Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Sunday, 17 August 2014
Islamic State Of Iraq And Syria - ISIS
Last week I watched a very entertaining movie; "Guardians of The Galaxy". This week Tiger Mike Naser's heads up on ISIS. These people are in their own universe and with heads forever in the clouds in self-proclamation of Universal Protector of Islam! The Malay Mail even reported that our own PM is an ISIS admirer. Or has he again put his foot in his mouth?
Tuesday, 22 July 2014
Nice...
"Allah does not burden any soul beyond what it can bear" Quran 2:286
If such is the philosophy I can definitely buy that of Islam. Totally congruent with my own belief in an immortal soul. Unfortunately, Man makes his own bed and rampant fanaticism gives Islam a bad rap by seemingly indicating there are so many tormented incarnate souls needing to defend an expressedly perfect religion.
Thanks again Mike Naser Taib for the heads-up of the following must-view expression of beauty:
If such is the philosophy I can definitely buy that of Islam. Totally congruent with my own belief in an immortal soul. Unfortunately, Man makes his own bed and rampant fanaticism gives Islam a bad rap by seemingly indicating there are so many tormented incarnate souls needing to defend an expressedly perfect religion.
Thanks again Mike Naser Taib for the heads-up of the following must-view expression of beauty:
Post by Issam Bayan.
Saturday, 17 May 2014
Silent No More? Is Iskandar Fareez Part Of The Minority Or Majority?
Found this in the Malaysian Insider:
The Malay phobia: Isma fearing its own shadows – Iskandar Fareez
MAY 17, 2014
I grew up listening to various Malay folklore and legends. Among them were the stories of Si Tanggang and Hang Jebat. Si Tanggang was a poor boy who grew up and ventured out to be the captain of his own ship and married a princess. As the legend goes, when Si Tanggang returned to his home village, he was ashamed of his humble origins and refused to recognise his elderly mother. Then, he was cursed by his mother to turn into stone.
Hang Jebat was the closest companion of the legendary Malaccan hero Hang Tuah. Hang Jebat turned against the Sultan of Malacca when he believed that Hang Tuah had been executed by the ruler. After learning that Hang Tuah was still alive, the Sultan ordered him to kill Hang Jebat. Hang Tuah managed to stab Hang Jebat after a long and challenging battle. Until today, the death of Hang Jebat is often cited as an example of the price one pays for disobeying a ruler.
Listening to these stories in school, we were made to study the lessons that we can learn from them. I realised that these folklore are merely stories passed down from one generation to the next and interpreted in a way to instil fear in the hearts of listeners so they will be in good behaviour.
They do not teach us to love our mothers. They teach us to fear the consequences of defying her. They do not teach us to respect our leaders. They teach us to fear the consequences of going against them. In the end, being conditioned from the beginning, fear motivates every single one of our thoughts. Fear becomes the guiding inspiration for every single one of our actions.
I believe it is this fear or phobia that motivated the president of Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma), Ustaz Abdullah Zaik Abd Rahman, to label the Chinese as trespassers brought in by the British to Tanah Melayu to oppress and bully the Malays. He also went on to suggest that these “proxies to the Jewish Zionist evangelists” are seeking to dissolve Malays' racial construct and bury Islam as the national identity.
Abdullah Zaik is not alone in his quest. Recently, Abdul Rahman Mat Dali, vice president of Isma, questioned the loyalty of non-Malays and suggested that when they came to Tanah Melayu, they could not even speak a word of Bahasa Malaysia.
These statements show that Isma suffers from a major issue of inferiority complex. This issue evolved into a severe case of xenophobia, "an irrational or unreasoned fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange". Unfortunately, this not only true for Isma but permeates within the majority of the Malay Muslim community in Malaysia.
Extreme paranoia has led us to believe that everything in the world is against us. All things foreign or different are considered as a conspiracy agenda of the Illuminati, Freemasons, Jewish Zionist Evangelist, Shiites, Wahhabi, communist, socialist, capitalist and Red Bean Army. It is more worrying when we start to justify these phobias along religious lines.
Indeed, this is the danger when we mix religion with race. In Malaysia, a Malay person must be Muslim but a Muslim may not be Malay. In Isma’s struggle to defend Malay supremacy, they have overlooked this reality. They have portrayed a version of Islam that is racist and unjust. By taking the extremists' view, they may be isolating those who want to learn more about Islam. How then can Islam thrive if we take this extreme approach?
Despite Isma’s claim that Islam is under threat by foreign elements, it seems that it is Muslims themselves who are taking this narrow and extremist approach that are threatening the religion. It is unfortunate that those who are as well educated as Isma, most of which are who Muslim professionals who pursued their studies abroad using taxpayers' money mostly contributed by non-Muslims or non-Malays, are very regressive in their thinking.
Phobias like this motivate us to act reactively to issues that arise without discussing the crux of the matter. This approach causes us to resort to extreme measures such as the banning of Faisal Tehrani’s novels and Darwin’s translated works, out of fear that these materials will corrupt the mind of the community.
We are reduced to becoming a superficial society where we judge one another by how Islamic they portray themselves to be. Muslims nowadays are satisfied to practise only the ritualistic part of the religion while abandoning the essence of Islam that preaches peace and acceptance.
As much as I disagree with Isma’s statement, I do not wish for them to be charged under any laws of the country. In a democratic society that aspires to practise freedom of speech, any idea, no matter how racist or idiotic, has to be given space. It is then up to us to provide constructive counter arguments so that a healthy discourse can flourish. We have to speak up and voice our concerns. If our voices are not heard, extremists like Isma and Perkasa will continue to speak on our behalf.
The western civilization achieved progress because they embraced knowledge. Knowledge is like a beacon of light that brought the western civilization out of the midst of the dark ages. When we choose to remain ignorant, we will forever dwell in the shadows of fear, suspicion and doubt. If Malay Muslims want to progress, we have to stop blaming others. Embrace knowledge and learn, as it will be a guiding light for a brighter future.
"I went to the West and saw Islam, but no Muslims; I got back to the East and saw Muslims, but not Islam." - Muhammad Abduh. – May 17, 2014.
* Iskandar Fareez reads The Malaysian Insider.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.
The Malay phobia: Isma fearing its own shadows – Iskandar Fareez
MAY 17, 2014
I grew up listening to various Malay folklore and legends. Among them were the stories of Si Tanggang and Hang Jebat. Si Tanggang was a poor boy who grew up and ventured out to be the captain of his own ship and married a princess. As the legend goes, when Si Tanggang returned to his home village, he was ashamed of his humble origins and refused to recognise his elderly mother. Then, he was cursed by his mother to turn into stone.
Hang Jebat was the closest companion of the legendary Malaccan hero Hang Tuah. Hang Jebat turned against the Sultan of Malacca when he believed that Hang Tuah had been executed by the ruler. After learning that Hang Tuah was still alive, the Sultan ordered him to kill Hang Jebat. Hang Tuah managed to stab Hang Jebat after a long and challenging battle. Until today, the death of Hang Jebat is often cited as an example of the price one pays for disobeying a ruler.
Listening to these stories in school, we were made to study the lessons that we can learn from them. I realised that these folklore are merely stories passed down from one generation to the next and interpreted in a way to instil fear in the hearts of listeners so they will be in good behaviour.
They do not teach us to love our mothers. They teach us to fear the consequences of defying her. They do not teach us to respect our leaders. They teach us to fear the consequences of going against them. In the end, being conditioned from the beginning, fear motivates every single one of our thoughts. Fear becomes the guiding inspiration for every single one of our actions.
I believe it is this fear or phobia that motivated the president of Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma), Ustaz Abdullah Zaik Abd Rahman, to label the Chinese as trespassers brought in by the British to Tanah Melayu to oppress and bully the Malays. He also went on to suggest that these “proxies to the Jewish Zionist evangelists” are seeking to dissolve Malays' racial construct and bury Islam as the national identity.
Abdullah Zaik is not alone in his quest. Recently, Abdul Rahman Mat Dali, vice president of Isma, questioned the loyalty of non-Malays and suggested that when they came to Tanah Melayu, they could not even speak a word of Bahasa Malaysia.
These statements show that Isma suffers from a major issue of inferiority complex. This issue evolved into a severe case of xenophobia, "an irrational or unreasoned fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange". Unfortunately, this not only true for Isma but permeates within the majority of the Malay Muslim community in Malaysia.
Extreme paranoia has led us to believe that everything in the world is against us. All things foreign or different are considered as a conspiracy agenda of the Illuminati, Freemasons, Jewish Zionist Evangelist, Shiites, Wahhabi, communist, socialist, capitalist and Red Bean Army. It is more worrying when we start to justify these phobias along religious lines.
Indeed, this is the danger when we mix religion with race. In Malaysia, a Malay person must be Muslim but a Muslim may not be Malay. In Isma’s struggle to defend Malay supremacy, they have overlooked this reality. They have portrayed a version of Islam that is racist and unjust. By taking the extremists' view, they may be isolating those who want to learn more about Islam. How then can Islam thrive if we take this extreme approach?
Despite Isma’s claim that Islam is under threat by foreign elements, it seems that it is Muslims themselves who are taking this narrow and extremist approach that are threatening the religion. It is unfortunate that those who are as well educated as Isma, most of which are who Muslim professionals who pursued their studies abroad using taxpayers' money mostly contributed by non-Muslims or non-Malays, are very regressive in their thinking.
Phobias like this motivate us to act reactively to issues that arise without discussing the crux of the matter. This approach causes us to resort to extreme measures such as the banning of Faisal Tehrani’s novels and Darwin’s translated works, out of fear that these materials will corrupt the mind of the community.
We are reduced to becoming a superficial society where we judge one another by how Islamic they portray themselves to be. Muslims nowadays are satisfied to practise only the ritualistic part of the religion while abandoning the essence of Islam that preaches peace and acceptance.
As much as I disagree with Isma’s statement, I do not wish for them to be charged under any laws of the country. In a democratic society that aspires to practise freedom of speech, any idea, no matter how racist or idiotic, has to be given space. It is then up to us to provide constructive counter arguments so that a healthy discourse can flourish. We have to speak up and voice our concerns. If our voices are not heard, extremists like Isma and Perkasa will continue to speak on our behalf.
The western civilization achieved progress because they embraced knowledge. Knowledge is like a beacon of light that brought the western civilization out of the midst of the dark ages. When we choose to remain ignorant, we will forever dwell in the shadows of fear, suspicion and doubt. If Malay Muslims want to progress, we have to stop blaming others. Embrace knowledge and learn, as it will be a guiding light for a brighter future.
"I went to the West and saw Islam, but no Muslims; I got back to the East and saw Muslims, but not Islam." - Muhammad Abduh. – May 17, 2014.
* Iskandar Fareez reads The Malaysian Insider.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.
*****************************************************************
Watch This:
*****************************************************************
Dr Asri Zainul Abidin weighs in:
Ex-mufti slams extremist Islamist groups, says Christianity and Islam closely related
BY HASBULLAH AWANG CHIK
MAY 17, 2014
Dr Asri Zainul Abidin weighs in:
Ex-mufti slams extremist Islamist groups, says Christianity and Islam closely related
BY HASBULLAH AWANG CHIK
MAY 17, 2014
Islam is not under attack in Malaysia, and extremist Islamist groups that constantly warn of alleged Christianisation are only shaming their own religion, says prominent Islamic scholar Dr Asri Zainul Abidin (pic).
The former mufti of Perlis said efforts by any religious community to spread their teaching was a natural phenomenon in all countries, and it did not merit knee-jerk reactions from Muslims in Malaysia.
"I want to remind Muslims not to be shocked if there are people who invite them to join Christianity. Of course religious leaders will feel that theirs' is the true religion, and would want to invite others to join them.
"Some Muslims are so shocked by this, as if it's the end of the world... (but) Muslims in the UK, the US and Europe also campaign for Christians to join Islam.
"So the same is being done here. It is a normal phenomenon that does not require us to react in such a chaotic manner, as if our country is in a state of emergency," Asri told The Malaysian Insider.
"The closest people to the Muslims are Christians. The Quran says you will find that the people who love Muslims the most are Christians."
Asri was responding to the controversial seminar on Christology and the use of the word Allah, held last week at the Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM).
Several speakers had warned Muslims against the threat of Christianisation and belittled the Bible as containing "tales", while copies of a book titled "Exposing the Christian agenda" were distributed among the students.
The recent events had strained ties between the two biggest religious communities in Malaysia, which were already in conflict over the decades-long tussle over the use of the word Allah.
Christians make up 2.9 million of Malaysia's 30 million population, with two-thirds of the adherents residing in Sabah and Sarawak.
Asri reminded Muslims in Malaysia that they had no reason to be worried about the fate of their religion, as no attack had been launched against Islam.
The Islamist group Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma) had fanned the flames of religious intolerance when it called Chinese migrants brought to Malaya as "trespassers", and warned of "foreign races" and Jewish Zionist evangelists who were intent on burying Islam.
The groups' remarks have triggered outcry among Malaysians, but Putrajaya has remained silent over Isma's statements.
Asri said extremist Islamist non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were tarnishing the image of Islam and spreading confusion among Muslims over the true teaching of the faith.
"We must not be so extreme. There are NGOs which want to promote themselves, but are over the top in doing so," said Asri.
"They make Islam look as if it is so weak. Islam has strong arguments that proves it is the true religion. (The NGOs) should not be so worried. We are worried because we are not doing our work properly," he said, although he did not mention the name of such groups.
Asri added that while Islam does not stop its adherents from criticising other religions, it should be done academically and not be based on emotions or simplistic arguments.
"If we spark enmity in a peaceful environment, eventually people will fight one another, despite the fact that they were originally living in harmony.
"This is not allowed in any religion, unless someone has initiated a war," said the scholar. – May 17, 2014.
***********************************************************************
This Malay girl must beat the Chinese man in Teluk Intan! The country needs her to win.
The former mufti of Perlis said efforts by any religious community to spread their teaching was a natural phenomenon in all countries, and it did not merit knee-jerk reactions from Muslims in Malaysia.
"I want to remind Muslims not to be shocked if there are people who invite them to join Christianity. Of course religious leaders will feel that theirs' is the true religion, and would want to invite others to join them.
"Some Muslims are so shocked by this, as if it's the end of the world... (but) Muslims in the UK, the US and Europe also campaign for Christians to join Islam.
"So the same is being done here. It is a normal phenomenon that does not require us to react in such a chaotic manner, as if our country is in a state of emergency," Asri told The Malaysian Insider.
"The closest people to the Muslims are Christians. The Quran says you will find that the people who love Muslims the most are Christians."
Asri was responding to the controversial seminar on Christology and the use of the word Allah, held last week at the Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM).
Several speakers had warned Muslims against the threat of Christianisation and belittled the Bible as containing "tales", while copies of a book titled "Exposing the Christian agenda" were distributed among the students.
The recent events had strained ties between the two biggest religious communities in Malaysia, which were already in conflict over the decades-long tussle over the use of the word Allah.
Christians make up 2.9 million of Malaysia's 30 million population, with two-thirds of the adherents residing in Sabah and Sarawak.
Asri reminded Muslims in Malaysia that they had no reason to be worried about the fate of their religion, as no attack had been launched against Islam.
The Islamist group Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma) had fanned the flames of religious intolerance when it called Chinese migrants brought to Malaya as "trespassers", and warned of "foreign races" and Jewish Zionist evangelists who were intent on burying Islam.
The groups' remarks have triggered outcry among Malaysians, but Putrajaya has remained silent over Isma's statements.
Asri said extremist Islamist non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were tarnishing the image of Islam and spreading confusion among Muslims over the true teaching of the faith.
"We must not be so extreme. There are NGOs which want to promote themselves, but are over the top in doing so," said Asri.
"They make Islam look as if it is so weak. Islam has strong arguments that proves it is the true religion. (The NGOs) should not be so worried. We are worried because we are not doing our work properly," he said, although he did not mention the name of such groups.
Asri added that while Islam does not stop its adherents from criticising other religions, it should be done academically and not be based on emotions or simplistic arguments.
"If we spark enmity in a peaceful environment, eventually people will fight one another, despite the fact that they were originally living in harmony.
"This is not allowed in any religion, unless someone has initiated a war," said the scholar. – May 17, 2014.
***********************************************************************
This Malay girl must beat the Chinese man in Teluk Intan! The country needs her to win.
Wednesday, 23 April 2014
Beauty Pageant Saudi Style.
Saw this on Facebook. Pun intended.
However, I think we should not be so quick to condemn this even though a cattle show remains a cattle show if we go by women's dignity alone.
As they say, beauty lies in the "eyes" of the beholder i.e. it is a matter of perception. In the case of the Miss Saudi contest, lets try this; take each of our 5 senses in turn starting with "Sight". Since the contestants are all "wrapped up" there is nothing much for the eyes feast on nor to differentiate (except the eyes per se of course).
"Touch" is taboo so that too is out!
What about "Smell" then? Since it is not a perfume brand contest, what can the judges be smelling? You go figure but I hardly think Smell is a criteria.
"Taste"? Well, I cannot imagine!
That leaves, "Aural" sense. Well maybe this is what the contestants are judged on. If this be the case, I wonder whether it is form or substance that is more important? Furthermore, if "Aural" sense is the main criteria, then contestants should merely be required to submit sound files of their voices!
In the final analysis, I think it is the "Sixth Sense" that is primary to the judges. How else can divine intervention be brought in to decide the winners? Hmmm...the Devil made them participate but God decided the winner! Can't imagine I just spent the last 10 minutes writing the load of crap above that you spent time reading! LOL!!!
Friday, 1 March 2013
“Silence is easy”
Found this article on the Net. It is about an issue that true dog lovers in Malaysia face and can only understand the degree of discrimination the canine species faces in this country.There should be more Malays like the author.
Why are the Muslims of this country (particularly the Malay Muslim group) so filled with hate toward the canine species?
By now, many Malaysians are aware of Pak Mie and his heroic deeds of rescuing and caring for over 500 dogs in Alor Setar, Kedah.
Most of us are amazed by his spirit, and have even rallied together to help him in his cause.
Yet a note that keeps recurring in the articles and videos that feature Pak Mie and his wife is one that disgusts me, as I’m sure it has for anyone with a heart.
Despite Pak Mie’s purest intentions, a majority of his Malay community has shunned and condemned him, labelling him as an infidel and morally corrupt.
Why are the Muslims of this country (particularly the Malay Muslim group) so filled with hate toward the canine species? Growing up, I was ill-informed and learned that Muslims weren’t allowed to own dogs.
I later understood that this was a simplified version of the teachings, and untrue. Dogs are considered to be dirty, and there are specific ways to cleanse oneself according to Islam when touching a dog when it’s wet or its feces and urine.
However, it was and had never been haram for a Muslim to own a dog.
Why the silence?
Yet it is common for many Malaysians to see dogs getting beaten, objects or hot boiling water thrown at them, and I’ve even heard of cases where razor blades are stuffed into sausages and fed to the dogs.
A friend of mine had his dog poisoned by his Malay neighbour. Dogs aren’t just considered a nuisance by this group of people; they’re a target for violence.
Still, what angers me most is not the cruelty of these misguided Malay Muslims. What makes me angry is the silence of other Muslim dog lovers.
I know there are plenty of us out there who not only is against cruelty towards dogs, but are also Muslims who own dogs. Yet whenever such disgusting acts take place, where is your voice?
Why must we keep our ownership a secret? We fear judgment and so we leave the fight for the rights of these animals to the non-Muslim community.
Last October, I lost my six-month-old Shetland Sheepdog to a hit and run. We were coming back from our morning walk, and his leash fell out of my hand. He ran back to the park near our house.
When I caught up to him, his dying body was twitching in the middle of the road, his head soaked in blood. As I cradled my baby, neighbours rushed to my side. I was touched by their assistance- one ran back to her house to get some blankets, another went to get a bag, and two other dog owners walked me home, comforting me. I am forever grateful to them for their kindness.
Jaqen was a very friendly dog. He was popular among the kids and other dog owners at our park, and would show off his ‘fetching’ skills when we played ball.
But I recall little kids who played with him asking me “Are you Malay?”, and upon my reply would say “My mother says Malays cannot have dogs.”
I would patiently correct each misinformed child but I was annoyed at how parents nonchalantly pass this information to their children.
It’s bad enough you hate dogs; must you also teach your children to do the same?
Religion as excuse
It’s not enough to punish those who are cruel to dogs. We need to make them see not all Muslims hate dogs.
We need them to stop using religion as an excuse for their crimes. We need to show our support to people like Pak Mie, and we need to make it loud and clear.
We need to work together with bodies like SPCA and other animal rescuers by reaching out to the community to educate the people on this issue, from both moral and religious standpoints.
Start young, go to the schools and get the teachers to participate as well. Teach the children that all animals should be treated with kindness and respect.
We also need to have stricter laws on animal cruelty. As it stands, the price of the fine for such crimes is way too little to make a difference.
Finally, if we can’t all devote our lives toward rescuing animals, the least we can do is to lend a hand to people like Pak Mie who spends all of his time and savings in his effort to make this world a better place. He cannot do this alone.
Let’s start by speaking up. I am Muslim. And I love dogs.
Elza Irdalynna writes about art, love, and other things she pretends to understand.
She is also an FMT columnist.
Why are the Muslims of this country (particularly the Malay Muslim group) so filled with hate toward the canine species?
By now, many Malaysians are aware of Pak Mie and his heroic deeds of rescuing and caring for over 500 dogs in Alor Setar, Kedah.
Most of us are amazed by his spirit, and have even rallied together to help him in his cause.
Yet a note that keeps recurring in the articles and videos that feature Pak Mie and his wife is one that disgusts me, as I’m sure it has for anyone with a heart.
Despite Pak Mie’s purest intentions, a majority of his Malay community has shunned and condemned him, labelling him as an infidel and morally corrupt.
Why are the Muslims of this country (particularly the Malay Muslim group) so filled with hate toward the canine species? Growing up, I was ill-informed and learned that Muslims weren’t allowed to own dogs.
I later understood that this was a simplified version of the teachings, and untrue. Dogs are considered to be dirty, and there are specific ways to cleanse oneself according to Islam when touching a dog when it’s wet or its feces and urine.
However, it was and had never been haram for a Muslim to own a dog.
Why the silence?
Yet it is common for many Malaysians to see dogs getting beaten, objects or hot boiling water thrown at them, and I’ve even heard of cases where razor blades are stuffed into sausages and fed to the dogs.
A friend of mine had his dog poisoned by his Malay neighbour. Dogs aren’t just considered a nuisance by this group of people; they’re a target for violence.
Still, what angers me most is not the cruelty of these misguided Malay Muslims. What makes me angry is the silence of other Muslim dog lovers.
I know there are plenty of us out there who not only is against cruelty towards dogs, but are also Muslims who own dogs. Yet whenever such disgusting acts take place, where is your voice?
Why must we keep our ownership a secret? We fear judgment and so we leave the fight for the rights of these animals to the non-Muslim community.
Last October, I lost my six-month-old Shetland Sheepdog to a hit and run. We were coming back from our morning walk, and his leash fell out of my hand. He ran back to the park near our house.
When I caught up to him, his dying body was twitching in the middle of the road, his head soaked in blood. As I cradled my baby, neighbours rushed to my side. I was touched by their assistance- one ran back to her house to get some blankets, another went to get a bag, and two other dog owners walked me home, comforting me. I am forever grateful to them for their kindness.
Jaqen was a very friendly dog. He was popular among the kids and other dog owners at our park, and would show off his ‘fetching’ skills when we played ball.
But I recall little kids who played with him asking me “Are you Malay?”, and upon my reply would say “My mother says Malays cannot have dogs.”
I would patiently correct each misinformed child but I was annoyed at how parents nonchalantly pass this information to their children.
It’s bad enough you hate dogs; must you also teach your children to do the same?
Religion as excuse
It’s not enough to punish those who are cruel to dogs. We need to make them see not all Muslims hate dogs.
We need them to stop using religion as an excuse for their crimes. We need to show our support to people like Pak Mie, and we need to make it loud and clear.
We need to work together with bodies like SPCA and other animal rescuers by reaching out to the community to educate the people on this issue, from both moral and religious standpoints.
Start young, go to the schools and get the teachers to participate as well. Teach the children that all animals should be treated with kindness and respect.
We also need to have stricter laws on animal cruelty. As it stands, the price of the fine for such crimes is way too little to make a difference.
Finally, if we can’t all devote our lives toward rescuing animals, the least we can do is to lend a hand to people like Pak Mie who spends all of his time and savings in his effort to make this world a better place. He cannot do this alone.
Let’s start by speaking up. I am Muslim. And I love dogs.
Elza Irdalynna writes about art, love, and other things she pretends to understand.
She is also an FMT columnist.
Wednesday, 26 September 2012
Well Worth Listening To...
Do view this interview of Bahraini intellectual Dhiyaa Al-Musawi in 2006. Following that is something that was circulated in my Tigers eGroup; cannot verify the accuracy of the quoted figures but the results do tend to speak for itself. Malaysia could learn quite a lot from the following:
**************************************************************************
There are an estimated 1,476,233,470 Muslims on the face of the planet: one billion in Asia, 400 million in Africa, 44 million in Europe and six million in the Americas . Every fifth human being is a Muslim; for every single Hindu there are two Muslims, for every Buddhist there are two Muslims and for every Jew there are one hundred Muslims.
Ever wondered why Muslims are so powerless?
Here is why: There are 57 member-countries of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), and all of them put together have around 500 universities; one university for every three million Muslims. The United States has 5,758 universities and India has 8,407.
In 2004, Shanghai Jiao Tong University compiled an 'Academic Ranking of World Universities' , and intriguingly, not one university from Muslim-majority states was in the top-500.
As per data collected by the UNDP, literacy in the Christian world stands at nearly 90 per cent and 15 Christian-majority states have a literacy rate of 100 per cent.
A Muslim-majority state, as a sharp contrast, has an average literacy rate of around 40 per cent and there is no Muslim-majority state with a literacy rate of 100 per cent.
Some 98 per cent of the 'literates' in the Christian world had completed primary school, while less than 50 per cent of the 'literates' in the Muslim world did the same.
Around 40 per cent of the 'literates' in the Christian world attended university while no more than two per cent of the 'literates' in the Muslim world did the same.
Muslim-majority countries have 230 scientists per one million Muslims. The US has 4,000 scientists per million and Japan has 5,000 per million.
In the entire Arab world, the total number of full-time researchers is 35,000 and there are only 50 technicians per one million Arabs. (in the Christian world there are up to 1,000 technicians per one million).
Furthermore, the Muslim world spends 0.2 per cent of its GDP on research and development, while the Christian world spends around five per cent of its GDP.
Conclusion: The Muslim world lacks the capacity to produce knowledge!
Daily newspapers per 1,000 people and number of book titles per million are two indicators of whether knowledge is being diffused in a society.
In Pakistan, there are 23 daily newspapers per 1,000 Pakistanis while the same ratio in Singapore is 360. In the UK , the number of book titles per million stands at 2,000 while the same in Egypt is 20.
Conclusion: The Muslim world is failing to diffuse knowledge.
Exports of high technology products as a percentage of total exports are an important indicator of knowledge application. Pakistan 's export of high technology products as a percentage of total exports stands at 1%. The same for Saudi Arabia is 0.3 %; Kuwait , Morocco , and Algeria are all at 0.3 %, while Singapore is at 58 %.
Conclusion: The Muslim world is failing to apply knowledge.
Why are Muslims powerless?
.....Because we aren't producing knowledge,
.....Because we aren't diffusing knowledge.,
.....Because we aren't applying knowledge.
And, the future belongs to knowledge-based societies.
Interestingly, the combined annual GDP of 57 OIC-countries is under $2 trillion.
America , just by herself, produces goods and services worth $12 trillion;
China $8 trillion,
Japan $3.8 trillion and
Germany $2.4 trillion (purchasing power parity basis).
Oil rich Saudi Arabia , UAE, Kuwait and Qatar collectively produce goods and services (mostly oil) worth $500 billion;
Spain alone produces goods and services worth over $1 trillion,
Catholic Poland $489 billion and
Buddhist Thailand $545 billion.
..... ( Muslim GDP as a percentage of world GDP is fast declining ).
So, why are Muslims so powerless?
Answer: Lack of education.
All we do is shout to “Allah” the whole day ! and blame everyone else for our multiple failures ! We also do not allow those who can educate others to do so due to prejudice & political expediency.
The writer is the Pakistani Executive Director of the Center for Research and Security Studies, a think tank established in 2007, and an Islamabad-based freelance columnist.
Dr. Farrukh Saleem is a Pakistani journalist and political analyst[1] who is currently also the executive director of the Center for Research and Security Studies. Originally a financial professional by occupation, he managed an eight figure equities portfolio invested in the New York Stock Exchange between the years 1988 and 1994.
Saleem has been a columist for The News International, Pakistan's largest English-language daily, for over 5 years. Prior to that, he wrote weekly columns for the Dawn newspaper in 1996. Throughout 1996, he also worked as a correspondent on issues related to Pakistan, India and Iran for the Vancouver Sun, a Canadian newspaper.[2] Farrukh Saleem has additionally been a guest columnist for the Hong Kong-based Far Eastern Economic Review.[2] He has served in capacity as the CEO of Dominion Stock Funds Limited, a KSE-listed company, and currently lives in Islamabad.
**************************************************************************
Why are Muslims so powerless?
By: Dr Farrukh Saleem
By: Dr Farrukh Saleem
There are an estimated 1,476,233,470 Muslims on the face of the planet: one billion in Asia, 400 million in Africa, 44 million in Europe and six million in the Americas . Every fifth human being is a Muslim; for every single Hindu there are two Muslims, for every Buddhist there are two Muslims and for every Jew there are one hundred Muslims.
Ever wondered why Muslims are so powerless?
Here is why: There are 57 member-countries of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), and all of them put together have around 500 universities; one university for every three million Muslims. The United States has 5,758 universities and India has 8,407.
In 2004, Shanghai Jiao Tong University compiled an 'Academic Ranking of World Universities' , and intriguingly, not one university from Muslim-majority states was in the top-500.
As per data collected by the UNDP, literacy in the Christian world stands at nearly 90 per cent and 15 Christian-majority states have a literacy rate of 100 per cent.
A Muslim-majority state, as a sharp contrast, has an average literacy rate of around 40 per cent and there is no Muslim-majority state with a literacy rate of 100 per cent.
Some 98 per cent of the 'literates' in the Christian world had completed primary school, while less than 50 per cent of the 'literates' in the Muslim world did the same.
Around 40 per cent of the 'literates' in the Christian world attended university while no more than two per cent of the 'literates' in the Muslim world did the same.
Muslim-majority countries have 230 scientists per one million Muslims. The US has 4,000 scientists per million and Japan has 5,000 per million.
In the entire Arab world, the total number of full-time researchers is 35,000 and there are only 50 technicians per one million Arabs. (in the Christian world there are up to 1,000 technicians per one million).
Furthermore, the Muslim world spends 0.2 per cent of its GDP on research and development, while the Christian world spends around five per cent of its GDP.
Conclusion: The Muslim world lacks the capacity to produce knowledge!
Daily newspapers per 1,000 people and number of book titles per million are two indicators of whether knowledge is being diffused in a society.
In Pakistan, there are 23 daily newspapers per 1,000 Pakistanis while the same ratio in Singapore is 360. In the UK , the number of book titles per million stands at 2,000 while the same in Egypt is 20.
Conclusion: The Muslim world is failing to diffuse knowledge.
Exports of high technology products as a percentage of total exports are an important indicator of knowledge application. Pakistan 's export of high technology products as a percentage of total exports stands at 1%. The same for Saudi Arabia is 0.3 %; Kuwait , Morocco , and Algeria are all at 0.3 %, while Singapore is at 58 %.
Conclusion: The Muslim world is failing to apply knowledge.
Why are Muslims powerless?
.....Because we aren't producing knowledge,
.....Because we aren't diffusing knowledge.,
.....Because we aren't applying knowledge.
And, the future belongs to knowledge-based societies.
Interestingly, the combined annual GDP of 57 OIC-countries is under $2 trillion.
America , just by herself, produces goods and services worth $12 trillion;
China $8 trillion,
Japan $3.8 trillion and
Germany $2.4 trillion (purchasing power parity basis).
Oil rich Saudi Arabia , UAE, Kuwait and Qatar collectively produce goods and services (mostly oil) worth $500 billion;
Spain alone produces goods and services worth over $1 trillion,
Catholic Poland $489 billion and
Buddhist Thailand $545 billion.
..... ( Muslim GDP as a percentage of world GDP is fast declining ).
So, why are Muslims so powerless?
Answer: Lack of education.
All we do is shout to “Allah” the whole day ! and blame everyone else for our multiple failures ! We also do not allow those who can educate others to do so due to prejudice & political expediency.
The writer is the Pakistani Executive Director of the Center for Research and Security Studies, a think tank established in 2007, and an Islamabad-based freelance columnist.
Dr. Farrukh Saleem is a Pakistani journalist and political analyst[1] who is currently also the executive director of the Center for Research and Security Studies. Originally a financial professional by occupation, he managed an eight figure equities portfolio invested in the New York Stock Exchange between the years 1988 and 1994.
Saleem has been a columist for The News International, Pakistan's largest English-language daily, for over 5 years. Prior to that, he wrote weekly columns for the Dawn newspaper in 1996. Throughout 1996, he also worked as a correspondent on issues related to Pakistan, India and Iran for the Vancouver Sun, a Canadian newspaper.[2] Farrukh Saleem has additionally been a guest columnist for the Hong Kong-based Far Eastern Economic Review.[2] He has served in capacity as the CEO of Dominion Stock Funds Limited, a KSE-listed company, and currently lives in Islamabad.
Monday, 9 April 2012
Insidious...
Where and what will this lead to?
Check out the Luton Town online newspaper here for a comparative view. A case of barbarians within the gates?
Check out the Luton Town online newspaper here for a comparative view. A case of barbarians within the gates?
Friday, 15 October 2010
Is Islam A Religion Of Peace (Comments)
With reference to the previous post "Is Islam A Religion Of Peace" the following are just two comments. The first is by my friend Mike Naser Taib and the other is by blogger Syed Akbar Ali:
From MNT:
Nic,
TQ for downloading the Debate. Although, it is well known that no ulama will take part in a debate of that openness coz in the 11th century C.E. they closed the gates of "ijtihad" meaning the application of the mind to the verses of the Qur'an and Ahadith for applying them to particular situations or problems. What surprised me was that all the debaters were bantamweight. They shud have scoured for heavyweights. I would have loved to hear a Chinese Islamic scholar from China defending Islam. The Chinese Muslims of China are, without a shadow of a doubt to my mind, are the true practitioners of the philosophy of Islam in this world of persistent religious conflicts. I think Ms Ayaan Histi Ali, who was caught for cheating in her citizenship application in Holland, was rather shallow and a rabble rouser.
From the days when I was an inquisitive child in RMC until today, I have had no trouble debating with non-Muslim friends. I had serious problems with, in particular, Indian Muslims!!
The article below is interesting and good for continuing enlightenment.
The Meaning of the Koran
By ROBERT WRIGHT
Robert Wright on culture, politics and world affairs.
Test your religious literacy:
Which sacred text says that Jesus is the “word” of God? a) the Gospel of John; b) the Book of Isaiah; c) the Koran.
The correct answer is the Koran. But if you guessed the Gospel of John you get partial credit because its opening passage — “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God” — is an implicit reference to Jesus. In fact, when Muhammad described Jesus as God’s word, he was no doubt aware that he was affirming Christian teaching.
Extra-credit question: Which sacred text has this to say about the Hebrews: God, in his “prescience,” chose “the children of Israel … above all peoples”? I won’t bother to list the choices, since you’ve probably caught onto my game by now; that line, too, is in the Koran.
I highlight these passages in part for the sake of any self-appointed guardians of Judeo-Christian civilization who might still harbor plans to burn the Koran. I want them to be aware of everything that would go up in smoke.
But I should concede that I haven’t told the whole story. Even while calling Jesus the word of God — and “the Messiah” — the Koran denies that he was the son of God or was himself divine. And, though the Koran does call the Jews God’s chosen people, and sings the praises of Moses, and says that Jews and Muslims worship the same God, it also has anti-Jewish, and for that matter anti-Christian, passages.
The regrettable parts of the Koran — the regrettable parts of any religious scripture — don’t have to matter.
This darker side of the Koran, presumably, has already come to the attention of would-be Koran burners and, more broadly, to many of the anti-Muslim Americans whom cynical politicians like Newt Gingrich are trying to harness and multiply. The other side of the Koran — the part that stresses interfaith harmony — is better known in liberal circles.
As for people who are familiar with both sides of the Koran — people who know the whole story — well, there may not be many of them. It’s characteristic of contemporary political discourse that the whole story doesn’t come to the attention of many people.
Thus, there are liberals who say that “jihad” refers to a person’s internal struggle to do what is right. And that’s true. There are conservatives who say “jihad” refers to military struggle. That’s true, too. But few people get the whole picture, which, actually, can be summarized pretty concisely:
The Koran’s exhortations to jihad in the military sense are sometimes brutal in tone but are so hedged by qualifiers that Muhammad clearly doesn’t espouse perpetual war against unbelievers, and is open to peace with them. (Here, for example, is my exegesis of the “sword verse,” the most famous jihadist passage in the Koran.) The formal doctrine of military jihad — which isn’t found in the Koran, and evolved only after Muhammad’s death — does seem to have initially been about endless conquest, but was then subject to so much amendment and re-interpretation as to render it compatible with world peace. Meanwhile, in the hadith — the non-Koranic sayings of the Prophet — the tradition arose that Muhammad had called holy war the “lesser jihad” and said that the “greater jihad” was the struggle against animal impulses within each Muslim’s soul.
Why do people tend to hear only one side of the story? A common explanation is that the digital age makes it easy to wall yourself off from inconvenient data, to spend your time in ideological “cocoons,” to hang out at blogs where you are part of a choir that gets preached to.
Makes sense to me. But, however big a role the Internet plays, it’s just amplifying something human: a tendency to latch onto evidence consistent with your worldview and ignore or downplay contrary evidence.
This side of human nature is generally labeled a bad thing, and it’s true that it sponsors a lot of bigotry, strife and war. But it actually has its upside. It means that the regrettable parts of the Koran — the regrettable parts of any religious scripture — don’t have to matter.
After all, the adherents of a given religion, like everyone else, focus on things that confirm their attitudes and ignore things that don’t. And they carry that tunnel vision into their own scripture; if there is hatred in their hearts, they’ll fasten onto the hateful parts of scripture, but if there’s not, they won’t. That’s why American Muslims of good will can describe Islam simply as a religion of love. They see the good parts of scripture, and either don’t see the bad or have ways of minimizing it.
So too with people who see in the Bible a loving and infinitely good God. They can maintain that view only by ignoring or downplaying parts of their scripture.
For example, there are those passages where God hands out the death sentence to infidels. In Deuteronomy, the Israelites are told to commit genocide — to destroy nearby peoples who worship the wrong Gods, and to make sure to kill all men, women and children. (“You must not let anything that breathes remain alive.”)
As for the New Testament, there’s that moment when Jesus calls a woman and her daughter “dogs” because they aren’t from Israel. In a way that’s the opposite of anti-Semitism — but not in a good way. And speaking of anti-Semitism, the New Testament, like the Koran, has some unflattering things to say about Jews.
Devoted Bible readers who aren’t hateful ignore or downplay all these passages rather than take them as guidance. They put to good use the tunnel vision that is part of human nature.
All the Abrahamic scriptures have all kinds of meanings — good and bad — and the question is which meanings will be activated and which will be inert. It all depends on what attitude believers bring to the text. So whenever we do things that influence the attitudes of believers, we shape the living meaning of their scriptures. In this sense, it’s actually within the power of non-Muslim Americans to help determine the meaning of the Koran. If we want its meaning to be as benign as possible, I recommend that we not talk about burning it. And if we want imams to fill mosques with messages of brotherly love, I recommend that we not tell them where they can and can’t build their mosques.
Of course, the street runs both ways. Muslims can influence the attitudes of Christians and Jews and hence the meanings of their texts. The less threatening that Muslims seem, the more welcoming Christians and Jews will be, and the more benign Christianity and Judaism will be. (A good first step would be to bring more Americans into contact with some of the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are in fact not threatening.)
You can even imagine a kind of virtuous circle: the less menacing each side seems, the less menacing the other side becomes — which in turn makes the first side less menacing still, and so on; the meaning of the Abrahamic scriptures would, in a real sense, get better and better and better.
Lately, it seems, things have been moving in the opposite direction; the circle has been getting vicious. And it’s in the nature of vicious circles that they’re hard to stop, much less reverse. On the other hand, if, through the concerted effort of people of good will, you do reverse a vicious circle, the very momentum that sustained it can build in the other direction — and at that point the force will be with you.
Postscript: The quotations of the Koran come from Sura 4:171 (where Jesus is called God’s word), and Sura 44:32 (where the “children of Israel” are lauded). I’ve used the Rodwell translation, but the only place the choice of translator matters is the part that says God presciently placed the children of Israel above all others. Other translations say “purposefully,” or “knowingly.” By the way, if you’re curious as to the reason for the Koran’s seeming ambivalence toward Christians and Jews:
By my reading, the Koran is to a large extent the record of Muhammad’s attempt to bring all the area’s Christians, Jews and Arab polytheists into his Abrahamic flock, and it reflects, in turns, both his bitter disappointment at failing to do so and the many theological and ritual overtures he had made along the way. (For a time Muslims celebrated Yom Kippur, and they initially prayed toward Jerusalem, not Mecca.) That the suras aren’t ordered chronologically obscures this underlying logic.
From SAA:
This is an interesting debate between some young people in the United States on the topic 'Is Islam A Religion Of Peace'.
What interests me most is that one of the speakers is Miss Ayaan Hirsi Ali, originally from Ethiopia, the famous author of the now famous book 'Infidel'. Ayaan Hirsi Ali became totally disillusioned with the religion of Islam and that is why you can see her speaking on the side that does NOT agree that Islam is a "religion" of peace.
By the way, it will be difficult for me to partricipate in this debate because I dont see Islam as a "religion." This is the main problem. People see "Islam" as a religion. Religion is an English word, with Christian Biblical connotations. The Quran uses the Arabic word 'deen' to describe Islam. Deen means a 'way of life', not a religion.
What interests me is that Miss Ayaan Hirsi Ali is appearing in public. After she wrote her book "Infidel", she received death threats and went into hiding in the United States.
I communicated with her through e mail once and received a reply 'from an associate'. My point to her was that the whole episode of anger, confusion and hate that besets so much of the Muslim world is because of an almost complete ignorance of the Quran. (My little point about Islam being a 'deen' versus calling it a "religion" is just one tiny example).
Miss Hirsi Ali was disillusioned with the 'religious people' and the "religious practises". Like many millions of people around the world, she has not been given the opportunity to look at Islam as the deen or way of life that it really is. That is an open secret that is found in the Quran.
To conclude, they seem to be conducting themselves intelligently enough. This is New York. How I wish the Muslims can sit down and speak intelligently like this. Somehow that does not seem possible.
My view is that all these speakers here are weighing fish in the market with a 36 inch ruler. Instead of asking for a kilo of fish, they are asking for a foot of ikan tenggiri. Or instead of asking for three metres of cloth to make a dress, they are asking for 750 grams of cloth to make a dress.
They are using the wrong weights and measures for the wrong things.
They all claim to be talking about Islam, but none of them is quoting the Quran at all. This is what I have seen so far in the three videos.
The first (pro Islam) speaker Zeba Khan says that "few things in the Quran are agreed upon. She says that other than these few things, everything else in the Quran is still subject to debate" (or words to that effect). And this young woman claims to speak FOR Islam. Have you heard of the phrase : "With friends like these, we dont need enemies". This is a good example.
How can you talk about Catholicism without referring the Catholic Bible? How can you speak about the United States Constitution without opening and reading from the United States Constitution?
So how can you speak about Islam without opening and reading from the Quran? The answer is very simple : Muslims generally (that is you too my friends) do not know their own Quran. They do not even bother to read and understand a translated version of the Quran - whiuch is so easily available, translated by "respected authorities" like the scholars and such.
Yet they want to go and debate about Islam without even referring anything from the Quran. This includes Miss Ayaan Hirsi Ali who has chosen to reject Islam without knowing what is inside the Quran. None of what she dislikes about the "religion" can be found in the Quran. And nothing of what the other two proponents (Zeba Khan and Maajid) are saying about Islam in these three videos are also from the Quran.
[Surah 22:8] "Among the people there is the one who argues about GOD without knowledge, and without guidance, and without an enlightening scripture"
My fellow Muslims please consider this : if (according to Zeba Khan) the scholars are still arguing about the meanings of what is INSIDE the Quran, then surely they will be throwing chairs and tables at each other and fighting over the meanings of what is found OUTSIDE the Quran? This is what has been going on for the past 1000 years now.
So please think.
[Surah 3:66] You have argued about things you knew; why do you argue about things you do not know? GOD knows, while you do not know.
Now anyone want to join me for one square metre of teh tarik? Or a yard of roti canai ? Please dont say that I am being nonsensical ok. I am using your terms of reference.
By the way, it will be difficult for me to partricipate in this debate because I dont see Islam as a "religion." This is the main problem. People see "Islam" as a religion. Religion is an English word, with Christian Biblical connotations. The Quran uses the Arabic word 'deen' to describe Islam. Deen means a 'way of life', not a religion.
What interests me is that Miss Ayaan Hirsi Ali is appearing in public. After she wrote her book "Infidel", she received death threats and went into hiding in the United States.
I communicated with her through e mail once and received a reply 'from an associate'. My point to her was that the whole episode of anger, confusion and hate that besets so much of the Muslim world is because of an almost complete ignorance of the Quran. (My little point about Islam being a 'deen' versus calling it a "religion" is just one tiny example).
Miss Hirsi Ali was disillusioned with the 'religious people' and the "religious practises". Like many millions of people around the world, she has not been given the opportunity to look at Islam as the deen or way of life that it really is. That is an open secret that is found in the Quran.
To conclude, they seem to be conducting themselves intelligently enough. This is New York. How I wish the Muslims can sit down and speak intelligently like this. Somehow that does not seem possible.
My view is that all these speakers here are weighing fish in the market with a 36 inch ruler. Instead of asking for a kilo of fish, they are asking for a foot of ikan tenggiri. Or instead of asking for three metres of cloth to make a dress, they are asking for 750 grams of cloth to make a dress.
They are using the wrong weights and measures for the wrong things.
They all claim to be talking about Islam, but none of them is quoting the Quran at all. This is what I have seen so far in the three videos.
The first (pro Islam) speaker Zeba Khan says that "few things in the Quran are agreed upon. She says that other than these few things, everything else in the Quran is still subject to debate" (or words to that effect). And this young woman claims to speak FOR Islam. Have you heard of the phrase : "With friends like these, we dont need enemies". This is a good example.
How can you talk about Catholicism without referring the Catholic Bible? How can you speak about the United States Constitution without opening and reading from the United States Constitution?
So how can you speak about Islam without opening and reading from the Quran? The answer is very simple : Muslims generally (that is you too my friends) do not know their own Quran. They do not even bother to read and understand a translated version of the Quran - whiuch is so easily available, translated by "respected authorities" like the scholars and such.
Yet they want to go and debate about Islam without even referring anything from the Quran. This includes Miss Ayaan Hirsi Ali who has chosen to reject Islam without knowing what is inside the Quran. None of what she dislikes about the "religion" can be found in the Quran. And nothing of what the other two proponents (Zeba Khan and Maajid) are saying about Islam in these three videos are also from the Quran.
[Surah 22:8] "Among the people there is the one who argues about GOD without knowledge, and without guidance, and without an enlightening scripture"
My fellow Muslims please consider this : if (according to Zeba Khan) the scholars are still arguing about the meanings of what is INSIDE the Quran, then surely they will be throwing chairs and tables at each other and fighting over the meanings of what is found OUTSIDE the Quran? This is what has been going on for the past 1000 years now.
So please think.
[Surah 3:66] You have argued about things you knew; why do you argue about things you do not know? GOD knows, while you do not know.
Now anyone want to join me for one square metre of teh tarik? Or a yard of roti canai ? Please dont say that I am being nonsensical ok. I am using your terms of reference.
From MNT:
Nic,
TQ for downloading the Debate. Although, it is well known that no ulama will take part in a debate of that openness coz in the 11th century C.E. they closed the gates of "ijtihad" meaning the application of the mind to the verses of the Qur'an and Ahadith for applying them to particular situations or problems. What surprised me was that all the debaters were bantamweight. They shud have scoured for heavyweights. I would have loved to hear a Chinese Islamic scholar from China defending Islam. The Chinese Muslims of China are, without a shadow of a doubt to my mind, are the true practitioners of the philosophy of Islam in this world of persistent religious conflicts. I think Ms Ayaan Histi Ali, who was caught for cheating in her citizenship application in Holland, was rather shallow and a rabble rouser.
From the days when I was an inquisitive child in RMC until today, I have had no trouble debating with non-Muslim friends. I had serious problems with, in particular, Indian Muslims!!
The article below is interesting and good for continuing enlightenment.
The Meaning of the Koran
By ROBERT WRIGHT
Robert Wright on culture, politics and world affairs.
Test your religious literacy:
Which sacred text says that Jesus is the “word” of God? a) the Gospel of John; b) the Book of Isaiah; c) the Koran.
The correct answer is the Koran. But if you guessed the Gospel of John you get partial credit because its opening passage — “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God” — is an implicit reference to Jesus. In fact, when Muhammad described Jesus as God’s word, he was no doubt aware that he was affirming Christian teaching.
Extra-credit question: Which sacred text has this to say about the Hebrews: God, in his “prescience,” chose “the children of Israel … above all peoples”? I won’t bother to list the choices, since you’ve probably caught onto my game by now; that line, too, is in the Koran.
I highlight these passages in part for the sake of any self-appointed guardians of Judeo-Christian civilization who might still harbor plans to burn the Koran. I want them to be aware of everything that would go up in smoke.
But I should concede that I haven’t told the whole story. Even while calling Jesus the word of God — and “the Messiah” — the Koran denies that he was the son of God or was himself divine. And, though the Koran does call the Jews God’s chosen people, and sings the praises of Moses, and says that Jews and Muslims worship the same God, it also has anti-Jewish, and for that matter anti-Christian, passages.
The regrettable parts of the Koran — the regrettable parts of any religious scripture — don’t have to matter.
This darker side of the Koran, presumably, has already come to the attention of would-be Koran burners and, more broadly, to many of the anti-Muslim Americans whom cynical politicians like Newt Gingrich are trying to harness and multiply. The other side of the Koran — the part that stresses interfaith harmony — is better known in liberal circles.
As for people who are familiar with both sides of the Koran — people who know the whole story — well, there may not be many of them. It’s characteristic of contemporary political discourse that the whole story doesn’t come to the attention of many people.
Thus, there are liberals who say that “jihad” refers to a person’s internal struggle to do what is right. And that’s true. There are conservatives who say “jihad” refers to military struggle. That’s true, too. But few people get the whole picture, which, actually, can be summarized pretty concisely:
The Koran’s exhortations to jihad in the military sense are sometimes brutal in tone but are so hedged by qualifiers that Muhammad clearly doesn’t espouse perpetual war against unbelievers, and is open to peace with them. (Here, for example, is my exegesis of the “sword verse,” the most famous jihadist passage in the Koran.) The formal doctrine of military jihad — which isn’t found in the Koran, and evolved only after Muhammad’s death — does seem to have initially been about endless conquest, but was then subject to so much amendment and re-interpretation as to render it compatible with world peace. Meanwhile, in the hadith — the non-Koranic sayings of the Prophet — the tradition arose that Muhammad had called holy war the “lesser jihad” and said that the “greater jihad” was the struggle against animal impulses within each Muslim’s soul.
Why do people tend to hear only one side of the story? A common explanation is that the digital age makes it easy to wall yourself off from inconvenient data, to spend your time in ideological “cocoons,” to hang out at blogs where you are part of a choir that gets preached to.
Makes sense to me. But, however big a role the Internet plays, it’s just amplifying something human: a tendency to latch onto evidence consistent with your worldview and ignore or downplay contrary evidence.
This side of human nature is generally labeled a bad thing, and it’s true that it sponsors a lot of bigotry, strife and war. But it actually has its upside. It means that the regrettable parts of the Koran — the regrettable parts of any religious scripture — don’t have to matter.
After all, the adherents of a given religion, like everyone else, focus on things that confirm their attitudes and ignore things that don’t. And they carry that tunnel vision into their own scripture; if there is hatred in their hearts, they’ll fasten onto the hateful parts of scripture, but if there’s not, they won’t. That’s why American Muslims of good will can describe Islam simply as a religion of love. They see the good parts of scripture, and either don’t see the bad or have ways of minimizing it.
So too with people who see in the Bible a loving and infinitely good God. They can maintain that view only by ignoring or downplaying parts of their scripture.
For example, there are those passages where God hands out the death sentence to infidels. In Deuteronomy, the Israelites are told to commit genocide — to destroy nearby peoples who worship the wrong Gods, and to make sure to kill all men, women and children. (“You must not let anything that breathes remain alive.”)
As for the New Testament, there’s that moment when Jesus calls a woman and her daughter “dogs” because they aren’t from Israel. In a way that’s the opposite of anti-Semitism — but not in a good way. And speaking of anti-Semitism, the New Testament, like the Koran, has some unflattering things to say about Jews.
Devoted Bible readers who aren’t hateful ignore or downplay all these passages rather than take them as guidance. They put to good use the tunnel vision that is part of human nature.
All the Abrahamic scriptures have all kinds of meanings — good and bad — and the question is which meanings will be activated and which will be inert. It all depends on what attitude believers bring to the text. So whenever we do things that influence the attitudes of believers, we shape the living meaning of their scriptures. In this sense, it’s actually within the power of non-Muslim Americans to help determine the meaning of the Koran. If we want its meaning to be as benign as possible, I recommend that we not talk about burning it. And if we want imams to fill mosques with messages of brotherly love, I recommend that we not tell them where they can and can’t build their mosques.
Of course, the street runs both ways. Muslims can influence the attitudes of Christians and Jews and hence the meanings of their texts. The less threatening that Muslims seem, the more welcoming Christians and Jews will be, and the more benign Christianity and Judaism will be. (A good first step would be to bring more Americans into contact with some of the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are in fact not threatening.)
You can even imagine a kind of virtuous circle: the less menacing each side seems, the less menacing the other side becomes — which in turn makes the first side less menacing still, and so on; the meaning of the Abrahamic scriptures would, in a real sense, get better and better and better.
Lately, it seems, things have been moving in the opposite direction; the circle has been getting vicious. And it’s in the nature of vicious circles that they’re hard to stop, much less reverse. On the other hand, if, through the concerted effort of people of good will, you do reverse a vicious circle, the very momentum that sustained it can build in the other direction — and at that point the force will be with you.
Postscript: The quotations of the Koran come from Sura 4:171 (where Jesus is called God’s word), and Sura 44:32 (where the “children of Israel” are lauded). I’ve used the Rodwell translation, but the only place the choice of translator matters is the part that says God presciently placed the children of Israel above all others. Other translations say “purposefully,” or “knowingly.” By the way, if you’re curious as to the reason for the Koran’s seeming ambivalence toward Christians and Jews:
By my reading, the Koran is to a large extent the record of Muhammad’s attempt to bring all the area’s Christians, Jews and Arab polytheists into his Abrahamic flock, and it reflects, in turns, both his bitter disappointment at failing to do so and the many theological and ritual overtures he had made along the way. (For a time Muslims celebrated Yom Kippur, and they initially prayed toward Jerusalem, not Mecca.) That the suras aren’t ordered chronologically obscures this underlying logic.
From SAA:
This is an interesting debate between some young people in the United States on the topic 'Is Islam A Religion Of Peace'.
What interests me most is that one of the speakers is Miss Ayaan Hirsi Ali, originally from Ethiopia, the famous author of the now famous book 'Infidel'. Ayaan Hirsi Ali became totally disillusioned with the religion of Islam and that is why you can see her speaking on the side that does NOT agree that Islam is a "religion" of peace.
By the way, it will be difficult for me to partricipate in this debate because I dont see Islam as a "religion." This is the main problem. People see "Islam" as a religion. Religion is an English word, with Christian Biblical connotations. The Quran uses the Arabic word 'deen' to describe Islam. Deen means a 'way of life', not a religion.
What interests me is that Miss Ayaan Hirsi Ali is appearing in public. After she wrote her book "Infidel", she received death threats and went into hiding in the United States.
I communicated with her through e mail once and received a reply 'from an associate'. My point to her was that the whole episode of anger, confusion and hate that besets so much of the Muslim world is because of an almost complete ignorance of the Quran. (My little point about Islam being a 'deen' versus calling it a "religion" is just one tiny example).
Miss Hirsi Ali was disillusioned with the 'religious people' and the "religious practises". Like many millions of people around the world, she has not been given the opportunity to look at Islam as the deen or way of life that it really is. That is an open secret that is found in the Quran.
To conclude, they seem to be conducting themselves intelligently enough. This is New York. How I wish the Muslims can sit down and speak intelligently like this. Somehow that does not seem possible.
My view is that all these speakers here are weighing fish in the market with a 36 inch ruler. Instead of asking for a kilo of fish, they are asking for a foot of ikan tenggiri. Or instead of asking for three metres of cloth to make a dress, they are asking for 750 grams of cloth to make a dress.
They are using the wrong weights and measures for the wrong things.
They all claim to be talking about Islam, but none of them is quoting the Quran at all. This is what I have seen so far in the three videos.
The first (pro Islam) speaker Zeba Khan says that "few things in the Quran are agreed upon. She says that other than these few things, everything else in the Quran is still subject to debate" (or words to that effect). And this young woman claims to speak FOR Islam. Have you heard of the phrase : "With friends like these, we dont need enemies". This is a good example.
How can you talk about Catholicism without referring the Catholic Bible? How can you speak about the United States Constitution without opening and reading from the United States Constitution?
So how can you speak about Islam without opening and reading from the Quran? The answer is very simple : Muslims generally (that is you too my friends) do not know their own Quran. They do not even bother to read and understand a translated version of the Quran - whiuch is so easily available, translated by "respected authorities" like the scholars and such.
Yet they want to go and debate about Islam without even referring anything from the Quran. This includes Miss Ayaan Hirsi Ali who has chosen to reject Islam without knowing what is inside the Quran. None of what she dislikes about the "religion" can be found in the Quran. And nothing of what the other two proponents (Zeba Khan and Maajid) are saying about Islam in these three videos are also from the Quran.
[Surah 22:8] "Among the people there is the one who argues about GOD without knowledge, and without guidance, and without an enlightening scripture"
My fellow Muslims please consider this : if (according to Zeba Khan) the scholars are still arguing about the meanings of what is INSIDE the Quran, then surely they will be throwing chairs and tables at each other and fighting over the meanings of what is found OUTSIDE the Quran? This is what has been going on for the past 1000 years now.
So please think.
[Surah 3:66] You have argued about things you knew; why do you argue about things you do not know? GOD knows, while you do not know.
Now anyone want to join me for one square metre of teh tarik? Or a yard of roti canai ? Please dont say that I am being nonsensical ok. I am using your terms of reference.
By the way, it will be difficult for me to partricipate in this debate because I dont see Islam as a "religion." This is the main problem. People see "Islam" as a religion. Religion is an English word, with Christian Biblical connotations. The Quran uses the Arabic word 'deen' to describe Islam. Deen means a 'way of life', not a religion.
What interests me is that Miss Ayaan Hirsi Ali is appearing in public. After she wrote her book "Infidel", she received death threats and went into hiding in the United States.
I communicated with her through e mail once and received a reply 'from an associate'. My point to her was that the whole episode of anger, confusion and hate that besets so much of the Muslim world is because of an almost complete ignorance of the Quran. (My little point about Islam being a 'deen' versus calling it a "religion" is just one tiny example).
Miss Hirsi Ali was disillusioned with the 'religious people' and the "religious practises". Like many millions of people around the world, she has not been given the opportunity to look at Islam as the deen or way of life that it really is. That is an open secret that is found in the Quran.
To conclude, they seem to be conducting themselves intelligently enough. This is New York. How I wish the Muslims can sit down and speak intelligently like this. Somehow that does not seem possible.
My view is that all these speakers here are weighing fish in the market with a 36 inch ruler. Instead of asking for a kilo of fish, they are asking for a foot of ikan tenggiri. Or instead of asking for three metres of cloth to make a dress, they are asking for 750 grams of cloth to make a dress.
They are using the wrong weights and measures for the wrong things.
They all claim to be talking about Islam, but none of them is quoting the Quran at all. This is what I have seen so far in the three videos.
The first (pro Islam) speaker Zeba Khan says that "few things in the Quran are agreed upon. She says that other than these few things, everything else in the Quran is still subject to debate" (or words to that effect). And this young woman claims to speak FOR Islam. Have you heard of the phrase : "With friends like these, we dont need enemies". This is a good example.
How can you talk about Catholicism without referring the Catholic Bible? How can you speak about the United States Constitution without opening and reading from the United States Constitution?
So how can you speak about Islam without opening and reading from the Quran? The answer is very simple : Muslims generally (that is you too my friends) do not know their own Quran. They do not even bother to read and understand a translated version of the Quran - whiuch is so easily available, translated by "respected authorities" like the scholars and such.
Yet they want to go and debate about Islam without even referring anything from the Quran. This includes Miss Ayaan Hirsi Ali who has chosen to reject Islam without knowing what is inside the Quran. None of what she dislikes about the "religion" can be found in the Quran. And nothing of what the other two proponents (Zeba Khan and Maajid) are saying about Islam in these three videos are also from the Quran.
[Surah 22:8] "Among the people there is the one who argues about GOD without knowledge, and without guidance, and without an enlightening scripture"
My fellow Muslims please consider this : if (according to Zeba Khan) the scholars are still arguing about the meanings of what is INSIDE the Quran, then surely they will be throwing chairs and tables at each other and fighting over the meanings of what is found OUTSIDE the Quran? This is what has been going on for the past 1000 years now.
So please think.
[Surah 3:66] You have argued about things you knew; why do you argue about things you do not know? GOD knows, while you do not know.
Now anyone want to join me for one square metre of teh tarik? Or a yard of roti canai ? Please dont say that I am being nonsensical ok. I am using your terms of reference.
Sunday, 10 October 2010
Is Islam A Religion Of Peace
This debate took place in New York two days ago. For the motion were Zeba Khan and Maajid Nawaz, and against the motion were Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murray. A debate Malaysians must watch too:
ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE from Intelligence Squared US on Vimeo.
ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE from Intelligence Squared US on Vimeo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)