CHUA SOILED LEK SAYS BURN THAT HOLY QURAN WHAT IS SO GREAT ABOUT THAT ISLAM’S HUDUD LAW ?
Chua Soiled Lek says Burn that Holy Quran WHAT IS SO GREAT ABOUT THAT ISLAM’S HUDUD LAW ?
– If “politics is the art of the possible,” as Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898) is reported to have once said, then one is tempted to retort that it is actually the politics of the impossible. “Religion can be a source of tranquil hearts and inspiration for fight against tyranny, inequality and injustice.”
The posturing that anti-Shariah legislation, such as the bills introduced in February by Sen. Bill Ketron, R-Murfreesboro, and Rep. Judd Matheny, R-Tullahoma, is needed inTennessee to combat terrorism is flawed in many ways. (While the authors have proposed an amendment to remove religious references, the intention of the bill remains the same.) One, Shariah laws themselves … Read more SHARIAH BILLS FEED FEAR IN UMNO WOMANISER NAJIB AND ADULTEROUS MCA PRESIDENT CHUA SOI LEK
What we are talking about here is the decline of organised religions that have existed for millennia (not the new religious movements, beliefs, faiths or cults). To be more specific, for Europe, this is about the three Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – all originating from the same source, Prophet Abraham’s pure monotheism. In spite of some secondary differences on theology and rituals, these three religions have had a phenomenal impact on Europe. As Britain has a predominantly Christian legacy, any shift in social attitude towards religion here is primarily about Christianity. However, as Judaism and Islam are now integral parts of British life, the social trend affects them as well. And in our hurry to distance ourselves from religion’s failings, we ignore its many successes too – particularly in a time of social hurt and economic confusion, when the need for belief and belonging is more crucial than ever. We risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater, if you will.
this taxidriver wants a Death fatwa on Harris Ibrahim for criticising Islamic hudud law Sherry Rehman joins the ranks of Shabhaz Bhatti and the late Salman Taseer in being marked for death for committing “blasphemy” against the blasphemy law. “Pak ex-minister Sherry Rehman fit to be killed, says cleric,” from the Press Trust of India, … Read more A DEATH FATWA ON HARRIS IBRAHIM FOR CRITICISING ISLAMIC HUDUD LAW
Take the issue of education. Education is at the heart of human progress. There would be little or no modern education system without the Biblical (New and Old) Testaments, as well as the Quranic injunctions “to learn”. Monasteries, synagogues and mosques have been at the heart of the historical educational infrastructure that has helped shape the learning we have today. The cross-fertilisation of the pedagogy and philosophy of Christian Europe with the Islamic world shaped European Renaissance and Enlightenment. Al-Khwarizmi invented algebra to work out religious inheritance laws, while Isaac Newton wanted to discover and describe the perfect mathematical order of the Creation.
BY HARUN YAHYA In the Quran, Jews and Christians, the members of the religions who abide by the Divine Books revealed by God, are called the “People of the Book.” There are many nations in the world with different colors, creeds, and languages. These differences have been a cause of enmity throughout history in societies that …Read more JUSTICE & TOLERANCE IN THE QURAN THE GREAT HUDUD DEBATE DR DZULKEFLY AHMAD
Religion provided the inspiration for their works. Any Muslim with basic Islamic knowledge would be aware that the first revealed word of the Quran was “Read”. Albert Einstein in his speech, “My Credo”, in 1932 said: “To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious.” Unlike their male counterparts who have suddenly gone quiet, MCA women have gone on the offensive against PKR, accusing the party’s newspaper Suara Keadilan of operating an obscene website posting doctored pornographic photos of their members and calling Penang Wanita Chief a “Chulia Street prostitute”. Tan Cheng Liang, the Penang women’s chief, lodged a report … Read more M.C.ATAN CHEN LIAN CAN ONLY MAKE POLICE REPORT BUT WE MUSLIMS WILL ISSUE A DEATH FATWA UPON ALL MCA LEADERS FOR CRITICISING ISLAMIC HUDUD LAW
No one can deny the fact that religion has been used to create intolerance, not only between people but within the same religious groupings, too. Europe faced this problem in the past; the Inquisition and Spanish Reconquista were blots on its history. The sectarian killings among Muslims in some countries and al-Qaeda’s terrorism in recent times remind us how Islam is constantly in danger of being used in un-Islamic way.
In fact, all religions can be used to foster fanaticism and hatred. While this is unacceptable, we should not accuse religion itself per se. The fact is, throughout human history more killings and cruelty have been carried out for political conquests, economic greed, perverted sense of nationalistic or racial superiority and ideology than for any “religious” notion. Religion is often a convenient scapegoat used by those who wish to cloak their actions in some form of righteousness, by rulers who wish to stir up a populace. The 20th century wars, destruction, banishment of people, ethnic cleansing and other cruelty has surpassed probably all the so-called “religious” atrocities of the past.
PAS has again snubbed its Pakatan Rakyat allies by saying it is bent on going ahead with its plan to enforce hudud law in Kelantan. Party president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang said implementing Islamic laws, including hudud, had been its goal since PAS was formed. “Our views on such laws, including hudud, have always been … Read more UMNO IS WILLING TO SACRIFICE ISLAM TO ENTICE MCA TIME FOR OUR MUSLIM BROTHERS TO SAY NO TO SISTERS IN ISLAM
As for the question whether God exits or not: This has perturbed the human mind throughout time, including evenAbraham’s quest for God. Is there any scientific or empirical evidence to prove or disprove this existence? There is none. Science is not in the business of finding “truth”, let alone finding God. Science is about statistical probabilities based upon the experimental evidence. All scientific experimentation is subject to errors, because of confounding factors and multiple parameters. The “truth” of Newtonian physics was no longer held to be absolute once it was taken over by Einsteinian physics. However, this “truth” of the last century is now being questioned because of the recent experiments in CERN. When a new “truth” comes up, the previous “truth” gives way. There cannot be orthodoxy in science.
|“Religion can be a source of tranquil hearts and inspiration for fight against tyranny, inequality and injustice.“|
Police filed chargesheet against 27 accused day before yesterday in the much hyped case of a small town Muvattupuzha in Kerala in which the right hand of T J Joseph, a private college Malyalam lecturer, was chopped off allegedly by activists of a Muslim outfit Popular Front of India (PFI) on July 4 last year. … Read more THE DE-POLITICISATION OF POLITICAL ISLAM IMPLEMENTATION OF HUDUD LAW AND OUR CONSTITUTION
China is again in the headlines for all the wrong reasons. Highlighted by the detention of artist Ai Weiwei and Nobel-laureate Liu Xiaobo, the past few months have seen what Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner recently called a “serious backsliding” of human rights. Even with China’s growing clout on the world stage, human rights … Read more SUFFOCATING ISLAM IN MALAYSIA M.C.A WAR AGAINST ISLAM VS RUSSIA’S WAR AGAINST ISLAM ONE MAN’S TERRORIST IS ANOTHER’S FREEDOM FIGHTER
The nature of the scientific method – which has undoubtedly led to much technological advancement over the few centuries – is that it cannot answer many questions, let alone the most difficult question of the existence of God. Probability, not truth, is science’s language and jargon. An empirical approach can never answer the question whether or not the universe was created by an external force or whether it emerged from forces within itself. One cannot test this scenario. The most that those who reject the idea of a creator can offer are “theories”.
This is not about rubbishing science and its method: I come from a background in physics. Nor is it to deny the respect for those who try hard to understand the processes that drive the universe and the nature of things – as Newton and Einstein both did in their time. It is about reminding ourselves of the limitations of science and conclusions one can infer from it. To apply science beyond its remit is bound to bring unnecessary disrepute to both itself and its practitioners.
related article http://engagemalaysia.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/sex-is-my-religion-chua-soi-lek-says-to-keep-my-sex-passion-alive-so-what-is-so-great-about-that-islam/ There is sharia, and then there is sharia. And before going on and on about regression and glaciation, we would do well to know what we’re talking about. related article http://suarakeadilanmalaysia.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/picture-of-papa-gomo-fucking-his-mother-papa-gomo-you-are-a-real-mother-fucker/ Sharia, first of all, is not an obscene word. Like “jihad” (which means “a spiritual effort”, and which the Islamists ultimately interpreted … Read more ONLY CRIMINALS LIKE SOILED LEK AND UMNO’S PAPA GOMO FEAR HUDUD THE BIGGEST BASTARD OF THE MOTHER BASTARDS
The question is: How does religion know that there is definitely a God? Well, there is no “proof” here either. Religion starts with belief, based on the same message from all the prophets who were known as truthful in their life. Religions, particularly Islam, demand critical autonomy from its adherents in order to see the observable world, the “ayat” or signs in the creation. Prophet Abraham observed these signs, used his critical autonomy, and “discovered” God. The Quran is replete with exhortation to keep an open mind, observe, reflect, contemplate and act for the benefit of all humans and the creation. Religion’s premise is different from that of science. Religion, when properly understood, brings ease of heart and mind and teaches love and care for all.
Religion may be on the decline in Europe, but it is flourishing among some communities and in many other parts of the world. Religion can be a source of tranquil hearts and inspiration for fight against tyranny, inequality and injustice. For argument’s sake, even if there is no God, human beings need one to behave responsibly on Earth.
Chua Soiled Lek says Burn that Holy Quran WHAT IS SO GREAT ABOUT THAT ISLAM’S HUDUD LAW ? MCA president Chua Soi Lek appears to be on a warpath, defending his criticism of Muslim women who chose not to shake hands with the opposite sex for religious reasons. In an angry reaction to questions from reporters, …Read more CHUA SOILED LEK SAYS BURN THAT HOLY QURAN WHAT IS SO GREAT ABOUT THAT ISLAM’S HUDUD LAW ?
As Islamist parties emerge victorious from Arab ballots, some are having second thoughts about the Arab Spring. The widespread concern is that post-dictatorial Middle Eastern states will turn into illiberal democracies rather than liberal ones. And while the threat of illiberal democracy is valid for any late-democratizing country — just look at Mr. Putin’s Russia — the Middle East bears an additional and unique risk: Islamic law, or the shariah, which might imply corporal punishments for criminals, degradation of women, and persecution of perceived impiety, blasphemy or apostasy.
In the face of this risk, a remedy is often hoped in the power of pragmatism. For example, Egypt’s triumphant Freedom and Justice Party, an extension of the Muslim Brotherhood, will ruin the country’s tourism industry if it bans alcohol. Incumbent Islamists who will have to deliver to their people will face such challenges, the hope goes, and be forced to soften some of their rigid standards.
Besides pragmatism, however, there is another source that the more progressive Islamists such as Rachid Ghannouchi, the leader of Tunisia’s Ennahda, seem willing to utilize for modernizing their future vision: simply a non-literalist approach to the sharia, which will focus on its “intents” rather than the medieval means that were used to serve those intents.
The basis for this non-literal approach goes back to Imam Shatibi, a scholar from the 14th century Muslim Spain. In his magnum opus, Higher Objectives and Intents of Islamic Law, Shatibi studied the whole shariah carefully, and concluded that all its decrees could be rendered to the protection of five fundamental values: Life, religion, property, progeny and reason.
If these intents (maqasid) of Islamic law are taken as its ever-valid content, but the means of these intents are allowed to vary according to time and milieu, as some theologians suggest, then there opens ample ground for reform. Corporal punishments, for example, can be explained as resulting from historical necessity. For instance, in 7th century Arabia, there were neither any correctional facilities nor any bureaucracy to run them. But now we live in a different world.
Or the seemingly misogynistic sayings of Prophet Muhammad, such as his advice that women should not travel alone, can be explained as reasonable precautions in his historical context: In 7th century Arabia, an unprotected woman wandering in the desert would easily fall prey to brigandage. In the modern world, however, both law enforcement and means of travel have improved immensely — and therefore the Saudi ban on women’s driving can be declared absurd.
Islamic history presents examples showing how this non-literalist understanding of the sharia allowed imported adaptations. One exemplary period that I focus on in my book is the late Ottoman Empire, the very seat of the last Islamic caliphate, that rendered most corporal punishments in shariah obsolete, replacing them with fines and prison terms. In the 19th century, Ottoman Islamic scholars explicitly acknowledged “laws should change as times change.” They blessed important liberal reforms — Jews and Christians acquired equal citizenship, laws that banned apostasy were abandoned, and an elected parliament was opened. In the works of Islamic liberals such as Namik Kemal (1840 -1888), whose ideas led the ground for the Ottoman Constitution of 1876, the shariah had turned into a doctrine of God-given “inalienable rights of men” — a basis for liberty, not a threat to it.
However, the post-Ottoman Middle East was drawn into a political and cultural crisis, and Islamist movements emerged with a reactionary zeal. Ultra-literalist Salafis grew into a potent force, and instead of reforming the medieval sharia to adapt to the modern world, they forced the modern world to adapt to the medieval shariah.
These fundamentalists did not realize that their blind literalism could lead them to follow the letter of the law, but betray its intents. For example, the Qur’anic requirement to bring four witnesses to prove an accusation of adultery, whose explicit purpose is to protect women from libel, could turn into a protection for rapists in Pakistan. Or the obsession to separate the sexes could produce ridiculous fatwas in Egypt, such as that a man and woman can work in the same office space only if the woman, in order to establish a maternal relation, breast-feeds the man.
The Western civilization is familiar with a version of this problem from its own canon: The frequent criticism that Jesus brings in the New Testament to the Pharisees, a conservative and literalist Jewish sect of that time, is very relevant. The Pharisees, Jesus noted, were obsessing about the minute details of religious law but leaving undone “the weightier matters of law” such as “justice, and mercy, and faith.” “The Sabbath was made for man,” Jesus also proclaimed, turning the Pharisee mindset upside down, “and not man for the Sabbath.”
The future of freedom in the Islamic civilization partly lies in a similar insight — that the shariah was made for man, and not man for the shariah. Luckily, the sources that will help nurture that insight are more abundant in Islamic theology and jurisprudence than what is often thought.
The First Crusade (1096-1099) spawned horrors the likes of which none of the crusaders had ever experienced. And they were horrors of their own making. Of the massacre in Jerusalem, a contemporary observed, “The knights could hardly bare it, working as executioners and breathing out clouds of hot blood.”
Particularly during the sieges of Antioch, Ma’arra, and Jerusalem, whose populations were brutally massacred, the First Crusaders themselves believed that they had exceeded all the norms of medieval warfare, and the evidence supports them. Even the most brutal sieges of the day ended in mass enslavement of city populations, not in mass murder.
The observation is simple enough, but for modern, Western audiences, it inevitably raises a question (one I have gotten several times on these very pages, in fact): What about Muslim atrocities? Weren’t the Muslims just as bad? After all, the Holy Land had once been thoroughly Christianized. What became of those Christians? Surely the Muslim conquests were just as brutal as the crusades?
The short answer is, “No.” But, let me explain:
The spread of Islam in the seventh and eighth centuries C.E. is one of the most astonishing events in history. What started in 622 C.E. (year 1 of the Muslim calendar) as an obscure desert religion on the Arabian Peninsula, 150 years later had established its rule over 5,000,000 square miles of earth. They termed these conquests “jihad,” which we often translate as “holy war,” though “struggle” would be a more accurate rendering.
Most of these conquests occurred at the expense of two great empires: the Perisan Empire to the east of the Arabian deserts, and the Byzantine (or Eastern Roman) Empire to the west. Not coincidentally, these two powers had been engaged in a long and brutal series of wars against one another. Jerusalem, the eventual target of the crusade, changed hands twice during these conflicts.
The importance of the Byzantine-Persian wars in connection with Islam is twofold. First, at the time of the Islamic expansion Byzantium and Persia were hardly at the height of their powers. Their conquest proved much easier than otherwise would have been the case. Second, given the incredible instability that these two great empires had generated, their subjects had very little reason to be loyal to them. Islam might even bring to these lands greater stability–which, in fact, it did.
A similar observation might be made about Muslim expansion into Visigothic Spain, plagued by civil wars in the decades preceding the advent of Islam in 711 C.E.
What became of all the Christians in the conquered territories? For the most part, they stayed put. The Muslims established themselves as governmental leaders, but did not try to forcibly convert their subjects, particularly the Christians and Jews who, in Muslim eyes, had received elements of the same monotheistic revelation that had inspired their faith.
Christians and Jews also paid a public head tax from which Muslims were exempt. Thus from a purely mercenary perspective, Muslim rulers had an actual disincentive to try to convert them–let alone kill them. Christians and Jews, the dhimmi as they were known, provided valuable revenue. Conversion to Islam eventually did occur, but it was a gradual process, not as rapid as the growth of Islamic government.
In other words, the spread of Islam was a very different affair from the crusades. The crusaders aimed to recapture a sacred place from a religion that they barely understood and that they viewed as fundamentally evil. Muslims built an empire.
That is what made the crusaders and their scorched-earth piety so shocking. Here were Christian armies who heedlessly slaughtered entire populations, not in spite of their religion but because of it. After the First Crusade ended, and once the Christians began trying to build settlements in the Middle East, their attitudes necessarily changed. But the crusade itself had introduced into the region a sort of total religious warfare that had not been seen since Old Testament days.
And the Muslims did not forget. In 1187, the Muslim general Saladin seriously considered refusing an offer of surrender from Jerusalem. The reason? He wished to apply the same rough injustice to the Christians there that they had meted out to Islam in 1099. He showed mercy only after the Franks threatened to massacre all of their prisoners and to destroy the city’s Islamic holy sites.
The earliest stories of Muslim atrocities committed against Christians, comparable to the First Crusade, in fact, did not occur