Dogs again

Im writing or visiting back the issue on dogs. Above show a picture of a man Sheikh Abbas Taha beside a hound circa 1937. That issue you can find chapter 12 of that book between the brother of Sultan of Kelantan who at that time was the Raja Muda or heir to the throne and her sister who was disgusted at his brother's fondness for dogs.This as narrated below was send by email to me.

"The great dog debate revisited - Rusaslina Idrus
AUGUST 04, 2013
LATEST UPDATE: AUGUST 04, 2013 11:29 AM
In the mid 1930s, a member of the Kelantan royal family and his sister
had a disagreement over him keeping a pet dog. She felt that dogs, and
in particular their saliva, were polluting according to Islamic law.
The issue quickly became a matter of public debate with Islamic
experts in the state weighing in with different opinions.
In order to resolve this issue, the Tengku (the dog owner) called for
a public council of debate (a majlis mudzakara) with both sides having
the space to present their arguments regarding dog keeping in Islam.
In January 1937, the mudzakarawas held in Istana Sri Cemerlang and
attended by two thousand members of the public. It was reported to be
the event of the year for the people in Kota Bahru and it continued to
be the talk of the town for many years to come.
On team pro-dog were ex-Mufti Wan Musa Wan Abdul Samad, Haji Abbas b.
Muhammad Taha, a qadi from Singapore and Burhanuddin Muhammad Noor1, a
young man who studied in Delhi and Aligarh.
On the otherside were the mufti of Kelantan Haji Ibrahim bin Haji
Yusof, chief Qadi Haji Ahmad bin Ismail and leading Islamic scholars
and members of the Kelantan Islamic council Haji Abdul Manan and Haji
Abdullah Tahir.
The two teams presented their arguments drawing from a range of
sources including the Quran, the Prophet's (PBUH) hadiths and
tradition and studies on Islamic jurisprudence.
Both teams composed of highly learned scholars with extensive Islamic
training abroad and locally.
At the end of the debate, the Sultan did not declare a winner but left
the people of Kelantan having heard both sides of the arguments to
make their own informed decision2.
In the meantime, the Tengku wanting to have a clearer outcome
submitted a query to the Fatwa Committee of al-Azhar in Cairo
regarding this matter.
In May 1937, the Syaikh of al-Azhar issued a fatwa affirming the
permissibility of dog keeping3. While the matter remains controversial
in Kelantan, the differences in opinion were accepted.
I bring this historical moment up not to be seditious, but because it
illustrates a time in our country where there was space for a public
debate on such religious matters.
Differences in opinion regarding Islamic jurisprudence were
acknowledged and the public given the space to make their own
decisions after weighing the arguments before them.
Indeed, this space for discussion and active knowledge seeking is very
much part of the Islamic tradition since the time of the Prophet
Muhammad (PBUH).
Today, in Malaysia, there is little room for any differences of
opinion when it comes to Islam.
If one does not subscribe to the dominant viewpoint, then one risks of
being labelled kafir or thrown into jail.
This week we witnessed a Malay dog trainer arrested by the police with
charges of sedition because she had a view different that the majority
regarding dog handling. For putting up a video of Hari Raya greeting
featuring her dogs with the background of takbirraya, Maznah Mohd
Yusof was deemed to have insulted Islam.
Online, member of the public threw hurtful, demeaning and violent
words at her, some even threatening her life. With the faceless mode
of interaction through social media, people seem to have lost their
humanity and compassion for another fellow human being.
Many of the angry commentators kept insisting that Maznah's action
insulted Islam because dogs are forbidden in Islam.
There is actually nothing in the Quran about dogs being haram and in
fact, references to dogs in Quranare in positive light.
In Surah al-Kahf, a dog was companion to a group of young believers
whom Allah protected from an evil ruler by letting them sleep for many
years in a cave.  The dog is described as guarding the believers
"stretching forth his two fore-legs on the threshold" (18:18).
In Surah al-Maidah (5:4), Allah grants us permission to eat the meat
caught by hunting animals (there does seem to be any dispute that the
reference to hunting animals include dogs).
Among the different Mazhab, there are differing views on Muslims'
handling of dogs. However, even in the strictest Shafie school of
thought, while the saliva and excrements of dogs are deemed najis and
one is required to conduct ritual cleansing (samak) after touching
these, keeping or holding a dog is not haram nor sinful.
I don't want to be accused of making up my own fatwa, so let me quote
a report published by JAIS (the Selangor Islamic Department) in 20104
: "

Menyentuhataumemeganganjingtidaklahberdosaataumenyalahihukum
Islam."
So there, dogs are not haram and it is not a sin to handle a dog. Many
Malays grew up believing dogs as haram and to be avoided at all cost
but this assumption seems to be based more on a cultural than
religious conviction.
The conflict this last week would have been a good opportunity for
learned Islamic scholars in Malaysia to discuss the differences of
opinion regarding dog handling drawing from our rich Islamic scholarly
tradition.
But instead, this issue seems to be driven by a political agenda. It
all seems to be a big performance of who can show they are protecting
the Malaysthe most.
Issues are blown out of proportion to create apprehension in the
community. It is alarming when national leaders chose to further flame
the discord rather than promote tolerance and compassion.
Ramadan is a month of reflection. It is also the sacred month when our
ultimate source of knowledge on Islam was bestowed upon us in the form
of the holy Quran.
As Muslims, seeking knowledge is part of our ibadah. Opening spaces
for discussion and allowing for diversity of opinions will not shatter
but instead strengthened our faith as a thinking and knowledgeable
ummah.
1. Burhanuddin Muhammad Noor was later better known as Dr. Burhanuddin
al-Helmy. He was an influential Malay nationalist and Islamist thinker
and president of PAS from 1956-1969.
2. Information regarding this event sourced from William Roff (1983),
"Whence Cometh the Law? Dog Saliva in Kelantan, 1937" in Comparative
Studies In Society and History, Vol 25, No 2 and Nik Abdul Aziz Nik
Hassan (1979), "Perbahasan Tentang Jilatan Anjing: Suatu Penelitian".
File Arkib Negara 20013/0003384.
3. For those curious to see the dog in question, Google William Roff's
book entitled Studies on Islam and Society in Southeast Asia (2009,
NUS Press) and you will see the handsome Dalmatian sitting proudly
next to Haji Abbas on the book cover.
4. Laporan dan Kajian R&D 18 Mei 2010: Maklumbalas Pegang Anjing.
Jabatan Agama Islam Selangar. http://www.jais.gov.my/rnd/2013/April/MaklumbalaspegangAnjing.pdf
*Rusaslina Idrus is a teacher and academic researcher based in a local
university."

 

I have said enough on it but i want to put a spin to this issue at hand. I know that Islam values highly the privacy of her adherents. laws pertaining to it and the Qur'an and hadiths attest to it. As far as I am concern in Malaysia these law has been trampled and that is sad. A sad day for Justice, a sad day for the Ummah. My question is simple what if I took the picture above, crop it up and write beneath it say Selamat Hari Raya Aidil Fitri, Maaf Dzahir Batin. Who is guilty me for downloading it to youtube or facebook etc or Sheikh Abbas Taha and his family? If you say me then you cannot find the girl who has a video message to her friends and family guilty for she has made police report denying the fact that she download it in youtube for it was for her family and friends who knows her and was made 2 years back. Someone else for no apparent reason posted it this year. I think the readers must ponder aloud.

Below is an excerpt from an article in Minda tahjdid a blog by a former Mufti of Perlis. It is in Malay which again validate what Ive said. It is in Malay.

Sementara dalam hadis pula, Nabi s.a.w bersabda:

“Diampunkan dosa seorang pelacur yang melintasi seekor anjing yang berada di tepi sebuah telaga yang lidahnya terjelir. Hampir kehausan membunuhnya. Maka pelacur itu pun menanggalkan kasutnya, lalu dia ikat kasut itu dengan tudungnya lantas dia menceduk air untuk anjing tersebut. Dia diampunkan disebabkan kejadian itu” (Riwayat al-Bukhari).

Betapa seorang pelacur yang buruk sekalipun diampuni dosanya oleh Allah kerana dengan ikhlas memberikan minum kepada seekor anjing. Bagaimana mungkin untuk kita menganggap bahawa Islam tidak menilai sebagai satu perbuatan yang baik jika muslim memberi makan dan minum kepada anjing?!! Jika ada orang muslim yang memberi makan kepada anjing patutlah dipuji.

Bolehkah muslim memiliki anjing?

Dalam al-Quran, Allah menyebut: (maksudnya)

“Mereka bertanya kepadamu (Wahai Muhammad): “Apakah (makanan) yang dihalalkan bagi mereka?” bagi menjawabnya: “Dihalalkan bagi kamu (memakan) yang baik-baik, dan (buruan yang ditangkap oleh) binatang-binatang pemburu yang telah kamu ajar (untuk berburu) mengikut cara pelatih-pelatih binatang pemburu. Kamu mengajar serta melatihnya (adab peraturan berburu) sebagaimana yang telah diajarkan Allah kepada kamu, oleh itu makanlah dari apa yang mereka (binatang-binatang buruan) itu tangkap untuk kamu dan sebutlah nama Allah atasnya (ketika kamu melepaskannya berburu); dan bertaqwalah kepada Allah. Sesungguhnya Allah Maha cepat hitungan hisabNya” (Surah al-Maidah, ayat 4)

Binatang pemburu yang biasa digunakan ialah anjing. Kitab-kitab tafsir seperti Tafsir Ibn Kathir dan selainnya akan menyebut anjing sebagai pemburu utama. Juga perkataan mukallibin dalam ayat ini boleh bermaksud tuan-tuan empunya anjing seperti yang disenarai oleh al-Imam Ibn al-Jauzi (meninggal 597H) dalam Zad al-Masir.

Ertinya, muslim memiliki anjing buruan. Demikian dia boleh memiliki anjing yang menemaninya berjalan atau menjaga keselamatan rumah seperti anjing Ashab al-Kahfi yang disebutkan tadi.

Bolehkah Muslim Memegang Anjing?

Ada yang menyatakan haram memegang anjing kerana najis. Kalau kerana ia najis haram dipegang, maka haram juga seseorang menyentuh najis dirinya, ataupun anaknya ataupun sesiapa di bawah jagaannya ketika membersihkannya. Haramlah juga mereka yang berkerja yang membabitkan bahan-bahan bernajis seperti mencuci tandas ataupun darah ataupun nanah dan lain-lain. Begitu juga dengan doktor veterinar. Maka itu kesimpulan hukum yang cetek.
Najis boleh disentuh tetapi hendaklah dibasuh apabila kita hendak beribadat ataupun berurusan dengan masyarakat. Menyentuh anjing yang kering sepakat ulama tidak najis. Menyentuh anjing basah khilaf pendapat dalam kalangan sarjana. Mazhab Syafie agak tegas dalam hal ini. Namun, pendapat-pendapat mazhab lain lebih luas dan mudah. Sebahagian fuqaha hanya membataskan najis anjing itu hanya jilatannya kerana itu sahaja yang disebut dalam hadis :

“Apabila anjing menjilat bekas seseorang kamu, maka basuhlah sebanyak tujuh kali. Salah satunya dengan tanah” (Riwayat al-Bukhari).

Memelihara Anjing Dalam Rumah

Adapun memelihara anjing dalam rumah tanpa sebab adalah tidak digalakkan oleh Islam. Nabi s.a.w bersabda:

“Sesiapa yang memelihara anjing kecuali anjing buruan ataupun ternakan (menjaga ternakan) maka berkurangan pahalanya setiap hari sebesar qirat (Bukit Uhud)” (Riwayat al-Bukhari dan Muslim)

Berdasarkan hadis ini, maka sekurang-kurangnya memelihara anjing tanpa sebab yang disebutkan berada pada hukum makruh. Ada ulama yang mengharamkan. Namun hadis di atas tidak menyebut dosa, tetapi pengurang pahala sahaja. Maka, hukum makruh dipilih oleh sebahagian fuqaha. Hikmahnya, mungkin atas beberapa sebab yang berkaitan kerohanian dan kemasyarakat.
Islam menyuruh kita mengalukan tetamu. Bukan semua orang suka dengan anjing. Baunya dan juga salakannya boleh menakutkan sesetengah orang. Sesiapa yang pernah pergi ke rumah pemelihara anjing, atau menaiki kenderaan yang ada anjing dia akan tahu baunya yang bukan semua orang dapat bertahan. Salakan anjing dan bulu-bulu di sana-sini bagaikan tidak mengalu-alukan tetamu. Sedangkan Islam agama kemasyarakatan dan hubungan baik antara jiran, saudara-mara dan sahabat handai.
Dari segi keselamatan dan kesihatan juga mempunyai kemerbahayaannya. Gigitan anjing, najis serta jilatannya merbahaya. Banyak kajian yang telah dibuat tentang hal ini. Apabila Islam cuba mengelakkan bahaya anjing yang dipelihara dalam rumah dengan melarang penganutnya berbuat demikian, bukan itu bererti penindasan terhadap anjing. Betapa banyak binatang yang manusia elakkan dari menghampirinya kerana kemerbahayaannya. Itu semua bukan bererti penindasan atau kekejaman!
Dalam hadis tadi, Nabi s.a.w:

“Apabila anjing menjilat bekas seseorang kamu, maka basuhlah sebanyak tujuh kali. Salah satunya dengan tanah” (Riwayat al-Bukhari).

Untuk mengelakkan jilatan anjing yang sentiasa menjelir lidah, yang dianggap najis dari segi agama dan juga bahaya dari segi saintifik maka Islam melarang untuk kita memelihara anjing di dalam rumah tanpa alasan yang diizinkan.
Maka ini ringkasan yang sempat saya coretkan petang ini berhubung dengan sisi pandangan nas-nas Islam berkaitan dengan anjing.

Although i love dogs society here makes it a crime which it is not,here is an excerpt of what I wrote in a comment 2 years back on the same issue!
"
This is a comment i make in American Bedu run by the late Carol Fleming whom as usual the muslims say she is an CIA agent. Her Husband was a saudi diplomat who has pass away of cancer. She too succumb to it this year

wan zaharizan, on June 20, 2010 at 11:13 am said:

It is funny when it comes to dogs. In the Quran Dog is given an exalted position for her story is mention in the chapter of the Cave as the companion of those who slept for a hundred years! The only thing was Dogs and Pigs are said to be najis mughalazah the closest meaning is dirty which is basically not the same, similar yes but not the same!!!!
Even then if it is wet, yet if you keep a hunting dog and if the dog pick up a bird which have fall after you shoot it, the food is halal. You do not need even to slaughter it!!!!! and samak it although the dog has bite it!!!!Samak the closest meaning to it is to clean , to me you can clean it with water and soap it would do in fact all food need to be clean that way!!! But many conservative muslims require a ritual of soil and water. It is just part of belief not of faith!!!
The only one you can find about dog is in the hadiths where the angel jibrail was angry at the dogs barking thus Muhammad pbuh was to have said those who keep dogs th angels would never come in. This was the basis of the values that many cultures says don’t keep dogs!!! For me if it is true then better for me to keep dogs then the angel of death would never come in and I could leave forever!!! How happy I would be then!!!!
There are many hadiths against the keeping of dogs but hadiths is not the Quran and we have to understand that Muhammad is man, a husband an Arab and most importantly a prophet, hadiths must be analyze further to understand.
A very famous story both in Islam and Christian is regarding the prostitute who gave water to a Dog. Because of her act she goes to heaven!! Why these two factors were introduce perhaps it is for us to think. A Prostitute is a human she errs. She might be the scum of the society but she is still a servant of God. A lowly dog is the biggest najis combine the 2 it tell us it is not important so much about dogs or cats,it is about duties the we humans are ask to perform. We must not forget that!!!
A dog too is a creature of God being kind to to God’s creature is ask of us!! Not to malign them or hurt them but to love them. They have the right to exist like we have and for that we are ask to protect them. I hope this explain solve the dilemma whether you can keep dogs or not. My father kept dogs, he loves dogs but since my society have become conservative we can’t anymore~~~

I rest my case~

Syiah Sunni?

Im sad, the continuation of demonizing Syiah must stop.We are co signatories of the Amman declaration. We must never forget that.The idea of the Amman Doctrine or message is as follows:-

Islam is founded upon basic principles, the fundamentals are attesting to the unity of God (tawhid Allah); belief in the message of His Prophet; continuous connection with the Creator through ritual prayer (salat); training and rectifying the soul through the fast of Ramadan; safeguarding one another by paying the alms tax (zakat); the unity of the people through the annual pilgrimage ihajj) to God's Sanctified House, [performed] by those who are able; and [observing] His rulings that regulate human behavior in all its dimensions. Over history these [basic principles] have formed a strong and cohesive nation and a great civilization. They bear witness to noble principles and values that verify the good of humanity, whose foundation is the oneness of the human species, and that people are equal in rights and obligations, peace and justice, realizing comprehensive security, mutual social responsibility, being good to one's neighbor, protecting belongings and property, honoring pledges, and more.
Together, these are principles that provide common ground for the followers of religions and [different] groups of people. That is because the origin of divine religions is one, and Muslims believe in all Messengers of God and do not differentiate between any of them. Denying the message of any one of them is a deviation from Islam. This establishes a wide platform for the believers of [different] religions to meet the other upon common ground, for the service of human society, without encroaching upon creedal distinctions or upon intellectual freedom. For all of this we base ourselves upon His saying:

The messenger believes in what has been revealed unto him from his Lord as do the believers. Each one believes in God and His angels and His scriptures and His messengers. We make no distinction between any of His messengers—and they say: 'We hear, and we obey. [Grant us] Your forgiveness, our Lord. Unto You is the journeying,' (2:285)

Islam honors every human being, regardless of his color, race or religion: We have honored the sons of Adam, provided them transport on land and sea, sustained them with good things, and conferred on them special favors above a great part of our creation. (17:70)

We must not forget those ideas. We have decided in 2005 where 200 scholars from 50 countries came together for the sake of the Ummah including Malaysia to state these 3 points making it a world fatwa or Ijma Ulama whereby it is stated

1. The recognition of eight legal schools of thought (madhāhib) and the varying strains of Islamic theology viz.^[5]
   1. Sunni Hanafi
   2. Sunni Hanbali
   3. Sunni Maliki
   4. Sunni Shafi'i
   5. Shia Ja`fari - which includes the Ithna 'Ashariyyah and the Isma'iliyyah
   6. Shia Zaydi
   7. Ibadi
   8. Zahiri
   • Forbade declaring an apostate of followers of following creeds/practices/thoughts:^[5]
   1. Ash`ari creed
   2. real Tasawwuf practices
   3. true Salafi thought
2. The forbiddance from pronouncing disbelief (Takfir) upon (or excommunicating) others recognized as Muslims
3. The stipulations placed as preconditions to the issuing of religious edicts, intended to prevent the circulation of illegitimate edicts

 I am sad that today a talk that should be given by a Syiah proffessor Mohsen Kadivar titled Between Myth and reality in the Muslim world were cancel in fact a Q & A was allowed and the venue was change at last moment. What to question when there is no talk, I wonder? Are you saying these Malaysian signatories are stupid?

  malaysia

·  H.E. Dato’ Seri Abdullah bin Haji Ahmad Badawi ∫
Prime Minister

·  Dr. Anwar Ibrahim § π
Former Deputy Prime Minister

·  Dato’ Dr. Abdul Hamid Othman §
Minister in the Office of the Prime Minister

·  Prof. Dr. Kamal Hasan ¶
President of the Islamic International University, Kuala Lumpur

·  Prof. Dr. Mohammad Hashim Kamali § π
Dean of the International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilisation

·  Mr. Shahidan Kasem §
First Minister of Perlis State, Malaysia

·  Mr. Khayri Jamal Al-Din §
Deputy Chairman for the Youth Sector, the United Malays
National Organisation

·  Dr. Salih Qadir Karim Al-Zanki *
International Islamic University

I know Tun Mahathir would agree that they are after all Tun has been a bit senile forgetting his liberal and open views on Islam. How time has change.

I am so perplex at the so call PHD's holders Malaysia has produce. The Quality is doubted. Recently at a Penang Story talk a moderator could equate Syiah with deviant teachings equating them to Matahari sect famous in penang in the 70's. I was bewildered and amazed ! Dumbstruck! Has he forgotten 3 of the Sunni Mahdzab founder studied fekah and hadiths under the 4th and 5th Iman of Syiah Muhammad al Baqir and his son Jaafar Al Siddiq? Do they not know that AlRumi the great thinker was syiah and also Sufi what about Alsyaari, was he not Syiah? Like Sunni they will be deviants in Syiah but these deviants does not obliterate their faith in Allah nor Muhammad. Most of them held that faith just like Sunni the deviants of Matahari and Ayah Pin Sky Kingdom does not obliterate their faith in Allah and Muhammad.

Islam also affirms that the way of calling [others] to God is founded upon kindness and gentleness: Call to the path of your Lord with wisdom and a beautiful exhortation, and debate with them in that which is most beautiful (ahsan). (16:125) Furthermore, it shuns cruelty and violence in how one faces and addresses [others]:

It is by some Mercy of God that you were gentle to them. Were you severe—cruel-hearted—they would have broken away from you. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult with them in the conduct of affairs. And when you are resolved, put your trust in God; truly God loves those who trust [in Him]. (3:i59)

Islam has made clear that the goal of its message is realizing mercy and good for all people. The Transcendent has said, We did not send you [Muhammad] but out of mercy for all creatures. (21:107) And the Prophet Muhammad—blessings and peace upon Him—said, 'The Merciful has mercy upon those who are merciful, be merciful to those on earth, He who is in heaven will be merciful unto you.'
Islam calls for treating others as one desires to be treated. It urges the tolerance and forgiveness that express the nobility of the human being: The recompense for an evil is an evil equal thereto, but who forgives and reconciles, his recompense is from God. (42:40) Good and evil are not equal. Repel with what is most virtuous. Then he between whom and you there is enmity will be as if he were an intimate friend. (41:34)
Islam confirms the principle of justice in interacting with others, safeguarding their rights, and confirms that one must not deny people their possessions: And let not the hatred of others make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is closer to piety; (5:8) God commands you to return trusts to their owners, and if you judge between people, you shall judge with justice; (4:58) So give [full] measure and [full] weight and do not deny the people their goods, and work no corruption in the land, after it has been set right. (7:85)
Islam requires respect for pledges and covenants, and adhering to what has been specified; and it forbids treachery and treason: Fulfill the covenant of God when you have entered into it, and break not oaths after they have been confirmed and you have made God your surety; truly God knows what you do. (16:91)
Islam recognizes the noble station of [human] life, so there is to be no fighting against non-combatants, and no assault upon civilians and their properties, children at their mothers' bosom, students in their schools, nor upon elderly men and women. Assault upon the life of a human being, be it murder, injury or threat, is an assault upon the right to life among all human beings. It is among the gravest of sins; for human life is the basis for the prosperity of humanity: Whoever kills a soul for other than slaying a soul or corruption upon the earth it is as if he has killed the whole of humanity, and whoever saves a life, it is as if has revived the whole of humanity. (5:32)
The primordial religion of Islam is founded upon equanimity, balance, moderation, and facilitation: Thus have we made of you a middle nation that you might be witnesses over the people, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves. (2:143) The Prophet Muhammad—peace and blessings upon him—said: 'Facilitate and do not make difficult, bear good tidings and do not deter.' Islam has provided the foundation for the knowledge, reflection and contemplation that has enabled the creation of this deep-rooted civilization that was a crucial link by which the West arrived at the gates of modern knowledge, and in whose accomplishments non-Muslims participated, as a consequence of its being a comprehensive human civilization.
No day has passed but that this religion has been at war against extremism, radicalism and fanaticism, for they veil the intellect from foreseeing negative consequences [of one's actions]. Such blind impetuousness falls outside the human regulations pertaining to religion, reason and character. They are not from the true character of the tolerant, accepting Muslim.
Islam rejects extremism, radicalism and fanaticism—just as all noble, heavenly religions reject them—considering them as recalcitrant ways and forms of injustice. Furthermore, it is not a trait that characterizes a particular nation; it is an aberration that has been experienced by all nations, races, and religions. They are not particular to one people; truly they are a phenomenon that every people, every race and every religion has known

I rest my case!

When morons masquerade as God

Vidal Yudin Weil | August 15, 2013

We have travelled and lived around the world where Houses of God welcome everyone irrespective of creed for prayer and refuge.

COMMENT

Some of Malaysia’s Muslim clerics are poisoning the minds of their flock and segregating them from national integration with other races and faiths.
The operator of the resort who allowed non-Muslims to meditate in his surau was arrested and remanded for a crime which does not exist…!
When we read the whole report, we could not stop laughing because we are unable to understand the seriousness of the whole matter that it generated such uproar.  Imagine the resort operator was arrested because Buddhists were praying in his surau.
We have travelled and lived around the world where Houses of God welcome everyone irrespective of creed for prayer and refuge.
It is saddening to see this country degenerate and gone to the scavengers in the pits; we could not find or identify any criminal intention or act on the part of the poor man that will warrant his arrest.
Have the Muslim clerics of this country gone nuts that they have become so sensitive and totally forgotten all the fundamental tenets of logic, reason, and decency that make them civilized human beings?
It is now crystal clear that these people are really sick with paranoia when they hook up trivial innocent matters and preposterously spinning it into ridiculous issues connecting to Islam, when in actual fact such are obviously not the cases.
These clerics are poisoning the minds of their flock and segregating them from national integration with other races and faiths.
It will be interesting for the relevant authorities to answer the following pertinent questions:

• Who owns the land and buildings of the resort – private, Jakim (Department of Islamic Development) or government?

• Who financed the construction of the resort particularly the surau – private, Jakim or government?

If the answers to the above questions are both private, the resort operator has all the rights in the world to allow whosoever he deems fit to pray or meditate in his buildings.
What the police did was grave and vulgar abuse of power outside their statutory jurisdiction and trespassing.
The arrest and remand of the resort operator is both illegal and unlawful which justify for a writ of Habeas Corpus immediately.
p/s: The photographs used in this article were taken in Southern Thailand where Buddhist monks regularly pray alongside Muslims in mosques.
The author is retired and blogs at http://legalandprudent.blogspot.com giving no quarters to anyone.

Surau it's meaning

What is a Surau? According to a friend of mine it comes from a mandailing root word of pagan times Pensurauan a place where prayers are done. So it is the same as Mussola an arabic word went translated means a prayer place. I still have to be certain of the above but it is safe to say a pace where prayers is held. I ask myself with the advent of knowledge you can find on your fingertips don't you think the Malays Muslim can be put in the dark? Can we stop them from asking question, is it wrong for other people to pray in the same room who shares other beliefs?

If you travel overseas you will find designated prayer room/meditation room for every people of other beliefs to pray. Muslim use it to pray. We have no problem but why can't we share the same? Why if Islam make us better are we so selfish on space? As long as no idols or trinket is used why is it so wrong? If the kafir can be so nice to give us place in their place of worship like in a sikh temple in India recently why can't Muslims be that magnanimous?

Are we not Allah's caliph? But our behaviour frightens me. Yes it was in bad taste but it was a private prayer room so why should he reconfirm his faith ie the resort owner.Why does he has to take his oath again or the syahadah? Has he offended God or Muhammad? In what way?

The kiblat or the shahadah on top is not right that is a different issue. I prefer the surau or prayer room to be devoid of any words or emblems. It must be empty just like Kaabah a rectangular house. People forget that Kaabah has many statue one of it is Allah! Back to thr above his mistake perhaps was thinking being kind is wrong. The guest want to pray there was no place available so why not be kind.

Where is the insult?

A surau is a prayer room or hall. It is not quite a mosque. You can even have a prayer room or surau in your home or place of work. But even if it is a mosque what is wrong if non-Muslims use it to pray as long as they take off their shoes and cover themselves decently?

NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin

“On YouTube, yet another religious row stirs”, said The Malay Mail report today.

Malaysians are again picking up their well-worn pitchforks after a video surfaced on YouTube yesterday allegedly showing a Muslim prayer room in Johor being used by Buddhist tourists for worship.

The 85-second-long video titled “Surau dijadikan tokong???” (A surau turned into a temple?) begins with an external shot of a small building and a close-up of what appears to be a sign in Arabic script over a doorway.

(READ MORE HERE)

A surau is a prayer room or hall. It is not quite a mosque. You can even have a prayer room or surau in your home or place of work. But even if it is a mosque what is wrong if non-Muslims use it to pray as long as they take off their shoes and cover themselves decently? Anyway, in the first place, they would not be allowed into the mosque if they were indecently dressed.

All over the world prayer rooms are ‘shared’ by those of different religious persuasions. This has never been an issue for either Muslims or non-Muslims. So why is it an issue in Malaysia?

It is reported that after the Muslim army’s siege of Jerusalem in 637, Patriarch Sophronius refused to surrender except to the Caliph Omar himself (the Second Caliph after Prophet Muhammad) and Omar travelled to Jerusalem to accept the surrender.

He then visited the Church of the Holy Sepulchre where Sophronius invited him to pray inside the Church. However, Omar declined so as not to set a precedent and thereby endanger the Church's status as a Christian site. Instead, he prayed outside in the courtyard, in a place where David was believed to have prayed.

Around 550 years later the Mosque of Omar was built on that site, opposite the southern courtyard of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Muristan.

Omar refused to pray in the church not because it was unsuitable for prayers but so that there would be no conflict later as to whether the church has now been turned into a mosque. In other words, Omar respected the status of the church and wanted it to remain a church.

Many churches in England have been turned into mosques and/or Islamic cultural centres. No one regards this as an insult to Christianity or Islam.

So, no, today, I do not want to write a long-winded cheong hei article. I just want Muslims to reflect on this and not see everything as an insult to Islam. So what if all religions share one prayer room or hall? Do we not all pray to the same God? And if Muslims subscribe to the doctrine “there is no god but God” then for sure we all pray to the same God -- just that we do so in different ways.

(MM) - Malaysians are again picking up their well-worn pitchforks after a video surfaced on YouTube yesterday allegedly showing a Muslim prayer room in Johor being used by Buddhist tourists for worship.

The 85-second-long video titled “Surau dijadikan tokong???” (A surau turned into a temple?) begins with an external shot of a small building and a close-up of what appears to be a sign in Arabic script over a doorway.

The video’s maker then approaches the building to record what appears to be a prayer session by a dozen white-clad people led by a monk in red and saffron. At the front of the room, the video briefly displays a Buddhist poster below a plaque with Arabic script.

According to reports by several local dailies today, the surau (prayer room) is located within the grounds of Tanjung Sutera Resort, but the resort’s manager has clarified that the tourists were allowed to use the Muslim prayer hall as the other locations were unavailable due to over-booking.

Still, the angry responses are pouring in.

Johor Islamic Religious Council (MAIJ) adviser Datuk Noh Gadut said the group of tourists should be banned from Malaysia, accusing them of violating the sanctity of a Muslim place of worship.

“We should be stricter by using existing laws including blacklisting that group from re-entering the country.

“That incident should not have happened. They have to understand Malaysia’s laws because that action does not only mengguris perasaan (hurtful), but also insults Islam,” he was quoted as saying by Berita Harian.

The Johor Religious Department will also probe the incident before action is taken, the Malay-language daily reported.

Perak Mufti Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria also weighed in, saying that the resort management was at fault for allowing the incident to happen.

But Tanjung Sutera Resort manager Syed Ahmed Alkaff explained that permission was given to the tourists as the resort had no knowledge that they would be using it for worship.

“We gave them permission to use the surau because the other halls were already full.

“They told us only for meditation, not worship,” he was quoted as saying by Malay-language daily Kosmo.

Berita Harian also reported the resort manager as saying he did not expect the offer to lead to the controversy now.

“I do not think the action of giving permission to believers of other religions to use the surau is wrong. This is because they only wanted to use the surau for meditation.

“I have no intention of hurting anyone’s feelings. My intention is to show that Islam is universal and tolerant,” said the Singapore-born Muslim with permanent resident status in Malaysia.

Kota Tinggi district police chief Supt Mohd Nor Rasid confirmed that the police will investigate reports lodged over the matter.

The incident is the latest case of local Muslim outrage over what the group perceives to be insults to Islam.

Last month, bloggers Alvin Tan and Vivian Lee were charged with sedition, among others, after they posted a photograph of themselves eating “bak kut teh” (a pork broth), together with a Ramadan greeting on Facebook.

Days after that, a Muslim dog trainer, Maznah Mohd Yusof, was also arrested and probed under the Sedition Act over a video she made three years ago in which she is featured celebrating Aidilfitri with her three pet dogs.

Zaid's comment

If we give in to this, we will eventually have to give in to even more outrageous things for we will have lost the moral courage to stand up for what is right.
Zaid Ibrahim, The Malaysian Insider

The Jabatan Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan (JAWI) has made its final decision that the four Muslim girls are prohibited from participating in the Miss Malaysia World 2013 beauty contest.

There’s nothing surprising about this considering the condemnation unleashed by Muslim leaders on the poor girls before the decision was made.

If it’s any help, I want to express my support for these brave young Malaysians. They should not feel ashamed of what they have done or what they dream of doing. They were not trying to cheat anyone or plunder the nation’s wealth. They were just trying to maximise their talents and find a good career, perhaps in modelling or acting.

They want to, and should, maximise their talents. There is nothing shameful in trying to better oneself in an open competition. They must feel gutted for having been denied a golden opportunity perhaps to improve their professional development. They have been denied this by people who have no regard for their welfare.

I am disappointed not just for the girls. I am disappointed with the organisers who "chickened out". I am disappointed with the Bar Council, with Anwar Ibrahim the liberal Islamist, the DAP and those out there who always talk about freedom and living in a free country, but who do nothing and say nothing about defending a very simple principle.

That principle is this: Malaysia is a democracy. It is a country founded on freedom and liberty. If people have forgotten, they should go back to the Proclamation of Independence of our truly great leader Tunku Abdul Rahman.

This issue is not about the beauty contest per se, nor is it about morality and religious values.

It’s about living in a society that cherishes personal freedom and liberty. “Freedom has its limits”, of course, but those limits must themselves be limited by laws passed by Parliament.

No one else should be allowed to regulate the lives of the people, Muslims included, for to allow this would be to make a mockery of the legislative process and the representatives of the Rakyat. Don’t think that advocates of freedom ignore morality, because we value good morality. What is offensive is authoritarian rule exerted under the veneer of religion.

I know some lawyers who will tell you that the Federal Court in the Sulaiman Takrib case ruled that a fatwa is “delegated legislation” and therefore it can be issued by the National Fatwa Committee on a wide range of issues.

I say that the Federal Court is wrong - absolutely wrong - because it did not have the benefit of fuller and more detailed arguments. It did not reflect and contemplate on larger issues. It did not fully consider the legal and constitutional ramifications of its decision.

SIS comment on JAKIM

Another report of interest

SIS warns Jakim against claiming to be voice of God

The Malay Mail) - Malaysia’s religious authorities risk the sin of “shirik” (idolatry) after seemingly speaking for God in judging an online video deemed offensive to Islam, Muslim women’s group Sisters in Islam (SIS) warned yesterday.

On Friday, the Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim) adjudged a video made by dog trainer Maznah Mohd Yusof, which shows her walking and bathing her dogs, to be an insult to Islam and resulted in the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) pursuing investigations against her.

“What differentiates Jakim’s opinion from that of the lay person is that Jakim’s views are backed up by enforcement powers of the state,” SIS programme manager Suri Kempe told The Malay Mail Online via email yesterday.

“Anybody who questions and challenges the injustice of these views and actions is accused of being against Islam and God,” she said. “This is tantamount to claiming to be the embodiment of God, and Jakim should be very careful as it could be a form of shirik.”

Shirik, which means setting up rivals or peers with God, is one of the gravest sins in Islam.

Suri pointed out that understandings of Islam and the Quran are “partial, limited and humble” and cannot be considered “perfect or free from error”.

“The great ulama (clerics) of the classical period were very humble and conscious of this,” said Suri.

“Imam Shafie is reported to have said, ‘I believe my opinion is right with the possibility that it is wrong and I believe the opinion of those who disagree with me is wrong with the possibility of that being correct.’ And only God knows best,” she added. Imam Shafie is regarded as the founder of Islamic jurispudence.

The Muslim women’s rights activist also said that SIS did not find Maznah’s video insulting.

“We do, however, find it troubling that Jakim claims to ― and is recognised by other actors within government (such as MCMC) ― speak for Islam and for God,” said Suri.

Read more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/sis-warns-jakim-against-claiming-to-be-voice-of-god

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 4 ― Malaysia’s religious authorities risk the sin of “shirik” (idolatry) after seemingly speaking for God in judging an online video deemed offensive to Islam, Muslim women’s group Sisters in Islam (SIS) warned yesterday.
On Friday, the Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim) adjudged a video made by dog trainer Maznah Mohd Yusof, which shows her walking and bathing her dogs, to be an insult to Islam and resulted in the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) pursuing investigations against her.
“What differentiates Jakim’s opinion from that of the lay person is that Jakim’s views are backed up by enforcement powers of the state,” SIS programme manager Suri Kempe told The Malay Mail Online via email yesterday.
“Anybody who questions and challenges the injustice of these views and actions is accused of being against Islam and God,” she said. “This is tantamount to claiming to be the embodiment of God, and Jakim should be very careful as it could be a form of shirik.”

Shirik, which means setting up rivals or peers with God, is one of the gravest sins in Islam.

Suri pointed out that understandings of Islam and the Quran are “partial, limited and humble” and cannot be considered “perfect or free from error”.
“The great ulama (clerics) of the classical period were very humble and conscious of this,” said Suri.
“Imam Shafie is reported to have said, ‘I believe my opinion is right with the possibility that it is wrong and I believe the opinion of those who disagree with me is wrong with the possibility of that being correct.’ And only God knows best,” she added. Imam Shafie is regarded as the founder of Islamic jurispudence.
The Muslim women’s rights activist also said that SIS did not find Maznah’s video insulting.
“We do, however, find it troubling that Jakim claims to ― and is recognised by other actors within government (such as MCMC) ― speak for Islam and for God,” said Suri.
“To us, the video simply shows somebody who loves her dogs, and respects dogs as one of Allah’s creations, and who emphasises cleanliness,” she added.
In a 105-second video reposted on YouTube on Tuesday, Maznah is seen walking and bathing her three dogs as the “Takbir Raya”, or Muslim call to prayer traditionally reserved for the first day of Hari Raya Aidilfitri, plays in the background.
The juxtaposition appeared to be a reference to the wudhu, or ablution performed by Muslims before prayer; dogs are also considered ritually unclean by adherents of the predominant faith in Malaysia.
Following the uproar over the 2010 video, Maznah was arrested and subsequently released from remand in Johor last Friday on a court bond.
The 38-year-old dog trainer, better known as Chetz Yusof, is being investigated under the Sedition Act and Section 298A of the Penal Code that includes offences of causing disunity on religious grounds.
SIS speaks out regularly against some actions by Malaysia’s Islamic authorities. Just last month, it criticised the dropping of four Muslim finalists from the Miss Malaysia World 2013 beauty pageant after the Federal Territory Mufti said the female contestants had purportedly violated a 1996 fatwa that deems Muslim participation in beauty contests sinful.
The NGO said that fatwa, or religious edicts, should be deliberated by a legislative body like Parliament or a state assembly before they are made binding on Muslims, noting that the current procedure was “un-Islamic and undemocratic”.
Incidents deemed insulting to Islam by local religious authorities have become more regular of late.
Aside from Maznah, the four Muslim Miss Malaysia World contestants are also being investigated by the Federal Territory Federal Territory Islamic Affairs Department (JAWI) for voicing their disappointment at the fatwa that led to their disqualification.
Previously, two sex bloggers were charged recently under the Penal Code and Sedition Act, for posting a mock “Selamat Berbuka Puasa” (breaking of fast) greeting on their Facebook page that showed them eating “bak kut teh”, a soupy pork dish. Muslims are prohibited from eating pork.
- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/sis-warns-jakim-against-claiming-to-be-voice-of-god#sthash.ly7CkxjJ.dpuf UALA LUMPUR, Aug 4 ― Malaysia’s religious authorities risk the sin of “shirik” (idolatry) after seemingly speaking for God in judging an online video deemed offensive to Islam, Muslim women’s group Sisters in Islam (SIS) warned yesterday.
On Friday, the Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim) adjudged a video made by dog trainer Maznah Mohd Yusof, which shows her walking and bathing her dogs, to be an insult to Islam and resulted in the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) pursuing investigations against her.
“What differentiates Jakim’s opinion from that of the lay person is that Jakim’s views are backed up by enforcement powers of the state,” SIS programme manager Suri Kempe told The Malay Mail Online via email yesterday.
“Anybody who questions and challenges the injustice of these views and actions is accused of being against Islam and God,” she said. “This is tantamount to claiming to be the embodiment of God, and Jakim should be very careful as it could be a form of shirik.”

An Article by Zainah Anwar

People ask me why i post articles in my blog. I do it because i found that article is of interest and some coincide with my belief. Here's one which talk on fatwa or edicts which i maintain is advisory and this writer agrees

Only in Malaysia: where we have gone wrong with fatwa

Sharing the Nation by ZAINAH ANWAR

Formulating laws: File picture of Parliament in session. The legislative authority to make laws in Malaysia lies with Parliament and the state assemblies, not the fatwa committees.

Fatwa are only advisory opinions to guide a Muslim to lead a life according to Islam.
I WONDER how many Malaysians know that under the Syariah Criminal Offences laws of this country, it is a criminal offence for a Muslim to defy, disobey or dispute or to give, propagate or disseminate any opinion concerning Islamic teachings, Islamic law or any issue, contrary to any fatwa for the time being in force.
And that we must be the only country in the Muslim world that has turned the opinion of the ulama into the law of the land without going through the legislative process and then makes it an offence for anyone to challenge that opinion.
That this is a gross violation of constitutional guarantees of fundamental liberties and has no basis in Islamic legal history seem to escape those who drafted the laws and passed them in Parliament and state legislative assemblies.
As long ago as 1997, Sisters in Islam had submitted a memorandum to the then Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed, alerting him to the Shariah Criminal Offences (SCO) federal and state laws.
We pointed out that in Islamic legal thought, fatwa are mere advisory opinions and do not have the force of law; to make it a crime to challenge a fatwa in force is to equate the opinion of a Mufti to the infallible word of God; the legislative authority to make laws in Malaysia lies with Parliament and the state assemblies, not the fatwa committees; the right to restrict fundamental liberties lies solely with Parliament and thus the provisions in the law that punish indecency amounts to an unconstitutional trespass on federal powers.
He ordered the suspension of the law and for the Attorney-General’s chambers to conduct a full study. This occurred after the public outcry over the arrest and charging of three young women for violating a fatwa by taking part in a Miss Malaysia Petite beauty contest which drew public attention to the existence of these draconian provisions in the SCO laws.
But when the ruckus died down, so it seems did the review. The public was not informed of any progress.
So these laws remain on the books. Whenever the opportunity arises, the law is revived to threaten and intimidate those who dare to have an opinion different from those in religious authority. So much for Malaysia being touted as the model moderate Muslim country.
In 2005, when another public outcry broke out over the arrest and treatment of 100 young Muslim women and men at the Zouk discotheque, Sisters in Islam yet again submitted another memorandum to the Government calling for a comprehensive review and repeal of the SCO laws.
This time SIS supported its position with research by two legal experts who studied the laws from constitutional and fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) perspectives.
How much more does it take for this government to realise that forcing people to believe what they do not believe does not constitute faith?
That is why every time a fatwa is issued that makes no sense to the public or the law is enforced that violates the fundamental liberties of citizens, there is a public outcry. And then those in religious authority get insulted and are befuddled as to why so many Malaysians, even Muslims they say, dare to challenge their views and contradict fellow Muslims.
Not a crime
My friends and scholars I know in the Arab world are stunned that a modern country like Malaysia could be so close minded when it comes to Islam. Everyone, literally everyone I meet, knows that fatwa are only advisory opinions to guide a Muslim to lead a life according to Islam. They are theological and legal reasonings given in question and answer form. If at all it is binding, it is only to the questioner, certainly not binding on a whole population and certainly not a crime to disobey.
In fact, if you don’t like the fatwa given by your local mullah, you can go to another one to ask for another opinion and it is left to your conscience to decide which fatwa you want to follow. Everyone understands that in the end it is between you and God.
Truly, only God knows best. The state has no role to play to force you to believe or obey a fatwa and send you to prison or fine you for disobeying the opinion of someone in religious authority. And the media certainly does not sensationalise and incite hatred against anyone for not following a fatwa.
But for some people in Malaysia, this Islamic tradition that has enabled Islam to thrive and grow for hundreds of years in all social and cultural contexts seems an alien tradition.
And yet there are hundreds of fatwa listed in the e-fatwa portal of Jakim and the state religious authorities on a whole range of issues, from whether it is harus (permissible) to dye one’s hair black (only for jihad purposes or for a woman to please her husband), to the use of indelible ink on voters’ fingers (permissible). Some are gazetted, most are not.
For example, many states have issued fatwa that say smoking is haram; Selangor and Penang gazetted, the others did not. Selangor, Pahang and Penang have issued fatwa that declare Amanah Saham Bumiputra (ASB) and Amanah Saham Nasional (ASN) as haram (forbidden), but the National Fatwa Council states it is harus. Some other states followed suit to state it is harus, but not those three states.
So who is right and who is wrong?
All fatwa are justified in the name of Islam. So when there are so many fatwa on the same issue, some making it haram, some harus, some gazetted, some not, some states have them, some don’t, what then is the “Islamic” position on any particular issue?
This would not pose a problem if, like other Muslim countries, the Malaysian authorities have the wisdom to leave it to the conscience of the individual to decide which opinion or which teaching he or she wants to follow and leave it to God to decide in the end whether that person has committed a sin by obeying or disobeying.
But when the state tries to play God, it leads us to the conundrums we are in today. For the public will question the basis upon which some states decide to gazette one fatwa but not another. On what basis is action taken against those who violate a fatwa?
Thousands of Muslims in Selangor and Penang violate the smoking fatwa on a daily basis, and yet none of them has been accused of insulting Islam or charged for violating a fatwa. Why not?
Neither has any tobacco company been charged for propagating and disseminating their opinions on smoking through advertising and promotion that clearly violate the fatwa.
On the scale of wrongdoings, the public wonders why corrupt politicians and officials or the thousands of fathers who fail to pay maintenance to their children are not accused of insulting Islam. It is this selective persecution and hypocrisy that rile public opinion.
Difference of opinion
There is a good reason as to why fatwa never have the force of law in Islamic history. Because to do so is to, in effect, equate the opinion of the ulama to the word of God.
One reason why the doctrine of binding precedent did not evolve in the Islamic legal tradition is due to the belief that the opinion of one mujtahid (a jurist qualified to interpret legal issues) can never be regarded as the final wisdom in understanding the infinite message of the Quran.
Another jurist can give an equally valid opinion based on his learned understanding of the text. In the context of law-making in a democracy, these differences of opinion should be debated in public and the legislative body will then decide which opinion it wants to turn into law to serve the best interest of society. Public law must be open to public debate and pass the test of public reason.
But in Malaysia, disobeying a fatwa has become elevated to insulting God, insulting Islam. Yes, the state religious authority could consider it an insult to what it considers its learned opinion on Islam; but this cannot constitute a crime, nor can it equate its opinion to God as that would be tantamount to shirk (associating others with God).
If it is the Islamic tradition to make it a crime to have differences of opinion in Islam, how then did numerous schools of theology and numerous schools of law develop in Islamic history?
In the canons of Islamic juristic scholarship written by the classical scholars of Islam, no one accuses another of insulting Islam for differences of opinion. Only politicians and those with aspirations to power and control do that.
The tragedy of Muslims today is that while we say we want to restore Islam to its past glory, we are instead doing a grave injustice to our rich legal tradition. We bring the religion into disrepute and ridicule in our obsession to make all Muslims think only in the way the state deems fit.
That the coercive power of a modern nation state is then used to impose this one point of view on a whole community of Muslims is unprecedented in Islamic history. And obviously unenforceable in a democracy as there would be public outrage.
We have abused what is authoritative in our Islamic tradition for authoritarian purposes. And this has no place in a democracy nor in Muslim practice.

SELAMAT HARI RAYA H1414 TAHUN MASEHI 2013 MAAF DZAHIR DAN BATIN

 Ridicolous Absurd! How do you reconcile with the Surah Alkhafi or cave as mention in the Quran about a dog who went to sleep with 6 companions of the prophets. Why did god alleviate the status of a dog and what about the story of the prophets which talk about the prostitute who gave water to a dog and went to heaven. Why did 2 lowly beings as describe by the malays ideas of islam is use, is it not to stress the point of kindness when done would have their reward? I do not understand how to reconcile, tell me? I never deny that Dogs is najis mughalazah but i disagree that dogs are dirty. Najis should never be equate with dirty per se it is a loose translation, a cheap one at that,I know touching dogs and pigs when wet you have to samak which literally means clean, and do you readers know that Sheikh Yusof Al Zawawi the former Mufti of terenggannu  7.4.1953 - 22.11.1975 gave a fatwa which remain controversy until today that you can use soap to samak or clean yourself. I should know our family were his neighbours in Terenggannu.So what's wrong that Chatz using soap. The mufti keep a dog in fact he gave us a dog too to keep. Was it in bad taste, yes but she did the video for her friends who knows her in 2010 and someone upload it in you tube recently. Does not Islam values privacy in fact many Islamic laws emphasis on that,.I was sad later when I enter college I saw how the ustaz blasphemies Sheikh Yusof to no end. Is that how degenerate malays muslims have become? Oh yes there are also hadiths that emphasis Gabriel and the prophet disdain on dogs yet during a hunting season using bow and arrow a shot was fired and a bird was kill. The hunting dog went to retrieve it and the prophet regarded the meat as kosher. Was the video in bad taste, yes it is, but it is an affront to put someone in jail and charge her for that! She has apologies enough is enough! Do not make a mockery of Islam and justice as it goes hand in hand.And when did fatwa become law and when was to degenerate fatwa an offense in Islam. To argue about fatwa or religious edict is encourage. To dismiss that does not encourage understanding only fear and loath towards the religion. In this modern time and age fatwa must be inclusive. In indonesia fatwa can be issued by the majlis Ulamak and Nadahtul Ulamak and others. It does not in effect become law but here this has warp into trying to make the Malays be like cattle to follow and to obey and lead to the slaughter house. I have to ask the ulamak that during talqin as told after burial it is said we will be visited by 2 angels Mungkar and Nakir and they will ask questions and if we fail we will be wallop, could we say that we follow the ulamak thus you all be wallop for us since we are just cattle and you are our master? Why should we be punish for your stupidity? I agreed fatwa must be respected but do we need to follow if it goes against just and fair as required in Islam? I do not know just think about it!  

 Chetz insulted, mocked Islam, says Jakim

(Bernama) - The Malaysia Islamic Development Department (Jakim) has decided that the “1 Hari di Hari Raya” video clip suggesting that Muslims could celebrate Aidilfitri with dogs has insulted Islam and an irresponsible act.
Its director-general Othman Mustapha said the video recording owner had clearly insulted the faith and provoked the sensitivities of Muslims in Malaysia who belonged to the Shafie mazhab (sect), which prohibited Muslims from holding or touching dogs and if they did, they must cleanse themselves.
He said the “takbir raya” which sang praises for the greatness of Allah but played in the background in the video recording while its owner was doing something unIslamic, had also provoked the sensitivities of Muslims.
“Such a video recording should not be made by a Muslim as he or she should respect the feelings of other Muslims.
“The action of the video recording owner appears to have mocked and challenged the Islamic faith of Muslims.
“Such a provocation is usually committed by a few non-Muslim individuals,” he added in a statement, here.
Othman said a police report had been lodged on the controversial video on Wednesday and Jakim was now preparing a report to be submitted to the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission for further action.
A 38-year-old woman, known as Chetz, has come under public condemnation after a video clip featuring herself with three dogs celebrating Raya three years ago was uploaded to YouTube recently.
The woman was remanded at the Segamat district police headquarters in Johor for two days until today after her statement was recorded by Bukit Aman police yesterday.