Setiap Artikel Malaysiawaves ke Email Anda.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Dipersilakan untuk Like Facebook Page T. Besi

Search Malaysiawaves

Monday, September 8, 2008

The Tudung Debate at MToday: An Altenative View

Raja Petra Kamaruddin is championing Islamic interpretation from unknown sources. My take is that his source is from the Anti Hadeeth sect. That is why it sounds so weird.

I read Raja Petra’s article on the tudung issue at “The great tudung debate” and “The Great Tudung Debate Part 2?”.

I noticed that Raja Petra has sought the help of his Anti Hadeeth friend to comment on such a clear issue as the compulsion of wearing a tudung in Islam. My question to Raja Petra is why couldn’t he published the opinion of scholars in Islam. Isn’t it a fair practice to hear from both side of the isle before one makes one’s conclusion?

Even his anonymous friend, whom he consulted and published, had demonstrated abject ignorance in the subject, not to mention the fact that this friend of his shows characteristics of Anti Hadeeth.

For example, his friend tried to interpret verse 24:31. He says:

walyadribna : and strike / cover
bi khumurihinna : with their outer garments
Ala : over / upon
juyoobihinna : their bosoms / breasts

Women are told to cover their chests/bosoms/breasts. That is all. This tallies with the earlier verse 33:59 above where the women are told to lengthen their clothes/garments. There is absolutely no mention of head (ru'usa), face (wujuh) or hair.

The fact that he says “no reference to tudung” shows that he is ignorant of the subject. The word “khumur” from the word “khimar” means “head cover” or “tudung”.

And he translated the word “juyubihinna” as “breast/bosom/chests” is also wrong. If we go by his understanding, we have to assume that Arab women at that time walks around showing off their breasts.

The right translation for “juyubihinna” is “your cleavages (female)”. And 24:31 tells women to cover their “cleaveges” with their “head covers” otherwise known as “khimar”.

The word “Al Khimar” is used to mean “head cover” even to this day. In the Arabic world today, no one will take Khimar as anything else but “head cover”.

So,in truth, RPK should not have referred to his Anti Hadeeth source. I personally have recorded HUNDREDS of INCONSITENCIES and CONTRADICTIONS of the ANTI HADEETH sect. I recorded them in various articles and they can be read at my other blog-spot called “AntiAntiHadeeth” . There you will be able to read to your heart’s content the fallacies and stupidity of the Anti Hadeeth ideology. And, the best thing about this blog, I feel, is that I use only the Quran to argue my case. And I feel I have successfully argue that the Quran contradicts the Anti Hadeeth ideology. Especially when the Quran itseld says that As Sunnah is "REVELATIONS FROM GOD".

RPK also published a second article entitled “The Great Tudung Debate Part 2?”. The article argues that the “tudung” practice originates from the Christians and Jewish traditions. The article also have pictures of nuns wearing head covers to prove his point.

RPK should also realize one fact. If this is true, then we also have to admit to the fact that the Quran is also taken from Christians and Jewish traditions? Why do I say this?

Take for example the prohibition of Pork. They are both prohibited in the Quran and Bible:

Quran: "Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah." [Al-Qur’an 5:3]

Bible"And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven footed, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you".

"Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcass shall ye not touch, they are unclean to you." [Leviticus 11:7-8]

At least, covering one’s head is not mention in the Bible or Torah, but prohibition of pork is mentioned clearly.

But, then again, this is what happens when u take Islamic instructions from Anti Hadeeth or Liberal Muslim sources. You will end up with contradictions not understanding of the Quran.

In conclusion, the fact that RPK refuses to take instructions from credible scholars of Islam is a telling sign. If he is unsatisfied with one scholar, he can always refer to another scholar. But I can tell u that all scholars of Islam will point to the same conclusion, that wearing “tudung” is compulsory in Islam.

My advice to Raja Petra, stop taking instructions on Islam from unknown and anonymous sources, especially when such source is proven to be incompetent.

I hope this will just serve as a friendly reminder to my friend Raja Petra. In matters of religion, it is always a good idea to be very careful especially when it comes to interpretation of the Quran and As Sunnah.

Tulang Besi

67 comments:

Sophia said...

Basically, a tudung is a piece of cloth over my head. It doesn't help protect me from rapists, it doesn't prevent me from sinning if I want to, and it basically is nothing more than a piece of cloth over my head.

I'm pro-choice, and I believe that you men should stay out of women's affairs. It is our basic right to decide if we want to wear it, when we want to wear or however we want to wear. I honestly find men who forces their women to wear the tudung mostly are the posessive and ego-problem types. They also leer at women with wolf-whistles, etc and treat them not so nice.

Now, I am not making a generalization of all Muslim men, assuredly, I was fortunate to meet some really nice ones that respect women irrespective of what they wear. The weather in M'sia is hot, humid and sweaty, it is a matter of practicality and I for one believe that imposition of Islamic values on unwilling women is horrible.

Personally, would it really matter whether a woman covers up her head or not? Protestations against bikinis, I can understand, but I must insist that we should not go overboard like Kelantan now, compulsory tudung wearing for civil servants, no lipsticks, no heels, I mean, seriously.

You people are weird.

Tayadih Maysia said...

Salam bro,

Bernas! Lebih baik Raja Petra tulis berkaitan dengan politik sajalah. Bahaya jika menulis sesuatu yang bukan kepakaran kita

kepada sophia:Jika anda muslimah, saya nasihatkan supaya anda simpan komen anda sebagai jawapan anda di depan Tuhan di padang masyhar nanti. Sungguh panas!

Anonymous said...

the basic principle, sophia, of the compulsion for muslimah to cover their aurat is not because it prevents rape.

it is because it is Allah's biddings. it is as simple as that.

while ktan move to enforce it in their law is a different matter. but that does not make the compulsion null and void.

alok

amoker said...

And which part from the bible did you quote this?

"Bible"And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven footed, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you"."

The arrangement of the word & syntaxlooks more from Islamic source than the bible. While it is true that Jews do refrain from eating unclean animals, God clearly says that we are his steward ( Genesis) over animals , and all animals are clean.

I do love my pork. Hope that clarifies simply the Christian postion on pig. Yummy.

Tinta Rakyat said...

kepada sophia, sila review blk anda punye comment. Sebagai seorg Islam, anda tidak layak untuk beri pandangan anda sebegitu rupa. Sila guna OTAK jgn guna NAFSU

Anonymous said...

People like Raja Petra, Sophia and those like them prefer to find excuses to justify why they or their spouses do not wear the tudung. Of course wearing the tudung does not prevent rape or prevent one from committing sins.
It is a religious requirement, like the wearing of the turban by the Sikhs. It does not stop the sikhs from committing sins. But at least a sikh who wears turban but commits sins can answer to his God in the hereafter, ' Please God,please be fair to me, please wallop me for my sins but for the other requirement of yours I am OK'.Of course whether a person wants to wear the tudung or not is up to her. The job of others is only to advice.Once the advice has been given , then their responsibility is done.

Anonymous said...

People like Raja Petra, Sophia and those like them prefer to find excuses to justify why they or their spouses do not wear the tudung. Of course wearing the tudung does not prevent rape or prevent one from committing sins.
It is a religious requirement, like the wearing of the turban by the Sikhs. It does not stop the sikhs from committing sins. But at least a sikh who wears turban but commits sins can answer to his God in the hereafter, ' Please God,please be fair to me, please wallop me for my sins but for the other requirement of yours I am OK'.Of course whether a person wants to wear the tudung or not is up to her. The job of others is only to advice.Once the advice has been given , then their responsibility is done.

Serious Shepherd said...

"At least, covering one’s head is not mention in the Bible or Torah"

I beg to differ. There is a requirement for women to cover their head, but men are not supposed to do so.

From 1 Corinthians 11:4-6 (New International Version):

4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.

5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved.

6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

Serious Shepherd said...

Amoker said "The arrangement of the word & syntaxlooks more from Islamic source than the bible."

Tulang Besi quoted from King James Version(KJV) of the Bible. You can read the entire Leviticus 11 KJV here.

lleekh said...

Believing has nothing to do with the truth. Everybody at one time or another believe in lies. And a lot of people were willing and are still dying because of it. You dont have to look for justification. You dont need justification. Just go around shouting that people are against your religion and your race and see how many people will jump up to follow you. But of course if you have no power and are in the minority then you talk a little softer and some times are forced by the majority and those with power. In 99% of all societies the women are the ones who are terrorized and victimized. ANd the people doing so are the men..they are always doing it for the "best" interests of the women! What irony. Imagine your wife in a burka! Stop bullying the women. They have the right to do what they want. What about no compulsion in religion?

mr. norkilah said...

atleast sophia put her name sophia rather than other talk only put anonymous ! is it hard to put name??? you all want to know really wat use of tudung? ask bruneian ppl! there are more pure muslim than malaysian muslim. why in arab those muslim wear tudung untill only left 2 eyes out? ANswer simple bcos arab alot of "habuk pasir" there just avoid to get the "habuk pasir" - this is one of the reason that they said. WHy malaysia muslim want to wear tudung? ini islam hadhari ! tudung tak tudung bukan soalan. yg penting hati jiwa islam. muka islam. itu sahaje. tengok saje sharisat tu.. islam tak islam, indian tak indian, pakaian tudung tak tudung... aiya.... ini bukan persoalan nya lah... banyak maksiat yg kita nampak sebelum ni semua yg kaitan pompuan tudung... jadi apasal kalu pakai tudung masih tak jiwa islam????? inilah malaysia satu-satunya dalam dunia yang flip flop.... kejap begini kejap begitu... hanya UMNO sahaje buat salah tak payah dpt hukuman. ayu join UMNO lah.. kita rompak kita rahsua kita bunuh jan takut kena tangkap angkat sumpah beres "gao tim". Jan bagi tau saya Allah akan hukum saya, itupun tunggu mati dululah.. Yg penting sekarang masih hidup... hidup apa? hidup UMNO !

Anonymous said...

I agree with you TB, in the matter of religion RPK should be more careful. He has posted many misleading things about Islam which he has interpreted by his own whim and fancy.

Anti-Hadith people never failed to amuse me which they always contradicted themselves. Anyway, Al Quran should be read thoroughly, from cover to cover. Not like using a sentence like "no compulsion in religion" and make a mountain of it. The translation too is not the real meaning of the Quran.

I love irony.

Anonymous said...

Basically, a tudung is a piece of cloth over my head.
----------------------------------- yeah baby,so is the underwear n the coli..hehe..why wear clothes eh?might as well b naked just like the naga(naked) sanyasins..in the east a naked sanyasin is respected wat...but woit!!asian cultures,no lakulah..bimbo britney no pake coli,so pompuan asia pun no pake coli la...baru ada standard,ada kelas!!!:-)

Anonymous said...

My question is/are,

(1) do those of you who believe wearing a tudung is wajib wish to enforce this requirement upon women?

and,
(2) if a woman chooses not to wear a tudung, what social problems will exist that would not exist otherwise?

(I'm guessing that Tulang will say "free whoring" but other creative answers are welcome)

Extra credit question for the other side:
What benefits might arise from a society in which women don't feel compelled to wear the tudung?

Emmar

Anonymous said...

Mr.Norkilah.....dont mess religion with Politics....UMNO,PAS or DAp has nothing to do with this tudung thing....

Anonymous said...

The leceh part is human beings telah mentatarakyatkan,moralised revelations of the holy quran(n also other very ancient holy scriptures).The revelations in the holy quran r terrestrial n r not just for the human beings la!!Its actually about the revelations of the SUPREME...its about the characters,functions,nature,powers,energies of the SUPREME ONE..its about who is in charge!!its about who manifested (n how it was manifested/created) we dunggu humans,the universe,the atoms,the heavens,time n space,n everything else..n most importantly also,it also reveals who we really r..but,takpaklah..we can go on debating about tudunging ok or no ok until kingdom come

Anonymous said...

Oh ya,orang asli r practically naked,but,look at them ..so disiplin,so in control..man,they r more purer then us!!Salute the orang asals!!

Kismis said...

Tulang Besi: "...If we go by his understanding, we have to assume that Arab women at that time walks around showing off their breasts."

Sir, it is completely possible that this was the case. Women in Bali were still walking around bare chested when the Dutch got hold of Indonesia. Many cultures (once) had womenfolk walking around bare-chested (including once, the Lao people) and it was not something offensive.

oghang said...

Nak hukum yg praktikal cik Sophia? Buleh.. tapi jangan selektif. Misalnya.. meh kita pakat ramai-ramai buat Kaabah nun kat KL Sentral.. kos efektif dan murah apa..

And you think God is horrible because of His law ? Then please find a better God, better religion & remember.. must be practical. No puasa.. no haram.. and you can set your own law. Fantastic!!

I wonder how could she say that.. (if she's a believer)


O ye that reject Faith!
I worship not that which ye worship;
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
To you be your Way (religion), and to me mine.
Surah Al-Kafiirun

Anonymous said...

A lot of you guys talk like ALLAH. Please keep your interpretations to yourself. Whether I wear a tudung or not I will answer to ALLAH. And let it be known to all of you that no where in the Koran that says that you or anyone can tell me or force me to wear the tudung.

Amira

Anonymous said...

while we debate if a women has to cover her head or not there are Muslim men who practise double standards....

I came across a Muslim restaurant owner who has cleared up his store room so that Muslim men could eat and drink during the puasa month....

Now what kind of fucking Muslim men are these ? They are worse than Kafirs......they are PIGS !

MagM said...

Yes, in the Bible, under Corinthians, women in that Church were asked to cover their heads. However, we are not to only look that that part of the Bible but to look at the Bible on the whole to understand why. The reason was the womenfolk in that Church misbehaved with their loudmouth. It only applied to that Church and no where else.

As for eating pork, yes, in the Old Testament, the Christians were told not to eat pork but after Christ, we could eat it. The reasons for not eating pork those days was because pigs were dirty and caused diseases and there was no cure.

However, Christians are not forced to do anything they don't want to do. Everything is between the individual and God and I like it that way. Pro choice.

Tulang Besi said...

Sophia said...

Basically, a tudung is a piece of cloth over my head. It doesn't help protect me from rapists, it doesn't prevent me from sinning if I want to, and it basically is nothing more than a piece of cloth over my head.

I'm pro-choice, and I believe that you men should stay out of women's affairs. It is our basic right to decide if we want to wear it, when we want to wear or however we want to wear. I honestly find men who forces their women to wear the tudung mostly are the posessive and ego-problem types. They also leer at women with wolf-whistles, etc and treat them not so nice.

MY REPLY: Sophia, my advice to you is to do "Taubah" or "repentance" to Allah SWT.

Being Pro Choice, means that you support infanticide. You support the killing of innocent lives while they are still in your womb.

That is why the current Republican Vice President nominee, Sarah Palin, is hated by all feminists all over the US.

She has a daughter that is suffering from Down Syndrome, and she knew about it while the baby is still in her womb.

But she is against abortion and went on to deliver the baby.

She get the ire of all Feminists in the world.

Tulang Besi said...

the basic principle, sophia, of the compulsion for muslimah to cover their aurat is not because it prevents rape.

it is because it is Allah's biddings. it is as simple as that.

while ktan move to enforce it in their law is a different matter. but that does not make the compulsion null and void.

alok


Blogger amoker said...

And which part from the bible did you quote this?

"Bible"And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven footed, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you"."

MY REPLY: It's from the Old Testament.

slyderrose said...

Keep up a good works TB. We need a open dialog, intellectual discourse not to comdemn anybody. RPK maybe good in politic but not in Islam. Cannot blame him anyway. Just keep the discussion open. Remember Allayarham Admad Deedat and Dr Zakir Naik, the most prominent comparative religions expert and they always keep the discourse open. They can rebut/ explained point by point anything people threw at them on Islam with supporting nas or hadis.

Sophia said...

God's bidding. God's will. God's words. You claim to represent HIM and yet you are human. Mere humans like me and you, YOU claim to speak for him?

If our single purpose in life is to be mere vessels of God's machinations, words in a book, you forget, why would Allah give us free will? Free will to choose as we will, to think as we will, to live as we are wont to do or to kill as we tend to do?

"There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing." [Quran 2:25]

Ditto, ileekh. Men don't get that.

“If it had been your Lord’s will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?” [Quran Sûrah Yûnus: 99]

Sophia is my name. Sheesh.

Eh, Tulang Besi, janganlah lari topik. I am speaking in the context of tudung wearing and you tersasul tang sana tu buat apa? That, we can address in another blog post okay?

The ire of my contention is that I am against state-sanctioned enforcement of Muslim women to wear the tudung. In that, you are no better than the Turkey Parliament which kicked out a women MP for wearing a tudung.

I'm against hardliners, and don't you dare use the Quran to justify it. That script is directed towards women. It's up to us to decide for ourselves. None of you are prophets, angels or have never sinned in your lives, go busy yourselves making up for those sins, as I am mine. Women's affairs are meant to be dealt by women, not righteous men.

=p

Sophia said...

typo. *self-righteous men.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tulang Besi said...

sophia says:

"

Eh, Tulang Besi, janganlah lari topik. I am speaking in the context of tudung wearing and you tersasul tang sana tu buat apa? That, we can address in another blog post okay?

The ire of my contention is that I am against state-sanctioned enforcement of Muslim women to wear the tudung. In that, you are no better than the Turkey Parliament which kicked out a women MP for wearing a tudung."

MY REPLY: The ruling on tudung comes from God. Not from human being.

So, it's not enforcing at all. It's a reminder to all Muslim women to wear an attire that God has ordained for them.

Mind you, this is just for Muslim women only.

Tulang Besi said...

Sophia said...

Basically, a tudung is a piece of cloth over my head. It doesn't help protect me from rapists, it doesn't prevent me from sinning if I want to, and it basically is nothing more than a piece of cloth over my head.

MY REPLY: If worn properly, it will protect u from rapists.

nawfal said...

TB, may Allah bless you.

Indeed RPK should remain where he is good at - i.e. Malaysian politics. Religion, esp. Islam is never his domain.

I just don't understand what is he trying to prove?

nawfal said...

mr. norkilah said...
atleast sophia put her name sophia rather than other talk only put anonymous ! is it hard to put name??? you all want to know really wat use of tudung? ask bruneian ppl! there are more pure muslim than malaysian muslim. why in arab those muslim wear tudung untill only left 2 eyes out? ....bla bla...

What d hell is this guy blebbering?
BTW, who the hell is sophia...was that any better than anonymous? what make sophia a genuine rather than anonymous? Such a shallow blabbering Norkilah!!!

Anonymous said...

Whenever I see a lil muslim girl pakai tudung,my mind flies to Sri Aurobindo Ashram(SABDA)..women disciples cover thier heads ..and THE MOTHER'S TUDUNG is exactly the same as lil muslim girls of Malaysia..how wonderful:-)

Anonymous said...

Sophia,
"Freedom" lovin mat salleh country rape n incest free ke? Raping has more got to do wit sexual urges of the rapist goin out of control..u agree?

nawfal said...

The article by RPK has clearly rankle and hurt the Muslims. Perhaps at the bigger magnitude that Ahmad Ismail's antique.

I'm no defender of Ahamd Ismail. definitely a no-no.

But if the non-Msulims were to adamant that AI apologize; won't it be too much for the muslims to demand RPK a big apology?

What say you, PAS?

Anonymous said...

nawfal said...

"The article by RPK has clearly rankle and hurt the Muslims."


.........

Your use of the definite article is entirely inappropriate.

RPK's article has offended some Muslims. Many others, including myself, are unperturbed.

Sophia has made a very lucid defense of her freedom to choose to which you have no response other than to hurl insults.

You and your ignorant ilk besmirch the meaning of what it means to be a Muslim. You say RPK should stick to topics other than religion yet, oblivious to the irony, you cling to an essentialist, narrow definition of Muslim identity.

You should be ashamed of speaking for God. I suggest you take your own advice and bertaubat.

Emmar

oghang said...

Sdra tulang Besi, fahaman Sophia sehaluan dengan geng Sisters in Islam. Nampak paten yg sama dlm hujah-hujahnya, misalnya penggunaan ayat surah The Cow ayat 256.

Dirujuk kitab Fi Zilal al-Quran by as Sheikh Sayyid Qutb, Tafsir Ibnu Kathir, Tafsir al-Jalalain dan banyak lagi, ayat 256 ini merujuk kpd "Tiada paksaan memeluk agama Islam" dan memang benar spt kata Sophia, menurut sebahagian ulama, sistem & roh Islam spt bertudung tidak boleh dipaksa kpd sesiapa pun. Jadi, lantak depalah nak pakai ke tak nak pakai. Yg penting kita dah jalankan kewajiban kita iaitu memberi nasihat & menegah yg mungkar. Tak nak terima tak pa.

Ingatlah.. jika Allah mahu semua manusia taat kepadanya.. maka tidak perlulah DIA melantik Muhammad SAW dan menurunkan al-Quran serta mengadakan syurga dan neraka. Dia buat syurga cukup utk cik Sophia kita. Nescaya dijadikan semua manusia itu umpama malaikat, taat dan patuh. Maka sebab DIA mahu melihat amal perbuatan siapa yang lebih baik.. maka diberikan manusia akal dan nafsu. Maka Sophia ini bukti bahawa wujud manusia yg pandai berkata-kata dan bijak menggunakan apa jua resources utk memperjuangkan apa yg depa kata hak wanita.

Dia kata "Women's affairs are meant to be dealt by women, not righteous men.." - Maka selayaknya bagi Sophia ini, segala urusan agamanya maka wanitalah yang layak mengendalikannya. Maka imam wanitalah yang menikahkan dia.. maka wanitalah yg menjadi wali dia.. maka imam wanitalah yang menyembahyangkannya dan yg mengkebumikannya. Jenazahnya juga tidak perlu bertudung kerana tiada ayat Quran yg mengatakan jenazah wanita perlu bertudung. Ada ka? Aku pun kurang periksa.. Solat pun agaknya wanita tak perlu pakai telekung.. ada ke ayat Quran yg menyuruh wanita bertelekung ketika solat?? Berbahagialah Sophia hendaknya. Panas ye tak duk kat Malaysia..

Jika dikaji tulisan-tulisannya, maka disimpulkan bahawa dia hanya menerima hukum Allah yg praktikal shj. Yg tidak baguih mengikut logik akalnya maka golongan spt ini menggunakan akal fikiran dan logik untuk mentafsir Quran dan hadith mengikut 'apa yang mereka ingin lihat & dengar'. Hasil tafsir ulama sejak 1400 tahun yg lalu ditolak tepi. Ulama depa yg betul..

Jika Sophia jujur mahu mencari kebenaran, maka blog ini bukan tempatnya. Dia akan pii panjat JAKIM atau IKIM atau madrasah-madrasah untuk berhujah dgn orang yg lebih arif atau setaraf dgn akal cik Sophia & the geng yg bijaksana. Tuan Guru Nik Aziz baca ke blog ni utk hangpa sanggah dia? pii laa piket dan anjurkan forum dgn Pas kelantan.. aku rasa mereka akan benarkan..

dan depa kata kita weird?? Weird pun weird lah cik Sophia..

Anonymous said...

I think the real reason for wearing the tudung has long been lost with many in Malaysia. It's now more of a fashion.. It's really funny to see these women 'tutup aurat' (which I believe is to cover the hair and chest part), but from the waist on, it is tight jeans/pants, the worst being the white colour pants, so tight like a second skin, leaving very little to the imagination, and looking verrry sexy indeed. I agree with Sophia in that it really is a personal choice and should not be enforced. I see many commenting here are very emotional.

Anonymous said...

@ oghang

Hasil tafsir ulama sejak 1400 tahun yg lalu ditolak tepi.


.......

If the so-called "ulama" spoke with a uniform voice over this time period you might have a point; however, "they" have not and you are just picking and choosing as you accuse sophia of doing.

Emmar

Golden Hazel said...

Sophia says: Mind you, this is just for Muslim women only.
Frankly, I have no qualms about that. But what about requiring the non-muslim policewomen to adorn them. I doubt it will make them more effective. As a matter of fact, it may even impair their hearing while on the call of duty.
Worse still, certain universities even insist on their non-muslims undergraduates to put them on before they are allowed to receive their scrolls. It's only after a lot of hues and cries from the public that they finally stopped.

Anonymous said...

Good News Bible:
Leviticus 11:7-8
Do not eat pigs. They must be considered unclean;they have divided hoofs. Do not eat these animals or even touch their dead bodies; they are unclean.
The New American Bible:
Leviticus 6:6-8
the hare,which indeed chews the cud, but does have hoofs and is therefore unclean for you ; and the pigs, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you.Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they are unclean for you.
New International version:
Leviticus 11:7-8
And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

RPK is a good Malaysian.Tulang Besi is also a good Malaysian. Mr Tulang Besi; please help malaysia todays muslim/non muslim readers to understand Islam better. May God bless.

Anonymous said...

Good News Bible:
1 Corinthians 11:5-6
And any woman who prays or proclaims God's message in public worship with nothing on her head disgraces her husband; there is no difference between her and a woman whose head has been shaved. If the woman does not cover her head, she might as well cut her hair.And since it is a shameful thing for a woman to shave her head or cut her hair, she should cover her head.
The New American Bible
1 Corinthians 11:5-6
But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil.

Anonymous said...

Ya Allah.

I have seen the messages posted in RPK abt the tudung issue and i see LOTS of confusion either muslims or non-muslims..

PAS as a party that SUPPOSSEDLY championing syiar ISLAM should say something about this other than keeping mum..I hope PAS is not practising SELECTIVE ISLAM here as this issue is highlighted by a PR sympathizer.

Mana mufti-mufti either from PR or BN states. Say something.

Don't let people get confused!

Non-partisan

Anonymous said...

ada orang asing bertanya (ilmuwan) kepada salah seorang ulama mengenai hewan babi ini.

Ilmuwan : Haramnya hewan Babi bagi umat muslim adalah disebabkan karena banyaknya parasit dan kotoran dalam hewan ini. Dengan semakin canggihnya ilmu kedokteran, bukankah mungkin nantinya hewan babi dapat dibersihkan dari virus dan parasit yang mematikan ini? Apakah nantinya hewan babi yang bersih ini akan menjadi halal?

Ulama : Haramnya babi bukan karena hal itu saja. Tetapi ada sifat babi yang sangat diharamkan untuk umat Islam.

Ilmuwan : Apakah itu?

Ulama : Coba anda buat 2 kandang. Satu kandang anda isi dengan 2 ekor ayam jantan dan 1 ekor ayam betina. Satu kandang lagi anda isi dengan 2 ekor babi jantan dan 1 ekor babi betina. Apakah yang terjadi pada masing2 kandang tersebut? Bisakah anda menerkanya?

Ilmuwan : Tidak.

Ulama : Mari kita lihat sekarang. Pada kandang pertama di mana Ada 2 ekor ayam jantan dan 1 ekor ayam betina. Yang terjadi adalah 2 Ekor ayam jantan tersebut berkelahi dahulu untuk memperebutkan 1 ekor
Ayam betina tersebut sampai ada yang menang atau kalah. Dan itu Sesuai dengan kodrat dan fitrah manusia diciptakan.

Ilmuwan : Pada kandang babi?

Ulama : Ini yang menarik. Pada kandang kedua, yaitu kandang babi, 2 ekor babi jantan itu tidak berkelahi untuk memperebutkan babibetina tersebut, tetapi yang terjadi adalah 2 ekor babi jantan tersebut malahan menyetubuhi secara beramai2 babi betina tersebut dan juga terjadi hubungan homoseksual antara kedua ekor babi jantan tersebut setelah selesai dengan si betina. Hal inilah yang jelas2 bertentangan dengan fitrah umat manusia. Bila umat Islam ikut2an memakan babi maka ditakutkan umat Islam akan mempunyai sifat dan karakteristik seperti babi ini.

Hadaanallahu Wa Iyyakum Ajma`in, Wallahu A`lam Bish-shawab,

“Diharamkan bagimu (memakan) bangkai, darah, daging babi, (daging hewan) yang disembelih atas nama selain Allah, yang tercekik, yang dipukul, yang jatuh, yang ditanduk, dan yang diterkam binatang buas, kecuali yang sempat kamu menyembelihnya, dan (diharamkan bagimu) yang disembelih untuk berhala. Dan (diharamkan juga) mengundi nasib dengan anak panah, (mengundi nasib dengan anak panah itu) adalah kefasikan. Pada hari ini orang-orang kafir telah putus asa untuk (mengalahkan), sebab itu janganlah kamu takut kepada mereka dan Takutlah kepada-Ku. Pada hari ini telah Kusempurnakan untuk kamu agamamu,dan telah Ku-cukupkan kepadamu nikmat-Ku, dan telah Ku-ridai Islam itu jadi agama bagimu. Maka barang siapa terpaksa karena kelaparan tanpa sengaja berbuat dosa, sesungguhnya Allah Maha Pengampun lagi Maha Penyayang.” (QS. Al-Maidah (5): 3).

Mengapa Islam Mengharamkan Babi (Terjemahan)

Berikut ini tulisan mengenai pengharaman darah dan babi dalam Islam, diulas dari sudut pandang logika dan ilmu kesehatan.
Semoga bermanfaat.

Bob: Tolong beritahu saya, mengapa seorang Muslim sangat Mementingkan mengenai kata-kata “Halal” dan “Haram”; apa arti dari kata-kata tersebut?

Yunus: Apa-apa yang diperbolehkan diistilahkan sebagai Halal, Dan apa-apa yang tak diperbolehkan diistilahkan sebagai Haram, Dan Al-Qur’an lah yang menggambarkan perbedaan antara keduanya.

Bob: Dapatkah anda memberikan contoh?

Yunus: Ya, Islam telah melarang segala macam darah. Anda Akan sependapat bahwa analisis kimia dari darah menunjukkan adanya kandungan yang tinggi dari uric acid (asam urat?), suatu senyawa Kimia yang bisa berbahaya bagi kesehatan manusia.

Bob: Anda benar mengenai sifat beracun dari uric acid, dalam Tubuh manusia, senyawa ini dikeluarkan sebagai kotoran, dan Dalam kenyataannya kita diberitahu bahwa 98% dari uric acid dalam tubuh, dalam darah oleh Ginjal, dan dibuang keluar tubuh melalui air seni.

Yunus: Sekarang saya rasa anda akan menghargai metode prosedur Khusus dalam penyembelihan hewan dalam Islam.

Bob: Apa maksud anda?

Yunus: Begini… seorang penyembelih, selagi menyebut nama dari Yang Maha Kuasa, membuat irisan memotong urat nadi leher hewan, Sembari membiarkan urat-urat dan organ-organ lainnya utuh.

Bob: Oh begitu… Dan hal ini menyebabkan kematian hewan Karena kehabisan darah dari tubuh, bukannya karena cedera pada Organ vitalnya.

Yunus: Ya, sebab jika organ-organ, misalnya jantung, hati, atau otak dirusak, hewan tersebut dapat meninggal seketika dan darahnya akan menggumpal dalam urat-uratnya dan akhirnya mencemari daging.
Hal tersebut mengakibatkan daging hewan akan tercemar oleh uric acid, menjadikannya beracun; hanya pada masa kini lah, para ahli baru menyadari akan hal ini.

Bob: Selanjutnya, selagi masih dalam topik makanan; Mengapa Para Muslim melarang pengkonsumsian daging babi, atau ham, atau Makanan lainnya yang terkait dengan babi?

Yunus: Sebenarnya, diluar dari larangan Al-Qur’an dalam Pengkonsumsian babi, bacon; pada kenyataannya dalam Bible juga, pada Leviticus bab 11, ayat 8, mengenai babi, dikatakan, “Dari daging mereka(dari “swine”, nama lain buat “babi”) janganlah kalian makan, dan dari bangkai mereka, janganlah kalian sentuh; mereka itu kotor buatmu.”

Lebih lanjut lagi, apakah anda tahu kalau babi tidak dapatdisembelih di leher karena mereka tidak memiliki leher; sesuai dengan anatomi alamiahnya? Muslim beranggapan kalau babi memang harus disembelih dan layak bagi konsumsi manusia, tentu Sang Pencipta akan merancang hewan ini dengan memiliki leher.
Namun diluar itu semua, saya yakin anda tahu betul mengenai efek-efek berbahaya dari komsumsi babi, dalam bentuk apapun, baik itu pork, chops, ham, atau bacon.

Bob: Ilmu kedokteran mengetahui bahwa ada resiko besar atas Banyak macam penyakit. Babi diketahui sebagai inang dari banyak macam Parasit dan penyakit berbahaya.

Yunus: Ya, dan diluar itu semua, sebagaimana kita Membicarakan mengenai kandungan uric acid dalam darah, sangat penting untuk diperhatikan bahwa sistem biochemistry babi mengeluarkan hanya 2% dari seluruh kandungan uric acidnya, sedangkan 98% sisanya tersimpan dalam tubuhnya.

Mohon diteruskan kepada semua rekan Muslim dan Non-Muslim.. . Ini Dapat menjawab sebagian pertanyaan mereka, khususnya jika Kalangan non-Muslim bertanya mengapa Umat Islam tidak boleh mengkonsumsi babi.

Sumber: Ibrahim Ali Ahmad

Tayadih Maysia said...

salam,

hmmm...harap-harap di padang masyar nanti mereka-mereka yang seangkatan dengan CIk Sophia mampu berhujah depan Tuhan seperti mana mereka mengeluarkan hujah dalam komen2 mereka.

mungkin ini salah satu hikmah mengapa Tuhan tidak menurunkan seksaannya serta-merta apabila kita engkar perintahnya. kalaulah Tuhan menurunkan seksaannya sebaik saja kita melakukan seksaan, saya percaya tiada orang berpemikiran seperti Cik Sophia.

...inilah salah satu cabaran yang dihadapi Islam dewasa ini.

oghang said...

Emmar said..

"If the so-called "ulama" spoke with a uniform voice over this time period you might have a point; however, "they" have not and you are just picking and choosing as you accuse sophia of doing. "

Jawab saya.. betul tu. I just pick and choose what I'd like to hear & see.. but with the right method my friend. A right method.. learned from school not blogs.

Wahai sdr Emmar.. benar ada khilaf dikalangan ulama tentang beberapa perkara ranting, tetapi bukan pokok. Kaedah sdr Emmar.. kaedah. Dlm mencari kebenaran hukum fiqh, kaedah yg betul ialah merujuk kpd Al-Quran.. tak jelas kita cari kat Hadith.. tak faham lagi,, cari ulama. Ulama yg terbaik dan terdahulu ialah golongan salaf. Tak faham lagi baru kita pii cari ulama zaman ni. Bukan ulama zaman ni.

Para sahabat, tabiin dan tabiut at-tabiin adalah termasuk dalam golongan salaf as-soleh dan merekalah sebaik-baik ulama & mufti.

Allah juga telah berfirman "Dan Kami jadikan mereka (orang) yang terdahulu sebagai pelajaran dan contoh bagi orang-orang yang kemudian." Az-Zukhruf, 43:56.

Rasulullah juga telah bersabda: “Sebaik-baik manusia adalah yang hidup di zamanku, kemudian yang sesudah mereka” (Hadist Shahih mutawatir dikeluarkan oleh Bukhari dan Muslim dan lain-lain).

Tahukah sdr bahawa dasar hukum Islam yang ketiga setelah Al-Qur’an dan As-Sunnah adalah ijma’ para sahabat. Permasalahan yg Sophia dan hang bawa dah lama selesai sejak 14000 tahun yg lalu.. tapi timbul balik pasal ada golongan tak puas hati dgn hukum ulama terdahulu. Tak praktikal konon.. pii rah. Bab puasa dan solat pun sama.. tak abis abis. Orang dah gi bulan.. kita duk gaduh bab cenonet.. camna Malaysia nak maju. rujuk saja laa 3 sumber tu.

And back to you Emmar, Amira.. Sophia.. etc So, pleaseeeee, give me one dalil from the salaf to support your argument. Then if you could find one ijma' para salaf, I'll stand by you and perhaps be your follower.. Hidup Emmar! Hidup Sophia.!!

Jadi jelas tuan/puan, kita pilih ulama mana sbg rujukan dan mereka (emmar & cik Sophia) sokong & rujuk ulama mana... Dr Ameena Wadud my dear? Terpulanglah..

Life is a matter of choice, you decide. You can do and believe what you want, and I believe what I've learned. I've explain the method and if you really care about the truth, please go to JAKIM or IKIM and find a scholar on Usul al Fiqh: Methodology for Research and Knowledge in Islamic Jurisprudence. If not.. you can continue your debate on this blog. I'm going to the mooonnnnn... bye bye.

Quinary said...

While I do respect the differences in opinion, I do believe other people should also respect the choice made by those women with head cover. The talk of women being "oppressed" by wearing head cover is just baseless.

Anyway, my response to Raja Petra's article at http://widejournal.blogspot.com/2008/09/raja-petras-great-tudung-debate.html

Tulang Besi said...

Emmar says:

If the so-called "ulama" spoke with a uniform voice over this time period you might have a point; however, "they" have not and you are just picking and choosing as you accuse sophia of doing.

MY REPLY: Good news Emmar, on the "compulsory of wearing tudung" the ulama is IJMA's in among all ulama for the last 1400 years.

It's all ijma and agreed upon among all ulama for the last 1400 years and what's important it's ijma among the Sahabi.

Purple Haze said...

Tulang Besi, you said

"That is why the current Republican Vice President nominee, Sarah Palin, is hated by all feminists all over the US.

She has a daughter that is suffering from Down Syndrome, and she knew about it while the baby is still in her womb.

But she is against abortion and went on to deliver the baby.

She get the ire of all Feminists in the world."

Two points to be corrected -

(a) She has a Down's Syndrome boy not girl

(b) the ire is from liberals, not feminists. The pro-life vs pro-abortion debate is not between feminists and the rest of the world but between liberals and conservatives.

Purple Haze said...

To add fuel to the fire on this topic, here is an interesting quotation from a well known thinker

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many, or merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason, then accept it and live up to it."

Buddha (c. 563 B.C.E.-c. 483 B.C.E.)

Anonymous said...

Sophia, Amira,Emmar et all...

Verse 2:25 of Al-Quran says:

"There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing."

Please be guided that all prominent scholars of Islam are united that this verse compels that anyone who declares himself a Muslim has no further options but to follow the Islamic way of life. No compulsion in religion here means that any non-Muslims is not forced to be Muslim or to embrace Islam as religion but once you are a Muslim, you are always subject to the requirements to be a Muslim.

And the requirement to wear tudung or khimar is verily Allah's directive. And the verse is Qat'ie meaning that the verse is not subject to interpretation and that you cannot opt to opt. It is clear enough to say that wearing tudung is compulsory for Muslim women.

I agree, Malaysia is hot and humid, but a commandment is a commandment. Middle East is hotter, during the summer, the temperature may go up to 45 degrees. They still wear the tudung and no, they don't cover their faces fully except their eyes. This is just another stigma that people have in their mind like those Westerners still thinking people in Malaysia still lives on trees.

Islam is a beautiful religion. Whatever has been clearly, precisely stated in the Quran must be followed without further interpretation. whatever that is not clear or left to be general is left for further elaboration in length via action/deeds or words by Rasulullah s.a.w. After His passing, and as per His saying that 'ulama is the heirs of Rasul, the 'ulamas (starting from the Caliphs, Companions and so on) took this responsibility, risking and living their lives (recall the experience of the four Imams Abu Hanifah, Malik, Syafie and Ahmad) for the religion.

Sometimes, what we think is logic or the rationale that we seek from the commandments, is not there to be found. But one who says "No God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah" would surely do whatever has been commanded.

Islam is to be taken as a way of life,in a holistic manner and not to be seperated from our lives or practised on selective basis.

Otherwise,refer to Surah Al-Kafiruun...or please get more guidance on the religion from accredited teachers from Ahlussunnah Waljamaah as you seemed to be misguided by liberal interpretations of Islam.

Qamjat Alam

Augustinian Successor said...

Don't forget that before the rise of the "dakwah movement"/Islamic resurgence phenomenon, Malay women did not wear the tudung. Even PAS (PMIP) had female members who did not wear tudung.

Wearing a tudung is NOT a prescriptive against male lust or rape, or even an antidote against succumbing to temptation, sexual or otherwise. This is a fallacy. The injunction to put on a tudung is always the issue of outward appearance of modesty. This and this alone is the basis for the injunction. The tudung is a sign of modesty and decency, nothing more, nothing less. The burka as worn certain Muslim societies makes a mockery of the noble aim of the tudung itself!

Imposition of the tudung must not be a matter of compulsion. For we are not dealing with the outward appearance and not with the inward disposition. In other words, we are not dealing with morals per se, but the proper practice of the morals. They are inseparable but distinguishable. Otherwise, as Sophia says, the balance is lost and this leads to tyranny. And in tyranny, the lines between truth and falsehood are erased or muddied.

Therefore, the wearing of tudung must be encouraged, with a focus on the its own intrinsic virtue, i.e. modesty. All other arguments leads only to tyranny or extremism.

Bukit Chandan said...

Well said, Tulang Besi.

May Allah s.w.t. Blesses you and family always.

Best Regards.........

Augustinian Successor said...

For we are not dealing with the outward appearance ...

For we ARE dealing with the outward appearance ...

Anonymous said...

Masa saya pelajar dulu saya berfikiran sebijik macam Cik Sophia, guna logik. Hingga dituduh murtad oleh emak saya. Tetapi bila saya telah mendalami Islam melalui pembacaan dan pembelajaran, saya berubah, alhamdulillah.

nawfal said...

augustinian sucessor,

covering aurat (such as wearing tudung) is because of certain circumstantial and environmental logic or reasoning. You can give 1001 reasons and excuse; it doesn't hold.

Covering aurat is simply because Allah decrees so. Period.

Sami'na, wa atho'na. Kami dengar dan kami taat.

nawfal said...

Sorry I missed one key word ,

covering aurat (such as wearing tudung) is NOT because of certain circumstantial and environmental logic or reasoning.

geb said...

Hi Tulang Besi,

Indeed you are a good man and a learned one too. I have respect for your effort to cleanse the minds of people like RPK, who is a great and honest person, but sadly, has been misguided. And people like Sophia are just plain ignorant, maybe Allah has sealed their hearts. Wearing a tudung doesn't prevent one from being raped; I can agree with that, but the point is: it is required for every muslimah to cover their whole body except for the face and palms. This is the COMMAND of Allah SWT, just like fasting, prayers dll. To people like Sophia: Would you not fast because of hunger? Would one not pray because of not having enough time? Look, these are rules. If you can follow the rules of schools, and offices and the country, how dare you say it's a matter of choice? If you prescribe to this ideology of pro-choice, why don't you go against the rules and laws of your school, universities, offices, country...? Don't tell me it's because you choose to follow them 100% with all your heart! It's because you have a certain degree of respect and fear towards the authorities and you don't wanna piss them off, as you will eventually get kicked out of School or University, lose your job, or sent to jail. In short, you cherish your life, you wanna guard your future, and at the same time don't wanna do sumthin' that is contradicting to your goals and desires (only a fool would do that), because these authorities have the power to make your life difficult and it would be stupid to get your ass into trouble. Now, the Authority of all authorities, The Lord of the Universe has commanded Muslimah to cover up, but you stupidly refuse! Why? Simple, it's because you dont respect/fear Allah! You don't believe that your ass will get into trouble later at Judgement Day! I sincerely believe that you know what's your problem, don't blame people like Tulang Besi for telling the truth, the truth that you refuse to accept, the COMMANDS directly from ALLAH.

So just shut up and repent!

Sekian, terima kasih kerana membaca.

geb

Anonymous said...

Oghang,

Indeed, process and tradition are fundamental sources to Islamic practices. You probably think that I neglected to consider this?

And thank you for your reminder of the sources for Islamic jurisprudence. Unfortunately, your tone is arrogant and presumes the ignorance of those with whom you disagree.

I will not assume that you are ignorant because, as you stated, you "learned from school" unlike those (some of us, perhaps?) whose education comes directly from teh blogs.

(I won't nitpick that you "learned from school" although it does suggest a more passive subjectivity and one who is less inclined toward critical reflection. Your strange eagerness to be my acolyte further reinforces that image.)

The argument of 'to cover' or 'not to cover' is a different one than 'which form of cover is required or recommended'. This debate, at least since RPK's article spawned this discussion, is about the latter. Your contention that the problem was solved fourteen hundred (you did mean hundred I assume, not thousand as you wrote) years ago is wonderful news -- to those who lived at that time.

Well, we do not live then, but fortunately we have a recourse that enables us to revisit this issue viewed through lenses of many different -isms that have arisen since then; thoughts and ideologies (positive and negative, in varying degrees) that our contemporary ulama would ideally endeavor to understand in the framework of God's magnificent complexity, rather than reject out of reflex.

The ultimate judgment belongs to God.

You ask 'how is Malaysia to develop' if we fight over such small matters.

The irony of your statement should be evident to one who has "learned from school".

Why not ask yourself 'where is the space for progressive Muslim thought if all social discourses have been appropriated by conservative voices'?

Yes, I chose to engage this forum because I "really care about the truth" and, all in all, I would be happy to continue this discussion -- once you return from the moon -- as long as the tone remains friendly and mature.

Ramadhan Mubarak,

Emmar

european man said...

great piese of wrok TB and Oghang.Really enlighten me,discourses with substance is what matters.
I am seeking the truth too..no need to look afar....

jem hall said...

Emmar said- Why not ask yourself 'where is the space for progressive Muslim thought if all social discourses have been appropriated by conservative voices'?

response: Progress of the Muslims has nothing to do with some people making their own interpretation of the Quran.

The only reason Muslims are not progressing is more & more people are currently moving further away from Quran and Sunnah. Simple as that.

More muslim women not wearing their headscarfs, self-dictating which islamic law to uphold is not really a sign of progress, quite the opposite of that.

european man said...

issh..what appaling spelling and english!!sorry..it should read 'work' and 'piece'.AND 'dicourse' not discourses!!

Anonymous said...

something to share, I found it very interesting and an answer to all the questions

You look at me and call me oppressed,
Simply because of the way I'm dressed,
You know me not for what's inside,
You judge the clothing I wear with pride,
My body's not for your eyes to hold,
You must speak to my mind, not my feminine mold,
I'm an individual, I'm no mans slave,
It's Allahs pleasure that I only crave,
I have a voice so I will be heard,
For in my heart I carry His word,
"O ye women, wrap close your cloak,
So you won't be bothered by ignorant folk",
Man doesn't tell me to dress this way,
It's a Law from God that I obey,
Oppressed is something I'm truly NOT,
For liberation is what I've got,
It was given to me many years ago,
With the right to prosper, the right to grow,
I can climb moutains or cross the seas,
Expand my mind in all degrees,
For God Himself gave us LIB-ER-TY,
When He sent Islam,
To You and Me!

Nora

Anonymous said...

Two replies:

@Jed Hall who wrote:

"Progress of the Muslims has nothing to do with some people making their own interpretation of the Quran."

To the contrary! All that might possibly be thought and discussed in regard to how the Quran is interpreted is potentially infinite and directly relates to how we reconcile our lives as Muslims in a dynamic and evolving society.

and your other comment that "[t]he only reason Muslims are not progressing is more & more people are currently moving further away from Quran and Sunnah. Simple as that."

Simple answers are for those who are content to be simple minded.

Did my comment say that Muslims are not progressing?

No, because Muslims are progressing. Not all, but hopefully enough provide a healthy counter-voice to the ultra-conservative faction cum defenders of ossified thinking.

I advise you and others on this thread to not lump everything that you disagree with as being immoral.

And @Nora who thinks her comment is "an answer to all the questions".

Platitudes (even rhymed ones) do not begin to address the subject of what constitutes 'oppression' and 'free choice'.

You may be comfortable in your choice to wear the tudung but that does not mean our society and the State do not regularly enforce standards that thoughtful and sincere Muslims regard as oppressive.

Anyone else care to (a) stray from the topic or (b) misrepresent the issues being discussed?

Emmar

jem hall said...

Emmar said:

Simple answers are for those who are content to be simple minded.

Me: Yes, I'm simple minded and amazingly proud of that.

- I dont mix Islam rulings and requlations with views of the seculars
- I dont question how to lead my life other than the way of Islam
- I am rigid on my belief, i hear and I obey.
- I try to bring Muslims closer to their religion rather than bringing them closer to secular ideologies

But that doesnt mean my knowledge is limited to my own belief or being unaware of the surrounding affairs.

My simplistic view on the matter gave me the time to focus & understand my religion, instead of blaming Islam as if it was a hindrance from progress just because it don't fit perfectly well with your Western social ideologies.

Emmar said:
Did my comment say that Muslims are not progressing?

No, because Muslims are progressing. Not all, but hopefully enough provide a healthy counter-voice to the ultra-conservative faction cum defenders of ossified thinking.

Me: Like I said before, Muslim women devotion to pro-choice and self-dictation of their religion is not really a sign of progress, quite the opposite of that. Such growing voices from the these deviant crowd is a good sign that the Muslims need to understand & practice their religion better.

There is no 'conservative' or 'orthodox' Muslims, there are only Muslims. Liberal Muslims believing that tudung is not obligatory are of those who don't fall into this category. Simple as that.

Emmar said: I advise you and others on this thread to not lump everything that you disagree with as being immoral.

Me: No I did not call you immoral, in fact no-one ever did. Unless you show enormous support for 'free-whoring' then i don't think anyone would call you as such :)

Anonymous said...

@jem hall

find some of your comments in italics below:
...

"I don't mix Islam rulings and requlations with views of the seculars"

Two problems with this statement (there are more than that but I will be brief):

(a) the debate comes from within Islam, among Muslim. You are wrong to frame views of others as secular (i.e., un-Islamic).

(b) there are many points of correspondence/agreement between Shariah and so-called secular laws. There are legal areas uncovered by Shariah for which we use constitutional laws and vice versa. So whether or not you are responsible for "mix[ing]" these two or just submit yourself to the laws and regulations that bind society, you are an active participant -- in contradiction to your statement.

...

"to focus & understand my religion, instead of blaming Islam"

Not blaming Islam at all as Islam is not at fault, just misguided Muslims like yourself.

...

"Liberal Muslims believing that tudung is not obligatory"

As per my earlier comments, this is not a debate about whether or not wearing the tudung is required.

...

"No I did not call you immoral"

Did I say you did call me (or anyone for that matter) immoral?
If your comprehension of a single sentence is so faulty, what does that say for your ability to "hear and obey" as you so proudly declare?

That last example, in a nutshell, is what is so scary about you and others like you.

Emmar

iQ said...

To the author,
why don't you change your comments setting for 'who can comment'-

from 'Anyone - includes Anonymous Users' to 'Registered Users - includes OpenID'

At least people will be more responsible on the views and thoughts

*I would love to know more about Emmar, Sophia, and others :-)

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.