Blog

  • Najib Razak: Islam Doesn’t Allow Alliance With Anti-Islamic Groups, Even For ‘Noble’ Causes

    Najib Razak: Islam Doesn’t Allow Alliance With Anti-Islamic Groups, Even For ‘Noble’ Causes

    PUTRAJAYA, March 21 — Islam frowns on Muslims who will ally themselves with their religion’s critics to achieve their goals no matter how “noble”, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said today.

    He said that the means to achieve a noble aim must be equally noble.

    “That means, Islam not only requires that a purpose must be noble, but the method to achieve the purpose must also be correct and noble.

    “For example, if we have a good objective or purpose, but we collaborate with those who are anti-Islam or uneasy with Islam, that means that method is not correct and forbidden by Islam,” he said in a speech when launching the 59th national recital of the al-Quran here.

    He did not give further examples to illustrate his point.

    Earlier, he urged Muslims to be broad-minded when faced with differences of opinion.

    “Don’t because of small matters or contentious issues, or being too obsessed with groups or a leader, until we quarrel, leading to enmity, hatred or casting aspersions or inappropriate labels by a Muslim against other fellow Muslims.

    “In other words, Islam allows differences in opinion, the voicing of views and objections, but it should be courteous and should be consistent,” he said.

    Earlier, he had also stressed the importance of unity within the Muslim community, after quoting a verse in the Quran.

    “This verse clearly shows the issue of unity is not a choice, but an obligation to Muslims. This is the command of Allah to us,” he said, before going on to say that Malaysia was lucky as it was an Islamic country based on Sunni Islam.

    Source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com

  • Youths In Singapore Shunning Religion

    Youths In Singapore Shunning Religion

    Having prayed to Buddha as a child and after spending her early teens worshipping Jesus, copywriter Hannah Jasmine Kok, 23, no longer believes in the divine.

    She said she left the Buddhist faith at 13 as she could not relate to rituals she performed with her parents, and dropped out of church after three years because she “didn’t think it was going anywhere”.

    Now an atheist, she said: “I think it is highly improbable that any god exists. There is no evidence for it.”

    Ms Kok is one of a growing number of young people here with no religious affiliations.

    The Department of Statistics’ General Household Survey 2015 report released earlier this month found that those who said they had no religious affiliation constituted 18.5 per cent of the resident population last year – up from 17 per cent in 2010.

    Of this group, many were young. About 65 per cent were aged between 15 and 44, and about 23 per cent between 15 and 24, compared with 14.6 per cent among residents aged 55 and above.

    The religious composition as a whole remained relatively stable – 43.2 per cent of the resident populace identified as Buddhists or Taoists, 18.8 per cent as Christians, 14 per cent as Muslims and 5 per cent as Hindus. The number of Christians increased marginally, while other religions experienced slight declines.

    FACTORS BEHIND GROWTH IN THE NON-RELIGIOUS

    Academics and religious leaders The Straits Times spoke to said the trend of non-religious affiliation is in tandem with an increasingly educated populace, some of whom might move away from religion if it does not connect with their lives and needs.

    The Institute of Policy Studies’ senior research fellow Mathew Mathews said this is more common for individuals who grew up in families where religion was already nominally practised.

    The Catholic Church said traditional religions have also been slow to engage young people and help them appreciate their faith.

    Singapore Buddhist Federation president Seck Kwang Phing believes the youthful face of the non- religious group ties in with a change in attitudes among the young, who have become more independent in their thinking.

    He said: “They ask and argue and do not simply allow their parents to select their faiths on their behalf.”

    Young people today are also exposed to a range of ideologies, which results in a spectrum of views within the non-religious category. The segment therefore includes atheists and agnostics; humanists and secularists; as well as free-thinkers and other individuals who might not necessarily be anti-religion.

    National University of Singapore political science undergraduate Bertrand Seah, 21, grew up Christian in a Methodist school environment, but began doing his own research on religion in junior college.

    He became influenced by religious critics and scientific scepticism advocates such as American Sam Harris.

    Like the other youth The Straits Times spoke to, Mr Seah said he believes in a “rational” approach. “I don’t think I need divine guidance to make a right or wrong decision. Reason alone can guide such decision-making,” he said.

    Experts said the relative stability of a country also means there is less concern about the future because the present is “non-threatening”.

    When this is the case, there is less incentive to look to religion for divine intervention or for security.

    Young people might also be doing their own research before eventually committing to a particular faith, experts said.

    Some suggested that the multi- religious make-up of Singapore and the open-door policy of religious institutions here facilitate “shopping” for a religion.

    Some young people could also be identifying more with liberal ideologies that clash with religious teachings on topics such as homosexuality.

    Social anthropologist Lai Ah Eng of the National University of Singapore (NUS) said this group might therefore find religions “variously limiting, irrational, oppressive, unreasonable and unscientific”.

    Youth and religious experts interviewed noted the high-profile failures of institutional religions to uphold their credibility as a moral voice, which may also have turned some people away from religion.

    Some cited high-profile incidents such as the City Harvest case, where church leaders were found guilty of misusing around $50 million in church funds.

    POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS

    Several religious leaders said they are concerned about the shift.

    Reverend Father Jude David, co-chaplain of the Catholic Church’s Office for Young People, believes that without religion “Singapore would certainly lose a part of her soul or spirit”.

    Reverend Dominic Yeo, the general superintendent of the Assemblies of God of Singapore, agreed. He said religion teaches its followers to be moral, adding: “We need to guard our nation, our children and the next generation against moral decadence.”

    Others are concerned about solidarity in households where the parents or grandparents are deeply religious. NUS sociologist Paulin Straughan said disparities in religious ideology could result in intergenerational fault lines and a widening gap “because religion, when it is functional, pulls families together”.

    Ultimately, the consensus among the various groups is for the need for more dialogue to understand “mutual concerns and find ways to negotiate potential tensions”, said Dr Mathews. They said this should be backed by more research to understand the specific make-up of Singapore’s non-religious segment.

    Communication channels already exist. For instance, the Humanist Society – set up to represent Singapore’s non-religious population – has been involved in discussions organised by the Inter-Religious Organisation of Singapore and the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles.

    Executive committee member Pearl Lin said the society’s role is to provide a voice for the non-religious, whom she said tend to be excluded and forgotten.

    But the Buddhist Federation’s Venerable Seck is not worried about the growing pool of non-religious Singaporeans. To him, good values and morals are more important.

    He said: “As long as there is moral education and the ability to differentiate between what is right and wrong, there will always be common ground among the religious and non-religious.”

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • Cigarette Vending Machine Contradicts FairPrice Philosophy

    Cigarette Vending Machine Contradicts FairPrice Philosophy

    NTUC FairPrice was the first off the starting blocks with vending machines to sell and dispense cigarettes, even before the tobacco display ban takes effect (“NTUC FairPrice trials cigarette vending machine for tobacco display ban”; March 17).

    Its fast reaction to meet the new requirement, with its emphatic move to increase market share in this smoky business and break away from the pack, suggests that tobacco is a big revenue earner for FairPrice.

    Surely this is not “guided by the philosophy to do well in order to do good for the community” as promulgated on its corporate website, since tobacco kills thousands of smokers and passive smokers here annually.

    It is unconscionable for FairPrice, with its social mission, to not scale down its tobacco sales operations, which it is beefing up instead with a heavy investment.

    This runs counter to our national agenda to reduce the smoking rate.

    If this is not the case, we should hear from FairPrice whether its management has other noble intentions.

     

    This article written by Lim Teck Koon, was published in Voices, Today, on 22 Mar 2016.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Controversial Columnist Ridhuan Tee Abdullah Denied Entry Into Singapore, Claimed Treated Like Terrorist

    Controversial Columnist Ridhuan Tee Abdullah Denied Entry Into Singapore, Claimed Treated Like Terrorist

    KUALA LUMPUR, March 21 — Controversial columnist Dr Ridhuan Tee Abdullah has complained that Singapore immigration officials treated him like a terrorist when they recently refused to allow him into the republic.

    In his column on Malay-language daily Sinar Harian, the Muslim convert said his photograph and thumbprint were taken at Singapore’s land checkpoint at Woodlands when he and a friend recently travelled to the neighbouring country on personal business.

    “I was treated like a terrorist. My photograph and thumbprint were taken,” Tee wrote in his column today titled “Know the true enemies of Islam”.

    “After more than two hours of questioning, I received a letter saying I was not allowed to go there. There was no reason given. But I am confident that it was due to my comments on the ‘ultra kiasu’,” he said.

    He said it was no loss not being able to go to Singapore, but added: “I just want to remind how dangerous the ‘ultra kiasu’ are”.

    “Ultra kiasu” is a term Tee constantly uses on the DAP, a predominantly Chinese opposition party, but he has also applied it to other groups, including Christians and Malaysia’s ethnic Chinese.

    The Chinese Muslim has repeatedly criticised the Chinese minority in Malaysia, labelling them as “racist” and “ultra kiasu” for not showing gratitude towards the Barisan Nasional (BN) government.

    In Tee’s column today, he again accused the “ultra kiasu” of trying to manipulate Muslims to bury PAS and claimed that Malays in Singapore were not given decision-making positions or posts in the police, immigration or army.

     

    Source: www.themalaymailonline.com

  • Kenapa Tidak Ada Kecaman Keatas Serangan di Istanbul Sama Seperti Kecaman Serangan di Eropah Barat?

    Kenapa Tidak Ada Kecaman Keatas Serangan di Istanbul Sama Seperti Kecaman Serangan di Eropah Barat?

    After the senseless attacks in Turkey, i have been waiting for the usual suspects to issue their strong condemnations: either through the mainstream media or on their own social media platforms. Unfortunately, though unsurprisingly, i am still waiting.

    I really wonder whether these people realize how this looks: are you really saying that the lives of non-White people don’t matter? Or is it Muslim lives specifically that have less or no value?

    Do they have to issue condemnations and express public sadness when attacks occur in the West, because they need to ‘prove’ to others that they are ‘moderate’ Muslims, and such a need is not present when the victims are Muslims themselves?

    More importantly, this is a good time to discuss the real motivations, issues and complexities surrounding terrorism. Since the victims are not white, talking about the causes of terrorism would definitely not attract the criticism we are familiar with, otherwise: that doing so would be ‘cheapening the lives of the victims’.

    So we should not miss this opportunity. Yes, religious extremism is a problem. But let’s not be lazy and reduce the issue to ‘whoever does not wish Merry Christmas is an extremist’, and instead, deal with the issues of grievances about foreign policy, discrimination, lack of trust in authority (political and religious), the occupation of Iraq (which happened almost exactly 13 years ago to this day), the military-industrial complex, socio-economic disenfranchisement, and have an honest conversation about these matters. If we are really interested in solving the problem.

    But if we are just interested in scoring points with others or in ‘proving’ ourselves, sure, let’s just continue to ‘condemn’ terrorism (selectively), blame religious extremism, and then lament when the problem still exists: basically, do the same things and then express surprise or outrage when the outcome is not different.

    Source: Walid J Abdullah

deneme bonusu