It is About Sharing

Knowledge is for sharing. Do not keep your knowledge to yourself alone. Let it grows. The more you share, the more you learn and in the end you become a better person.

Surah Yaasin Amazing Recitation

Loading...

Al-Fatihah

Friday, October 31, 2008

Razak Baginda a Free Man...

The Shah Alam High Court here this morning acquitted Razak Baginda from the murder abetment charge in the infamous murder case of Altantuya Shaariibu. This decision was arrived at after the High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against Razak Baginda at the end of the prosecution's case.
.
However, C/Insp Azilah Hadri and Kpl Sirul Azhar Umar, members of the Special Action Squad (UTK), were not as lucky as Razak Baginda when they were ordered to enter their defence against the murder charge.
.
Read here
.
So, as at now, Razak Baginda is a free man unless the prosecution decides to appeal against the acquittal.
.
The big question mark (should both Azilah and Sirul be found guilty at the end of the day for murdering Altantuya) that need to be answered remains as "who instructed Azilah and Sirul to kill Altantuya by using explosive C4 bomb? If not Razak Baginda, then who?" You guys can keep on speculating. To me it does not make sense if at the end of the day the Court found both Azilah and Sirul guilty of murder with the person who abet the murder is still at large.
.
The police needs to reopen the investigation file to find out who instructed the murder. If at all Azilah and Sirul are guilty for murder, the motive for the murder lies with the person who instructed the murder.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Bandung Photos

In the plane already but we were informed by the Pilot that we had to wait for another 20 minutes before we could take off. But to make it worst, for reason best known to Airasia or at least, its Pilot, the aircond was not on. The passengers already making noise and have to use the menu as a fan. Even their stewardesses were seen fanning using newspaper. To certain extent, it had spoilt my son's excitement to be on the plane. Wll, that is Airasia, I believe. They need to cut costs wherever and whenever they can even to the discomfort of their passengers
.
.
This is my second son...hot! hot! hot! air cond anyone?
.
.
The millionaires in the photo. Announcing the arrival of...yes, after suffering at the early stage, we finally safely landed at the Bandara Husein Sastranegara Airport in Bandung. Alhamdulillah...
.
.

First place we went was this place called Rumah Ibor. Nice place to stay if you are in Bandung. Located in Jalan Dago, which is one of the shopping heaven in Bandung.
.
.

Our first meal in Bandung. It was sunda food in a nice restaurant called "Bumbu Desa". It was here that I had my nasi liwet (pronounce as "liwat" ["sodomy" in Malay])
.
.

Varieties of Sunda foods
.
.

Burp...I was full already...time to leave Bumbu Desa and do shopping
.
.
A mosque in Cipaganti
.
.

Bandung version of Coffee Bean. In fact better taste than Coffee Bean. I tried and it was really nice and cheap. It costs me only Rp10,000 which was equivalent to RM3.70 per glass.
.
.

In front of Rumah Mode, one of the famous factory outlets in Bandung. Shopping time had just started...
.
.

One of the factory outlet in Jalan Setiabudi (not in Damansara Heights, ok)
.
.

One of their transportations, which I find it unique (forgot to ask what they call it)
.
.

Our first dinner in Bandung. A very nice cozy restaurant located on top of a hill called Lisung. Our seat was facing Bandung. From the restaurant we can see Bandung. It was a really nice view. And the food was good. I ate Sup Buntut Bakar Pedas. Don't get me wrong. Buntut means ekor. In the photo are my family, our friends (first met them at the airport upon arrival and immediately became friends) Jan and Josa and our Tourist Guide, Amir.
.
.
Another photo in the restaurant
.
.
Another photo in the restaurant
.
.

View outside my hotal lobby. One thing that caught my attention was the Bandung folks determination in doing their business. Those in the red shirts were students from Maktab Perguruan Besut in Terengganu (was on their study trip to Bandung) while the rest was the Bandung folks selling their products/souvenirs like key chain, pen, telekung, etc, etc. They won't simply give up if you say "no" to their products. They will keep on pursuading you to buy until you get into your car. Even when I was at the lobby, they waived at me to come out of the lobby to look at their products.
.
.

Tired waiting for mama to do the shopping. Take a short break.
.
.

My wife was busy doing the shopping at Pasar Baru while my two kids were busy with their own activity. Well, vacation to Bandung is all about shopping. So, kids need to find their own activities within the little space they might have.
.
.
Pasar Baru Trade Center, which consists of 7 floors with really a lot of shops in it selling shoes, clothes, etc, etc,...at a very cheap price. We spent our time from 9.30am to 4.30pm only in this place and we did not even visit all the shops. Friends of mine, Jan and Josa managed to shop only at Level 1 from 9.30am to 4.30pm. It tells you how crazy you can be when you are at Pasar Baru.
.
.

Masjid Uswatun Hassanah located on the roof top of the Pasar Baru Trade Centre
.
.
Bandung from the roof top of Pasar Baru
.
.
In front of our hotel, Mutiara Hotal Bandung
.
.
Scenery on the way to Tangkuban Perahu
.
.
Scenery on the way to Tangkuban Perahu
.
.

My kids with our second Tourist Guide, Mahatirta Adikusumah at our hotel
.
.
My family and our first Tourist Guide, Amir Budi Prasetyo. Photo taken at Jalan Dago.
.
.

Look at the 5th menu from the top.
.
.
Upon arrival at Tangkuban Perahu. This is a "mandatory" place to snap a photo as a proof that we have been there. Tangkuban Perahu is a volcano which is still active and explode every 20 years. According to my tourist guide, Maha, the Dutch made a tunnel to channel the lava to the sea, so as to lessen the explosion risks.
.
.

Another view on top of Tangkuban Perahu
.
.

The transport provided for tourist to go to the peak of Tangkuban Perahu. It costs Rp10,000 per person but we paid only Rp10,000 per pick up because my tourist guide knows the driver
.
.

Tangkuban Perahu. The peak resembles a "perahu" (small boat with paddles) in an upside down position but because the fog was so thick, we were not able to see it.
.
.
A view from the top of Tangkuban Perahu
.
.

In front of the Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia mosque where we stop for Zuhur prayer
.
.
At the entrance to the Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. Photo taken on the way back to Bandung from Tangkuban Perahu

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Petrol oh Petrol!!! The Never Ending Issue

As reported: -
.
The drop in the local retail oil price expected at the end of this month will not exceed 15 sen. Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Minister Datuk Shahrir Abdul Samad who disclosed this, said a drop of that amount was made to avoid sudden losses, especially for the petrol station operators nationwide.
.
.
Frankly speaking, I do not know how exactly the petrol station operators doing their business. But from what I know, they only earn a small percentage of the petrol sold to the consumers. the petrol station rental is based on their petrol and diesel’s sales volume.
.
But what really puzzled me with the above news report is that is it real that a sudden drop of oil prices can cause sudden losses to the petrol station operators nationwide? If it is true as reported, then logically speaking, these petrol station operators must have recorded a huge profits when the price of the petrol was increased from RM1.92 per litre to RM2.70 per litre. So, if they have recorded such a huge profits, why can’t they suffer losses? I wonder why???

Bandung

I was in Bandung, Indonesia with my family from 20-23 October 2008. I bought airaisa goholiday package, which was very cheap. I spent only RM1,300++ to cover for my hotel accommodation and return flight for me, my wife and my two little kids. Bandung is a shopping heaven. I brought around Rp4,600,000.00 (which was equivalent to RM1.500.00) and that was not enough because there were so many things to buy at a cheap price. I have a lot to share from shopping, the people, the road, the food, the interesting place and the traffic but not at the moment. I will do that later.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Nurul Huda Abdul Gani's Rape and Murder Case - Accused Acquitted of Murder

My posting herein may draw unhappiness and unsatisfactory feeling but I do hope that you read my posting with open mind and do not cloud yourself with emotion feelings.
.
On 16/10/2008, the Federal Court acquitted Mohd Abbas Danus Baksan of murdering a 10-year old girl, Nurul Huda Abdul Gani. The Federal Court’s decision draw mixed feelings and reactions among the people with many quarters are not happy with the decision. To better understand what happened, let me take you to revisit the case.
.
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/legal/general_news/nurul_huda_murder_case_acquitted_on_grounds_of_insufficient_evidence.html
.
On 17/1/2004, the whole nation was shocked to learn that a cute 10-year old girl by the name of Hurul Huda Binti Abdul Gani of Gelang Patah Johor was brutally gang raped, sodomised and strangled to death. Police's investigation brought to the arrest of a Security Guard by the name of Mohd Abbas Danus Baksan who, at the time of the alleged crime was manning the security booth of Tenaga Nasional Berhad’s main substation in Kampung Pekajang, Tanjung Kupang, Johor Baru. The heinous crime was said to have been committed by Mohd Abbas on 17/1/2004 between 9.20am and 1.00pm. Police’s investigation also revealed the presence of two (2) other persons who were unnamed. In fact, when Mohd Abbas was first charged in court (for murder), he was charged of committing the offence with two (2) other persons who were unnamed.
.
In this case, Mohd Abbas was charged for rape and murder. In his trial for rape in the Sessions Court, he admitted to committing the offence, thus was sentenced accordingly. However, during his trial for murder at the High Court, he did not admit to committing the offence but putting the blame on two (2) other persons namely Suyaimi and Jojo. While Suyaimi was made a prosecution's witness, Jojo's whereabout could not be established. After hearing 26 witnesses and producing 29 items as evidence during the 21-days trial, the High Court found him guilty for murder, hence he was sentenced to death.
.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2004/8/28/nation/8775746&sec=nation
.
He filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal against his conviction (on murder). In the Court of Appeal, the appellant’s (Mohd Abbas) main argument was that the Judicial Commissioner at the High Court had failed to sufficiently appreciate the prosecution’s evidence and the appellant unsworn statement when arriving at his findings. In particular, there was insufficient appreciation of the circumstantial evidence relied on by the prosecution. The Court of Appeal, in dealing with the issue raised by the Appellant said that the circumstantial evidence relied on by the prosecution was sufficiently corroborated and inference was made against the Appellant. As such, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant’s appeal and upheld the punishment meted out by the High Court i.e. death sentence. Mohd Abbas lodged an appeal with the Federal Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal.
.
http://www.kehakiman.gov.my/judgment/coa/latest/Crpp%2042%20Mohd%20Abbas%20bin%20Danus%20Baksan%20v%20PP%20%20(J-05-71-04).htm
.
Now, after the High Court and the Court of Appeal found Mohd Abbas guilty for murder, what made the Federal Court in a unanimous decision differed from the two (2) previous Courts?
.
In criminal case, there are two (2) elements that must be proven by the prosecution during the trial i.e. the mens rea and the actus reas. Mens rea means the intention to commit the crime and actus reas means the action, which causes the crime to be committed. If the prosecution is only able to prove only one (1) of the two (2) elements mentioned above, the Court may acquit the accused or punish him/her with a lower punishment. On top of that, the prosecution's burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt". "Beyond reasonable doubt" means there shall be no single doubt in the prosecution's case and what the accused need to do is to raise at least one doubt (which is reasonable) to throw out the prosecution's case. There was a joke to illustrate what is “beyond reasonable doubt”?. An accused was charged for murder and knowing very well that he is going to lose his case, after the Court resume the proceedings and before the Judge delivering his decision and sentence, the accused stood up and told the Judge that the victim (that had been murdered) is on the way to the Court room and should arrive shortly. The Judge took the trouble and interestedly waited for the victim to walk in. After waiting for a couple of minutes (and the victim was still not walking into the Court room), the Judge told the accused that he (the accused) was bluffing and the Court was going to deliver its decision. The accused stood up and told the Judge that he had managed to raise a reasonable doubt and therefore, he should be acquitted. The Judge was stunned and the accused explained that if the Judge believed that the prosecution had proven the case "beyond reasonable doubt", the Judge should not believe in what the accused said about the victim coming in to the Court room.
.
Now, in this case, Mohd Abbas was jointly charged for murder with two (2) others who were unnamed. There appeared to be the presence of a third person (which was believed to have been Jojo) in the crime scene when the crime took place. This was further supported by the fact that there was a semen stain on a straw mat at the crime scene which does not belong to Mohd Abbas and Suyaimi. The said semen stain belongs to an unidentified male individual. So, in this case, it is not disputed that there was a third person other than Mohd Abbas and Nurul Huda at the crime scene when the crime took place. The prosecution in proving the case against Mohd Abbas at the High Court was relying on the circumstantial evidence in that: -
.
(a) Mohd Abbas was alone at the guardhouse when the victim’s body was found;
.
(b) The victim’s path to the shop from her house and return journey would have led her past the guardhouse;
.
(c) Mohd Abbas’ demenour when approached by the victim’s family members whereby he claimed that he did not see the victim (when the fact that the victim’s body was lying motionless in the guardhouse’ toilet);
.
(d) Mohd Abbas’ demenour in not allowing the police to enter the TNB main station area; and
.
(e) Though Mohd Abbas claimed that it was Suyaimi and Jojo who murdered the victim, Mohd Abbas was said to have supposedly to help the girl and informed the police of the crime committed by Suyaimi and Jojo as alleged by him, which he failed to do. It only serves to suggest that he killed the victim and was trying to conceal the evidence.
.
Now, to me personally, the circumstantial evidence mentioned above does not form conclusive evidence that Mohd Abbas did murder the victim. All it suggested was that Mohd Abbas was present at the crime scene when the crime took place. Though it was said Mohd Abbas should help the girl and inform the police if at all it was true that it was Suyaimi and Jojo and not him who killed the victim, to me Mohd Abbas would have his own reason for doing so. In this case, he admitted to have raped the victim. As such, it makes sense for him not to cooperate with the police and the victim’s family members (even to the extent that he might try to conceal the evidence) because he had raped the victim. The fact that he was alone at that point of time would added to his fear, as he could be charged for murder too, a crime he claimed that he did not do. So, with due respect, I beg to differ with the argument that Mohd Abbas’ uncooperative demanour can only suggest that he killed the victim, a crime he denied of committing, as it can also suggest that he raped the victim, a crime which he admitted at the Sessions Court.
.
So, in this case, the Federal Court was of the opinion that the presence of a third person, which have been proven but that third person’s whereabout could not be established only serves as a doubt in the prosecution’s case. This is because, there was no direct evidence to prove that Mohd Abbas killed the victim (as what the prosecution had was only circumstantial evidence) and that the presence of the third person could also suggest that there was always a possibility that the victim was murdered by that third person. So, while Mohd Abbas admitted to have raped the victim, there was just no conclusive evidence to suggest that he killed the victim. So, in that sense, the Federal Court found doubt in the prosecution’s case and as I mentioned above, the defence (Mohd Abbas) just need to create one reasonable doubt to throw out the prosecution’s case and he did.
.
And as I mentioned earlier, the decision by the Federal Court invited mixed reaction from the people. They just could not believe that the criminal involved in heinous crime against a helpless 10-year old girl escaped the gallows. Even the family members of Nurul Huda was shocked to learn that Mohd Abbas is still alive, as they thought that he (Mohd Abbas) had been hanged already.
.
However, I have to tell you this. Law is not about common sense. Law is not about emotion feelings and law is not about logic. Law is governed by the rule of law. What I mean is that when we deal with law, we should not use our emotion while common sense and logic is not all. A simple example, a man who had consensual sexual intercourse with a girl aged 15 years 364 days has committed a statutory rape but a man who had consensual sexual intercourse with a girl aged 16 years 1 day is not committing any offence. Reason being because under the law, girls under 16 years of age are minor, hence under the law, they do not have the capability to give their consent but girls of 16 years of age and above are said to be able to give their consent. If we think about it, does that really make sense? In this instance, the two (2) girls’ age was different by three (3) days only but does that really make a different with their capability to give their consent? No right? But the law says it is. To me it does not make sense and is not logic but that is the law. So, in Nurul Huda’s case, while we, the people believe and thought that Mohd Abbas should have been found guilty of murder, the law takes different view and it is because the law does not based on emotion, logic and common sense as we thought it should be. The law looks at the rule of law vis-à-vis evidence surrounding the case.
.
While I agree with the finding of the Federal Court, I am not too sure who killed Nurul Huda. It could have been Mohd Abbas who killed her but the evidence tendered in Court does not suggest so.
.
In the end, it is better to acquit ten (10) guilty persons (as they shall receive their punishment in the hereafter) than to punish an innocent person (as this may cause great injustice).

Friday, October 17, 2008

Illiegailsed the Illegal

I am 100% against Hindraf but I find the action made by the government to declare Hindraf as an illegal society is redundant because the government was actually illegalized what was already illegal. There is no need for the home minister to make such a declaration because Hindraf is already an illegal society.
.
Hamid Albar = Joker

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Get Your Facts Right Before Comment

As reported in The Star on 9/10/2008, Tun Mahathir said “Until March Pak Lah must keep quiet and let Najib run the show. He should not interfere because if Najib appears to be following him or taking his advice, I think the latter will lose support,” he said.
.
.
And this was what reported in the NST - Umno leaders have come out to strongly criticise Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad for telling Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to keep quiet after handing over power to his successor.
.
Thereafter, came comments from ministers who doesn't know head and tail about what Tun Mahathir meant: -
.
Nazri Aziz
.
Dr Mahathir should have followed his own advice. "He is the right person to say this because that is exactly what he did." He said Dr Mahathir did not keep quiet or allow Abdullah to run the country freely after handing over the premiership to him. "He should have followed his own advice instead of creating all the trouble for us."
.
Azalina Othman
.
Dr Mahathir should have followed his own words. Azalina said Dr Mahathir's statement was like adding salt to an open wound. "Tun should not feel that he is always right by giving advice. It is going to weaken the party further," she said, adding that he should instead set a good example to the younger leaders.
.
Ahmad Shaberry
.
Questioned what Dr Mahathir meant by asking Abdullah to keep quiet. He said Dr Mahathir should set an example for Umno leaders.
.
Khaled Nordin
.
Dr Mahathir's statement was unbecoming. He said there was no need for anyone to say anything as both Abdullah and his successor Datuk Seri Najib Razak knew how to conduct themselves after the handover.
.
Hamid Albar
.
He (Hamid Albar) did not see much risk of interference from Abdullah once he stepped down. "The fact is all former prime ministers have got the tendency to comment, so this is a normal thing. What is most important is to make sure there is no interference. "Maybe Dr Mahathir is reminding Pak Lah based on his own personal experience," he said, perhaps alluding to the vocal criticisms by the former prime minister against Abdullah. "His (Abdullah's) decision was made not in a personal interest but in the interest of the nation and party, so I do not think he would interfere (in the government)," Syed Hamid added.
.
In The Star report, what Tun meant was until March Najib should be given freedom to run the country while Si Bedol remains as the PM without interference from Si Bedol, so as to give Najib the feel as a PM and for him to get the right momentum to lead the government. Even before Tun steps down, he went on holiday so as to give Si Bedol the opportunity to run the country while Tun was still a PM. I believe that is a normal way of power transition, not only in politics but everywhere. When Tun said until March, it means the handing over process is till ongoing but when the ministers said after handing over, they meant after March, which was exactly not what Tun meant.
.
It is either the ministers who gave the comments did not understand plain and simple English as reported in The Star or they did not do their homework or they are just lazy fat dog who do not really bother to check on the statement by Tun or they only read NST or is it the work of the spin doctor? Read here http://test.chedet.com/che_det/2008/09/snippets-10.html

Datukship Anyone?

It is going to be Dato' Shah Rukh Khan after this...
.
I wonder what sort of contribution that SRK gave to Malaysia, or at least my home state Melaka that deserves him a Datukship? From what I read in the newspaper, these bunch of so-called Bollywood filmstar (including SRK) are arrogant people everytime they come to Malaysia and yet SRK get the title. I do not think SRK give it a damn for the title and if he has to come to Melaka to receive the title, I wonder whether he self-finance his travelling and accommodation costs?
.
Ooops, i am sorry...nowadays, Datukship does not mean anything and has no worth...more and more people get the title with doubtful contribution they made to the state/country. Tell you, it is not difficult to get the Datukship. I have the tips. If anyone of you who is hunger for the title, you can do either one of the followings: -
.
(a) get an Olympic medal..no matter what colour it is
.
(b) if (a) is too difficult, you can try non-stop sailing solo around the world (perhaps you can get Tan Sri because Azhar Mansor did stop during his sailing and yet he still got Datukship)
.
(c) swim across Klang river
.
(d) climb mount Tahan (in Pahang) seven times non stop...it is rather more difficult to conquer mount Tahan than mount Kinabalu)
.
(e) walk around the Peninsular non stop within 100 days
.
(f) stay in the north or south pole for 10 days without wearing winter clothing
.
(g) act or sing for 20 years and have 20 albums throughout your career
.
and the list can go on and on...there is no ending for it...
.
If you ask me why I think the above can land you a datukship, I must say that because nowadays people get Datukship for doing funny funny things or worst still, for doing nothing, which I still have doubts on the benefit they bring to the country.
.

Friday, October 10, 2008

Quote

A news report that can give 1001 interpretations: -
.
Khairy, who is aspiring for the Youth chief post in the March party elections, said he hoped his father-in-law’s leaving office would not affect his chances in the contest.
.

Basis for Taking Legal Action

Do we take action because there is a basis for doing so or we take action because other people ask us to do so? If we choose the first option, we are doing the job that is required of us but if we choose the second option, then we are doing the job to satisfy certain quarters of people.
.
Hindraf is an unregistered society under the Societies Act 1966. Everybody knows that and the government is fully aware of that. Ever since they came into existence until now, they remain unregistered and ever since then until now, no action has been taken on them for being an unregistered society, which is obviously an offence under the Societies Act 1966.
.
Section 41 of the Act stipulates that any society that is not registered pursuant to Section 7 is an unlawful society while Section 42 and 43 of the Act stipulates the punishment for the office bearers and members of the unlawful society. Thus, the government, knowing that Hindraf is an unlawful society all these while had never ever intended to take action against the office bearers and the members of Hindraf but the moment the Hindraf supporters barged into the Cabinet’s Aidilfitri open house in PWTC recently demanding the abolishment of the ISA and the release of the ISA detainees and after the pressure and request by many quarters for the government to take action against Hindraf supporters, the government finally decided to take action against the Hindraf supporters under the Societies Act.
.
If I may just recap what was verbatimly reported in The Star on 9/10/2008: -
.
Deputy Home Minister Senator Datuk Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh said Thursday the Government will take action against the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) under the Societies Act 1966 for causing a disturbance during the Hari Raya function hosted by the Prime Minister and Muslim Cabinet ministers at the Putra World Trade Centre in Kuala Lumpur last Wednesday. He said action would be taken soon on Hindraf, its committee, and members, even though the organisation was not registered...Wan Ahmad Farid said this when asked to comment on calls by several quarters that action be taken against Hindraf for their ‘rudeness’ at the function on the first day of Hari Raya. Wan Ahmad Farid said the Government through the Home Ministry would not hesitate to take action against an illegal organisation as it had to follow the law. "When it comes to the law, there must be no delay. Whatever action taken has to follow procedure and legal channels. What is clear in this matter is that whoever breaks the law must face action,” he said.
.
So my questions are: -
.
(1) Since I could not find any provision under the Societies Act 1966 on an offence for causing disturbance in private or public place, I wonder under what Section of the Societies Act 1966 the government is going to charge the Hindraf supporters?
.
(2) Even if I may overlook on the relevant provision, why is it charging them for causing disturbance and not on the basis of them as an unlawful society?
.
(3) Is the government suggesting that it is ok to remain as an unlawful society so long as you do not cause disturbance in private or public places especially so during the Prime Minister’s open house?
.
(4) Why is it the government wants to take action after receiving pressure form others and not on the basis that Hindraf is an unlawful society?
.
(5) Since the deputy Minister said that “when it comes to the law, there must be no delay”, why is it the government delays in taking action against Hindraf office bearers and supporters since they have been moving as an unlawful society since long time ago?
.
(6) Is the government suggesting that an offence is not an offence until and unless it affects the government especially the Prime Minister?
.
(7) If I get my facts right, the Deputy Home Minister is a lawyer by profession and I wonder from which university did he graduate from?
.
For The Star full report, click here http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/10/9/nation/20081009133820&sec=nation

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Police Should Assist and Protect Teresa

I found this article disgusting - http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/10/9/focus/2222048&sec=focus.
.
No doubt that it is the police’s duty to protect everybody in this country without having regard to their race, religion, citizenship, sex, etc. But at the same time, people need to be fair to the police.
.
Teresa Kok had condemned the police over the foods that were served to her while under ISA detention recently, which she likened it to the food of dogs. That was an insult, not only to the police but also to those eggs lovers. And now that she is in trouble (of being threatened on her safety), this writer said that the police should assist and protect Teresa instead of asking her to take precautionary measures. How can that be? At one instance, she condemned the police unreasonably and falsely and in another instance, she expects the police to protect her. That does not make any sense at all.
.
It is not fair to simply condemn and insult the police whenever we do not need them and expect them to give us protection whenever we are in trouble.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Hari Kalendar dan Hari Ibadat

Assalamualaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh...
.
Selamat kembali ke alam "realiti" setelah seminggu kita beraya. Pada posting kali ini, saya ingin berkongsi maklumat dengan semua tentang perbezaan hari kalendar dan hari ibadat dalam Islam.
.
Semasa bulan Ramadhan baru-baru ini, terlintas di fikiran saya setiap kali saya memasang niat untuk berpuasa, mengapa kita berniat “sahaja aku berpuasa esok hari…” sedangkan mengikut taqwim hijriah iaitu kalendar Islam, hari baru bermula apabila terbenamnya matahari iaitu masuknya waktu maghrib. Ini bermakna waktu untuk kita memasang niat puasa dan hari kita berpuasa jatuh pada hari yang sama tetapi mengapa kita berniat “esok hari” dan tidak “hari ini”?. Persoalan yang bermain di fikiran, saya ajukan kepada sahabat karib saya, iaitu Ustaz Suhaimi Bin Rebu dan menurut beliau, di dalam Islam, hari kalendar dan hari ibadat adalah dua perkiraan yang berbeza. Maksudnya, tatkala hari kalendar bermula dari terbenamnya matahari sehingga terbenamnya matahari pada hari yang berikutnya, hari ibadat dikira bermula dari terbitnya fajar sadiq ataupun, masuknya waktu subuh sehingga terbitnya fajar sadiq hari yang berikutnya. Itulah sebabnya apabila kita memasang niat untuk puasa di bulan Ramadhan, niat hendaklah dipasang sebelum masuknya waktu subuh dan dari sudut ibadat, waktu kita memasang niat dan waktu kita berpuasa adalah 2 hari yang berbeza.
.
Terang beliau lagi, apabila kita bermusafir di jalan Allah melebihi 2 marhalah, kita diberikan rukhsah (kesenangan) untuk kita menjama’kan dan mengqasarkan sembahyang kita selagi mana kita dalam hari perjalanan dan selagimana kita belum selesaikan urusan kita. Oleh yang demikian, sekiranya kita bermusafir dan sampai ke destinasi kita pada waktu zohor atau asar, kita masih boleh menjama’ dan mengqasarkan solat maghrib dan isyak kita kerana dari sudut perkiaraan hari ibadat, kita dikatakan masih dalam hari perjalanan.