"House of Worship" Sanctuary?

Genjatan "menulis post bulan puasa" gua dah kantoi....

kaboingtoing came in and left a message.......someone forgot to take their vitamin bijak....

Indeed kaboingtoing...

Monkey been watching...saja malas nak tulis.....

Tapi terpanggil pulak untuk menulis sebab ada orang dah overdose vitamin perasan sediri....gilebabs punye poyo..

Many opposition Bloggers are very intelligent, highly educated, well-read, articulate, and so on. The government-paid Bloggers, however, are mostly unemployed people.

These people may have gone to school, maybe even to university. But they are not good enough to get a job. No one will employ them even as dogcatchers. So the government employs these unemployed and unemployable people as Umno Cyber Troopers.

And that is why they lack class and quality. You can see from their postings that many of them are Malays. And this makes sense because Malay graduates face a problem of getting employment -- mainly because of the poor quality education they have received.

Talk to some of the PhD graduates and see what I mean. In our days, in the 1960s, a form five or MCE student was of a higher standard than some of today’s PhD graduates. Some of the so-called Doctors and Professors sound so stupid I sometimes wonder whether they got their degree from the back of a Cornflakes box.

And these are the people employed by the government and Umno to fight against us opposition Bloggers. But they are no match for us. It is like taking candy from a baby. It is so easy that I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

If they want to fight us they need to employ people with brains, not unemployed and unemployable Malays. You need to fight brains with brains. You can’t fight against brains by mere spitting and cursing like what the Umno Cyber Troopers are doing. More here

Well I don't know whether to Muntah (nanti batal pose pulak) or to terkincin gelak reading the poyoness on the whole crap above.. 

So ape cita with all this kecoh lebih donno what in the world is going on Jabatan Ugama Islam who allegedly "serbu" another "house of worship"

Why you wanna complain...

What scope of legal protection do you think you have as a House of Worship???

huh....show me which part of International Law or Malaysian Constitution that allows for Protection or Sanctuary within a House of Worship.....and show me for all...ie Mosque, TokPekong Cina, Church, Kuil Hindu, Pokok Puaka and all lah..

Ada brani?



The only "protection" is against act of hostilities

Article 53.-Protection of cultural objects and of places of worship

Without prejudice to the provisions of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954, and of other relevant international instruments, it is prohibited:

( a ) To commit any acts of hostility directed against the historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples;

( b ) To use such objects in support of the military effort;

( c ) To make such objects the object of reprisals. Source here 

Blardy Medieval mentality......

Haloooo.......we do not live in the Dark Ages dude.....

We now live in the year 2011.....

Incase you are wondering apekebenda gua mau cilita....

All these complaints indicate as if a House of Worship is Off Limits to Law Enforcement...

Is that so?

Siap ada Mentri Besar Bingai Mintak Maaf....doe...

What if I just killed your mother and run into a Church or a Mosque...are you saying the Law Enforcement officer has No Jurisdiction to enter and apprehend me.....

What if the Church Official or the Mosque Official suddenly semangat lebih want to Protect Me?

What should the Police Do?

Let travel back to Zaman Al-Quran turun shall we....

Ever heard of the Asylum to Al Haram?

asylum to al-Haram is considered also as some kind of territorial asylum. It is the Will of Allah the Almighty, in order to glorify and sanctify al-Haram, that whoever takes refuge there must be secured safety and peace. The following Ayahs give evidence to this fact:

“ The frst House (of worship) appointed for men was that at Bakka; full of blessing and of guidance for all kinds of being. In it are Signs manifest; (for example), the Station of Abraham; whoever enters it attains security…” (Surat Al-’Imran, 96-97)


“Do they not then see that We have made a Sanctuary secure, and that men are being snatched away from all around them.”
( Surat al-Ankabout, 67)

“Let them adore the Lord of this House, Who provides them with food against hunger and with security against fear (of danger)”. ( Surat Quraysh, 3-4)
“Remember We made the House a place of assembly for men and a place of safety…” (Surat al-Baqarah, 125)101

Imam al-Kasani maintains that fghting is prohibited on three grounds: faith, safety and refuge to al-Haram.

As regards refuge to al-Haram, he maintains, “If a military enemy takes refuge in al-Haram, he shall not be killed, but he should not be given food, water or shelter, nor should he be vowed allegiance until he has left al-Haram. According to ash-Shaf’e (Allah may bestow His mercy on him), he shall be killed in al-Haram. However, jurists are at variance on this question. While Abu-Haneefah and Mohammad (Allah may bestow His mercy on both), argued that he should not be killed nor ousted out of al-Haram, abu-Yousof (Allah may bestow His mercy on him) maintained that he shall not be killed but may be ousted from al-Haram.

Scholars were in agreement that if a person commits an offence exacting retaliation ( qasas) in the limbs and then takes refuge in al-Haram, he shall be inficted with the punishment of qasas and that he who commits within al-Haram an offense against life or less exacting a prescribed punishment ( hadd) qasas shall be inficted with the punishment of qasas there. However, they were at variance on whether an offender who commits the act outside al-Haram and takes refuge in al-Haram may be inficted with that punishment. The Hanaftes maintain that such offender shall not be inficted with that punishment within al-Haram, but shall be forced out by denying him food, water or any other dealings. Based on the generality of the Ayah “ … and he who enters into it shall be safe.” (Surat ala-”Imran, 97) he should be punished only after he has left.

There is consensus among the majority of Muslim scholars, including ash-Shaf’e and Malik, that if anyone commits an offence against life exacting a hadd, then takes refuge in al-Haram, he shall be inficted with that punishment. Analogy was made to the case of an offender who, within al-Haram, kills someone or commits an offence requiring hadd and be punished there accordingly.

Source here : The Right to Asylum between Islamic Shari’ah and International Refugee Law: Prof. Ahmed Abou-El-Wafa

Do take note that the provision above is only applicable to the Masjidil Haram...

So Masjid Besar Shah Alam or Kota Baru does not qualify....

UTK with Machine Gun can walk in and tangkap some Terrorist or Seditious Ustad cakap lebih dalam Masjid

Now lets look at another zaman dulu kala puak puak Kristian....

The idea in Roman religion about specific asylum places was endorsed by Christianity and developed to what has become known as church asylum. Church asylum became institutionalised around AD 400 when the Roman emperor established in the secular law the right to church asylum (ibid, 30). From this follows that the church asylums were “open”; they were acknowledged by the state. The church asylums could guarantee both the offender and the victim a period of cooling down to prepare negotiations and reach a settlement in tranquillity. Later in medieval times the right to church asylum to a larger extent became restricted by laws and regulations. Various laws defined what the person had to do to qualify for protection, and what kind of protection it was. There were also rules about how long a person could be in the asylum, about proving his case and conditions for extradition to the public authority. In some countries persons who were Jews and Turks for example, were excluded from the right to seek Christian church asylums (Leer-Salvesen 1994, 37).

In general the right to church asylum was based on two assumptions:
1) The church was considered a sacred place, where only the Lord should be the Master. It should not be spilled blood, and secular power should not be used at this place. For example no one that entered a church was allowed to carry weapons. Often churches were also built on places were miracles or martyrdoms had taken place, or where a holy person was buried. This reinforced the holiness.
2) There was a common belief in the Bishops’ possibility to intercession. The bishop had the right to intervene and demand a fair punishment for a criminal (Church of Norway - Oslo Diocesan Council 1996, 31).

At first it was only the altar that was considered holy but later the area considered holy increased; the whole church building and 50 meters around became considered as immovable. Monasteries were also considered holy. The wide extent of the church asylums, combined with increasing abuse made it a tense subject between the church and the state.

With the reformation the religious functions of the church buildings changed. The new Protestant doctrine no longer implied permanent presence of God in particular places. According to the new doctrine God was believed to be present wherever his name was invoked. The reformation thereby weakened the church asylum’s significance. Through the reformation the King also increased his power at the expense of the Bishop. State and church became quite intertwined and there were less space for a church justice system parallel with that of the state. It is however interesting to notice that in spite of this, the right to church asylum was present in Catholic canon law as long as until 1983 (Olsen 2006).

Historians point to medieval times as a period with a weak and little developed system of justice, and where accidental violence occurred quite often. Church asylum was therefore important to protect the individuals from this violence. As time went by and the democratic government developed and became stronger, the church asylums lost much of their originally importance (Oftestad 1996; Olsen 2006). The open, acknowledged form of church asylums disappeared.

Churches have through several conflict and wars situations been hiding persecuted people. This type of church asylums continued also even if the open form of church asylums got wound up by the reformation and the development of democratic government. In the slavery era the churches in the Southern States of the USA for example served as asylums for deserted slaves until they were able to reach safety in the Northern States (Vetvik and Omland 1997, 25). Also during the Second World War churches served as hiding places for persecuted people. Church asylum also got a revival during the Vietnam War when churches in the USA were hiding conscientious objectors.


It is however mainly from the 1980’s that open, acknowledged form of church asylums came into being again. In 1982 the Sanctuary Movement was established in the USA. It was established as a reaction to the USA policies in Latin America, which many congregations strongly opposed. The Sanctuary movement in the USA can be understood as both a religious and political movement. The movement flourished between 1982 and 1992, and more than 500 congregations were involved (Wipfler 1992). Also Canada and Australia witnessed church asylum in this period.

A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON CHURCH ASYLUM :Ellen Torjussen

Is it a Social Restriction ? Or officially sanctioned by Law?

No Government in the World would want to have a State within A State whereby there exist a specified area within its own territory (excluding embassies) where its law enforcement could not reach.....

Let us now go back to the Selangor "raid"......

Was it even a "House of Worship" to begin with?

4 August 2011
A Thanksgiving Dinner of a non-profit organisation, Harapan Komuniti, was held on 3rd August 2011 at the Dream Centre in Petaling Jaya. The appreciation dinner was held to commemorate the NGO’s efforts in working on its numerous community projects, including with women and children, and victims of HIV/AIDS and natural disasters. Harapan Komuniti is a community-based NGO that brings love, hope and peace to the poor, needy and marginalised, regardless of race, language, religion or status. The dinner was a multiracial celebratory gathering of volunteers, leaders, supporters and members of the community who have benefited from the NGO’s work..............

Damansara Utama Methodist Church and Community Excel Services who rent Dream Centre are highly disappointed with the trespass and the action of JAIS and Police officers who entered and searched a private property without a warrant.  Source here 

 Bole cita ka?

Under what law in Malaysia says that the Shariah Law Enforcement Officers could not enter ANY Premises?

Show that to me please..

Do they have to get a warrant to tangkap khalwat in a house?? Or what about Zina or Alcohol consumption by Muslims?

Go get a warrant first??

Source: JAIS Scope of Power under Enakmen Ugama Bukan Islam (Kawalan Pengembangan di Kalangan Orang Islam) 1988 (“Enakmen Ugama Bukan Islam”) refer here

Oh incase you are wondering if this is a BN government law approved and supported by the MCA..

Take a look at Kelantan's 2007 amended version..go here

Lets look at another angle shall we....

Lets say during the BERSIH demonstrations...suddenly a group of protestors who are being chased by the Police lari masuk dalam Church or Masjid?

What should the Police do?

If we ask "should" then bersepah sepah petik dari langit answers....try asking what can the police do according to the Law

Harbouring persons hired for an unlawful assembly
157. Whoever harbours, receives, or assembles in any house or premises in his occupation or charge, or under his control, any persons, knowing that such persons have been hired, engaged, or employed, or are about to be hired, engaged, or employed, to join or become members of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. Source Penal Code Article 157

Or what if the Church suddenly wanna harbor Illegal Filipinos who are to be deported by our Immigration Department?

Bole?

So folks think about the fundamental issue first before we kecoh lebih about the so called "offense" that was committed in the said premises.....

For that part I shall wait for more information that can be validated....

Having lived among Christian Malays in Indonesia for the past 6 years....

I know in-depth how the Church operate.......

In the mean time.....lets go back to what i wrote last year...and think

Some C5 believers I know change the creed when performing their prayers to exalt Isa rather than Muhammad, proclaiming “there is no god but God, and Isa is the Straight Path” Others whisper prayers in thename of Jesus or remain silent when the shahada is recited in public worship. John Travis Go here for the full discourse