Orang islam yang tidak berilmu akan terpegun apabila mendengar/membaca hujah-hujah daripada al Quran secara lateral[tanpa tafsiran] yang membukti islam adalah agama yang menggalakkan keganasan.
Hujah-hujah yang mengharuskan umat islam memerangi umat islam yang lain[seperti amanat Haji Hadi] adalah bukti kepada barat bahawa islam memang menggalakkan perpecahan dan pembunuhan.
Tetapi sejarah islam membuktikan hakikat yang berlainan sama sekali.
Ulama PAS perlu muhasabah dan mampu berijtihad untuk memileh pendekatan yang paling sesuai agar islam itu tidak difitnahkan.
Umat Islam seharusnya tersentak dengan fitnah daripada filem fitna ini.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Filem Fitna Karia Wilders
Mat Taib jabs Dr M, defends Pak Lah
Fauwaz Abdul Aziz | Apr 2, 08 8:07pm
Umno information chief Muhammad Muhd Taib today lashed out at former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad for launching scathing attacks on his successor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
Defending his party president during a press conference at his Rural And Regional Development Ministry in Putrajaya, Muhammad said people should stop pointing fingers at Abdullah.
"What Mahathir and people are doing now is very, very wrong. It is not fair to point fingers at one person when everybody knows there were many contributing factors.
"It is very unfair to dump the blame on the PM. This is unfair and done in bad faith," he said.
Muhammad was referring to "unfair" comments from Mahathir made at a forum yesterday on how Abdullah was shameless in refusing to resign for Barisan Nasional’s biggest election setback last month.
'Not a level playing field'
He pointed out that there were also other contributing factors to BN’s performance including the role played by bloggers, news portals and short messaging service (SMS).
"It wasn’t a level-playing field (between the BN and opposition). BN did not use the portals, SMS and ICT (information and communications technology) to the fullest," he said.
Muhammad noted that the BN lost in the "virtual elections" while opposition had cashed in on using video CDs showing temple demolitions which caused the swing of Indian voters.
The former Selangor mentri besar also questioned why are the people picking on Abdullah when other leaders have also previously lost in the elections.
"We lost Terengganu in 1999. How come nobody asked Mahathir to step down then? When PAS lost Terengganu in 2004, how come nobody told (PAS spiritual leader) Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat to step down?" he quizzed.
Muhammad noted that Mahathir was a good leader but his comments are not helping the party at this particular time.
"We are trying to fight one person but our guru is hitting us at the same time. Nobody can call for Mahathir to be disciplined because he is kebal (untouchable). This is too much," he told reporters.
Football analogy
Asked whether ‘yes-men’ in the party had made Abdullah’s administration different from his predecessor, Muhammad said ‘no’.
"The ‘yes-men’ did not make a difference to the administration. I was under Mahathir since 1982 for 11 years. I think the way they did business and dealt with things is almost the same," he asserted.
"Leaders are saying things that are pedas (scathing), bebankan (burdensome) and they label Pak Lah with all kinds of labels. That’s unfair," he added.
The Umno veteran also said that what some party leaders are trying to do in abolishing the nominations quota system is like changing the rules of a football game.
"It is like changing the rules [...] and the goalpost itself while the game is going on. It should happen after the game," he said.
With that, Muhammad stressed that the abolition of the nominations system should be done after the party’s elections in December this year.
Lihat Movie.ws
Umno information chief Muhammad Muhd Taib today lashed out at former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad for launching scathing attacks on his successor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
Defending his party president during a press conference at his Rural And Regional Development Ministry in Putrajaya, Muhammad said people should stop pointing fingers at Abdullah.
"What Mahathir and people are doing now is very, very wrong. It is not fair to point fingers at one person when everybody knows there were many contributing factors.
"It is very unfair to dump the blame on the PM. This is unfair and done in bad faith," he said.
Muhammad was referring to "unfair" comments from Mahathir made at a forum yesterday on how Abdullah was shameless in refusing to resign for Barisan Nasional’s biggest election setback last month.
'Not a level playing field'
He pointed out that there were also other contributing factors to BN’s performance including the role played by bloggers, news portals and short messaging service (SMS).
"It wasn’t a level-playing field (between the BN and opposition). BN did not use the portals, SMS and ICT (information and communications technology) to the fullest," he said.
Muhammad noted that the BN lost in the "virtual elections" while opposition had cashed in on using video CDs showing temple demolitions which caused the swing of Indian voters.
The former Selangor mentri besar also questioned why are the people picking on Abdullah when other leaders have also previously lost in the elections.
"We lost Terengganu in 1999. How come nobody asked Mahathir to step down then? When PAS lost Terengganu in 2004, how come nobody told (PAS spiritual leader) Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat to step down?" he quizzed.
Muhammad noted that Mahathir was a good leader but his comments are not helping the party at this particular time.
"We are trying to fight one person but our guru is hitting us at the same time. Nobody can call for Mahathir to be disciplined because he is kebal (untouchable). This is too much," he told reporters.
Football analogy
Asked whether ‘yes-men’ in the party had made Abdullah’s administration different from his predecessor, Muhammad said ‘no’.
"The ‘yes-men’ did not make a difference to the administration. I was under Mahathir since 1982 for 11 years. I think the way they did business and dealt with things is almost the same," he asserted.
"Leaders are saying things that are pedas (scathing), bebankan (burdensome) and they label Pak Lah with all kinds of labels. That’s unfair," he added.
The Umno veteran also said that what some party leaders are trying to do in abolishing the nominations quota system is like changing the rules of a football game.
"It is like changing the rules [...] and the goalpost itself while the game is going on. It should happen after the game," he said.
With that, Muhammad stressed that the abolition of the nominations system should be done after the party’s elections in December this year.
Lihat Movie.ws
Param: Not too late for probe on Dr M
Apr 2, 08 12:46pm
Former UN special rapporteur Param Cumaraswamy believes that it’s still not too late to investigate ex-premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad for allegedly interfering with a probe by the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) in 1998.
In a statement, Param said there is “sufficient evidence” to show that Mahathir had interfered with the ACA, based on testimony during Anwar Ibrahim’s corruption trial that year.
“There is one alleged misdeed of Mahathir which needs investigation. In 1998, Anwar was investigated for interference with police investigations,” said Param (photo).
“(Anwar) was charged for corruption under Section 2(1) of the (Emergency Powers) Ordinance 1970 for the alleged interference. He was found guilty and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.”
During Anwar’s second trial in June 2000 before Justice Arifin Jaka, then ACA director Shafee Yahya had given sworn testimony when asked about an investigation on the director-general of the Economic Planning Unit (EPU).
Transcript of the notes recorded by the judge of this part of the testimony (excerpts are unedited):
Counsel: Adakah you search the EPU chief’s office?
Shafee: Yes, I did.
Counsel: Was a big sum of money found in the drawer of the EPU director-general for which he could not explain?
Court: What is the relevancy? No need to answer.
Counsel: Did Anwar Ibrahim directed you to raid the office of the EPU chief?
Shafee: No.
Counsel: Did Anwar ask you to close the case against the director?
Shafee: No.
Counsel: Did anyone ask you to close the case?
Shafee: Yes, the prime minister did.
Counsel: Narrate the circumstances under which the PM asked you to close the investigation.
Counsel: Were you called up by the PM?
Shafee: Yes. I was told off, 'How dare you raid my senior officer’s office?' I was taken aback and I replied 'This was based on official complaint by an aggrieved party'.
I did what was officially required under the law. He accused me of trying to fix the former DG of EPU.
I replied that is totally wrong because it is wrong in law to fix anybody. As a Muslim it is a big sin to fix anybody.
He asked me, 'Did Anwar Ibrahim ask you to raid the office?' I said, 'no'.
It was based on an official complain and to be fair to Anwar when I mentioned the complain against the EPU chief, I inform Anwar of my intention to raid but he said, 'Have you cleared this with the PM?'.
I said, 'I mentioned this to PM, the PM kept quiet'.
Counsel: What was the tone of PM when he asked you whether Anwar asked you to raid? Was it in an angry tone or normal conversation tone?
Shafee: The tone was rather accusatory.
Counsel: The EPU was directly under the PM’s Department.
Court: No more questions on the investigation on the EPU chief. I am not satisfied of the relevancy of such evidence.
Counsel: Was the EPU responsible for awarding privatisation of projects?
Shafee: As far as I know, it is.
Counsel: After you were scolded by the PM did you inform anybody about this?
Shafee: I informed the Chief Secretary to the Government.
Counsel: What was your reaction when the PM scolded you and told you to close the case against the DG of EPU?
Shafee: I was highly dissolution and when I went home I told my wife I wanted to resign. But in view that I have two or three months to finish my extension - my wife persuaded me not to resign.
Counsel: Why did you feel dissolution and decide to resign?
Shafee: In my whole career with the government, this was the first time my boss accused me of trying to fix somebody and also my dissolution in the way the PM was interfering with my duty.
Outcome still unknown
Param noted that although police reports alleging that Mahathir had interfered with ACA investigations were filed the following day (June 13, 2000), nothing has been heard about the outcome of the investigations.
The alleged interference was said to have occurred in June 1998. In response to Shafee’s testimony, Mahathir (left) was quoted by the media as saying that he could not remember the incident.
“Here was a clear and glaring situation where the head of the ACA gave sworn testimony of Mahathir’s interference on an ongoing investigation by the agency.
“Yet to date the public do not know what happened to not only that investigation of the director-general of the EPU but investigation of Mahathir for interfering with the ACA’s investigation,” said Param.
He went on say that, if there is no truth to Shafee’s evidence, then he should have been charged for perjury.
“That never happened either,” said Param.
He said it is not too late to re-open the file, if at all one had been opened after Shafee’s revelation in court in June 2000.
“Otherwise fresh investigations should commence. If Mahathir is not confident with the ACA investigating him, the present government should invite a credible foreign agency to investigate him for the alleged interference with the ACA investigation,” he added.
Former UN special rapporteur Param Cumaraswamy believes that it’s still not too late to investigate ex-premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad for allegedly interfering with a probe by the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) in 1998.
In a statement, Param said there is “sufficient evidence” to show that Mahathir had interfered with the ACA, based on testimony during Anwar Ibrahim’s corruption trial that year.
“There is one alleged misdeed of Mahathir which needs investigation. In 1998, Anwar was investigated for interference with police investigations,” said Param (photo).
“(Anwar) was charged for corruption under Section 2(1) of the (Emergency Powers) Ordinance 1970 for the alleged interference. He was found guilty and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.”
During Anwar’s second trial in June 2000 before Justice Arifin Jaka, then ACA director Shafee Yahya had given sworn testimony when asked about an investigation on the director-general of the Economic Planning Unit (EPU).
Transcript of the notes recorded by the judge of this part of the testimony (excerpts are unedited):
Counsel: Adakah you search the EPU chief’s office?
Shafee: Yes, I did.
Counsel: Was a big sum of money found in the drawer of the EPU director-general for which he could not explain?
Court: What is the relevancy? No need to answer.
Counsel: Did Anwar Ibrahim directed you to raid the office of the EPU chief?
Shafee: No.
Counsel: Did Anwar ask you to close the case against the director?
Shafee: No.
Counsel: Did anyone ask you to close the case?
Shafee: Yes, the prime minister did.
Counsel: Narrate the circumstances under which the PM asked you to close the investigation.
Counsel: Were you called up by the PM?
Shafee: Yes. I was told off, 'How dare you raid my senior officer’s office?' I was taken aback and I replied 'This was based on official complaint by an aggrieved party'.
I did what was officially required under the law. He accused me of trying to fix the former DG of EPU.
I replied that is totally wrong because it is wrong in law to fix anybody. As a Muslim it is a big sin to fix anybody.
He asked me, 'Did Anwar Ibrahim ask you to raid the office?' I said, 'no'.
It was based on an official complain and to be fair to Anwar when I mentioned the complain against the EPU chief, I inform Anwar of my intention to raid but he said, 'Have you cleared this with the PM?'.
I said, 'I mentioned this to PM, the PM kept quiet'.
Counsel: What was the tone of PM when he asked you whether Anwar asked you to raid? Was it in an angry tone or normal conversation tone?
Shafee: The tone was rather accusatory.
Counsel: The EPU was directly under the PM’s Department.
Court: No more questions on the investigation on the EPU chief. I am not satisfied of the relevancy of such evidence.
Counsel: Was the EPU responsible for awarding privatisation of projects?
Shafee: As far as I know, it is.
Counsel: After you were scolded by the PM did you inform anybody about this?
Shafee: I informed the Chief Secretary to the Government.
Counsel: What was your reaction when the PM scolded you and told you to close the case against the DG of EPU?
Shafee: I was highly dissolution and when I went home I told my wife I wanted to resign. But in view that I have two or three months to finish my extension - my wife persuaded me not to resign.
Counsel: Why did you feel dissolution and decide to resign?
Shafee: In my whole career with the government, this was the first time my boss accused me of trying to fix somebody and also my dissolution in the way the PM was interfering with my duty.
Outcome still unknown
Param noted that although police reports alleging that Mahathir had interfered with ACA investigations were filed the following day (June 13, 2000), nothing has been heard about the outcome of the investigations.
The alleged interference was said to have occurred in June 1998. In response to Shafee’s testimony, Mahathir (left) was quoted by the media as saying that he could not remember the incident.
“Here was a clear and glaring situation where the head of the ACA gave sworn testimony of Mahathir’s interference on an ongoing investigation by the agency.
“Yet to date the public do not know what happened to not only that investigation of the director-general of the EPU but investigation of Mahathir for interfering with the ACA’s investigation,” said Param.
He went on say that, if there is no truth to Shafee’s evidence, then he should have been charged for perjury.
“That never happened either,” said Param.
He said it is not too late to re-open the file, if at all one had been opened after Shafee’s revelation in court in June 2000.
“Otherwise fresh investigations should commence. If Mahathir is not confident with the ACA investigating him, the present government should invite a credible foreign agency to investigate him for the alleged interference with the ACA investigation,” he added.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
