Rilek1Corner

Tag: NUS

  • Muslims retaliated with petition after NUS LGBT students attempted to discredit, threatened NUS to sack Prof Syed Khairudin Aljunied

    pinkdotcrossdress

    A letter jointly authored by Dr Muhammad Iqbal and Mr Faizal Razak; graduates and alumni of NUS to Provost and Deputy President (Academic Affairs), Vice Provost (Academic Personnel), NUS Alumni and Office of Student Affairs – National University of Singapore stating:

    Concern over a recently published a petition against a professor and they display a trenchant hostility towards families and heterosexuals, and which we believe is unbecoming of an NUS graduate or undergraduate.

    In their open letter, they attempted to discredit the Professor and threatened to get him sacked. These actions are tantamount to intimidation. They do not merely express a principled opposition to deny the extension of legal rights to heteronorms. What they represent is a clarion call to eradicate any and all instances of gender expressions and relations that fall outside their preferred homosexual order.

    In their letter, they had forced the Professor to delete his post. They wanted to oppress any free speech that questions their lifestyle.

    We however believe that they have crucially misunderstood their place as a graduate or undergraduate.

    Firstly, the undergraduates and graduates have a respectful duty to provide a safe academic environment for its teachers, regardless of sexual orientation. Their petition however exhibit a fundamental disregard for the safety of heteronorm teachers, and that is unacceptable of any student, whatever their religious or political convictions.

    Secondly, contrary to what they claim, they are not engaging in a debate about homosexuality. It is more accurate to see their letter as an intimidation towards teachers and denies recognition to heterosexuals and pro-families. Instead of being respectful to educators, they chose to launch this untenable and unjustifiable assault on an educator.

    This goes beyond any issue of academic freedom or religious liberty. Not only have they failed to accord respect to educators, they have conducted themselves in a way that is not reflective of an NUS graduate or undergraduate.

    We thus urge that they withdraw their petition and apologize to Professor Syed Khairuddin, as well as undergo counselling to further understand the issues and challenges confronting the student-teacher community. We also hope that the university leadership can see that these remedial actions are adhered to.

    Yours sincerely,

    The undersigned

    ***************************************************

    NUS CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT

    (B) Respect for People

    6. The University encourages students to display consideration, kindness and responsibility in their dealings with other persons. Students should not engage in disorderly or offensive behaviour such as making threats against others, intimidating others, harassing others, drunkenness, lewdness, or participating in any unlawful assembly.

    7. Students should also refrain from participating in any activity which physically or mentally harms, intimidates or humiliates other students, or which violates one’s dignity as an individual. In particular, negative and improper orientation practices that make new students feel uncomfortable (also known as “ragging”) are not tolerated by the University. Such practices display a lack of basic respect for other persons, imperil students’ physical and mental welfare, and may unintentionally result in an unhealthy atmosphere of fear and intimidation on campus.

    benjamin Seet melissa tsang khairulanwar

  • 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’: