Blog

  • Abu Sumaiyah Al-Jawi: A Response To Haji Mohammad Alami Musa

    Abu Sumaiyah Al-Jawi: A Response To Haji Mohammad Alami Musa

    The attached article is symptomatic of the confusion and inferiority complex that has infected the Muslims, which has been succinctly described by the eminent Muslim thinker Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas in his 1970 work entitled Islam and Secularism.

    In the article, the major premise is “doctrinal basis” upon which ideas are rendered acceptable or rejected. The writer, a bureaucrat, stated that with regards to enmity towards non-Muslims, there is no doctrinal basis and therefore such an idea is rejected. Of course, to an unsuspecting mind, there are no problems in that statement; any sane and matured Muslim can accept that. But when he rambles on about all religions sharing the same roots like the “roots of a Banyan tree”, without evaluating that idea to the same premise he had established for himself which is “doctrinal basis”, he contradicted himself. This kind of thinking, known as the transcendental unity of religions, is already effectively refuted by Al-Attas in his Prolegomena to the Metaphysics of Islam.

    Furthermore, to limit the meaning of the term “fansurna” used in the Imam’s prayer to connote the act of vanquishing and enmity is already against doctrinal basis. Fansurna is derived from “nasara”, which the authoritative linguist Ibn Manzur in his Lisān al-‘Arab already explains as “rendering assistance to the oppressed”. In other words, the condition for asking God who is the Lord (Mawla) and Helper (Nāsir) is that oppression exists. So we can ask the question, is there oppression coming from those who claim to be Christians and Jews?

    In 2005, George Bush claimed that his Christian god told him in his dream to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. The current administration of the United States are filled with people like this too. The Zionists of Israel still justify their atrocities using their Jewish scripture. In other words, extremists who are Christians and Jews, just like how there are extremists who are Muslims, exist. And the prayer is specifically directed at these extremists and not all Christians and Jews, some of which are our friends and family.

    In our bid to preserve and enhance racial and religious harmony, we don’t have to sweep these facts under the carpet or make sweeping statements about religion and Banyan trees that have absolutely no doctrinal basis. Just as how we can talk openly about Muslim extremists without thinking that such discussions are based on enmity against Islam, there is no reason to be offended when we talk about Christian and Jewish extremists.

     

    Source: Abu Sumaiyah Al-Jawi

  • Philippines: Abu Sayyaf Leader Behind Execution Of Foreigners Is Killed

    Philippines: Abu Sayyaf Leader Behind Execution Of Foreigners Is Killed

    A leader of a militant group who was directly involved in the kidnap and execution of Canadian and German nationals was among those killed by Philippine troops in a clash on a resort island this week, the military said on Wednesday.

    Troops killed at least six members of the Islamic State-linked Abu Sayyaf during the firefight on the popular tourist island of Bohol on Tuesday, but suffered four casualties.

    The military has recovered the body of Muamar Askali, also known as Abu Rami, a former spokesman for Abu Sayyaf, a group well known for extortion, piracy and kidnaps for ransom.

    Armed Forces chief of Staff General Eduardo Ano described Abu Rami as “a very notorious Abu Sayyaf leader” responsible for several atrocities.

    The group last year beheaded Canadians John Ridsdel and Robert Hall. Elderly German Jurgen Kantner suffered the same fate in February when a US$600,000 ransom demand was not paid.

    Ano said Abu Rami was “trying to make a name of his own” and had risen to become one of Abu Sayyaf’s top leaders. He was involved in what the army said was a thwarted attempt to kidnap tourists in Bohol during Holy Week in the mainly Roman Catholic nation.

    Ano said the situation in Bohol, far from Abu Sayyaf’s island strongholds in the South, was now “back to normal” even as security forces chased down other fighters involved in the gun battle.

    The clash happened after the United States, Canadian, Australian and British embassies warned citizens about kidnappings during the holiday and advised against travel to Central Visayas, which includes Cebu and Bohol.

    The military has declared all-out war with Abu Sayyaf on the islands of Jolo and Basilan, but is hamstrung by its presence among large civilian communities.

    Abu Sayyaf has its roots in separatism but its activities are mostly banditry and piracy and it has invested the profits of its business in modern weapons and fast boats.

    The military has struggled to curb the piracy, with the group’s boats difficult to detect when they target slow-moving trawlers. Indonesian, Malaysian and Vietnamese vessels are frequently targeted and their crew abducted, and the government has sought international help to patrol the Sulu Sea.

    The government also says it has credible intelligence that some Abu Sayyaf leaders are in contact with Islamic State with a view to establishing a presence in the mainly Muslim southern Philippines.

    President Rodrigo Duterte has warned of a potential Islamic State “contamination”.

     

    Rilek1Corner

    Source: http://www.channelnewsasia.com

  • A Lawyer’s Explanation To Why CHC Sentences Lesser Than Man Who Stole From Mosque

    A Lawyer’s Explanation To Why CHC Sentences Lesser Than Man Who Stole From Mosque

    When the High Court halved the sentences of City Harvest Church leaders in its recent judgement, Singapore’s social media exploded with anger and disbelief.

    Many netizens felt that the court was being too lenient to founding pastor Kong Hee and his management team, who embezzled over $50 million in church funds to fund his wife’s lavish pop star lifestyle in the United States.

    A lawyer from IRB Law LLP explains that the reason behind the reduced sentences is related to whether the judges sees Kong Hee and the other leaders as “agents” under section 409 of the Penal Code. Section 409 of the Penal Code is an aggravated form of Criminal Breach of Trust.

    He wrote: “The offence of Criminal Breach of Trust (‘CBT’) exists in various forms. There are different maximum sentences for: Simple CBT (Maximum imprisonment term of 7 years); CBT by a carrier (Maximum jail term of 15 years); CBT by a clerk or servant (Maximum jail term of 15 years); CBT by a public servant, banker, merchant or agent (Maximum jail term of life imprisonment or 20 years).”

    “To convict the CHC members under the most aggravated form of CBT, the prosecution would have had to prove not only that the CHC members were guilty of criminal breach of trust, but also that they were in fact agents. The purpose of this article, it is best not to delve into what constitutes an ‘agent’ as that probably deserves an entire article on its own, but it would suffice to say that in agency relationships, there is a very high level of trust vested in the agent.”

    “To put it simply, the High Court agreed that the CHC members were guilty of CBT but did not find that the relationship between the offenders and the church to be one that involved agency.”

    On why the court sentenced a man who stole $1,900 from a Mosque more harshly than it sentenced Kong Hee and the others, IRB had this to say: “The individual who was convicted of stealing $1,900.00 was not charged with theft, but with the offence of ‘house-breaking by night’ to commit theft. This is an aggravated form of house-breaking, and the section under which he was convicted imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of 2 years imprisonment. Furthermore, this individual had committed the act of housebreaking by night 12 times on different occasions, and it appears that he was convicted of four charges of housebreaking by night to commit theft.”

    What do you think?

     

    Rilek1Corner

    Source: https://www.allsingaporestuff.com

  • Haji Mohammad Alami Musa: No Doctrinal Basis For Enmity Towards Non-Muslims

    Haji Mohammad Alami Musa: No Doctrinal Basis For Enmity Towards Non-Muslims

    In February, a video of Imam Nalla Mohamed Abdul Jameel reciting a prayer in Arabic that said “God help us against Jews and Christians”, among other things, was circulated online.

    He was charged in court and pleaded guilty last week to promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, and committing an act prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.

    He also apologised to Christian and Jewish religious leaders for his remarks. He was fined $4,000 and has been repatriated back to India.

    The issue has come to a closure in a “uniquely Singapore” way. It judiciously combined the application of law via the courts, lots of community engagement efforts by Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Yaacob Ibrahim’s dialogue, and with religious leaders of different faiths. Mr Shanmugam also met the imam for a cordial breakfast.

    Few countries in the world have the opportunity to adopt this balanced approach to resolve a sensitive issue, because it needs the existence of social peace and religious harmony, which Singapore works very hard to preserve.

    With this closure, it is useful now to deal with the “elephant in the room”, which is Islam’s doctrinal position on the “religious other”.

    This discussion is important to make clear to non-Muslim Singaporeans that enmity towards non-Muslims was never a part of Islamic doctrine.

    ISLAM AND NON-MUSLIMS: A HISTORY

    Islam’s position on non-Muslims was first shaped by historical conditions. This early position evolved over time so that it remained appropriate to the context of the day as the dynamics in the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims changed.

    The Quran spoke warmly of Christians because they were more receptive to the message of monotheism, compared with local idol-worshipping tribes in Mecca, when Islam first came.

    Furthermore, it was the Christians of Abyssinia (present-day Ethiopia) who gave refuge to Muslims who fled Mecca to escape persecution.

    Similarly, Muslim-Jewish relations in the early Islamic era were positive as they were shaped by an agreement that manifested the congenial dynamics between the two faith communities.

    More importantly, early Muslims conceptualised the community of believers to be originally independent of confessional identities.

    They regarded Christians and Jews to be members of their community.

    It was only later that membership in the community of believers came to be seen as a confessional identity in itself, and this had a lot to do with the prophethood of Muhammad.

    Tensions, therefore, occurred in Muslim-Christian as well as Muslim-Jewish relations and due to sharp differences in a number of other doctrinal matters.

    Notwithstanding these fundamental differences, the special relationship among the three religions as part of the Abrahamic family of religions was preserved.

    The divisive issue of Prophet Muhammad’s prophethood was played down and, instead, the focus was on what bound the three faith communities together.

    These are the belief in monotheism, the Last Day and the importance of doing good deeds on this earth.

    The attitude of early Muslims was to preserve unity of the community of believers so that they could be assured of Jewish and Christian support to defend their city, Medina, against the common enemy in Mecca, who were not monotheists.

    This explained why Muslims did not force Jews and Christians to accept the status of Prophet Muhammad as their prophet, too, but chose instead to focus on teachings that could be accepted by all three faith communities.

    But the bigger cause of conflict and division was less religious and more political. It was the violations of parties of the agreement to honour it and fulfil their obligations. These violations were seen as tantamount to treason.

    Violators were severely dealt with as traitors and put to death – a punishment that was the norm during wartime.

    Despite challenges in keeping alliances and violations of the agreement, Jews and Christians were not regarded by Muslims as enemies.

    Who, then, were singled out by early Muslims in their supplication?

    THE REAL ENEMY

    The supplication by Muslims was for divine help in their war against the disbelievers in Mecca, who were superior both in numbers and strength.

    They were the enemies of the early Muslims only because they wanted to kill the Prophet, annihilate Muslims and extinguish Islam from the face of Arabia. It was, therefore, a matter of life and death for the Muslims.

    The Prophet’s mission spanned over 23 years, out of which 16 years were spent in a state of heightened tension and war with the disbelievers of Mecca.

    Twenty such wars were fought and the Prophet was pained when about 1,000 of his companions were martyred.

    The Prophet supplicated to seek God’s help against disbelievers using verses from the Quran that specifically mention them (kafirun and mushrikun).

    There is an important qualification, though.

    The supplication was not targeted at all disbelievers. It was specifically aimed at disbelievers whose plan was to kill Muslims, drive them out of their homes and destroy Islam.

    Disbelieving people who were not engaged in such sinister plans were not the ones Muslims supplicated against.

    INCLUSIVE CATEGORISATION

    Another pertinent fact is that, besides Christians and Jews who occupy a special relationship with Muslims as People of the Book, there are also a number of other religious communities who enjoy this special status in the eyes of Muslims.

    The Quran has categorised Sabians as People of the Book, while there are scholars who also included Zoroastrians.

    There are other less known facts.

    For example, there was a religious ruling issued in AD710 by Islamic scholars in Kufa, Iraq, to accord Buddhists the same status as monotheists.

    This ruling was in response to a query by a young general of the Muslim army, Muhammad Qasim, who upon conquering Sindh province in India was petitioned by the local Buddhist community to allow them to continue to practise Buddhism and preserve their temples. The ruling accorded the Buddhists in question the same status as monotheists (like Jews and Christians) and provided privileges to them, considering them People of the Book, but they were obliged to pay taxes.

    Similarly, from an early period, when Muslims arrived in India, Hindus were designated People of the Book, a practical solution that allowed Muslim rulers to permit Hindus to live in peace within the Muslim empire as long as they paid taxes. This also explained why some Muslim mystics consider the Hindu scripture, the Vedas, as a revealed Book and believed that Lords Rama and Krishna could be prophets of God.

    As for Taoism, the former grand mufti of Egypt (Sheikh Ali Gomaa) was asked at an inter-faith dinner during his visit to Singapore in June 2014 whether Taoists are People of the Book. He turned to Taoist leaders and asked if their teachings were based on a sacred text, to which an affirmative reply was given. The former Egyptian mufti stated his position that Taoists are People of the Book.

    A word of caution is needed here.

    It is never claimed that all religions are the same and that religious pluralism is advocated here. All religions are different, although they share the same roots. Religions are like the Banyan tree – they have shared roots, appear to have many trunks (although there is only one trunk) and have many branches that sprawl in different directions as they reach for the sky.

    The Prophet of Islam respected all religions; he never denigrated any religion or prayed for the destruction of any religious community. Muslims supplicate for divine help against those, regardless of religion, who wish to harm them in any way.

     

    Rilek1Corner

    Source: http://www.straitstimes.com

  • Doctor Dragged Off United Airlines Flight Identified As David Dao

    Doctor Dragged Off United Airlines Flight Identified As David Dao

    The passenger who was left bloodied and shaken after he was forcibly removed from a Louisville-bound United Airlines flight in Chicago has been identified as 69-year-old grandfather David Dao, according to several media reports.

    The Daily Mail reported that Dao is a Vietnamese-American doctor specialising in internal medicine. He is believed to be practising in Elizabethtown, Kentucky.

    Reports also said that Dao had brushes with the law in the past. TMZ reported on Tuesday (Apr 11) that he even had his medical licence suspended due to multiple convictions for illegally prescribing painkillers.

    The Courier-Journal said that Dao was suspended from practising in 2005 and only returned to medicine in 2015.

    TMZ added that Dao was a professional poker player who has earned a total of US$234,664 in the World Series Poker Championships.

    David Dao posing with a picture with his wife Teresa and their granddaughter. (Photo: Instagram/@cdaogladman) 

    Various media outlets and social media users had assumed the passenger to be ethnically Chinese. Internet users across China have called for a boycott of United Airlines and one Weibo user commented: “I hope Chinese people realise this reality and support domestic products.”

    An online petition with a hashtag #ChineseLivesMatters has been submitted to the White House petitions site calling for a federal investigation into the incident.

    United Airlines chief executive Oscar Munoz acknowledged the incident, apologising for having to “re-accommodate” customers for the overbooked flight. However he wrote to United Airlines employees saying the crew involved followed “established procedures”.

     

    Rilek1Corner

    Source: http://www.channelnewsasia.com

deneme bonusu