Blog

  • Polis Malaysia Diminta Ambil Tindakan Terhadap Individu Cemar Quran Di Internet

    Polis Malaysia Diminta Ambil Tindakan Terhadap Individu Cemar Quran Di Internet

    Polis diminta mengambil tindakan terhadap individu yang mencemar al-Quran dengan tindakan melampau, termasuk menjilat, mengoyak dan menjadikan kitab suci umat Islam itu sebagai bahan seks.

    Individu itu berbuat demikian dalam video yang kini sudah dimuat naik ke lelaman sosial YouTube dan Facebook.

    Empat badan bukan kerajaan (NGO) iaitu Ikatan Rakyat Insan Muslim Malaysia (IRIMM), Pertubuhan Martabat Jalinan Muhibbah (MJMM), Ikatan Usahawan Kecil dan Sederhana Malaysia (IKHLAS) serta Akhlak Rahsia Cekal (ARC) membuat laporan polis semalam (1 Jun).

    Mereka juga mahu Suruhanjaya Komunikasi dan Multimedia Malaysia menyekat video berkenaan di Internet supaya tidak terus diviralkan, menurut Presiden IRIMM Amir Amsaa Alla Pitchay kepada pemberita selepas membuat laporan polis di Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah Dang Wangi.

    Beliau berkata tindakan individu berkenaan adalah biadap dan penghinaan melampau kepada seluruh umat Islam.

    Ketua Polis Daerah Dang Wangi ACP Zainol Samah ketika dihubungi Bernama mengesahkan menerima laporan itu.

    VIDEO MUNGKIN OLEH AMOS YEE

    Menurut Bernama, video selama 47 saat itu memaparkan seorang individu berbaju jingga menjilat dan mengoyakkan al-Quran sebelum menjadikan kitab suci itu sebagai bahan seks.

    Bernama tidak menyebut identiti individu berkenaan, namun ia berkemungkinan video yang dimuat naik oleh penulis blog kontroversi Singapura, Amos Yee, 17 tahun.

    Dalam video berkenaan, Amos Yee kelihatan melakukan aksi-aksi yang disebutkan dalam laporan polis badan-badan Malaysia itu.

    Yee dipenjara tahun lalu kerana mengeluarkan kata-kata kesat terhadap agama Kristian dan memuat naik imej-imej lucah online.

    Pada 26 Mei lalu, Yee dikenakan lapan dakwaan baru di Mahkamah Negara di Singapura – lima daripadanya adalah kerana mengguris perasaan umat Islam dan satu lagi kerana menyakitkan hati penganut Kristian.

    Jika didapti bersalah kerana sengaja menyakitkan hati penganut agama lain, Yee boleh dikenakan hukuman penjara sehingga tiga tahun dan didenda.

    Yee ditangkap pada 11 Mei dan dibebaskan dengan ikat jamin sebanyak S$5,000.

    Source: Berita MediaCorp

  • Almakhazin: Is The Islamicity Index Really About Islam?

    Almakhazin: Is The Islamicity Index Really About Islam?

    Once again, we are told that Ireland, Israel and South Korea are more Islamic than Malaysia, Brunei and Turkey.

    A six year old study that measures economic activity based on specific moral and religious standards known as the Economic Islamicity Index (EI2) was recently re-shared on social media.

    According to this study, North Ireland is the most Islamic country in the world. Singapore is 7th.
    Israel 27th.

    Malaysia is the top rank Islamic country at 33, followed by Kuwait (42) and Kazakhstan at 54.

    The reappearance of this index has, as is expected, brought with it excitement and criticism.

    It is used to criticise the Malaysian government for being unIslamic.

    And to show how Islamic Western countries really are.

    But what does the index actually measure? Does it actually show how Islamic a country is? What are the data and criteria they use?

    It is about the economy

    The Index is actually about the economy and how economic resources are used in a country.

    It was created by two International Business Professors at George Washington University: Hossein Askari and Scheherazade Rehman.

    What they attempt to measure is the degree of rules copliance and equitability in economic activity.

    Some of the areas they identified as “Islamic economics” are social infrastructure, poverty eradication and development of economic prosperity.

    Data was gathered from the UN, World Bank and economic think tanks.

    The authors argued that an Islamic system is rules and market based and aid equitable social development.

    Different developments

    The focus on a market based, socially equitable economy explains why most of the top 30 are developed countries with social infrastructure that have been developed for decades if not centuries.

    Most of the countries have never been colonised. For those that were, most of them benefitted from being the economic focus of colonial activity.

    The Asian countries in the top 30 (Singapore at 7th, Hong Kong 12th and Japan 21st) have had substantial socio-economic infrastructure since before the mid-20th century. According to data from the Maddison Project, by the 1950s, Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore had the top three per capita GDP in Asia.

    At Merdeka, Malaysia was on a similar economic position with Philippines. But according to the Islamicity index, Malaysia is almost 50 spots higher than the Philippines which is ranked at 81.

    That the three strongest economies in the 1950s are now more able to provide social development, infrastructure and eradicate poverty is quite understandable.

    What is also important is to understand how a country that began at a lower trajectory is able to catch up with its historically more developed counterparts in providing socio-economic opportunities and mobility.

    It is not about Islam

    Even though the index is positioned as an Islamicity index, Islam is not part of the study.

    The authors admitted that they developed the index based on their perception of developmental needs. Of particular importance for them is the development model that was proposed by the Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen.

    Not only was the level of religiosity not part of the index, the Maqasid Shariah (Objectives of the Shariah) was not included.

    In fact, Hossein Askari, writing for the Huffington Post argued that the Shariah should be rejected in Islamic societies.

    With Islam not part of the criteria or forming the standard, to refer to the index as measuring Islamicity is problematic. The elements used to measure “Islamicity” are the same elements the authors could have used if the index was simply about ethical socio-economic development.

    But why refer to Islam?

    And it is about politics

    An important part of the Islamicity index is the advocacy for change in Muslim countries.

    According to Askari, the main purpose of the index is for Muslims to learn Islam by themselves instead of referring to clerics, rulers and governments.

    And to create political change in the Muslim world.

    That there is an objective external to the research means that we need to assess how much of the methodology and data collected is influenced by the authors’ political objectives.

    If the index is about Islamicity, then why is the Maqasid not used as a reference?

    If it is about socio-economic standard, then why advocate for political change?
    There is value to the economic Islamicity index.

    It helps us recognise the very real need for greater development of social infrastructure and equitable economic distribution in the Muslim world.

    But as an index to measure the adherence to or state of Islam in a country, it is insufficient at best.

    And quite possibly, highly suspect.

     

    Source: Almakhazin

  • Catholic Girl: Children To Be Raised As Muslims, So Why Boyfriend’s Family Still Oppose Our Union?

    Catholic Girl: Children To Be Raised As Muslims, So Why Boyfriend’s Family Still Oppose Our Union?

    I understand you’re also a malay but I hope you can allow me to share my broken heart on this platform and I really wish for more religious tolerance and consistency from MUIS and Darul Arqam in applying islamic religious laws here!

    I am a Catholic girl who has been dating a malay muslim guy for the past 5 years and we were about to get married after reaching a consensus that I can remain a Catholic while our children will be raised muslim and follow their dad’s religion as per the allowance of the prophet muhammad.

    But we afterwards faced fierce objection from not only his relative’s side who obtained a fatwa stating that I must convert or our marriage will be considered “haram” by MUIS and Darul Arqam.

    Sharlene Tan
    A.S.S Contributor

    Source: All Singapore Stuff

  • Ainon Mohd: Berfikir Gaya Nabi

    Ainon Mohd: Berfikir Gaya Nabi

    Saya berkesempatan ke kelas Pn Ainon Mohd. mendalami ilmu cara berfikir secara Design by Thinking. 4 jam bersama Pn Ainon menyebabkan saya tak boleh tidur malam memikirkan ilmu yang saya baru dapat beberapa hari lepas.

    Penulisan ini adalah bagi kita sama-sama refleks diri kita, supaya kita dapat memperbaiki dan mencontohi kaedah berfikir cara Rasulullah saw.

    Kita adalah pemikir Analytical dan Critical. Malah, di universiti dulu pun saya memang ambil subjek Critical Thinking dalam semester 2.

    Dunia persekolahan dan universiti kita hari ini mengajar kita berfikir secaraanalytical dan critical thinking.

    Apa itu analytical thinking?

    Secara mudahnya adalah cara berfikir melalui analisa perkara yang sudah pun berlaku.

    Apa pula critical thinking?

    Secara mudahnya adalah, ‘i am right, and you are wrong’.

    Sekolah antara tempat yang mengasah otak kita berfikir gaya analytical dancritical. Sekolah mengajarkan kita hanya ada satu sahaja jawapan yang betul dan kita diberi pengiktirafan yang baik pada jawapan yang betul itu.

    Sebab itu, bila kita besar, kita menjadi golongan pemikir yang sangat rigid kepada sesuatu perkara. Apa yang kita buat semua betul, apa yang orang buat kita nampak semua salah. Kita jadi sukar menerima segala idea baru dan jawapan orang lain yang mungkin betul.

    Kita lebih suka mengkritis, berdebat dan berusaha menegakkan pendirian bagi jawapan yang kita rasa kita betul hingga menyalahkan orang lain. Kita merendah-rendahkan jawapan orang lain, kita memperkecil usahanya dengan idea yang diberikan. Kita memburukkan orang lain, membuka aib dirinya dengan menyatakan kitalah yang betul.

    Kita menjadi golongan pemikir yang sangat judgemental dan cepat menghukum atas sesuatu perkara.

    Sebab itu, segala keburukan lebih mudah ter-viral dan lahir ramai para juri dan hakim yang mengukum dan mengadili bagi setiap perkara yang berlaku.

    You cannot dig a hole in a different place by digging the same hole deeper – Edward De Bono

    Tak mungkin kita jumpa satu lubang baru dengan menggali lubang yang sedia ada dengan lebih dalam. Kita mula mengorek segala history lama, kononnya mencariroot cause dan mahu menyelesaikan segala perkara itu.

    Kesan berfikir gaya ini (analytical) adalah:

    1. Kita akan banyak mengungkit perkara yang telah terjadi.
    2. Kita mula mengaitkan nama orang lain.
    3. Kita mudah menyalahkan dan menuduh. judge people.
    4. Kita menjadi sangat defensif.
    5. Kita sebenarnya mengusutkan lagi masalah tu.
    6. Timbul pula masalah baru.
    7. Rosakkan hubungan yang harmoni.

    Critical Thinking

    Tradisi critical thinking datang dari Socrates, plato, aristotles. mereka mencipta seni berdebat. Kita berbangga pula menayangkan kehebatan siapa lebih jauh lebih hebat berdebat? Hujah siapa paling hebat? Allah.

    Nabi Muhammad S.A.W bersabda;

    “Aku menjamin sebuah rumah di Syurga bagi orang yang meninggalkan debat meskipun dia berada dalam pihak yang benar. Dan aku menjamin sebuah rumah di tengah syurga bagi orang yang meninggalkan dusta meskipun dalam keadaan bercanda. Dan aku menjamin sebuah rumah di bahagian teratas Syurga bagi orang yang memperelokkan akhlaknya.”
    (HR. Abu Dawud dalam Kitab al-Adab, hadits no 4167. Dihasankan oleh al-Albani dalam as-Shahihah [273] as-Syamilah)

    Jadi, adakah kita sebenarnya pemikir generasi Aristotle? Kita bermegah dengan kehebatan siapa hujahnya paling hebat? Sedangkan Rasulullah saw semasa hayatnya tak pernah berdebat. Allah. Hinanya kita ini.

    Ideologi pemikir Critical Thinking dari Aristotle ini diterima baik dalam kehidupan kita masa kini. Betul? Antara salah satu yang boleh kita lihat adalah secara mudah adalah Politik.

    Mari kita susuri sejarah Nabi Muhammad saw. Hebatnya Rasulullah saw. Baginda tak pernah menyalahkan orang lain, tak pernah menuduh dan menghukum pendosa dan pesalah. Baginda tak pernah berdebat melawan hujah-hujah orang yang melemparkan segala bentuk kritikan buruk dan caci maki. Allah.

    Jadi, bagaimana cara Rasulullah saw berfikir dalam menyelesaikan masalah?

    Rasulullah saw tak buat post mortem selepas perang Uhud. Baginda tak mencari salah punca kekalahan dalam perang Uhud. Baginda tak menyalahkan sesiapa.

    Rasulullah saw tak beri komen dan kritikan pada idea yang ditolak. Baginda tak cakap pun idea tu salah. Atas dasar inilah semua golongan bebas memberi idea dan seronok kerana Rasulullah saw meraikan segala bentuk pendapat dan idea dari semua golongan.

    Kalau kita pula, orang baru bagi idea, terus hukum dan hina pula ideanya secara umum. Kita bukan sahaja membuka aibnya, malah kita membunuh psikologi dalamannya kerana menyekat dirinya memberikan buah fikiran bersama.

    Baginda tak memilih pun hanya bertanya pendapat pada sahabatnya semata-mata. Baginda mengumpulkan semua jenis golongan meskipun golongan bawahan.

    Kita pula kalau meeting, asyik dengan orang yang sama ja. Pilih bulu. Kalau orang tu baru masuk kerja, ditentangnya idea baru malah tak beri peluang mengemukakan idea pula. Orang yang lama pula diagung-agungkan ideanya.

    Apabila ada dua orang bergaduh dan mereka datang mengadu, sebut jasa mereka pada pihak berlawanan dan jangan menyakiti antara satu sama lain. Rasulullah saw tidak menyakiti dan menghukum pesalah.

    Contoh kita ni, kalau ada konflik adik beradik, mak biasanya akan cakap “Along, kau dah besar, mengalahlah..” Ini adalah contoh ibu yang berfikir secara critical.

    Rasulullah handle emosi dengan memuji dan memberikan khabar gembira meskipun siapa pun orang yang memberi masalah tu. Hebatnya Rasulullah saw dalam menyelesaikan masalah dan konflik.

    Kita pula mengagung-agungkan cara fikir barat dan bangga pula dengan menjadi pemikir seperti ini. Allah.

    Terima kasih Puan Ainon Mohd kerana mengajarkan kami ilmu yang sangat luar biasa. Sepanjang kelas hati bagai dihiris-hiris. Tak cukup dengan itu, memang tak boleh tidur malam memikirkan kata-kata Puan Guru.

     

    Source: www.thevocket.com

  • Study: Kids From Rich Families More Likely To Attend IP And GEP

    Study: Kids From Rich Families More Likely To Attend IP And GEP

    Children from higher socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to attend Integrated Programme (IP) secondary schools and their affiliated primary schools, as well as those that offer the Gifted Education Programme (GEP).

    This was a key finding of a recent study that examined class stratification in schools and if students from different schools had different levels of educational aspirations.

    The study was done by Ms Ong Xiang Ling, its principal investigator who is a Singapore Children’s Society research officer, and Dr Cheung Hoi Shan, a post-doctoral fellow at the National University of Singapore.

    Their work pointed to a disproportionate number of students from affluent backgrounds in IP and GEP schools.

    In the study, schools were divided into three groups and about 200 students from each group were polled. Type 1 were IP schools, their affiliated primary schools, as well as primary schools which offered the GEP. Type 2 were government-aided schools and autonomous schools which did not offer the IP, and Type 3 were government schools.

    Data showed that nearly 41 per cent of Type 1 secondary school students came from families with a monthly household income that exceeded $10,000, compared to 7 per cent in Type 3 schools. About 31 per cent of Type 1 students lived in private homes, compared to 2 per cent in Type 3. About 54 per cent of Type 1 students had at least one parent with university education, compared to 17 per cent in Type 3.

    The fact that there is a significant disparity in secondary schools, where entry is supposed to be by merit, points to a possible perpetuation of class differences in schools, said the researchers. Dr Cheung said: “The observation from many news reports… does point to some form of social stratification in our schools; so in elite schools you tend to have families represented by higher socio-economic status (SES) and in other neighbourhood schools you tend to have the reverse.”

    She added: “We see SES differences also in secondary schools, where entry is supposed to be determined in large part by the children’s results in the PSLE. Entry is not about distance or alumni associations, yet we also see marked SES differences in elite secondary schools. So it may point to a perpetuation – if you started off with high SES, chances are because you have more resources, you are better prepared for PSLE, so you are more likely to get into good secondary schools.”

    Said Ms Ong: “Higher SES children are more likely to be in Type 1 schools, and being in Type 1 schools makes them more likely to have high confidence in attaining at least a university degree. Then it would mean that there could be a perpetuation of class differences, because research has shown that if you have high confidence of attaining a university degree, you are more likely to actually get a university degree.”

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

     

deneme bonusu