Setiap Artikel Malaysiawaves ke Email Anda.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Dipersilakan untuk Like Facebook Page T. Besi

Search Malaysiawaves

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Proposed Solution On The “Conversion to Islam” Problem in Malaysia

I admit there are clear and present problem with regards to new converts in Malaysia. I even wrote an article with regards to the Siti Fatimah Tan's return to her original faith.

It is not just me, but other Muslim lawyers like Hanifa Maidin and many more recognizes the existence of real problem with regards to conversion to Islam in Malaysia.

In fact, the Siti Fatimah Tan issue is an example of how the issue is actively being resolved by the Shariah community in Malaysia. It is not true that the Shariah community wants to exploit the situation to prove the supremacy of Islam over the non-muslims.

But before any solution can be achieved there are a few ground rules that both side must be willing to accept:

  1. That Muslims in the country must recognize that problems faced by newly converts, especially in the case of marriage, is real and it is not a form of disrespect to Islam when addressing it.

  1. Non Muslims must accept the fact that Muslims in the country will not renounce the Shariah system as a form of a solution to these problems.

  1. Forcing Muslims to accept secularism in place of Islam is a sure way of not resolving the issue.

  1. Muslims will also need to recognize that these problems are sign of weakness on the part of them as well in taking care of the welfare of the newly converts.

It is also a great news to read when the President of FORKAD ( Front Against Apostasy), the honorable Riduan Mohd Nor has proposed an inter-party forum to discuss issues with regards to implementation of Islam in the country. (Read the report here). The fact that the President of FORKAD has called for a forum like so shows that there is ample room for a harmonious and effective solution.

Therefore, I proposed a fixed forum which comprises:

  1. Non Islam religious bodies such as Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST)
  2. Members of the Shariah Legal Fratenities across Malaysia such as Persatuan Peguam Syariee Malaysia
  3. Members of the Civil Law Legal Fratenities such as the BAR Council
  4. Muslim NGO
  5. Civil Soceity NGO
  6. Government Agencies such as the Shariah Courts Officials, JAWI, JAKIM, JAIS etc.

The forum will have to be closed and limited to members only. This is because the issues discussed will be vary sensitive and having it open will limit the freedom of the panel to express themselves effectively.

After each forum, a resolution my be reached followed by a joint Press Statement from all sides on the results achieved. Only after a solution is agreed upon by both side will an open forum be held. Panels of the open forum will be balanced between both sides of the divide.

I believe such move will resolve pressing problems with regards to the Shariah-Civil streamlining and not result in unnecessary tension among the communities in Malaysia.

Personal Experience

When I lived in the USA, I was part of the inter-faith council held by the Islamic Center in the city I lived in. I remember the first meeting I attended was comprised of the local Imam/Sheikh, a party from the Lutheran Church and also a representative of the Jewish Synagouge. That’s right you heard me right, we had an Orthodox Jew attend a meeting in our local Masjid.

We managed to reach a decision to foster better understanding of each other faith among the members of our respective communities.

I didn’t get a chance to attend subsequent meetings. But I heard the positive effect of the initiative was seen in the aftermath of the 911 tragedy. It is informed to me that members of the local Church and Syanagouge express their concern for the safety of the Masjid in the city and asked the local Police to provide protection during the first Friday prayer after the 911 incident.

As for Anti Muslim incidences, in the city I lived in, there was no such incident reported. So, there is gain from mutual understanding and respect for each other.

Which is why i believed secularism should not even enter into the picture because secularism is essentially an anti-religion ideology, an anti-thesis to religion. A secularist approach towards this issue is a disaster waiting to happen.

In conclusion, if we can better understand each other without the need to impose our individual beliefs upon each other, we can grow into a harmonious people.

Tulang Besi

53 comments:

Samuel Goh Kim Eng said...

What we need are not just more forums
That can be held with proper decorum
But more open hearts, minds and souls
That will allow more good seeds to sow

(C) Samuel Goh Kim Eng - 130808
http://MotivationInMotion.blogspot.com
Wed. 13th Aug. 2008.

Anonymous said...

Lived in the USA?

Why didn't you just stay put there?

Are you an american spy?

alhadee said...

RC's

When I lived in the USA, I was part of the inter-faith council held by the Islamic Center in the city I lived in.

and

As for Anti Muslim incidences, in the city I lived in, there was no such incident reported. So, there is gain from mutual understanding and respect for each other.
=======

So that sums up what Malaysians would get by turning this country into a Secular democracy like USA.

In US, you have open open forum >> solve things.

In Malaysia, close forum is proposed >> for what??

Nostradamus said...

Q10. ISA is needed because prevention is better than cure. (Fact or Fiction)
ISA diperlukan kerana pencegahan lebih baik daripada berubat kemudian. (Fakta atau Rekaan)


Q14. Freedom of religions and beliefs is a right of all Malaysians. (True or False)
Kebebasan ugama dan kepercayaan adalah hak semua rakyat Malaysia (Betul atau Salah)

Q15. Liberty is a right of all Malaysians. (True or False)
Kebebasan diri adalah hak semua rakyat Malaysia. (Betul atau Salah)


Q43. Divide and rule exists in all politics and religion. (Fact or Fiction)
Memecah belah dan memerintah terdapat di semua fahaman politik dan ugama. (Fakta atau Rekaan)


Q48. Freedom can only exist in the mind, not in real life. (True or False)
Kebebasan Cuma didapati dalam minda, tidak di dunia nyata. (Betul atau Salah)

Q49. Race and Religious supremacy are preached by satans. (True or False)
Ketuanan bangsa dan ugama adalah dikutbah oleh syaitan. (Betul atau Salah)

Q50. Malaysian politicians are typical Jeyklls and Hydes. (True or False)
Ahli politik Malaysia melambangkan personality Jeyklls dan Hydes. (Betul atau Salah)


Answers at http://patek1472.wordpress.com
Jawapan di http://patek1472.wordpress.com

Anonymous said...

alhadee tau tak USA tu besar mana?

yang solve problem to, seluruh USA ke solved?

adakah alhadee nak cakap kat USA nun tak ada langsung insiden diskriminasi atau segregasi tak kiralah agama atau bangsa?

yang dok lynching negro dulu tu "fundamentalis Islam" ka?

KKK tu brainchild Osama ka?

yang dok hina "fcuking black, fcuking nigger, fcuking chink, fcuking kike, fcuking paki" kat USA tu Muslims ka?

Ek eleh, murah betul hujah dia nak pejuangkan sekularisme.

Anonymous said...

Tulang Besi & Samuel Goh Kim Eng,

Well said!

BTW, Tulang Besi who is this alhadee? He/she does not seem to understand your posting at all no matter how it make sense.

I think you should just ignore him/her as it looks like he/she just want to argue until the cow comes home.

Mei

Tulang Besi said...

Alhaid says:

"So that sums up what Malaysians would get by turning this country into a Secular democracy like USA.

In US, you have open open forum >> solve things.

In Malaysia, close forum is proposed >> for what??"

REPLY: Err i never said the forum was open did I?

In fact, the forum was closed. Only after decisions was made was an open forum was organized.

Are u having reading problems, Al Haid?

What do u know about openess anyways, u screen and filter all comments in your blog.

The good thing about living in the USA is that i learnt how to effectively "disable" points raised by people like u.

I also learnt that all Liberal policies are not economically viable or they are nothing but failures or both.

Hasbullah Pit said...

Aku pun ada proposal gak
http://hasbullahpit.blogspot.com/2008/08/cadangan-penyelesaian-masalah-body.html

Hamzah said...

good suggestion, let's take the first step ...

Tulang Besi said...

Dear Mei,

I don't know who this dude Alhaid is, but i am sure he has some mental issues he needs to take care of.

But i love to indulge people like him. Makes me feel good to know that there are people inferior to me.

And i think he has problem understanding because he's got only one brain cell functioning at any given time.

If he had activated the other one as well, we'd probably see a different Alhaid.

mohdhaslanr said...

Boleh ke saya tahu di kawasan mana tempat anda tinggal masa di USA tu dulu dan berapa lama anda di situ dan adakah anada bekerja atau belajar maasa tu?
sekian

muslim said...

Saya ingin memberi sedikit cadangan berhubung dengan masalah yang disebut2 oleh masyarakat bukan Islam yang banyak menimbulkan masalah tidak puas hati di kalangan mereka iaitu yang mereka dakwa sebagai "body snatching".

Saya fikir antara jalan penyelesaian terbaik bagi masalah ini ialah dengan mendapatkan persetujuan secara bertulis (hitam putih) dari seseorang yang mahu memeluk Islam diperingkat awal lagi semasa permohonannya dibuat untuk memeluk agama Islam.

Mungkin pihak berkuasa dapat menyediakan satu borang persetujuan khusus berkenaan dengan pelbagai isu yang akan berlaku kepada seseorang yang baru memeluk Islam termasuklah urusan pengendalian jenazahnya setelah beliau meninggal dunia. Seterusnya segala dokumen tersebut hendaklah dibuat mengikut lunas2 undang yang betul supaya kedudukannya sahih di sisi undang2 dan boleh dijadikan bukti di mahkamah kelak.

Saya fikir langkah ini akan dapat menghindar dari berlakunya konflik yang tidak diingini antara pihak yang berkuasa dengan anggota keluarga mereka yang bukan Islam.

Michael said...

Tulang Besi,

You said, and I quote

"I also learnt that all Liberal policies are not economically viable or they are nothing but failures or both."

That is a sweeping statement.

There are clear examples of secular societies propering in peace and harmony.

If you do not know what these countries are, shame on you and you should stop making sweeping and unfounded statements.

Anonymous said...

Chief,

I tend to agree with your idea. ANd you know wht? it will work.

Not that your idea has any better substance or its smarter or its brighter or its any better.

We all know the only way to solve this is to talk about it. call the stakeholders, ngo's and talk abt it, and push for the necessary change. we all know that.

But you know why i think your Idea will work? because it will be hosted by Malays. See it any way you want, but if the BAR council was headed by some Malays, the forum would have been a success and the organizers would have been champions as well, as they potray the willingness of them representing the religion of the majority to discuss and sort out petty issues with the lesser ones from minority groups.

The one which failed last week, was because the minority had choosen to speak & discuss and initiate some discussion abt it.

So it got trumpled.

Its nothing more than the Majority does not want its rights to be even discussed by the minority.

If at all there is a discussion, then it shd be done by the majority.

And that way it will work.

Alex said...

Dear Tulang Besi,

While the points you raise are commendable, what is not commendable is your very personal insults against alhadee (mental issues etc.). As far as I see it, alhadee has not launch personal attacks against you per se but against the logic of your arguments. I wonder how you could be a part of an inter-faith council when you are here calling people who disagree with you mentally unstable?

I don't see what is so hard to understand about alhadee's logical argument. He is in fact arguing for the separation of church (mosque) and state. That does not make us less religious, it just takes religion out of politics and puts it more on a social, lifestyle, ideological, philosophical level. As you can see, whenever religion mixes with politics the results are very very toxic. Witness Christianity's bloody Crusades, Hindu's bloody riots in India, and Muslims bloody terrorist campaigns.

And there are still millions of Christians, Hindus, Muslims and other religions who like to mix politics and religion to deadly effect. And from an earlier posting, Lenin is not the father of secularism. You have a lot to learn my friend. Perhaps the Wikipedia article titled Secularism will get you started?

It is precisely secularism in the West that has lessened (but not eliminated) the thirst for imposing violence & threats on minorities within and outside Christianity. Separating the mosque/church from politics would do a whole lot of good in Malaysia, but in no way does it mean that we are trying to destroy or bash religion.

alhadee said...

yang solve problem to, seluruh USA ke solved?
=======

annoymous 8.47am,

Tak selesai semuanya, itu diakui.Malah, saya sendiri menyatakan bahawa masalah perkauman masih byk berlaku di negara-negara Barat.

Tetapi usaha untuk menyelesaikan masalah diskriminasi itu berjalan dari semasa ke semasa.

Apa yang ingin kita buat perbandingan adalah bagaimana di negara-negara maju yang sekular, usaha bersungguh2 telah diambil untuk mengurangkan perkauman, dan meningkatkan perlindungan untuk kaum minoriti.

Untuk rujukan saudara sendiri, untuk senarai undang2 anti perkauman, saudara boleh rujuk kepada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-discrimination_acts

Sila rujuk kes-kes saman anti diskriminasi yang ada dinegara-negara yang disenaraikan. Saudara boleh dapati bagaimana usaha yang bersungguh2 dari pihak yang berkuasa, eksekutif, legislator dan juga mahkamah untuk meminimumkan diskriminasi berdasarkan gender, kaum dan agama.

Tidak timbul soal untuk mempertahankan sesuatu kaum atau bangsa hanya semata-mata kerana mereka majoriti malah tidak timbul soal untuk mempertahankan 'maruah' atau 'kedaulatan' 75.1% Caucasian di sana. Malah pelbagai undang-undang pula digubal dan dikuatkuasakan untuk melindungi kaum/agama minoriti

Cuba bandingkan dengan Malaysia pula. Oh, mungkin tidak perlu. Bandingkan dengan PAS.

Orang bukan Islam tidak boleh menjadi ahli walaupun dia jujur, menentang rasuah dan kezaliman. Tak perlu nak bercakap mereka jadi pemimpin, jadi ahli pun tidak layak.

Tapi Hadi Awang yang menipu rakyat nampaknya akan dikekalkan menjadi Presiden, iaitu jawatan No 1 dalam PAS.

alhadee said...

I think you should just ignore him/her as it looks like he/she just want to argue until the cow comes home.
=========

Mei,

I argue because there are people like RC who thinks closed forum is the solution while we have people like Prof Mehrun Siraj, wife of Tuan Haji Sulaiman who attend the forum and this is what she got to say;

"..You are wakil UMNO, saya wakil orang Islam…Sebagai orang Islam kita mesti bertindak dengan cara yang baik..”

and later on;

"Saya sebagai seorang Islam yang mempertahankan Perkara 121(1A) perlembagaan Malaysia,hadir pada forum ini sebab saya percaya cara untuk menyelesaikan apa-apa pertikaian antara orang Islam dengan orang bukan Islam adalah dengan cara perbincangan dan menerangkan kepada orang yang bukan Islam"

I have a lot of disagreement with her but her stand on this issue, which is 'untuk bertindak dengan cara yang baik' and 'adalah dengan cara perbincangan dan menerangkan kepada orang yang bukan Islam' and her attendance at an oepn forum is something appreciated very much.

And her attending the forum to voice out her opinion, is to me an honorable thing to do compare to the 300 Talibans who went berserk and who wish Malaysia to turn into another Afghanistan.

Please refer to:

http://harismibrahim.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/who-caused-the-confusion-about-the-forum-and-why

alhadee said...

But i love to indulge people like him. Makes me feel good to know that there are people inferior to me.
=======

Rc, RC,

Good to hear you love to indulge people like me. As for inferiority, I have no fear of people who resort to personal attack and whose tactics is to divert, with hopes to draw attention, from the real issue.

And as for 'superiority' and 'inferiority', I am afraid that I don't share your Taliban sentiments who looks at the non Muslims as Kafirs and filth. And who categorized people based on religious and racist terms.

All man are born equal. I might not see a Bangsa Malaysia in my lifetime, but that does not mean I will stop fighting for it.

alhadee said...

I also learnt that all Liberal policies are not economically viable or they are nothing but failures or both.
=========

I suggest you look up at the IMF advanced economy list. Or maybe if your brain could think other things than to kill apostate, you can also look up for research on standards of living and quality of life by Economist Intelligence Unit.

Afghanistan is not included in the 30 countries with the highest index.

Tulang Besi said...

Alhaid says:
"I suggest you look up at the IMF advanced economy list. Or maybe if your brain could think other things than to kill apostate, you can also look up for research on standards of living and quality of life by Economist Intelligence Unit."

REPLY: I had seen and believe me it has nothing to do with liberalism or with secularism.

It also shows you don't know what u read.

Plus, if u look at Africa, all of the country there is secular. So, that alone disaprove the notion tha t secularism is a sure receipi for sucsess.

Tulang Besi said...

Alex says:

"I don't see what is so hard to understand about alhadee's logical argument. He is in fact arguing for the separation of church (mosque) and state. That does not make us less religious, it just takes religion out of politics and puts it more on a social, lifestyle, ideological, philosophical level."
REPLY: For Islam, that means we will be giving up a large chunk of our religion.

We will be ditching a significant portion of our religion.

Especially when separation of church and state is not the real reason why Western countries are sucsessful.

Tulang Besi said...

Alex says:

"As you can see, whenever religion mixes with politics the results are very very toxic. Witness Christianity's bloody Crusades, Hindu's bloody riots in India, and Muslims bloody terrorist campaigns."

REPLY: Wait the minute, didn't Lenin killed 20 mil innocent live? DIdn't he starved 2 million Ukrainians ti death?

Didn't Stalin caused the death of 40 mil innocent lives? Didn't Pol Pot killed 1 mil people? Mao Ze Tung, Hiroshima, Nagasaki etc.

The list goes on and on.

Joseph said...

Only a secular country allows real freedom of religion, not anti-religion. if anti-religion, none of the religion that you mentioned could exist at all in USA. It's the communist that's anti-religion. Don't simply blame a system without a fair analysis.

By the way, USA is a great because it is open and ready to accept many different but constructive suggestions. After a century, it's still the biggest economy and freest country in the world. Whether you like it or not.

As for Jews, I think they are most successful people on earth even though there are only about 27 million Jews (including Israel). We can learn much from them.

Anonymous said...

Negara Sekular adalah masa depan Malaysia yang berbilang kaum. Bukan negara Islam. Full stop.

Tulang Besi said...

Joseph says:

"Only a secular country allows real freedom of religion, not anti-religion. if anti-religion, none of the religion that you mentioned could exist at all in USA. It's the communist that's anti-religion. Don't simply blame a system without a fair analysis."

REPLY: Maybe it's because communism has secularism at it's core.

And again you're missing the big picture. The reason why religion is tolerated in the USA is due to the policy on TOLERANCE and FREEDOM, and not due to SECULARISM.

Secularism on it's own is anti religion. Which is why the Communists adopt secularism as it's basic tenet.


Secularism is not tolerance. People are free to practice their religion in a country that professes tolerance and not necessarily secularism.

secularism is basically an ideology that stresses the isolation of religion from the public domain, to make it simple.

And for communism, it is an ideology that has secularism as it's core tenets.

As such, secularism

alhadee said...

Especially when separation of church and state is not the real reason why Western countries are sucsessful.
========

Prove this if you could RC.

It is one of the reason, no doubt

alhadee said...

And again you're missing the big picture. The reason why religion is tolerated in the USA is due to the policy on TOLERANCE and FREEDOM, and not due to SECULARISM.
========

It comes in one package RC. When the Churches was booted out of politics, meaning secularism, only then there exists tolerance and freedom since no particular religion reign in a secular state.

When one religion reigns, it will, like it or not, restrict other religions. There is no such thing as Tolerance and Freedom of religion without secularism.

Please do read on the history of the Churches in the West.

alhadee said...

Unlike Talibans who claim that a creation of a theological state is the solutions to all problems, the liberalists acknowledge that secularism is not the only factor contributing to success of those countries.

But the creation of the condusive environment is greatly contributed by secularism. One only need to refer to the history of Europe during Middle Ages and the development of the seperation of state and church idea and its implementation.

The idea of freedom of expression and freedom of religion does not appear out of nowhere. It was developed in the Western nation over hundreds of years of experience, right from the monarchy it was once was to the very secular democratic it is today.

This secular concept is one of the essential factors that contribute to the success of developed countries. We just have to look south, to our neighbouring Singapore.

When Singapore was booted out from Malaysia, it was on the same par, in terms of development with Malaysia. The currency and income was almost similar, the social structure too was not that far off with a combination of Malays, Chinese and Indians as its core population. And most important, both started its industrialization policy at almost the same time, Singapore in 1965, and Malaysia during the reign of Tun Razak in 1970.

However, Singapore has a lot of disadvantages. It lacks of natural resources, space and the population is relatively small. Malaysia on the other hand, has a lot of natural resources, petroleum being one of them. It has sufficient land

We could compare the history of both countries till this day. In the south, one of the first policy that was introduced for the Singaporean is the concept of one nation in a secular oriented country while for Malaysia, it was bog down by the nationalism policy in the 70s and starting late 70s, the Islamization competitiveness between 2 largest party in Malaysia namely UMNO and PAS.

The crux of Singapore success is largely indebted to its secular oriented government and its secular education. When extremism is kept in bay, the nation could then focus on its nation building.

In 1965, the Singapore government exposed this explicitly in its policy of nation building. One the statement expressed 'Whilst a multi-racial secular society is an ideal espoused by many, it is a dire necessity for our survival in the midst of turmoil and the pressure of big power conflict..'

Although Singapore is, for all purposes, is a secular country, it does not mean religion was alienated in anyway. Addressing the Buddhist, who makes up the majority of Singaporeans, Lee Kuan Yew said 'grow in strength, and help make Singapore a more tolerant and a harmonious nation despite our many different religions'.

For the Muslims, the message is almost the same; 'the leaden of the Muslim community would always interpret Islamic doctrine in a way that would be to the benefit of its followers and the general good of the community'

The state has, since independence, acknowledged that the Malays as a minority group has to be treated sensitively. The Administration of Muslim Law was enacted and came into effect in 1966. Around the same time, the Council of Muslim Religion, Majlis Ugama Islam (MUIS) was established officially in 1968 to "assist Muslim organisations in Singapore to regulate their affairs and to administer the Muslim.

The conclusion is this; Singapore, which is in one of IMF list of developed countries could only achieve this due to it's policy of focussing on nation building on the very basis of multi-racial secular approach. No religion reign supreme over other although it might be the majority. But even by this, it does not mean that any religion will or would be alienated.

So where is Malaysia now?? Ermmm.. we manage to send someone to space on a tourist package, manage to segregate sexes in check out counters in one of the state and at the moment considering banning lipstick and high heels and female concerts.

Anonymous said...

why the stigma on atheism? there are no better than those who belong to some organised religion?
i have seen great individuals who are atheists.
anyway, appreciate your thoughts on the need for inter-faith meetings to enhance understanding and reduce prejudices.

Tulang Besi said...

Al Haid said:

"
It comes in one package RC. When the Churches was booted out of politics, meaning secularism, only then there exists tolerance and freedom since no particular religion reign in a secular state."

REPLY: When did that happen, Al Haid?

For instance, until today, the Church of England still have seat in the House of Lords.

In fact the only time where religion is totally wiped out from state affairs is when the communists came into power.

Tulang Besi said...

Alhaid says:

"When one religion reigns, it will, like it or not, restrict other religions. There is no such thing as Tolerance and Freedom of religion without secularism.

Please do read on the history of the Churches in the West."

REPLY: Maybe u need to read the history of Islam, then. The concept of freedom of religion was practiced by ISlam 1200 years before any of the secular western states even thought of it

But then again, i can't blame u for being ignorant. Otherwise, you wont be a secularists.

Anonymous said...

Semua masalah manusia mesti ada jalan penyelesaiannya, ini adalah kerana yg mencipta masaalah itu ialah manusia itu sendiri.

I must agree to what Uncle Samuel said.."We must have more open hearts, minds and souls.".

Seseorang itu mempunyai hak peribadi keatas dirinya...seseorang itu jugak mesti bertanggungjawab keatas apa sahaja keputusan yg telah dilakukan oleh nya.Semua orang ingin menjadi anak2, ibubapa..serta Rakyat yg baik..

Isu agama dan bangsa menjadi sensetif serta kucar kacir apa bila kita tak mahu menghormati hak serta pendirian individu keatas didirinya...kita mestilah menghormati keputusan serta hak individu selagi perbuatan sesorang individu itu tidak melangar undang2 agama dan undang2 negara...

Apa sahaja masaalah dari segi perundangan yg kabur atau yg perlu tafsiran semula..maka hendaklah dibincangkan oleh pakar pakar yg Adil dan Berwibawa...

Pada saya rata rata rakyat Malaysia tidak kira apa bangsa dan agama sebenarnya telah bersatu dalam hal hal mempertahan maruah negara, bangsa dan agama masing masing...
Ramai dari kita telah dilatih supaya berkonpromidan menerima adat budaya lain bangsa dan agama agar kita dapat hidup dalam harmoni.

Yang menjadi masalah serta yg menjadi duri dalam daging masyarakat Malaysia sekarang ialah..
Terdapatnya individu2 serta puak puak tertentu yg ingin menonjolkan diri sebagai juara atau "champion" dalam memperjuangkan isu isu yg sebenar nya boleh selesai atai diatasi dengan cara baik.

Saya amat inginkan Pemimpin2 yang ikhlas dan ingin melihat negara Malaysia serta Rakyatnya bersatu dan maju serta hidup dalam keadaan aman dan makmur serta harmoni...

I believe what we want is to live in peace and harmony...


Prince

alhadee said...

For instance, until today, the Church of England still have seat in the House of Lords.
=======

Very good RC. They were reappointed when the House of Lords Act 1999 was enacted.

The process of appointing figures from the religious authority in the House of Lords was similar to the establishment of Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura or MUIS.

These appointments are not against secularism liberal concept. It means the voices from the relevant religious bodies, in this case Church for England, and MUIS for Singapore are heard and are given consideration by the relevant authorities.

In a secular democratic country, not only opinions from secularists are considered, but voices from religious bodies too are heard, debated and considered before any decision would be made.

By bringing up the example from the House of Lords and MUIS, therefore proves your accusation that secularism is anti-religion is untrue, especially when referring to advance nations.

alhadee said...

The concept of freedom of religion was practiced by ISlam 1200 years before any of the secular western states even thought of it
========

That concept of 'freedom of religion' practiced by the Sunni is clearly shown by the 'fair' treatment they meted to the Syiah and those who are not in the Sunni mainstream.

And yes, anyone are 'free' to practice his religion provided it is the type of 'religion' which is approved on the list.

Others are not tolerated.

That is 'freedom of religion' for the likes of you.

Tulang Besi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tulang Besi said...

Alhaid says:

"That concept of 'freedom of religion' practiced by the Sunni is clearly shown by the 'fair' treatment they meted to the Syiah and those who are not in the Sunni mainstream."

REPLY: Last i check, Shia is not a religion on it's own. They claim to be part of the Islamic faith.

but, they have been proven to be deviated and fragmenting the people.

Plus they took up arms against all Islamic Government.

So that's why they were fought. I guess someone didn't complete his reading.

Half baked knowledge usually leads to this kind of stupid mistakes.

What do you know about freedom, u screen all your comments in your blog.

Tulang Besi said...

Alhaid says:

"
Very good RC. They were reappointed when the House of Lords Act 1999 was enacted.

The process of appointing figures from the religious authority in the House of Lords was similar to the establishment of Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura or MUIS.

These appointments are not against secularism liberal concept. It means the voices from the relevant religious bodies, in this case Church for England, and MUIS for Singapore are heard and are given consideration by the relevant authorities.
____________________________________
REPLY: That means religion still play a role in the public domain.

It means that secularism is not practiced in full, or from another viewpoint, these countries are not 100% secular despite claiming so.

The only type of state that is purely secular is a communist state.

So, seeing that you are an ardent secularist, you should be prostating to your God, Lenin, Stalin, MAo Tze Tung, Pol Pot etc.

I am good because i learned.

The same cannot be said about Al haid seeing all the stupid mistakes he makes about Islam.

I like pointing out stupid mistakes by Al Haid. It makes me look smart.

alhadee said...

The only type of state that is purely secular is a communist state.
=========

Wrong.

Communist state is an atheist state. And it does not fit the description of a secular state proposed by advance nation, which is a state that neither propose or oppose the influence of any particular religion.

That is why you can still find a number of European countries which have state church, meaning official religion of the country.

But other religion can be practiced freely and no religion, although it is the official religion, can enforce its belief on other religion.

Please keep in mind that 'Secular' and 'secular state' is 2 different thing altogether. I suggest you read more books other than those which discuss on ways to kill apostates.

In contrast, an atheist state is in general against any organized religion. A very distinctive character of an atheist state is either it opposed totally religion, or it discourage it.

It does not fit to the description of a 'secular state' where one widely accepted definition is a state which neither propose or oppose any religion. In other word, to many in the West, a secular state is neutral in its approach towards any religion.

My advice to you is this; please read more.

alhadee said...

Plus they took up arms against all Islamic Government.
=========

That will include Saidina Hasan and Saidina Husayn, the grandsons of the Prophet, peace be upon him, whom he love so much. Please don't forget the murder of Saidina Husayn by Khalifah Yazid's army.

But of course, to people of you it is a sin to go against 'Islamic' government such as Khalifah Yazid even how tyrant he is.

And that is Yazid, errrr... how many Caliphs are known to be fair and just other than Umar Abdul Aziz during centuries of Umayad, Abasid and Ottoman caliphates era?

Tulang Titanium said...

dear al hadee, been following your exchange with Tulang Besi for quite sometime. i think you are good. very good.

and i strongly feel that Malaysia would be much a better place without zealots like Tulang Besi.

just looking at his lines of arguments, his stupidity and narrow mindedness are so glaringly unbelievable.

it is hard to comprehend how can one become so stupid.

i think there is an extremely urgent need to identify the religious that is responsible for making one becoming so stupid like him in order to save Malaysia and its future generation.

i think people like Tulang are true hypocrites and so full of shit!

yeah go ahead Tulang Besi, you can delete this comment.

Anonymous said...

Islamist like Tulang Besi loves to portray themselves as very tolerant and open. But look at TB arguments. They are very shallow and full of insult. He even insults alhadee by calling him alhaid which is very unprofessional.
Tulang Besi does not believe in secular because all he believe is in Ketuanan Islam not fairness for all.

Tulang Besi said...

Alhaid says:

"Wrong.

Communist state is an atheist state. And it does not fit the description of a secular state proposed by advance nation, which is a state that neither propose or oppose the influence of any particular religion."

REPLY: Shows how much u know about secularism.

Let me put it again in simpler terms so that u may understand.

In all Western states, deapite claiming to be secular, still have elements of religion in their public domain.

In other words, despite trying, they are not purely 100% secular.

Also, being secular means that you are an atheist in the public domain while being a believer of God in the private domain.

So, at least the communists are not hypocritical as they disbelieve in God in both public and private domain.

Tulang Besi said...

Alhaid says:

"That will include Saidina Hasan and Saidina Husayn, the grandsons of the Prophet, peace be upon him, whom he love so much. Please don't forget the murder of Saidina Husayn by Khalifah Yazid's army."

REPLY: Since when did the grandsons of the PRophet took up arms against the Chaliphate?

U need to get yur facts straight.

Tulang Titanium said...

tb says; 'In all Western states, deapite claiming to be secular, still have elements of religion in their public domain.In other words, despite trying, they are not purely 100% secular.'

you want to know something tb? you are so damn stupid.

so what if there are elements of religion. it is a fact that there are some good in religion. and secularism basically argues for reasoning that is free from religious influence.

so if there were good reasoning that happened to coincide with religious elements - than it is ok to absorb such elements in the system.

so what is the big issue here. Do you really know what you're talking about TB??


tb says again; 'In other words, despite trying, they are not purely 100% secular.'

so what the big fuckin deal here?? sigh...you seriously need to get that religious doctrines that is responsible in making you dumb out of your mind dude.


and finally tb says; 'Also, being secular means that you are an atheist in the public domain while being a believer of God in the private domain.So, at least the communists are not hypocritical as they disbelieve in God in both public and private domain.'


tb, seriously, you might as well kill yourself. i think without zealot like you around - there will no problem for islam and muslim to reach the hight of its previous glory.

you're gone case dude.but pls don't cry. you're already too ugly when you're not crying.

now, let's see you goin to delete this comment.

alhadee said...

Also, being secular means that you are an atheist in the public domain while being a believer of God in the private domain.
===============

Erm, I strongly advice you to study secularism from more independent sources.

Atheis in the public domain?

Wrong again RC.

A secular state while remains neutral towards any religion, at the same time religious figures are not prohibited in anyway to express ideas and suggestions in public domain.

But whether the idea is feasible or not is open for debates and criticism. And thus it is open to be rejected or accepted based on its merits.

Unlike Islamic State, who silence the opposing voice by declaring them deviants and with that comes severe punishment, the Western secular states takes a different approach.

And unlike Islamic State, where the people of the cloth meaning the Ulamas, are given special status over the common people, a liberal secular state has no special preference at all.

Like I said, this equality does not come out of nowhere. It comes after many centuries of Church dominance, which has resulted in abuse of power and tyranny, and all in the name of God.

In the west, though it is a secular state for all intent and purposes, all are treated equally. Whether you are a secular liberal, a fundamentalists or even an atheist. All can voice out their opinion in public domain without fear of prosecution. And all opinions will be subjected to criticism and will be tested for its merits.

No special preference would given, even to the secularists in a liberal secular state. The neutrality is the very basis of the foundation of what a Western secular state is.

It is a matter of personal choice of course whether you would want to be an atheist in public domain or not.

But of course, to people like RC, questioning the merits of Ulama's decree is equivalent to atheism.

alhadee said...

Since when did the grandsons of the PRophet took up arms against the Chaliphate?
=========


In Karbala RC. After the promise by the hypocrite liar Umaiyah to appoint Saidina Husayn as the next Khalifah was broken, the supporter of Saidina Husayn gather in Karbala.

And Khalifah Yazid bin Umaiyah army massacre Saidina Husayn and his supporters. It is all about power struggle.

But of course, the supporter of Khalifah Yazid bin Umaiyah wanted people to believe that Saidina Husayn was murdered by his own supporters.

And it was never explain why supporter of Ahlul Bait would want to slain the grandson of the Prophet, whom they wanted so much to be the next Caliphs. No one in his right mind would want to believe that.

It is the same like believing Hadi Awang when he claimed that PAS never go and discuss with UMNO on power sharing, only to be proved otherwise. It is like Nasa who threaten to sue people who leaked out the story about him discussing with UMNO leaders.

This baseless claim is very hard to be believed. Especially when it comes from the people with interest. The supporter of Umayad Dynasty wanted Khalifah Yazid to retain power despite his father's promise that Saidina Husayn will be his successor.

alhadee said...

Annoymous 9.11am and Tulang Titanium,

Don't be so hard up on RC. Please try to understand his situation.

His definition of secularism comes from the Ulama. Ulamas are just man with normal ego, and it is normal for them to hate secularism.

And why not, because their political power and influenced would then be minimized, and their fatwa would be criticized and debated in an open secular society.

Ulamas, as ordinary man with ego and pride, would want their opinion/fatwas to be taken as God given truth and secularism does not allow this.

The Ulama are wrong because like RC, to them 'being secular means that you are an atheist in the public domain'. That is never the purpose of secularism, in the West especially. And it is a far fetch from what a secular state is all about.

Anonymous 9.11am said '..They are very shallow and full of insult. He even insults alhadee by calling him alhaid which is very unprofessional...'

That is the tip of the iceberg bro. Should they come into power, insults is the very least thing opposing voice like me should worry about. As long as they declare you as deviants, expect to lose your life unless you comply with what they force upon your throat.

That is why I bring up the subject of Syiah although I am not in anyway, a Syiah or its sympathizer. The crime of Syiah is because they condemn certain Sahabah and to support Ahlul Bayt as the deserving leaders of Muslims.

Imagine, for that they are massacred, murdered and tortured although the orthodox Syiahs too believe in Allah and Muhammad and the Quran, and the Syariah.

So what can non Muslims expect in an Islamic State? And what can Muslims like me who question the mainstream Sunni Ulama expect? A 5 star treatment?

Purple Haze said...

I am not a scholarly type and thus offer my layman understanding of the word "secular", to make arguments simple, as I think you are giving secularism a bad name !

Secular - to me - means "independant of religion" as opposed to anti-religion. Atheists are by and large, anti-religion and as alhadee has also mentioned, the Communists were anti-religion, hence atheistic in outlook, not secular.

As such, secularism does not suppress religion. It just wants everyone and their religion to be equal - hence, in a drastic and sometimes unpopular way with people of strong views of having faith/belief systems, no one religion dominates. So, perhaps secularism suppresses dominance of any one religion but not the practice of religion in itself.

For example, the US Pledge of Allegiance, has a phrase "One Nation Under God, Indivisible ..." of which the "Under God" words were inserted in 1954 (and still subsists). The original pledge did not have this. Some US Muslims might want to make reference to Allah instead of God. As such, instead of upsetting people from different religious faiths who may not subscribe to "God" but some other word or meaning, why not take it out and everyone is equal ?

I have to take my hat off to the Founding Fathers of America who refused to institutionalise religion into the Constitution. They probably had seen the effects and learnt from their British colonial masters ... who still have a seat in the House of Lords as Tulang Besi has pointed out.

I believe that PM Gordon Brown has already indicated that he is not in favour of it, so things are changing but perhaps not as fast as internet speed in this arena.

Tulang Besi, I stand corrected but I am only relating this from a simple person's view point. Why are the ulamaks so adamant that secularism is not a good thing in multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural Malaysia ? Is it because if there is separation between mosque and state, the millions of Ringgit of funding from taxpayers will diminish to some of the religous agencies ?

Serious Shepherd said...

Secularism is not the problem, the way it is implemented in countries like Malaysia, Egypt and Turkey are the problems. Actions like the ban of headscarf in Turkey and the transfer of RTM's newscaster to RTM's radio station simply because she wears headscarf or the ban of Christian prayer at US public schools are some events that will be caught in the eyes of fundamentalists like Tulang Besi. They forgot to look at freedom of speeches etc. etc. from democratic values, since such values do not exist in most secular Muslim countries like Egypt.

In the end, the fundamentalists conclude that secularism is all about suppressing mainstream religion while giving very minimal powers to the minority religion.

Oh yes, pls chk the definition of secular in Cambridge Dictionaries Online and its sample sentence for the word 'secularise'. I can't blame Tulang Besi for having distorted views about secularism.

Anonymous said...

The Muslim groups were invited by the Council of non-Muslims to join in discusssion. PM said good idea but DPM shot it down and said they couyld not do so. In the US the Muslims agreed to save themselves after 9/11. Here they are 'safe' so they don't need to whereas the nons feel 'unsafe'. That's the difference.

Anonymous said...

The Muslim groups were invited by the Council of non-Muslims to join in discusssion. PM said good idea but DPM shot it down and said they couyld not do so. In the US the Muslims agreed to save themselves after 9/11. Here they are 'safe' so they don't need to whereas the nons feel 'unsafe'. That's the difference.

Anonymous said...

"Which is why i believed secularism should not even enter into the picture because secularism is essentially an anti-religion ideology, an anti-thesis to religion. A secularist approach towards this issue is a disaster waiting to happen."

That's double talk, first you commend the interfaith dialogue in secular USA, then you denounce secularism.
Secularism is not anti-religion, it was wat gave them the freedom to practice your beliefs .

Anonymous said...

and please... communists practice socialism, not secularism,. Whatever basic tenet you claim is ridiculous. Apes and humans from one single source and chose their own evolution path. We are similar but we are not the same.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

ARiF merupakan jentera utama Harapan Baru di dalam membantu kelancaran gerakerja semua peringkat.

Kami ARiF Melaka memerlukan sumbangan dan bantuan kewangan daripada tuanpuan untuk kami melakukan gerakerja berkenaan. Oleh kerana kami masih baru, sumbangan diperlukan untuk menampung kos pakaian, membeli peralatan komunikasi, peralatan lalulintas dan sebagainya.

Kami amat berbebsar hati jika tuan/puan dapat menghulurkan sumangan kepada kami. Segala sumbangan diserahkan kepada pemegang amanah ARiF Melaka.

MOHD AZWAN AHMAD
a/k Maybank : 104013154427

Hantarkan makluman bank-in melalui SMS/WA ke 016-981 1315 (H.ANUAR)

Semuga Allah membalas segala jasa baik tuan/puan semua.