Tag: Muslim

  • The Idolisation of Tolérance & Its abuse

    noorderossyedkhairudinsaga

    By Muhd Noor Muhd Deros.

    Recently our esteemed brother, Prof Syed Muhd Khairudin Aljunied, courageously wrote a couple of short postings that state the truth about homosexuality. It caught the attention of some LGBT students from the NUS whom later wrote a petition against him.

    This short writing of mine seeks to address one of the central argument that they and their likes have never failed to summon while trying to defend homosexuality, it is none other than the idea of Tolérance, or its new form; Recognition, as used in the petition.

    1. We have seen the idolisation of the word Tolérance and the destructions it brought during the French Revolution where it was given the status of a dogma and endowed with the sanctity of a religion together with its share of fanaticism and blind herds. During that time, those who were intolerant of their brand of tolerance were sent to the guillotine. It was and never is a neutral word nor does it bear any positive connotation in itself. Of course it can be and was already used as a tool for oppression.

    “It is preferable that we use the term (Tolérance) in its French orthography, since it was consciously conceived as one of the power instruments of the emerging atheist state following the French Revolution. It is a significantly irrational doctrine, while it poses as being the opposite. If examined, it is clear that it is a power instrument aimed at one group to subvert them to the value structure of the opposing group. In other words, it has a uni-directional dynamic. We mean by that, a doctrine of tolerance orders the accused group, “Tolerate us!” It contains in it no possibility of a reverse process by which the group demanding tolerance offer tolerance to the accused group.” – Shaykh Abdal Qadir As-Sufi.

    Hence, the act of tolerating or ‘recognising’ something in itself is not necessarily good. The main issue lies in the object of your tolerance. What are you tolerating?

    2. The dangerous appeal and the control power of the word Tolerance lies in its deep and subconscious attachment to the basic need of the human self, and that is the need to be accepted, which – like tolerance – is not necessarily good in itself. But whenever the word is summoned today, you can almost see its spell breaking through any defense mechanism of the mind and leaving it defunct.

    syed Khairudin

    We need to break its spell by being aware of its neutrality.

    3. We must know that it is perfectly fine to be intolerant of certain things and ideas. The health of the society is in danger when it becomes tolerant of everything as the body breaks down when it loses its ability to be intolerant to sickness. Even those who idolised tolerance or ‘recognition’ never failed to be intolerant towards those whom they perceive as a threat to their idol.

    But when I say that I can’t tolerate the idea of homosexuality it does not mean I can’t have a coffee with a homosexual while calling him to heterosexuality. We just need to grow up and leave either-ors to kids.

    4. As a person who believes in a Higher power who is conscious of Himself and all of His creations, free from any physicality and humanness, and that He sent prophets to guide human beings to spiritual happiness till the end of time, I would like to reiterate that The Islam of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w – not the Islamic “Islam” – views homosexual inclination as a sickness that must be treated.  It is no different from incestual inclination, and that act of homosexuality itself is one of the most abhorrent sins.

    Some general suggestions from a Muslim’s perspective:

    • Re-inculcate the belief in The higher power that is Most Merciful and Compassionate yet Majestic in the same time. And that we are the created not The Creator, we are here not by ourselves nor are we a product of a random activity of an unconscious cosmic soup.
    • Punish child molesters severely.
    • Make marriage easy to those who are ready.
    • Women must be allowed to be women and men to be men. Homosexuality will emerge in a society whenever the economy forces the majority of the women to take up the responsibilities of men.
    • Protect the institution of marriage with the Divine law.

    5. Homosexuality is a cancer to the society, yes it surely is. This is an objective and unemotional statement. Unlike the term ‘hate speech’ used in the petition, it seeks to convey the scale of threat and destruction brought about by the homosexual lifestyle. Whereas the term ‘hate speech’ is a direct accusation to a person. If we are serious for a healthy debate we should avoid such jerky misconstructions.

    6. What we want is a healthy and a harmonious society, a society that is free from the stench of moral relativism and is built upon the firm belief that truth is not subjected to time & context, instead it is the other way round. Therefore we should stop demanding people to be tolerant of immoralities such as homosexuality.

    God knows best.

    Benjamin Seet
    khairulanwar
    Khairulanwar Zaini
    melissa tsang
    Melissa Tsang

    Source: Muhd Noor Muhd Deros

    Read the ENTIRE chronology of saga here:

  • Homosexual Lobby, Bullying Tactics Gone Too Far

    zulfikar

    Yesterday was an interesting day.

    For sometime, we hear the homosexual lobby play the victim card. They claim they just want to be heard. That their sexual proclivities should be recognised. That their immorality should not be questioned.

    They demanded for their choices to be accepted and normalised. When anyone questions their claims, the questioner is seen as being intolerant. Their lifestyle and choices are seen as given. The victim card is played repeatedly.

    But today, we see how vicious the homosexual lobby really is. How intolerant they really are. How vindictive their tactics.

    When Assoc Prof Khairudin Aljunied wrote his Facebook post on the need to cleanse society of homosexual behaviour, homosexual advocates launched a campaign against him. “Benjamin Seet, a graduate student in Political Science; Melissa Tsang, a former Law student who is reapplying for admission into Arts; and Khairulanwar Zaini a final-year undergraduate in Political Science and Philosophy” are organising a petition to be submitted to the Provost of NUS against Khairudin.
    benjamin Seet melissa tsang khairulanwar
    For these homosexual advocates, their behaviour is beyond reproach.

    Anyone who dares to question their immorality is targeted.

    Anyone who seek to return society to family values would be attacked.

    Anyone who raise any objection to their attempt to make homosexuality normal is abused.

    We need to be clear that the homosexual lobby is not about creating safe spaces. They are not interested in engagement. They have no interest in debates. They do not care about morality or positive conduct.

    All they want is for their behaviour to be recognised. And anyone who speak against it is an enemy that need to be removed.

    Lets not kid ourselves. They are not a tolerant group.

    The question for us is a simple one. What do we do about these intolerant, militant and self interested homosexual lobby?

    Do we keep quiet and cower while they attack anyone who dare to speak?

    Or do we finally say that this enough?

    How we respond define not only how our society will be.
    It also defines who we are. Are we social cowards who realise the homosexual lobby is taking advantage of our silence and continue to keep our mouths shut?

    Or do we finally respond and take back the ground and stop these bullying tactics they employ?

    Are we going to do what is right?

    Are we finally going to say that the homosexual lobby has gone too far?

    Are we finally going to say this is enough?

    Source: Zulfikar Shariff

    Read the ENTIRE chronology of saga in category ‘AGAMA’:

  • Singapore Murtad Association Pokes Fun at NUS Prof Syed Khairudin Aljunied on LGBTQ Issue

    apostatespage

    A friend of mine from NUS alerted me on the post below which was written by a FASS Associate Professor who teaches Malay Studies at her school.

    Please bear in mind that this is an influential person who is supposed to educate students without foisting his religious beliefs on them. However, he has evidently transgressed his boundaries.

    So here is my reply to Mr. Syed Muhd Khairudin Aljunied:

    Dear Prof, are you aware that lesbianism has existed way before Islam? A religion which only began existing in the 610 AD? In the Code of Hammurabi, written circa 1750 BC, it was mentioned that women who were allowed to marry other women were called the “salzikrum” (“daughter-men”). If you think that this is an isolated case, let me further support it by mentioning that homosexuality has been observed in 1500 species, ranging from large marine animals to insects. It is clear from nature that there is more to sexual behaviour than one that is solely geared towards reproduction.

    However, even if you are still convinced that homosexuality, especially lesbianism, is a choice, how does this relate to it being morally-incorrect? In what way does someone’s sexual preferences harms or infringes upon others’ rights? If I were to prefer asam pedas to curry and eat my food in solitude, while you on the other hand, prefer the latter and forces me to only eat curry because that is what the majority prefer, wouldn’t your action be considered as a form of bullying?

    Yes, you will then proceed to rebuff my points by quoting anti-homosexuality verses from the Quran, but so what? I, as an ex-Muslim, question the book’s credibility since it is rife with incoherent chronological order for historical events (Quran states Virgin Mary as Aaron and Moses’s sister, when in actuality, both of them were born 1500 years apart), scientific inaccuracies (Earth is flat and Sun and Moon orbits around it) and mathematical errors (the calculation for the inheritance law did not amount to a whole number, it resulted in an improper fraction instead).

    Are you sure you want to openly claim that lesbianism is a “wrongful ideology and practice” when your religion, Islam, is in fact, made up of layers upon layers of lies? But then again, in Islam, taqiyyah is totally “halal” and permissible in order to beguile the ignorant from the flaws of Islam. Not only that, your religion, Islam, preaches hate and intolerance in the name of Jihad.

    SingaporemurtadreplySyedkhairuddin SyedKhairuddinAljunied_LGBT
    In Surah 2: The Cow
    1. Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. 191
    2. War is ordained by Allah. 216

    Can you now see the difference, Prof? Being in a fulfilling relationship with a woman is not harming others but actively persecuting others who don’t agree with your beliefs, is.

    As evident from its violence-inducing scripture, Islam has no place in a multi-religious and secular country such as Singapore. But of course, not many non-Muslims or even Muslims, for that matter, know about their own religion, which is why I find it appalling that even when Muslims themselves are mired in ignorance of the true Islam, they have no qualms dictating others on how they should live. And how they should love.

    Wake up. This is 21st century Singapore, if you prefer to bound your life rigidly to the teachings of the Quran, please time-travel back to 7th Century Saudi Arabia. I’m sure with your parochial mindset and stalwart need to assert what you believe as “morally-correct”, you will definitely “gel well” with the barbaric and tribal Arab men of that epoch.

    Let’s face it: Lesbianism isn’t cancerous, your religion is.

    SyedKhairudinliebralism

    Source: Singapore Murtad Association, Syed Khairudin Aljunied

    Read the ENTIRE chronology of saga in category ‘AGAMA’:

  • UMNO now plays ‘Muslim Card’, Focus on Religious Divide

    allahbanned

    A former US ambassador to Malaysia sounds the alarm

    Like other friends of Malaysia overseas, I have followed the controversy over the use of the word ‘Allah’ with interest, but also with great concern. For I believe that this issue, if left unchecked, has the potential to tear Malaysia and the dream of ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ apart.

    While there are racial and religious issues in every society, what makes the situation in Malaysia different is that it is the government that has condoned and even provoked these tensions for its own political purposes.

    For years, UMNO justified its existence by saying that the Malays are under threat, and that only UMNO could defend “the Malay race”.

    After the 13th general election, in which UMNO candidates received only 30 percent of the national vote – and in which BN as a whole got only 47 percent – it had two choices. It could broaden its appeal or it could narrow it by trying to appeal to the PAS voter base, for whom religion rather than race is a more important concern.

    Unfortunately, UMNO chose the latter course and started to play the ‘Muslim’ card. Now, according to the government and UMNO, it is not just Malays, it is also Islam that is under threat. As for the ‘Malay’ card, UMNO increasingly has gone to the extreme, pandering to extreme racist elements, starting with PERKASA.

    The irony of the “Malays/Islam under threat” claim, of course, is that in Malaysia, both Malays and Muslims are the majority. And UMNO controls the government. So how can the Malay race and the Muslim religion in Malaysia be under threat?

    To UMNO’s leadership, it doesn’t matter. There is no need to explain. They just speak and offer no evidence, and use their propaganda instruments – Bernama, RTM, Utusan Malaysia, the New Straits Times, etc – to spread the word.

    From an international perspective, they also make assertions that are totally out of line with Islamic thinking and practice in the rest of the world.

    Think about it – Malaysia is the only country in the world that ignores history and linguistics and dares to ban non-Muslims from uttering the word ‘Allah’. Like Humpty Dumpty, the Malaysian government stands alone – and claims for itself the right to decide what words mean and what words people may read, write, think, and speak.

    How can Prime Minister Najib Razak, his government, and its supporters justify their actions, when no one else in the Islamic world agrees with them? When Islamic scholars like Reza Aslan say, “We are laughing at you,” how do they respond?

    They don’t. Because they don’t know what to say. They seem to be living on their own planet.

    Actions, not just words

    But it is not just what Najib and his government say, it also is what they have done.

    • It is the government that seized more than 20,000 Bibles in 2009.
    • It is the government that banned the use of the word ‘Allah’ in Catholic weekly The Herald.

    • It is the government’s Police Force that joined the recent raid on the Bible Society of Malaysia, confiscating over 300 bibles without a search warrant.

    • It is the government’s religious affairs department, JAKIM, that directed mosques throughout Malaysia to say, without citing any evidence, that Islam is “under threat,” that Christians and Jews are “enemies of Islam,” and that Christians are responsible for turning Muslims against each other and tricking them into losing their rights.

    • It is Najib’s cabinet that stood silently by and decided not to enforce its 10-point plan to restore religious peace and harmony in the nation.

    • It is the government that refused to take any action after the leader of PERKASA called for the burning bibles.

    There is no greater example of uniformed assertions than former PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s recent claim that Christians have “no right” to use the word ‘Allah’. Because he is Mahathir, he just says it, and he expects everyone to agree.

    As the saying goes, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. In this case, history and the facts are not on Mahathir’s side. Mahathir is totally, 100 percent, wrong.

    The word ‘Allah’ was used by Arabic-speaking Christians for centuries before the birth of the Prophet and the rise of Islam. Indeed, archaeologists have found an Arabic-language Christian Bible (the Mt Sinai Arabic Codex 151), that is nearly 1,300 years old, in which God is called ‘Allah’.

    Indeed, someone might ask what right Muslims have to say the word ‘Allah’, when it was used first by Christians? Who is violating whose rights?

    The answer is simple – even though Jews and Christians used it first, they would never deny Muslims the right to say the word ‘Allah’. Because while over the years, men and women have practiced and interpreted our religions in different ways, in the end we all worship the same God – the God of Abraham, the Creator of the Universe.

    So here is the question. In the entire Islamic world, why is it only in Malaysia that people claim that uttering or writing the word ‘Allah’ is the exclusive right of Muslims? Why is it only in Malaysia, and nowhere elsewhere in the world, that some Muslims say they will be “confused” if other people – Christians – use the word ‘Allah’ when they worship inside their own churches, or when they read the Bible in the privacy of their own homes?

    What makes Muslim Malaysians different from the other 1.5 billion Muslims in the rest of the world? I would like Malaysian advocates of the ‘Allah’ ban to explain this, not to me (a Christian), but to explain it to the rest of the Islamic world.

    Dangers of ‘quick research’

    The senior judge in the Allah appeal, Mohamed Apandi Ali, wrote in his opinion that through his “quick research” on the history of the language of the Bible, “it is clear that the word ‘Allah’ does not appear even once as the name of God or even of a man in the Hebrew scriptures. The name ‘Allah’ does not appear even once in either the Old or New Testament.

    “There is no such word at all in the Greek New Testament. In the Bible world, God has always been known as ‘Yahweh’, or by the contraction ‘Yah’. That being the historical fact, it can be concluded that the word or name ‘Allah’ is not an integral part of the faith and practice of Christianity.”

    Justice Apandi’s judgment clearly shows the dangers of “quick research.” He should have spent a little more time on the web. But because he refers to how the word ‘God’ is expressed in Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic, he has raised the important issue of language and the words that we use in different languages to refer to God.

    How many languages are there in the world? The Christian Bible has been translated in whole or part into an astonishing 2,817 languages, according to the Wycliffe Bible Translator, a UK organisation. The complete Bible is available in 513 languages, including Arabic and Malay.

    Both the Arabic and Malay Bibles use the word ‘Allah’ to refer to God. In the case of Arabic, it has been so for at least 1,300 years, and in the case of Malay, which “borrowed” the word ‘Allah’ from Arabic, for at least 300.

    Even so, Justice Apandi ignored both history and language when he claimed that the Arabic and Malay language word for God – Allah – belongs exclusively to Muslims. That is because Jews and Christians used the word ‘Allah’ before the Prophet was even born.

    Judge Apandi also was wrong when he said that the Jews have always referred to God as ‘Yahweh’. My own “quick research” on Wikipedia, which must have lasted 15 seconds longer than the learned judge’s, shows that the Hebrew Bible uses many names for God.

    While Yahweh is indeed the most common expression, two others are ‘Elah’ and ‘Eloah’. They both sound very similar to ‘Allah’ and there is a reason for that. Just as Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in the God of Abraham, the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arab languages are all related to each other.

    Most scholars say that Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew. And when Jesus spoke of God, he said, “Ellah.” That sounds remarkably very similar to the Arabic ‘Allah’. And it should, because Aramaic and Arab are what linguists call “cognates.”

    As word of Judaism and Christianity spread into the Arabian Peninsula, ‘Allah’ became the Arabic language name for the God of Abraham. The word ‘Allah’ was used first by Arab Christians and Mizrahi Jews, and only later by the Prophet and Muslims.

    UMNO

    Sorry, Justice Apandi. Sorry, Mahathir. Sorry, Najib and UMNO.

    If anyone owns the “trademark” on the word ‘Allah’, it is the Christians, who first spread the word of the God of Abraham into the Arabian peninsula, and who first used the word ‘Allah’. But here is the point – no Christian Malaysian insists and no Arabic-speaking Christian insists that the word ‘Allah’ belongs exclusively to them.

    So the burden of proof therefore is on any Malaysian who ignores history, language, and the facts – and who ignores what the rest of the Islamic world is doing – and simply asserts that only Muslim Malaysians may use the word ‘Allah’.

    John R. Malott served as US Ambassador to Malaysia from 1995 to 1998. He contributed this to the Malaysian website Malaysiakini.

    Source: MalaysiaKini

  • 11 Kebaikan Memakai Tudung Bagi Muslimah

    faisalhajari

    1) anda tidak perlu membuang masa set rambut, sikat2 dan dandan bagi lawa, pakai vidal sasoon ke mousse ke bagi rambut nampak lawa, berkilay dan beralun. Suami pun x merungut lama sgt menunggu korg mekap.

    2) korg tidak akan terasa membahang di kepala. Iklim malaysia yg panas dan membahang akan menyebabkan kepala cepat panas bila cahaya matahari yg berUV direct kena rambut n kepala. Menyebabkan kerosakan rambut dan tisu kulit kepala yg mengakibatkan kurap dan sopak.

    3) jika korg mempunyai rambut yg cantik beralun, korg ada segala hak utk x bagi org tgk. Biasanya org kalu nak beli henpon, dia akan beli yg dalam kotak dan bukannya display set. Korg ni mahal, bukannya bahan free show.

    4) tidak akan ada org yg menyalahkan korg kalau korg ni kena rogol ke atau kena raba ke disebabkan korg x memakai tudung serta x tutup aurat.

    5) penjimatan duit yg confirm banyak sbb nak set rambut kat salon bukannya murah. Satu sesi dah beratus. Sebulan at least kena pegi salon sekali utk basuh rambut. Belum masuk kos syampu, minyak rambut, mousse, conditioner.

    6) nak solat mmg senang, xyah susah2 carik telekung. Boleh solat terus dgn baju yg dipakai sekiranya xde najis. Jimat masa.

    7) tak perlu risau rambut kusut masai ditiup angin lemah gemalai

    8) jika anda ke amerika, org tempatan akan menghormati anda. Skang ni org amerika dan barat lebih memahami islam banding org timur.

    9) cakap telefon senang. X la sharp sgt bunyik suara kat speaker. Mengurangkan risiku kena barah akibat gelombang radio telefon.

    10) anda x payah nak set2 rambut atau dandan rambut. Save time, save money, mesra alam (kurang sampah dibuang).

    11) awek seksi bukak aurat naik motor dgn boifren? BOHSIA! Awek tudung menutup aurat naik motor dgn suami? SWEET!

    Sayangnya, hanya satu kekurangan (dr segi nafsu) kalau menutup aurat – dunia ni penjara bagi org mukmin dan syurga bagi org kafir.

    Sumber: Fais Al-Hajari