Muslim dog trainer arrested for sedition, says KL CID chief
http://my.news.yahoo.com/muslim-dog-trainer-arrested-sedition-says-kl-cid-104500846.html
(1 August 2013)
KUALA LUMPUR, July 31 — Muslim dog trainer Maznah Mohd Yusof is under
investigation for sedition after an old video showing her bathing her dogs
resurfaced online recently and was deemed an insult to Islam, city police said
today.
Maznah, popularly known as Chetz Yusof, had come under fire from other
Muslims who have reportedly denounced her actions during the fasting month of
Ramadan as an insult to their religion.
"Investigate under S.298KK and Akta Hasutan," Kuala Lumpur
CID chief SAC Datuk Ku Chin Wah told The Malay Mail Online via a text message,
referring to Section 298 of the Penal Code and the Sedition Act.
An offence under Section 298 of the Penal Code is about "uttering
words, etc, with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any
person."
Ku stressed, however, that the arrest was not made by the KL police as
a report against Maznah was first lodged in Segamat, Johor, yesterday.
Maznah was reported by several news portals to have denied earlier
today that the video she made three years ago was intended as an insult to
Islam.
Ku added that another similar police report was lodged against the
38-year-old Muslim woman at Dang Wangi here today.
Maznah's lawyer Latheefa Koya said that her client was being held at
the Commercial Crimes division of Bukit Aman.
In the 105-second video reposted on YouTube yesterday, 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 unclean by
adherents of the predominant faith in Malaysia.
Maznah, however, was reported by news site Mynewshub.com yesterday as
saying that she made the video in 2010 to show that dogs are not “haram”
(forbidden) as widely-believed, and that Muslims could keep canines as pets.
“Dogs are not ‘haram’; if they are wet, just ‘samak’,” she was quoted
as saying.
“Samak” is the ritual cleansing performed by Muslims when they come
into contact with items considered ritually unclean, of which wet dogs are
considered to be by some followers of the faith.
The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) said
yesterday that it is investigating Maznah's video.
Maznah told news site Free Malaysia Today in a 2011 interview that she
follows the Shafie school of thought in Islam that does not deem dogs as
"haram", but merely requires believers to cleanse themselves after
touching a wet dog.
Maznah's arrest comes after sex bloggers Alvin Tan and Vivian Lee 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.
I did not insult Islam, says dog trainer
Malaysiakini, as republished at
A video depicting a Muslim woman celebrating Hari Raya with her dogs has
drawn a firestorm of protest.
However, Maznah Mohd Yusof, 38 denied that she had insulted Islam as
claimed by her critics.
Speaking to Malaysiakini today, the dog trainer said it was her Muslim
critics who were in actual fact disparaging their religion.
"I love my religion. I think these people should learn about their
religion first, and not misinterpret my video, which was made three years ago.
"My religion has taught me about the importance of
cleanliness...hence this why in the video, I am cleaning myself and my
dogs," she said.
Maznah was also saddened that the mosque imam in her area had also expressed
outrage over the matter.
"As a religious leader, doesn't he know about Islamic laws? As far
as I am concerned, my religion does not forbid me from keeping dogs or caring
for them," she added.
Maznah, better known as Chetz, lamented that even her Muslim
neighbours, who had no qualms with her keeping dogs before this, were now upset
as well.
"This video was made three years ago, why make an issue about it
now?
"I believe this is related to the case of bloggers Alvin Tan and
Vivian Lee... because initially, those who viewed the video mistook me for a
Chinese," she said.
The bloggers landed in the soup following a Facebook posting that was
deemed offensive to Muslims.
Text message threats
Maznah also revealed that she had been receiving threats via text
messages from those who obtained her mobile phone number from her dog training
website.
"One of the messages read ' Kau dah hidup lama ke? ' (Have you
lived too long?)" she said, adding that she would file a police report.
Maznah revealed that her passion for dogs started when she rescued five
strays in 2007 and has been a dog trainer since for the last four years.
Her video titled "1Hari di Hari Raya" - which is available on
YouTube - had since made the news.
Utusan Malaysia reported that the video showed "a youth dressed in
baju Melayu bathing her dogs on the morning of Hari Raya before 'taking wuduk'
(ablution)."
Meanwhile, Bernama reported that the Malaysian Communication and
Multimedia Commission (MCMC) had been asked to take action with regard to the
video.
Ex-mufti: It’s okay to have dogs in Islam
| July
31, 2013
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2013/07/31/ex-mufti-its-okay-to-have-dogs-in-islam/
(1 August 2013)
Former
Perlis mufti Mohd Asri nevertheless questions the motive of a Muslim woman for
making a video celebrating Hari Raya with her dogs
PETALING
JAYA: Former Perlis mufti Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin said it was not wrong for
Muslims to care for or even own a dog.
“In fact, it
is rewardable in Islam to care for a dog. In a hadith, a prostitute was
forgiven by Allah because she gave some water to a dog,” he said.
“There is
also a story of a bunch of youths who revolted against the government and were
forced to flee to a cave, where they lived for a long time. These youths were
joined by a dog.
“Therefore,
the dog is not always a bad connotation. They are not our enemies,” he added.
Mohd Asri
was responding to a video showing a Muslim woman and her three dogs with
‘takbir raya’ playing in the background.
The video,
made three years ago by Maznah Mohd Yusof, 38, also known as Chetz, surfaced
recently on Facebook, and quickly provoked a firestorm of protests among
Muslims groups.
The video,
which lasts 1:44 seconds, portrays her in a black Baju Melayu performing
ablutions before preparing kuih raya for her dogs.
It also
broadcasts the words ‘Raikanlah Aidilfitri bersama-sama, tanpa mengira spesis,
warna, asal usul’ (Celebrate Aidilfitri together regardless of species, colour,
origin) while featuring the three dogs.
‘Dog a symbol of insult’
Mohd Asri,
however, questioned the woman’s reason for making the video.
“There is
also a verse in a hadith that disallowed Muslims from bringing dogs into the
house. You can own one for protection, but you have to leave it in the
compound,” he said.
“In our
society the connotation is bad, why do you want to connect these things (the
dogs with Hari Raya)? I just don’t understand why she did that. Dogs are
considered as insulting animals,” he added.
Mohd Asri
said dogs were also considered an insulting animal in Western culture, although
they are often known as “man’s best friend”.
“If I call
you a dog, that’s an insult. The dog is a symbol of insult,” he said.
The
Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) has since been
directed to take action on the YouTube video which allegedly insults Islam.
Deputy
Communications and Multimedia Minister Jailani Johari said the commission was
instructed to immediately carry out investigations as the video could affect
Muslim sensitivities.
“I’ve received
many questions on this although the MCMC has yet to get any report on the
matter. Therefore I’ve directed the commission to investigate the video,” he
told Bernama yesterday.
Maznah was
arrested today for causing disharmony following a public outcry over her video
clip.
Dogs in Islam
Loyal
companions, or unclean animals to be avoided?
Islam
teaches its followers to be merciful to all creatures, and all form of animal
cruelty is forbidden. Why then, do many Muslims seems to have such a problem
with dogs?
Unclean
Most Muslim
scholars agree that the saliva of a dog is ritually impure, and that contact
with a dog's saliva requires one to wash seven times. This ruling comes from
the hadith:
The Prophet,
peace be upon him, said: "If a dog licks the vessel of any one of you, let
him throw away whatever was in it and wash it seven times." (Reported by
Muslim)
It is to be
noted, however, that one of the major
Islamic schools of thought (Maliki) indicates that its not a matter
of ritual cleanliness, but simply a common-sense method way to prevent the spread
of disease.
There are
several other hadith, however, which warn of consequences for
dog-owners:
The Prophet,
peace be upon him, said: "Whoever keeps a dog, his good deeds will
decrease every day by one qeeraat (a unit of measurement), unless it is
a dog for farming or herding." In another report, it is said: "...
unless it is a dog for herding sheep, farming or hunting." (Reported by
al-Bukhaari)
The Prophet,
peace be upon him, said: "Angels do not enter a house wherein there is a
dog or an animate picture." (Reported by Bukhari)
Many Muslims
base the prohibition against keeping a dog in one's home, except for the case
of working or service dogs, on these traditions.
Companion
Animals
Other
Muslims argue that dogs are loyal creatures that are deserving of our care and
companionship. They cite the story in the Quran (Surah 18) about a group of
believers who sought shelter in a cave and were protected by their canine
companion who was "outstretched in their midst."
Also in the
Quran, it is specifically mentioned that any prey caught by hunting dogs may be
eaten -- without any need for further purification. Naturally, the prey of a
hunting dog comes into contact with the saliva of the dog; however this does
not render the meat "impure."
"They
consult you concerning what is lawful for them; say, Lawful for you are all
good things, including what trained dogs and falcons catch for you. You train
them according God's teachings. You may eat what they catch for you, and
mention God's name thereupon. You shall observe God. God is most efficient in
reckoning." -Quran 5:4
There are
also stories in Islamic tradition that tell of people who were forgiven their
past sins through the mercy they showed towards a dog.
The Prophet,
peace be upon him, said: "A prostitute was forgiven by Allah, because,
passing by a panting dog near a well and seeing that the dog was about to die
of thirst, she took off her shoe, and tying it with her head-cover she drew out
some water for it. So, Allah forgave her because of that."
The Prophet,
peace be upon him, said: "A man felt very thirsty while he was on the way,
there he came across a well. He went down the well, quenched his thirst and
came out. Meanwhile he saw a dog panting and licking mud because of excessive
thirst. He said to himself, "This dog is suffering from thirst as I
did." So, he went down the well again and filled his shoe with water and
watered it. Allah thanked him for that deed and forgave him. (Reported by
Bukhari)
In another
point of Islamic history, the Muslim army came across a female dog and her
puppies while on a march. The Prophet, peace be upon him, posted a soldier
nearby her with the orders that the mother and puppies must not be disturbed.
Based on
these teachings, many people find that it is a matter of faith to be kind
towards dogs, and that dogs can even be beneficial in the lives of human
beings. Service animals, such as guide dogs or epilepsy dogs, are important
companions to Muslims with disabilities. Working animals, such
as guard dogs, hunting or herding dogs are useful and hard-working animals who
have earned their place at their owner's side.
Middle Road
of Mercy
It is a
fundamental tenet of Islam that everything is permissible, except those things
that have been explicitly banned. Based on this, most Muslims would agree that
it is permissible to have a dog for the purpose of security, hunting, farming,
or service to the disabled.
Many Muslims
strike a middle ground about dogs -- allowing them for the purposes listed, but
ensuring that the animals have their own space which does not overlap with
human living spaces. Many would ensure that the dog is kept outdoors as much as
possible, and at the very least is not allowed in areas where Muslims in the
home pray. For hygienic reasons, when an individual comes into contact with dog
saliva, one needs to wash.
Owning a pet
is a huge responsibility, that Muslims will need to answer for on the Day of Judgment. Those who choose to have a dog
must recognize the duty they undertake to provide food, shelter, training,
exercise, and medical care for the animal. That said, most Muslims recognize
that pets are not our "children," nor are they humans. One should
keep things in perspective.
We must not
let our misunderstandings about dogs lead us to neglect, mistreat, or harm
them. The Quran describes pious people who had a dog living among them, and
dogs are loyal and intelligent creatures that make excellent work and service
animals. One must only be careful not to come into contact with the dog's
saliva, and to keep its living area clean and away from any areas used for
prayer.
Lack of
Familiarity
In many countries,
dogs are not commonly kept as pets. For some people, their only exposure to
dogs may be packs of dogs that wander the streets or rural areas in packs.
People who do not grow up around friendly dogs may develop a natural fear of
them. They are not familiar with a dog's cues and behaviors, so a rambunctious
animal that runs towards them is seen as aggressive, not playful.
Many Muslims
who seem to "hate" dogs are really, therefore, simply afraid of them.
They may make excuses ("I'm allergic") or emphasize the religious
"uncleanliness" of dogs simply in order to avoid interacting with
them.
MAZNAH’S CASE
Is
this is a case for the defence? For example: I just keep the dogs as my pets!
OR
Maznah
actions: Posted online and reposted on YouTube, that Maznah
is seen walking and bathing her three dogs as the “Takbir Raya” plays in the
background, and portrays her in a black Baju Melayu performing ablutions before
preparing kuih raya for her dogs, was deemed an insult to Islam?
Section
298 of Penal Code (FMS 45) states:
Whoever,
with deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person,
utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any
gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that
person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one
year, or with fine, or with both.
Section 298A of the same Code states:
Section 298A of the same Code states:
(1) Whoever by
words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or
by any act, activity or conduct, or by organizing, promoting or arranging, or
assisting in organizing, promoting or arranging, any activity, or otherwise in
any other manner-
(a) causes, or attempts to cause, or is
likely to cause disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred or
ill-will; or
(b) prejudices, or attempts to prejudice,
or is likely to prejudice, the maintenance of harmony or unity,
on grounds of
religion, between persons or groups of persons professing the same or different
religions, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than two
years and not more than five years.
(2) Sections 173A
and 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code shall not apply in respect of an offence
under subsection (1).
(3) Where any
person alleges or imputes in any manner specified in subsection (1)-
(a) that any other person, or any class,
group or description of persons, professing any particular religion-
(i) has ceased to profess that
religion;
(ii) should not be accepted, or cannot
be accepted, as professing that religion; or
(iii) does not believe, follow,
profess, or belong to, that religion; or
(b) that anything lawfully done by any
religious official appointed, or by any religious authority established,
constituted or appointed, by or under any written law, in the exercise of any
power, or in the discharge of any duty, or in the performance of any function,
of a religious character, by virtue of being so appointed, established or
constituted, is not acceptable to such person, or should not be accepted by any
other person or persons, or does not accord with or fulfil the requirements of
that religion, or is otherwise wrong or improper,
he shall be
presumed to have contravened the provisions of subsection (1) by having acted
in a manner likely to cause disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred
or ill-will, or likely to prejudice the maintenance of harmony or unity,
between persons or groups of persons professing the religion referred to in the
allegation or imputation.
(4) (a) Where, on
any ground of a religious character, any person professing any particular
religion uses for burial or cremation of any human corpse a place other than
one which is lawfully used for such purpose by persons professing that
religion, he shall be presumed to have contravened the provisions of subsection
(1) by having acted in a manner likely to cause disharmony, disunity or
feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or likely to prejudice the maintenance
of harmony or unity, between persons or groups of persons professing that
religion.
(b) Where any
person, on any ground of a religious character, counsels, advises, instigates,
urges, pleads with, or appeals or propagates to, or in any manner or by any
means call upon, whether directly or indirectly, any other person or persons
professing any particular religion-
(i) to use for burial or cremation of any
human corpse a place other than one which is lawfully used for such purpose by
persons professing that religion;
(ii) not to use for burial or cremation of
any human corpse any place which is lawfully used for such purpose by persons
professing that religion; or
(iii) not to use for worship any place
which is lawfully used for such purpose by persons professing that religion,
he shall be
presumed to have contravened the provisions of subsection (1) by having acted
in a manner likely to cause disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred
or ill-will, or likely to prejudice the maintenance of harmony or unity,
between persons or groups of persons professing that religion or different religions.
(5) Where any
person who is not a religious official appointed, or a religious authority
established, constituted or appointed, by or under any written law purports to
exercise any power, or to discharge any duty, or to perform any function, of a
religious character, being a power, duty or function which can be lawfully
exercised, discharged or performed only by a religious official appointed, or a
religious authority established, constituted or appointed, by or under any
written law, he shall be presumed to have contravened the provisions of
subsection (1) by having acted in a manner likely to cause disharmony, disunity
or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or likely to prejudice the
maintenance of harmony or unity, between persons or groups of persons professing
the same or different religions.
(6) The foregoing
provisions of this section shall not apply to-
(a) anything done by any religious
authority established, constituted or appointed by or under any written law and
conferred by written law with power to give or issue any ruling or decision on
any matter pertaining to the religion in respect of which the authority is
established, constituted or appointed; or
(b) anything done by any person which is in
pursuance of, or which accords with, any ruling or decision given or issued by
such religious authority, whether or not such ruling or decision is in writing,
and if in writing, whether or not it is published in the Gazette.
(7) It shall not be
a defence to any charge under this section to assert that what the offender is
charged with doing was done in any honest belief in, or in any honest
interpretation of, any precept, tenet or teaching of any religion.
(8) If in any
proceedings under this section any question arises with regard to the interpretation
of any aspect of, or any matter in relation to, any religion, the Court shall
accept the interpretation given by any religious authority referred to in
subsection (6), being a religious authority in respect of that religion.
Section
4 of Sedition Act 1948 states:
(1)
Any person who-
(a) does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation
to do, or conspires with any person to do, any act which has or which would, if
done, have a seditious tendency;
(b) utters any seditious words;
(c) prints, publishes, sells, offers for
sale, distributes or reproduces any seditious publication; or
(d) imports any seditious publication,
shall
be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable for a first offence
to a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding three years or to both, and, for a subsequent offence, to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; and any seditious publication
found in the possession of the person or used in evidence at his trial shall be
forfeited and may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court directs.
(2)
Any person who without lawful excuse has in his possession any seditious
publication shall be guilty of an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable
for a first offence to a fine not exceeding two thousand ringgit or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months or to both, and, for a
subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, and
the publication shall be forfeited and may be destroyed or otherwise disposed
of as the court directs.
For
our intent and purposes, according to section 3(1) of the said Act, a
"seditious tendency" is a tendency, inter alia, (e) to promote
feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the
population of Malaysia; or (f) to question any matter, right, status, position,
privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the
provisions of Part III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181
of the Federal Constitution.
To
clarify further, according to section 2 of the said Act, "publication"
includes all written or printed matter and everything whether of a nature
similar to written or printed matter or not containing any visible
representation or by its form, shape or in any other manner capable of
suggesting words or ideas, and every copy and reproduction or substantial
reproduction of any publication; "seditious" when applied to or used
in respect of any act, speech, words, publication or other thing qualifies the
act, speech, words, publication or other thing as one having a seditious
tendency; and "words" includes any phrase, sentence or other
consecutive number or combination of words, oral or writt.
No comments:
Post a Comment