendum , that will be the last day you ever dream or talk about hudud,believe me.

hk said...

RPK play politiclah this time. he is only interested to garner support both from muslim and non muslim communities. being the pawn of dsai.

Anonymous said...

Cyber-theft and breaking into bank's vault are no barbaric. They are modern crimes, and the guilty parties must be applauded for their innovations.

Snatch thieves should be pardoned, and reward them with whatever that's still left of you (turn the other cheek sort of things)

That's how civilised people live

Anonymous said...

oooooooh

la la la la la la

hey hey ooooooooh

la la la la la la

is music haram? la la la la

please leave ur komen la la la la

Anonymous said...

I Always wonder why non muslim can accept and transact with Islamic Banking or Takaful which is the model and guideline taken from the source of Al Quran and Al Hadeeth and yet they reject Hudud as a Law eventhough Hudud is came from the same sources. I still can remember some of Non Muslim is very prejudice when government introduce Islamic Banking and nowadays World@Non Muslim start realizing that Islamic Financial Model is the best solution or alternative to replace the current economic model. Hudud is applicable for Muslim only (Non Muslim have an option). Why you should bothered ? Like us, we don't bother whether you eating pork and yet we still give you a ground to farm and sell it. Islam provide the comprehensive live guidence with objective to protect JIWA, HARTA and AKAL. I don't think what being diallowed by Islam such as Zina is allow by other religion like Buddha, Hindu, Christian or Jew. Only Barbaric can aloow this exercise. Why Islam disallowed Zina ? To ensure we produce good generation with clear family chain. For those support Zina activity, do you like your wife or daughter being **** by other man or her lovers ? If yes, tell the world that you would like to offer your wife ****ing for FREE !!! Sorry it may sound sarcastic. Now we should think the alternative to replace the current law since no of crimes rapidly increase. For non Muslim don't get fear with Hudud because it not reflect your daily activity. You still bound with the common law. Muslim have an obligation to ensure Hudud should become their law whether they from UMNO or PAS but I doubt UMNO will work for it. We will work on it forever.....

Haqqul Mubin.

Anonymous said...

Haqqul Mubin:
I Always wonder why non muslim can accept and transact with Islamic Banking or Takaful


As a result of being too religious, you have lost your sense of being human.
Non-Muslims as progressive humans will acccept anything that positive without regardless of whatever religion. There is nothing special about Islamic Banking as co-operatives and profit-sharing concepts have been in practiced by other humans years ago all over the world.

yet they reject Hudud as a Law eventhough Hudud is came from the same sources.

There is so many posts highlighting the difference between the crime and punishments and yet you are unable to understand the difference.
This is a humane consideration. Many reject hudud because it is barbaric and not appropriate for a progressive society.

If you want barbaric punishments to deter crimes and Zina there are many alternatives other than those stated in the Quran.

Note these Cruel and Unusual Punishment

In the past, humans are burned on the stake, boiled, etc. see the Wiki link. If your s..., or w..., commit Zina, they will poke a big stick in her **** and parade her around town.

The above punishments are as barbaric and very effective as the ones in the hudud law.

But humans have stopped using those laws even they are very effective. Why? because they are barbaric and so they change to progress with time.

If Hudud is flexible, I am sure, they will be stopped and no one would implement them.

Why some Muslims insist on Hudud is because it is written in the holy texts which cannot be changed.

This was a mistake by humans who wrote the holy texts, as such specific time-based punishments relevant 1000 years ago should never be enshrined in holy texts forever.

They should have written it as "The following are crimes againsts humanity and should be punished appropriately". What is appropriate should be time-based and decided by authorised persons.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anony, definitely the text of holy Al Quran cannot be changed because it is HOLY and FREE from mistake and it came from GOD. Do you have ever read AL Quran and it can tell you what was happen in the past and tell what would happen in future. Hudud is not Barbaric as you perceive and it still relevant till the end of the world. Only Quran provide comprehensive guidance for all human being and not like others. Islam provide law to protect human being, Islam provide guidance how to deal business, Islam provide operating manuals how to manage the country through providing right for living peacefully and equally. Islam teach prevent is better than cure. To minimize criminal, such law to ensure everybody take a lesson and don't ever-ever commit with such criminal. For instant drinking alcohol is it a good and healthy habit ? Frequent we can find for those who are the drunken master have a family problem and bring trouble to others especially when they drive. Islam prevent things before it happen and I beleive non of any religions allow drink alcohol or samsu because it is not good for health and can damage your brain and of lung cancer. Dear Anony the true Barbaric law is the Guatanamo Bay Camp. I can't imagine people who declare themselve as the most civilise in this world treat human like animals. Don't you see ??? In Islam we cannot punish until all evidence take to prove. That why Islam cannot accept ISA that we can consider as a Barbaric Law. I suggest you read Islamic book before you made any comments.

Haqqul Mubin

Anonymous said...

Haqqul Mubin,

Your claim that holy texts are perfect from God is not proven. Why?

99% of humans are born to be scared and frighten like hell of death. This is proven.
See this Humans Scared of Death
So some humans wrote holy texts to promise everlasting life to eliminate these horrific fears. If you accept these promises, then the holy texts must be perfect.

If you are doubtful that the holy texts are not perfect, then you will not get your eternal life and rewards, and you will suffer badly.

Once you believe in these holy texts, you have no choice but forced to say "it is HOLY and FREE from mistake and it came from GOD"

But is there really a GOD? So far there is no proofs that god exists. Therefore holy texts are most likely to be written by humans and cannot be perfect.

I am not insisting you do not believe in God. You should believe in God if you need to, but don't be too arrogant that you are perfectly right. Just be humble and pray to God.

If you want to discuss in blogs, you'll need to face the fact that what you believe cannot be perfect but only practical and subject to change.

Anonymous said...

Someone has still not given the proof/s that God does not exist.

There are hints in the writings of the sceptic above that he/she is not really sure that God does not exist, although more inclined to continue to be sceptical.

Then continues to suggest: 'If you want to discuss in blogs, you'll need to face the fact that what you believe cannot be perfect but only practical and subject to change.'

The person who says the above should practice what he preaches first before asking others to do it.

Anonymous said...

Someone has still not given the proof/s that God does not exist.

It is not compulsory for anyone to prove that God does NOT exist, even if one can prove can do so.

Most of the time, the religionists swill make a positive claim that certain rules and laws are stipulated in the holy texts which are commanded by God via a messenger.

The General Rule is that the person making the positive existential claim should bear the onus or burden of proof. It is applicable generally in Law, Science and elsewhere. You can google or read up to verify the above.

If you are so CONFIDENT that your god exists, why not just prove and show God's existence.
e.g. I am confident PM Badawi exists and to prove that all i need is to take you to meet him personally as evidence of his existence.

hints sceptic above is not really sure that God does not exist,

As far as I am concerned, i am very certain God does not exist.

However, i understand the majority of humans cannot do without God as a spiritual crutch or security blanket. It is very inhumane to strip them off that the security blanket that provided the psychological comfort.

In addition, it will take time and certain intellectual capacity for them to understand why God does not exist.

My insistence is that since God cannot be proven to exist, believers should not be arrogant and impose or infringe on the rights of others purely based on this mistaken belief via on faith.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anony, If the text write by Human we cannot call them as a holy text. The Holy Text is only Al Quran. Don't you beleive. Tell me if an author of the book can remember all the words line by line inside his book. I don't think so. But our Huffaz can memorize Al Quran correctly and accurately line by line easily without any mistake. Worderful. Why because this holy text it from came GOD our creator@Allah. GOD encourage us to memorize Al Quran to prevent from any changes make by GOD's enemy. It also to ensure the contents of AL Quran remain unchanged till end of the world.
Dear Anony, can you show me where is the wind ? Can you show me where is you feeling place in your heart ? Can you show me where is Nyawa or in Islam we called it Roh or Soul ?. Why people die ? Can someone tell me who replace this SOUL because it very important .Does SOUL exist ? The answer is YES.If you can show me where is SOUL because I want to buy for my spare part then your arquement is true. BECAUSE NOT ALL WE CAN"T SEE DOES NOT EXIST.
Here I'am attaching one good article from Sdr Hanipa Maidin.
HUDUD UNDANG –UNDANG YANG PALING RASIONAL
OLEH : MOHAMED HANIPA MAIDIN

Dalam artikel saya yang lalu saya menyatakan bahawa hudud bukan sahaja boleh dipertahankan dari sudut agama tetapi juga dari sudut ilmiah . Dalam tulisan kali ini saya akan cuba menjawab serba sedikit persoalan-persoalan yang sering ditimbulkan di dalam isu hudud ini.

Persoalan pertama yang sering dibangkitkan adalah undang-undang hudud adalah bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Untuk tujuan perbincangan katakanlah kita terima bahawa hudud adalah bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Persoalannya adakah apa sahaja undang-undang yang bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan adalah undang-undang yang tidak baik dan perlu diketepikan begitu sahaja. Jika benar sesuatu undang-undang itu benar-benar bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan , tidak bolehkah Perlembagaan tersebut dipinda bagi membolehkan undang-undang yang baik tersebut diluluskan dan seterusnya dilaksanakan. Adakah meminda peruntukkan dalam Perlembagaan adalah suatu jenayah atau “dosa” yang besar dan tidak boleh dimaafkan sama sekali. Bukankah selama ini Perlembagaan negara ini telah beberapa kali dipinda ?

Selanjutnya adakah semua undang-undang yang selaras dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan adalah undang-undang yang baik dan tidak zalim kepada rakyat ? Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri ( ISA ), Akta Polis , Akta Hasutan , Akta Penerbitan & Mesin Cetak, Akta Universiti dan Universiti Kolej ( AUKU ) adalah contoh undang-undang yang digubal menurut peruntukan Perlembagaan dan sehingga kini diputuskan oleh Mahkamah undang-undang tersebut adalah selaras dengan Perlembagaan. Tetapi siapa yang boleh menafikan akta-akta tersebut, meskipun selaras dengan Perlembagaan, adalah undang-undang yang zalim dan telah terbukti menzalimi rakyat yang tidak berdosa. Sehingga kini suara-suara yang meminta undang-undang tersebut sama ada dipinda atau dimansuhkan masih terus berkumandang . Meskipun undang-undang tersebut selaras dengan Perlembagaan kenapakah ianya diminta untuk dipinda atau dimansuhkan?

Dalam konteks undang-undang hudud adilkah untuk kita meminta undang-undang Allah tersebut dipinda bagi membolehkan ianya selaras dengan Perlembagaan ? Sudah tentu alternatif terbaik, jika ianya bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan , maka sewajarnya Perlembagaan itu sendiri yang harus dipinda. Mungkin ada yang berhujah adalah sukar untuk kita meminda Perlembagaan Persekutuan ? Apa yang lebih susah dari meminda peruntukkan Perlembagaan Persekutuan apabila ianya menyentuh isu imuniti Raja. Bukan sahaja pindaan tersebut memerlukan dua pertiga tetapi ia juga perlu persetujuan Majlis Raja-Raja. Tetapi, seperti yang kita maklum, pindaan tersebut berjaya dilakukan meskipun sukar.

Hujah yang saya berikan di atas bertolak dari andaian bahawa undang-undang hudud bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan. Namun perlu saya nyatakan di sini ada juga dari kalangan ahli-ahli undang-undang yang berpendapat undang-undang hudud tidak bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan. Antara lain hujah yang dikemukakan oleh ahli undang-undang ini adalah bidangkuasa Kerajaan Negeri untuk menggubal undang-undang sepertimana yang dinyatakan di dalam Senarai Negeri ( State list ) di Jadual Kesembilan Perlembagaan Persekutuan adalah termasuk menggubal undang-undang Islam ( Islamic law ) dan perkataan undang-undang Islam di dalam Senarai Negeri tersebut hendaklah ditafsirkan secara luas sepertimana yang difahami oleh Islam.

Persoalan kedua yang juga sering ditimbulkan adalah undang-undang hudud terlalu keras ( harsh ) dan ianya menakutkan orang bukan Islam. Undang-undang memotong tangan pencuri dan merejam penzina dianggap undang-undang yang tidak bertamadun dan ketinggalan zaman.

Pertamanya persoalan orang bukan Islam. Jika dilihat kepada Enakmen hudud yang digubal di Kelantan dan Trengganu adalah jelas ianya tidak terpakai orang-orang bukan Islam. Oleh itu kebimbangan orang-orang bukan Islam tidak ada asasnya.

Selanjutnya isu sama ada sesuatu undang-undang itu keras, tidak bertamadun atau ketinggalan zaman adalah persoalan persepsi. Kita lihat undang-undang yang mengenakan hukum mati ( death penalty ) sendiri, sehingga kini ianya menjadi bahan perbahasan. Ada yang menyatakan ianya adalah undang-undang yang keras, tidak bertamadun dan ketinggalan zaman kerana ianya bercanggah dengan hak asasi manusia.

Memandangkan persepsi masyarakat berbeza, ada negara yang meneruskan hukum mati dan ada negara yang tidak. Hatta bagi negara yang mengekalkan hukum mati mereka juga tidak sepakat tentang kaedah untuk melaksanakan undang-undang hukum mati tersebut. Ada yang setuju dengan kaedah menggantung penjenayah. Ada pula yang setuju ianya dilaksanakan dengan cara menembak penjenayah dan ada pula yang setuju ianya dilaksanakan dengan cara meng”inject” dengan gas beracun. Bagi yang memilih untuk menggantung mereka berpendapat hukuman tembak adalah terlalu keras dan tidak bertamadun dan begitulah sebaliknya.

Hatta ada juga para sarjana undang-undang yang berhujah undang-undang memenjarakan penjenayah juga bukan sahaja zalim.tetapi juga tidak berkesan mengurangkan kadar jenayah. Ini kerana hukuman penjara bukan sahaja menghukum penjenayah yang melakukan jenayah tetapi juga ianya menghukum orang lain yang tidak terlibat dengan jenayah yang dilakukan oleh penjenayah tersebut. Sebagai contoh jika seorang pencuri dipenjarakan, ianya bukan sahaja menghukum pencuri tetapi juga menghukum isteri dan anak-anaknya kerana mereka dengan secara paksa dipisahkan dari suami dan bapa mereka. Ia juga menghukum pembayar cukai yang terpaksa menanggung makan dan minum sipencuri tersebut di penjara. Tidakkah ini zalim ? Negara kita mengenakan hukuman penjara ke atas pencuri namun secara jujur adakah undang-undang tersebut telah berjaya mengurangkan kadar jenayah kecurian dalam negara ini ? Pada masa kini kecurian juga boleh berlaku di dalam balai polis sendiri-tempat yang sepatutnya paling selamat !!!

Selanjutnya jika kita mempelajari falsafah , prinsip dan teori hukuman ( sentencing ) kita tentu biasa dengan istilah pencegahan (deterrence ). Tujuan hukuman antara lain adalah untuk mencegah. Hukuman potong tangan sebagai contoh memenuhi kriteria pencegahan kerana ianya bukan sahaja menakutkan pencuri tetapi juga orang-orang yang mungkin ada niat mencuri. Hukuman tersebut juga satu bentuk pengaiban ( humiliation ) yang paling baik kepada penjenayah. Tangan kodong sejak dari lahir atau tangan kodong kerana dipotong oleh doktor atas alasan kesihatan sudah tentu tidak sama aibnya dengan tangan kodong kerana menjalani hukuman kerana mencuri.

Seperkara lagi yang perlu kita faham meskipun hukum hudud secara relatifnya mengandungi hukuman yang agak keras ianya juga dalam masa yang sama menuntut satu kaedah pembuktian yang paling ketat ( rigid ). Dalam bahasa undang-undang , jenayah hudud menuntut satu standard pembuktian ( standard of proof ) yang lebih tinggi dari undang jenayah yang diamalkan sekarang. Standard pembuktian jenayah hudud adalah melampaui segala keraguan ( beyond any shadow of doubt ) sedangkan undang-undnag jenayah yang sedia ada hanya mengenakan standard pembuktian melampaui keraguan munasabah sahaja ( beyond any shadow of doubt ). Jadi undang-undang manakah yang lebih melindungi hak orang yang dituduh.

Haqqul Mubin

Anonymous said...

If the text write by Human we cannot call them as a holy text.
Holy texts are written by humans for religious purposes. Buddhist holy texts are not claimed to be from God. See Dictionary lah.

But our Huffaz can memorize Al Quran correctly and accurately line by line easily without any mistake.
Memory has no direct association with spirituality or proof of god. Some people are born with good or 'photography' memory. Some can memorize a whole dictionary. But note it can be GIGO (garbage in garbage out).
Generally when communicated, the main intention of a message is often lost. Note the "Chinese Whispers" (see Wiki) experiment where a message is totally different from the original by the time it is passed on to the 10th person or thereabout.

You need to prove God exist first, then prove the message was from God and was not corrupted later by humans.

Can you show me where is the wind ? Can you show me where is you feeling place in your heart ?
This is kacang puteh science lah.

Can you show me where is Nyawa or in Islam we called it Roh or Soul ?. Why people die? Can someone tell me who replace this SOUL because it very important. Does SOUL exist? The answer is YES.If you can show me where is SOUL because I want to buy for my spare part then your arquement is true.

There is no such thing as the soul. Have you ever seen your own soul? Can you bring your soul out for testing?
Instead of soul, this issue is normally discussed under consciousness, self-awareness, etc.

BECAUSE NOT ALL WE CAN"T SEE DOES NOT EXIST.

Agree, but what we cannot see but exist must be able to be testable and verified repeatedly.
You cannot see gravity, but everytime you throw a stone up a certain height it will alway come down. The effects of wind and electricity can be easily tested and verified.

Btw, it is no point arguing the small points. The main point is to prove God exists. The problem is that theistic religion is based on faith, i.e. belief without proof or reason, therefore you cannot prove god.

If you cannot prove god exists, you cannot claim god sent the holy texts with holy laws.

Anonymous said...

Dalam bahasa undang-undang , jenayah hudud menuntut satu standard pembuktian ( standard of proof ) yang lebih tinggi dari undang jenayah yang diamalkan sekarang.

All these explanation of efficient deterence, high standard of proof, etc. are just excuses to cover-up for the catch-22 situation that do not enable the holy texts to be changed.

Even the death penalty for drug traficking is not an effective deterent as there as still so many people killed for drug traficking.

Humans still deal with drugs and they can get around the death penalty in so many ways.

While the death-penalty may have deterred some people, it is not effective, but the worst of the death penalty is that it may have killed innocent people who were duped into carrying the drugs or have drugs planted by others.

It is the same for holy laws of chopping hands and stoning to death.
Many innocent people could have their arm WRONLY chopped off or stoned to death when they are 'fixed' by others.

Holy laws are handled by different people from different nations with different standards of judgements ethics, morality, and intelligence.

There are nations whose people are more beast than being human. They will use the holy laws to their advantage and persecute innocent people indiscriminately.

Holy laws judges can be bribed in less ethical nations and witnesses can be arranged by those in power to distort justice.
In this case, the holy laws are part cause in the abuses.

Holy laws should not contain any barbaric penalties so that there is no way it can be abused to promote wrongful barbarics acts of punishments.

If holy laws promote barbaric penalties, it show that it not confident of its own teachings or do not have effective teachings to enable its believers to progress in spirituality.

There are many religions which are confident that their teachings will progress the spirituality and therefore do not need barbaric penalties to deter or frightened their believers.

Anonymous said...

We refer to many branches of science and scientific facts today and use them to analyze various things and events — even religious matters. We refer to them, either one at a time or in groups, to provide evidence of Allah's existence and oneness to those who need such evidence.

Similarly, when looking at science in the light of the Qur'an, we point out that it contains information about the nature of things that agrees with modern scientific findings. Consider medicine. I once read a book called Medicine Is the Niche of the Faith. It is really so, and we must acknowledge God when studying our bodily existence and development. For instance, the Qur'anic description of the embryo corresponds exactly to what we know today. Furthermore, the Qur'an does not contain a single statement on this matter that modern science can criticize.

How could an unlettered desert Arab living more than 1,400 years ago know such facts, which were discovered recently by x-ray machines and other sophisticated equipment only after many centuries of intensive scientific research? We use such Qur'anic statements to argue for the Qur'an's divine origin. This, in turn, corroborates the truth of Muhammad's prophethood.

We refer to science and scientific facts when explaining Islam because some people are determined to reject anything that is not "scientific." Materialists and those opposed (or indifferent) to religion have sought to exploit science to defy religion and use its prestige to spread their thinking. Many people have followed their lead, which means that we have to use the same tools of science and technology to show that they do not contradict Islam and to lead people to the right path.

I agree with such an argument. Muslims should be well-versed in scientific facts to refute the claims of materialists and atheists. Many Qur'anic verses urge us to reflect and study and to observe the stars and galaxies. They impress upon us the Creator's magnificence, and exhort us to travel and observe the miraculousness of our organs and of creation.

The Qur'an's verses place all of creation before our eyes. Touching upon a multitude of facts, it tells us that those who truly fear God, among His servants, are those who have knowledge (Fatir 35:28), and so encourages us to seek knowledge, to reflect and research. However, remember that the first condition for all such activities is that they comply with the spirit of the Qur'an, lest we begin departing from it.

Our knowledge of science and its facts can and should be used to expound Islamic facts, not to impress others or silence their arguments. Our primary aim must be to win the pleasure of God and make sure that our audience understands the points we are making.

It is wrong to regard science as superior to religion and to seek to justify substantial Islamic issues and Islam as a whole through modern scientific facts. Such attempts show that we have doubts about Islam and thus need science to reinforce our own belief. It is also wrong to accept science or scientific facts as absolute, for such things are subject to change. At best, they only support what the Qur'an says. In no way can the unchangeable and eternal Qur'an be confirmed by that which is changeable and temporary. Given this, Muslims should use science only as a tool to awaken sleeping or confused minds.

Science and scientific facts are true only as long as they agree with the Qur'an and the authentic Hadith. Even definitely established scientific facts cannot uphold the truths of faith; they can be only instruments to give us ideas or to trigger us to reflect. God, not science, establishes the truths of faith in our conscience, for faith comes only by Divine guidance. Those who seek to acquire faith from science may never feel the existence of God within their own consciousness. In reality, they will be nature worshipers, not worshipers of God.

We are believers because of the faith in our hearts, not the knowledge in our heads. Objective and subjective evidence can take us only so far. After that, we must drop all such things in order to make any spiritual progress at all. When we follow our heart and conscience within the Qur'an's light and guidance, God may guide us to the enlightenment for which we are looking. As the German philosopher Kant said, "I felt the need to leave behind all the books I read in order to believe in God."

* Taken, with slight modifications and with kind permission, from the author's website.

Fethullah Gulen is an influential Turkish Muslim intellectual who inspired a series of social activities, including a transnational education and business network, interfaith dialogue forums, and multicultural encounters.

Anonymous said...

God, not science, establishes the truths of faith in our conscience, for faith comes only by Divine guidance.

Even with proofs, all scientists will agree that scientific knowledge can never be 100% absolute and at best is 99.9%. They are subject to possible changes and possible.

How then, can one claim that faith in God, which is without proof, can be absolute and perfect?

Worst still, the written words which are supposedly transmitted from god are used to infringe on the rights of others (esp non-believers) without any room for questioning.

Think critically.

Anonymous said...

How could an unlettered desert Arab living more than 1,400 years ago know such facts, which were discovered recently by x-ray machines and other sophisticated equipment only after many centuries of intensive scientific research? We use such Qur'anic statements to argue for the Qur'an's divine origin. This, in turn, corroborates the truth of Muhammad's prophethood.

Only those with a low standard of knowledge would place any credibility on any verses linked to science from a holy book.

There was already a lot of scientific activities since 500BC in Greece and the surrounding region.
Ancient Greek Science

Similarly there were many other of other scientific discoveries in ancient China, India, Egypt, etc, hundreds of years before 500AD.

Buddhist texts mentioned about the brain and neurons, etc. but Buddhists do not use these scientific claims to support Buddha spirituality.

Our knowledge of science and its facts can and should be used to expound Islamic facts, not to impress others or silence their arguments.

Infact, you should not use such kindergarten science at all.

The best results is fro one to prove God exists if one can, if not, don't be too arrogant about one's beliefs.

Btw, Kant stated no one can prove God exists, but nevertheless one can believe in god via faith (i.e. without proofs) for whatever purpose.

mat lampir said...

taniah tulang besi berjaya kat terengganu lain kali boleh kita makan ayam lagi

mat lampir said...

semalam macam mana lena ker tidur pas sudah menag?

Anonymous said...

I love reading your website because you can always get us new and awesome things, I feel that I must at least say thanks for your hard work.

- Henry

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

ARiF merupakan jentera utama Harapan Baru di dalam membantu kelancaran gerakerja semua peringkat.

Kami ARiF Melaka memerlukan sumbangan dan bantuan kewangan daripada tuanpuan untuk kami melakukan gerakerja berkenaan. Oleh kerana kami masih baru, sumbangan diperlukan untuk menampung kos pakaian, membeli peralatan komunikasi, peralatan lalulintas dan sebagainya.

Kami amat berbebsar hati jika tuan/puan dapat menghulurkan sumangan kepada kami. Segala sumbangan diserahkan kepada pemegang amanah ARiF Melaka.

MOHD AZWAN AHMAD
a/k Maybank : 104013154427

Hantarkan makluman bank-in melalui SMS/WA ke 016-981 1315 (H.ANUAR)

Semuga Allah membalas segala jasa baik tuan/puan semua.