Setiap Artikel Malaysiawaves ke Email Anda.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Dipersilakan untuk Like Facebook Page T. Besi

Search Malaysiawaves

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Why Shariah Should Not Be Feared or Dreaded

Recently we have seen the rise of articles attacking Islam as a comprehensive way of life. What is saddening is that these writings originates from individuals who claims to be Muslims. The article i quote below is written by a Harvard professor by the name of Noah Feldman. It shall answers common accusations levelled against Islam by modernists that we have always heard.
Accusations such as:
a. Islam advocates totalitarianism
b. Islam is not in line with modern day realities
c. Islam is not progressive
d. Islam advocates "rule of theocracy". In fact this article proves that Islamic Shariah is the OPPOSITE of Theocracy
e. Islamists advocates totalitarianism and godlessness (sic)
f. Ulama and Mullah is the source of Muslim's backwardeness.(This article proves otherwise)

What strikes me as funny is that while many of those who claims to be Muslims willingly spreading lies and deception about Islam, a Jewish man by the name of Noah Feldman took the initiative to provide the correct picture of "Islamic Polity".

Please also remember that Shariah is a law applied to Muslims only. But, i leave it to you readers to make your own conclusions.

NOTE: This article was published in the New York Times Entitled "Why Syariah" by Noah Feldman, a contributing writer for the magazine, is a law professor at Harvard University and an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. This essay is adapted from his book “The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State,” which will be published later.

(Start)Last month, Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, gave a nuanced, scholarly lecture in London about whether the British legal system should allow non-Christian courts to decide certain matters of family law. Britain has no constitutional separation of church and state. The archbishop noted that “the law of the Church of England is the law of the land” there; indeed, ecclesiastical courts that once handled marriage and divorce are still integrated into the British legal system, deciding matters of church property and doctrine. His tentative suggestion was that, subject to the agreement of all parties and the strict requirement of protecting equal rights for women, it might be a good idea to consider allowing Islamic and Orthodox Jewish courts to handle marriage and divorce.Then all hell broke loose. From politicians across the spectrum to senior church figures and the ubiquitous British tabloids came calls for the leader of the world’s second largest Christian denomination to issue a retraction or even resign. Williams has spent the last couple of years trying to hold together the global Anglican Communion in the face of continuing controversies about ordaining gay priests and recognizing same-sex marriages.

Yet little in that contentious battle subjected him to the kind of outcry that his reference to religious courts unleashed. Needless to say, the outrage was not occasioned by Williams’s mention of Orthodox Jewish law. For the purposes of public discussion, it was the word “Shariah” that was radioactive. In some sense, the outrage about according a degree of official status to Shariah in a Western country should come as no surprise. No legal system has ever had worse press.

To many, the word “Shariah” conjures horrors of hands cut off, adulterers stoned and women oppressed. By contrast, who today remembers that the much-loved English common law called for execution as punishment for hundreds of crimes, including theft of any object worth five shillings or more? How many know that until the 18th century, the laws of most European countries authorized torture as an official component of the criminal-justice system? As for sexism, the common law long denied married women any property rights or indeed legal personality apart from their husbands.

When the British applied their law to Muslims in place of Shariah, as they did in some colonies, the result was to strip married women of the property that Islamic law had always granted them — hardly progress toward equality of the sexes.

In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation. Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act.

The extremes of our own legal system — like life sentences for relatively minor drug crimes, in some cases — are routinely ignored. We neglect to mention the recent vintage of our tentative improvements in family law. It sometimes seems as if we need Shariah as Westerners have long needed Islam: as a canvas on which to project our ideas of the horrible, and as a foil to make us look good.

In the Muslim world, on the other hand, the reputation of Shariah has undergone an extraordinary revival in recent years. A century ago, forward-looking Muslims thought of Shariah as outdated, in need of reform or maybe abandonment. Today, 66 percent of Egyptians, 60 percent of Pakistanis and 54 percent of Jordanians say that Shariah should be the only source of legislation in their countries. Islamist political parties, like those associated with the transnational Muslim Brotherhood, make the adoption of Shariah the most prominent plank in their political platforms.

And the message resonates. Wherever Islamists have been allowed to run for office in Arabic-speaking countries, they have tended to win almost as many seats as the governments have let them contest. The Islamist movement in its various incarnations — from moderate to radical — is easily the fastest growing and most vital in the Muslim world; the return to Shariah is its calling card.How is it that what so many Westerners see as the most unappealing and premodern aspect of Islam is, to many Muslims, the vibrant, attractive core of a global movement of Islamic revival? The explanation surely must go beyond the oversimplified assumption that Muslims want to use Shariah to reverse feminism and control women — especially since large numbers of women support the Islamists in general and the ideal of Shariah in particular.

Is Shariah the Rule of Law?

One reason for the divergence between Western and Muslim views of Shariah is that we are not all using the word to mean the same thing. Although it is commonplace to use the word “Shariah” and the phrase “Islamic law” interchangeably, this prosaic English translation does not capture the full set of associations that the term “Shariah” conjures for the believer. Shariah, properly understood, is not just a set of legal rules. To believing Muslims, it is something deeper and higher, infused with moral and metaphysical purpose.

At its core, Shariah represents the idea that all human beings — and all human governments — are subject to justice under the law.In fact, “Shariah” is not the word traditionally used in Arabic to refer to the processes of Islamic legal reasoning or the rulings produced through it: that word is fiqh, meaning something like Islamic jurisprudence. The word “Shariah” connotes a connection to the divine, a set of unchanging beliefs and principles that order life in accordance with God’s will. Westerners typically imagine that Shariah advocates simply want to use the Koran as their legal code.

But the reality is much more complicated. Islamist politicians tend to be very vague about exactly what it would mean for Shariah to be the source for the law of the land — and with good reason, because just adopting such a principle would not determine how the legal system would actually operate.

Shariah is best understood as a kind of higher law, albeit one that includes some specific, worldly commands. All Muslims would agree, for example, that it prohibits lending money at interest — though not investments in which risks and returns are shared; and the ban on Muslims drinking alcohol is an example of an unequivocal ritual prohibition, even for liberal interpreters of the faith. Some rules associated with Shariah are undoubtedly old-fashioned and harsh. Men and women are treated unequally, for example, by making it hard for women to initiate divorce without forfeiting alimony. The prohibition on sodomy, though historically often unenforced, makes recognition of same-sex relationships difficult to contemplate.

But Shariah also prohibits bribery or special favors in court. It demands equal treatment for rich and poor. It condemns the vigilante-style honor killings that still occur in some Middle Eastern countries. And it protects everyone’s property — including women’s — from being taken from them.

Unlike in Iran, where wearing a head scarf is legally mandated and enforced by special religious police, the Islamist view in most other Muslim countries is that the head scarf is one way of implementing the religious duty to dress modestly — a desirable social norm, not an enforceable legal rule.

And mandating capital punishment for apostasy is not on the agenda of most elected Islamists.

For many Muslims today, living in corrupt autocracies, the call for Shariah is not a call for sexism, obscurantism or savage punishment but for an Islamic version of what the West considers its most prized principle of political justice: the rule of law.

The Sway of the Scholars

To understand Shariah’s deep appeal, we need to ask a crucial question that is rarely addressed in the West: What, in fact, is the system of Islamic law? In his lifetime, the Prophet Muhammad was both the religious and the political leader of the community of Muslim believers. His revelation, the Koran, contained some laws, pertaining especially to ritual matters and inheritance; but it was not primarily a legal book and did not include a lengthy legal code of the kind that can be found in parts of the Hebrew Bible.

When the first generation of believers needed guidance on a subject that was not addressed by revelation, they went directly to Muhammad. He either answered of his own accord or, if he was unsure, awaited divine guidance in the form of a new revelation.With the death of Muhammad, divine revelation to the Muslim community stopped. The role of the political-religious leader passed to a series of caliphs (Arabic for “substitute”) who stood in the prophet’s stead. That left the caliph in a tricky position when it came to resolving difficult legal matters.

The caliph possessed Muhammad’s authority but not his access to revelation. It also left the community in something of a bind. If the Koran did not speak clearly to a particular question, how was the law to be determined?The answer that developed over the first couple of centuries of Islam was that the Koran could be supplemented by reference to the prophet’s life — his sunna, his path. (The word “sunna” is the source of the designation Sunni — one who follows the prophet’s path.) His actions and words were captured in an oral tradition, beginning presumably with a person who witnessed the action or statement firsthand. Accurate reports had to be distinguished from false ones. But of course even a trustworthy report on a particular situation could not directly resolve most new legal problems that arose later.

To address such problems, it was necessary to reason by analogy(qiyas) from one situation to another. There was also the possibility that a communal consensus (ijma) existed on what to do under particular circumstances, and that, too, was thought to have substantial weight.This fourfold combination — the Koran, the path of the prophet as captured in the collections of reports, analogical reasoning and consensus —amounted to a basis for a legal system.

But who would be able to say how these four factors fit together? Indeed, who had the authority to say that these factors and not others formed the sources of the law?

The first four caliphs, who knew the prophet personally, might have been able to make this claim for themselves. But after them, the caliphs were faced with a growing group of specialists who asserted that they, collectively, could ascertain the law from the available sources. This self-appointed group came to be known as the scholars — and over the course of a few generations, they got the caliphs to acknowledge them as the guardians of the law.

By interpreting a law that originated with God, they gained control over the legal system as it actually existed. That made them, and not the caliphs, into “the heirs of the prophets.”Among the Sunnis, this model took effect very early and persisted until modern times. For the Shiites, who believe that the succession of power followed the prophet’s lineage, the prophet had several successors who claimed extraordinary divine authority. Once they were gone, however, the Shiite scholars came to occupy a role not unlike that of their Sunni counterparts.

Under the constitutional theory that the scholars developed to explain the division of labor in the Islamic state, the caliph had paramount responsibility to fulfill the divine injunction to “command the right and prohibit the wrong.” But this was not a task he could accomplish on his own. It required him to delegate responsibility to scholarly judges, who would apply God’s law as they interpreted it. The caliph could promote or fire them as he wished, but he could not dictate legal results: judicial authority came from the caliph, but the law came from the scholars.

The caliphs — and eventually the sultans who came to rule once the caliphate lost most of its worldly influence — still had plenty of power. They handled foreign affairs more or less at their discretion. And they could also issue what were effectively administrative regulations — provided these regulations did not contradict what the scholars said Shariah required. The regulations addressed areas where Shariah was silent. They also enabled the state to regulate social conduct without having to put every case before the courts, where convictions would often be impossible to obtain because of the strict standards of proof required for punishment. As a result of these regulations, many legal matters (perhaps most) fell outside the rules given specifically by Shariah.

The upshot is that the system of Islamic law as it came to exist allowed a great deal of leeway. That is why today’s advocates of Shariah as the source of law are not actually recommending the adoption of a comprehensive legal code derived from or dictated by Shariah — because nothing so comprehensive has ever existed in Islamic history.

To the Islamist politicians who advocate it or for the public that supports it, Shariah generally means something else. It means establishing a legal system in which God’s law sets the ground rules, authorizing and validating everyday laws passed by an elected legislature. In other words, for them, Shariah is expected to function as something like a modern constitution.

The Rights of Humans and the Rights of God

So in contemporary Islamic politics, the call for Shariah does not only or primarily mean mandating the veiling of women or the use of corporal punishment — it has an essential constitutional dimension as well. But what is the particular appeal of placing Shariah above ordinary law?The answer lies in a little-remarked feature of traditional Islamic government: that a state under Shariah was, for more than a thousand years, subject to a version of the rule of law.

And as a rule-of-law government, the traditional Islamic state had an advantage that has been lost in the dictatorships and autocratic monarchies that have governed so much of the Muslim world for the last century.

Islamic government was legitimate, in the dual sense that it generally respected the individual legal rights of its subjects and was seen by them as doing so. These individual legal rights, known as “the rights of humans” (in contrast to “the rights of God” to such things as ritual obedience), included basic entitlements to life, property and legal process — the protections from arbitrary government oppression sought by people all over the world for centuries.

Of course, merely declaring the ruler subject to the law was not enough on its own; the ruler actually had to follow the law. For that, he needed incentives. And as it happened, the system of government gave him a big one, in the form of a balance of power with the scholars. The ruler might be able to use pressure once in a while to get the results he wanted in particular cases. But because the scholars were in charge of the law, and he was not, the ruler could pervert the course of justice only at the high cost of being seen to violate God’s law — thereby undermining the very basis of his rule.

In practice, the scholars’ leverage to demand respect for the law came from the fact that the caliphate was not hereditary as of right. That afforded the scholars major influence at the transitional moments when a caliph was being chosen or challenged. On taking office, a new ruler — even one designated by his dead predecessor — had to fend off competing claimants. The first thing he would need was affirmation of the legitimacy of his assumption of power. The scholars were prepared to offer just that, in exchange for the ruler’s promise to follow the law.Once in office, rulers faced the inevitable threat of invasion or a palace coup. The caliph would need the scholars to declare a religious obligation to protect the state in a defensive jihad.

Having the scholars on his side in times of crisis was a tremendous asset for the ruler who could be said to follow the law. Even if the ruler was not law-abiding, the scholars still did not spontaneously declare a sitting caliph disqualified. This would have been foolish, especially in view of the fact that the scholars had no armies at their disposal and the sitting caliph did. But their silence could easily be interpreted as an invitation for a challenger to step forward and be validated.

The scholars’ insistence that the ruler obey Shariah was motivated largely by their belief that it was God’s will. But it was God’s will as they interpreted it. As a confident, self-defined elite that controlled and administered the law according to well-settled rules, the scholars were agents of stability and predictability — crucial in societies where the transition from one ruler to the next could be disorderly and even violent.

And by controlling the law, the scholars could limit the ability of the executive to expropriate the property of private citizens. This, in turn, induced the executive to rely on lawful taxation to raise revenues, which itself forced the rulers to be responsive to their subjects’ concerns. The scholars and their law were thus absolutely essential to the tremendous success that Islamic society enjoyed from its inception into the 19th century.

Without Shariah, there would have been no Haroun al-Rashid in Baghdad, no golden age of Muslim Spain, no reign of Suleiman the Magnificent in Istanbul.

For generations, Western students of the traditional Islamic constitution have assumed that the scholars could offer no meaningful check on the ruler. As one historian has recently put it, although Shariah functioned as a constitution, “the constitution was not enforceable,” because neither scholars nor subjects could “compel their ruler to observe the law in the exercise of government.” But almost no constitution anywhere in the world enables judges or non governmental actors to “compel” the obedience of an executive who controls the means of force. The Supreme Court of the United States has no army behind it.

Institutions that lack the power of the sword must use more subtle means to constrain executives. Like the American constitutional balance of powers, the traditional Islamic balance was maintained by words and ideas, and not just by forcible compulsion.

So today’s Muslims are not being completely fanciful when they act and speak as though Shariah can structure a constitutional state subject to the rule of law. One big reason that Islamist political parties do so well running on a Shariah platform is that their constituents recognize that Shariah once augured a balanced state in which legal rights were respected.

From Shariah to Despotism

But if Shariah is popular among many Muslims in large part because of its historical association with the rule of law, can it actually do the same work today? Here there is reason for caution and skepticism. The problem is that the traditional Islamic constitution rested on a balance of powers between a ruler subject to law and a class of scholars who interpreted and administered that law. The governments of most contemporary majority-Muslim states, however, have lost these features.

Rulers govern as if they were above the law, not subject to it, and the scholars who once wielded so much influence are much reduced in status. If they have judicial posts at all, it is usually as judges in the family-law courts.

In only two important instances do scholars today exercise real power, and in both cases we can see a deviation from their traditional role. The first is Iran, where Ayatollah Khomeini, himself a distinguished scholar, assumed executive power and became supreme leader after the 1979 revolution. The result of this configuration, unique in the history of the Islamic world, is that the scholarly ruler had no counterbalance and so became as unjust as any secular ruler with no check on his authority. The other is Saudi Arabia, where the scholars retain a certain degree of power. The unfortunate outcome is that they can slow any government initiative for reform, however minor, but cannot do much to keep the government responsive to its citizens. The oil-rich state does not need to obtain tax revenues from its citizens to operate — and thus has little reason to keep their interests in mind.How the scholars lost their exalted status as keepers of the law is a complex story, but it can be summed up in the adage that partial reforms are sometimes worse than none at all.

In the early 19th century, the Ottoman empire responded to military setbacks with an internal reform movement. The most important reform was the attempt to codify Shariah. This Westernizing process, foreign to the Islamic legal tradition, sought to transform Shariah from a body of doctrines and principles to be discovered by the human efforts of the scholars into a set of rules that could be looked up in a book.Once the law existed in codified form, however, the law itself was able to replace the scholars as the source of authority.

Codification took from the scholars their all-important claim to have the final say over the content of the law and transferred that power to the state. To placate the scholars, the government kept the Shariah courts running but restricted them to handling family-law matters. This strategy paralleled the British colonial approach of allowing religious courts to handle matters of personal status. Today, in countries as far apart as Kenya and Pakistan, Shariah courts still administer family law — a small subset of their original historical jurisdiction.

Codification signaled the death knell for the scholarly class, but it did not destroy the balance of powers on its own. Promulgated in 1876, the Ottoman constitution created a legislature composed of two lawmaking bodies — one elected, one appointed by the sultan. This amounted to the first democratic institution in the Muslim world; had it established itself, it might have popularized the notion that the people represent the ultimate source of legal authority.

Then the legislature could have replaced the scholars as the institutional balance to the executive.But that was not to be. Less than a year after the legislature first met, Sultan Abdulhamid II suspended its operation — and for good measure, he suspended the constitution the following year. Yet the sultan did not restore the scholars to the position they once occupied.

With the scholars out of the way and no legislature to replace them, the sultan found himself in the position of near-absolute ruler. This arrangement set the pattern for government in the Muslim world after the Ottoman empire fell. Law became a tool of the ruler, not an authority over him. What followed, perhaps unsurprisingly, was dictatorship and other forms of executive dominance — the state of affairs confronted by the Islamists who seek to restore Shariah.

A Democratic Shariah?

The Islamists today, partly out of realism, partly because they are rarely scholars themselves, seem to have little interest in restoring the scholars to their old role as the constitutional balance to the executive. The Islamist movement, like other modern ideologies, seeks to capture the existing state and then transform society through the tools of modern government. Its vision for bringing Shariah to bear therefore incorporates two common features of modern government: the legislature and the constitution.The mainstream Sunni Islamist position, found, for example, in the electoral platforms of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Justice and Development Party in Morocco, is that an elected legislature should draft and pass laws that are consistent with the spirit of Islamic law.

On questions where Islamic law does not provide clear direction, the democratically chosen legislature is supposed to use its discretion to adopt laws infused by Islamic values.The result is a profound change in the theoretical structure underlying Islamic law: Shariah is democratized in that its care is given to a popularly elected legislature. In Iraq, for example, where the constitution declares Shariah to be “the source of law,” it is in principle up to the National Assembly to pass laws that reflect its spirit.In case the assembly gets it wrong, however, the Islamists often recommend the judicial review of legislative actions to guarantee that they do not violate Islamic law or values.

What is sometimes called a “repugnancy clause,” mandating that a judicial body overturn laws repugnant to Islam, has made its way into several recent constitutions that seek to reconcile Islam and democracy. It may be found, for example, in the Afghan Constitution of 2004 and the Iraqi Constitution of 2005. (I had a small role advising the Iraqi drafters.) Islamic judicial review transforms the highest judicial body of the state into a guarantor of conformity with Islamic law. The high court can then use this power to push for a conservative vision of Islamic law, as in Afghanistan, or for a more moderate version, as in Pakistan.Islamic judicial review puts the court in a position resembling the one that scholars once occupied.


Like the scholars, the judges of the reviewing court present their actions as interpretations of Islamic law. But of course the judges engaged in Islamic judicial review are not the scholars but ordinary judges (as in Iraq) or a mix of judges and scholars (as in Afghanistan). In contrast to the traditional arrangement, the judges’ authority comes not from Shariah itself but from a written constitution that gives them the power of judicial review.The modern incarnation of Shariah is nostalgic in its invocation of the rule of law but forward-looking in how it seeks to bring this result about.

What the Islamists generally do not acknowledge, though, is that such institutions on their own cannot deliver the rule of law. The executive authority also has to develop a commitment to obeying legal and constitutional judgments. That will take real-world incentives, not just a warm feeling for the values associated with Shariah.

How that happens — how an executive administration accustomed to overweening power can be given incentives to subordinate itself to the rule of law — is one of the great mysteries of constitutional development worldwide. Total revolution has an extremely bad track record in recent decades, at least in majority-Muslim states. The revolution that replaced the shah in Iran created an oppressively top-heavy constitutional structure. And the equally revolutionary dreams some entertained for Iraq — dreams of a liberal secular state or of a functioning Islamic democracy — still seem far from fruition.Gradual change therefore increasingly looks like the best of some bad options. And most of today’s political Islamists — the ones running for office in Morocco or Jordan or Egypt and even Iraq — are gradualists.

They wish to adapt existing political institutions by infusing them with Islamic values and some modicum of Islamic law. Of course, such parties are also generally hostile to the United States, at least where we have worked against their interests. (Iraq is an obvious exception — many Shiite Islamists there are our close allies.)

But this is a separate question from whether they can become a force for promoting the rule of law. It is possible to imagine the electoral success of Islamist parties putting pressure on executives to satisfy the demand for law-based government embodied in Koranic law. This might bring about a transformation of the judiciary, in which judges would come to think of themselves as agents of the law rather than as agents of the state.Something of the sort may slowly be happening in Turkey. The Islamists there are much more liberal than anywhere else in the Muslim world; they do not even advocate the adoption of Shariah (a position that would get their government closed down by the staunchly secular military). Yet their central focus is the rule of law and the expansion of basic rights against the Turkish tradition of state-centered secularism. The courts are under increasing pressure to go along with that vision.Can Shariah provide the necessary resources for such a rethinking of the judicial role?

In its essence, Shariah aspires to be a law that applies equally to every human, great or small, ruler or ruled. No one is above it, and everyone at all times is bound by it. But the history of Shariah also shows that the ideals of the rule of law cannot be implemented in a vacuum. For that, a state needs actually effective institutions, which must be reinforced by regular practice and by the recognition of actors within the system that they have more to gain by remaining faithful to its dictates than by deviating from them.The odds of success in the endeavor to deliver the rule of law are never high.

Nothing is harder than creating new institutions with the capacity to balance executive dominance — except perhaps avoiding the temptation to overreach once in power. In Iran, the Islamists have discredited their faith among many ordinary people, and a similar process may be under way in Iraq. Still, with all its risks and dangers, the Islamists’ aspiration to renew old ideas of the rule of law while coming to terms with contemporary circumstances is bold and noble — and may represent a path to just and legitimate government in much of the Muslim world..(end)

54 comments:

Anonymous said...

Shariah law is a curse on non-Muslims simply because it refuses to accept the existence of non-Muslims as legal entities outside Shariah laws. In all so-called Muslim countries Shariah law has consistently refused to acknowledge the legal rights of a Muslim outside Islamic percepts. While civil law is not perfect it at least acknowledges the legal right of a person to exist outside Christian percepts. Make no mistake non-Muslim Asians are beginning to understand the insidious nature of Shariah and they will fight to keep this abomination justice away from them.

Tulang Besi said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shariah law is a curse on non-Muslims simply because it refuses to accept the existence of non-Muslims as legal entities outside Shariah laws.

REPLY: No it is not. It is not applied to Non Muslims because Islam cannot be imposed on those who do not believe in ISlam

Tulang Besi said...

Anon says:

"In all so-called Muslim countries Shariah law has consistently refused to acknowledge the legal rights of a Muslim outside Islamic percepts."

REPLY: That's because apostasy is a felony in Islam. Tell me, since when is a felony considered as a form of "human right"?

Tulang Besi said...

Anon says:

"Make no mistake non-Muslim Asians are beginning to understand the insidious nature of Shariah and they will fight to keep this abomination justice away from them."

REPLY: Then all I can say is that such move is an act of ignorance and intolerance.

You are to deny the Muslims of this land to practice their religion in full? How can u be so intolerant to other faiths?

tulang titanium said...

tulang besi, i think you must get this into your thick skull.

Nobody is against Islam. What they are against are rigid orthodoxy and repulsive religious nonsense that being forced onto others especially the born muslims by mindless zealot like you and your ilk.

So please be clear that - it is people like you with your narrow, restrictive and repulsive interpretation of Islam that has always been the problem for not only the born muslims but also humanity collectively.

present arrangement with PAS in PR is the best way to curb religious nonsense and repulsive religious doctrines from being shoved up politically into every born muslims ass.

It is good to see that the DAP has its way to tame these zealots. Perak would be a very good example.

So please get this - it is okay that if you chose to be a stupid orthodox, but please respect those born muslims who choose not to.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that simple thing?

and please stop mouthing that crap of denying Muslim to practice their religion in full, will ya. You know fully well that not all muslim subscribe to your nonsense.

It is just so unbelievable how stupid can one be. well, one can't expect much from a mindless zealot like you.

Anonymous said...

er no, when you confuse religion with law, law is often raped for religious ends. The muslim should not have more or less legal rights than any other person so all this push for S*** laws is no more than a scam. and haven't we had enough of the it-cannot-be-imposed-on-non-believers farce? Since being a non-believer is already a crime under S****, everyone will be subjected to the S*** laws one way or another. Smart but barbaric

Tulang Besi said...

Tulang Titanium says:

"Nobody is against Islam. What they are against are rigid orthodoxy and repulsive religious nonsense that being forced onto others especially the born muslims by mindless zealot like you and your ilk."

REPLY: And again I ask, what "rigid orthodoxy" are u talking about?

Thus far, u have failed to provide ONE EXAMPLE of your blatant acussation.

Do you go around talking rubbish like this without even a single care to whether it is correct or not?

Tulang Besi said...

Tulang Titanium says:

"So please be clear that - it is people like you with your narrow, restrictive and repulsive interpretation of Islam that has always been the problem for not only the born muslims but also humanity collectively."

REPLY: Please stop talking rubbish and start providing some specifics.

Or are u capable of making general statements like this only? When it comes to providing proof, you are found wanting?

In truth, there is nothing orthodox or narrow or any of the nonsense you mention above.

Your problem is with ISLAM. Period.

it is Islam u hate not people like me.

Why? BEcause I have uttered nothing but ISLAM.

Where do u get off saying otherwise about me?

Tulang Besi said...

Anon says:

" Anonymous said...
er no, when you confuse religion with law, law is often raped for religious ends. The muslim should not have more or less legal rights than any other person so all this push for S*** laws is no more than a scam. and haven't we had enough of the it-cannot-be-imposed-on-non-believers farce? Since being a non-believer is already a crime under S****, everyone will be subjected to the S*** laws one way or another. Smart but barbaric"

REPLY: Anon please be specific. These generalized statement that you hide behind only relegate you to the status of Tulang Titanium.

Always uttering nonsense but when it comes to providing evidence, he is found wanting.

Tulang Besi said...

Tulang Titanium,

You have problem with islam. You hate Islam.

You want Islam to conform to Western Liberalism.

You want Islam to bow to the wishes of Western Liberalism when Western Liberalism is not without it's own fundemental weaknesses.

You chose not to learn or think rationally. Rather u pass judgement based upon your narrow and tunnel-visioned liberal world view

And in Perak, it is reported that Islam is well and alive, more alive than in the time of Barisan Nasional/

So there is no such thing as DAP putting a hamper on zealots.

Dream on and keep making empty generalized statements.

God knows, that's the only thing you're good at.

That's right, emptiness.

Tulang Besi said...

Tulang Titanium,

You have problem with islam. You hate Islam.

You want Islam to conform to Western Liberalism.

You want Islam to bow to the wishes of Western Liberalism when Western Liberalism is not without it's own fundemental weaknesses.

You chose not to learn or think rationally. Rather u pass judgement based upon your narrow and tunnel-visioned liberal world view

And in Perak, it is reported that Islam is well and alive, more alive than in the time of Barisan Nasional/

So there is no such thing as DAP putting a hamper on zealots.

Dream on and keep making empty generalized statements.

God knows, that's the only thing you're good at.

That's right, emptiness.

RUN WITH THE WAVE said...

Hey there! Check out my website at www.runwiththewave.com Come and experience the waves of Penang! Join us for a BBQ buffet at the beach with watersports activities included!

tulang titanium said...

c'mon tulang besi, you are suffering from selective insomnia now.

you were too eager to ban this and that for the muslims as if Islam itself is so insecure of itself.You try to potray muslims like fools.

and just look at your twist n turn - felony vs human right.

which such form of absurdities, no normal human in their right mind would want to waste time arguing with the unreasonable like you.

too bad you don't like it, you can go do your doa and cry yourself out in front of the cubic stone if that would make you happy.

and don't forget to doa for me too. kah,kah,kah....

Tulang Besi said...

Tulang Titanium,

Ban what??? What are we so eager to ban that the Quran and Sunnah has not prescribed it's banning?
\

tulang titanium said...

you're pretending again,see what i mean.

let me tell you this tulang besi,i'm here not to argue or reason with you but solely to whack you. that's all.

so if you didn't like and couldn't stand it - that's too bad. You can go ahead and cry in front of the black stone and kiss it too if you wish.

and don't forget to doa for better and freer Malaysia..kah,kah,kah

Dato' Kamaruddin Duta said...

Dear Tulang Besi,

In a world of plurality, let us adhere to the rule of "to each his own".

Let each embrace and practice his religion as he shall, with no compulsion, bias, restriction, or one-sided preaching. Let us not allow one's religious rules impinge or affect another.

Malaysia is about 55%-60% Muslim. The views and feelings of the substantial 40% cannot be disregarded. They are our brothers and sisters too.

In a plural world, let us not rule or administer by specific tenets of specific religions. Let us rule and administer by the principles and values that underly all religions, whether Islam or otherwise.

This is the true message. This is the peaceful, reasonable, fair way forward.

Just as a Muslim citizen may not want to be administered under a Buddhist law or a Christian law, it is unfair to expect others to accept administration based on Islamic law — no matter how you justify it (e.g., that it will be fair to all races and to people of other faiths — because other religions are also equally fair to people of other faiths).

Let us rise beyond sectarianism.
Human society will only find peace when we accept that no religion is higher than another religion, and when we accept that diversity of thought and beliefs is the nature of life. Let us be true Muslims, let each be true Christians, true Hindus and Buddhists, and learn that religions are different roads that lead to the same destination.

That in the finality, we all seek God in any name we may call him, who loves us all equally for whatever our religion may be.

Ikrak said...

All these exchanges of views are a waste of time.

Let us not fight over something when we are not expert in the subject matter.

Anonymous said...

Jangan buang masa argue on matters yang kita tiada kepakaran dan kurang ilmu..Cuba baca what Dato said.."Buddhist or Christian laws"...so, saya nak tau,dia orang tu ada sistem perundangan ke?? Islam is a WAY OF LIFE..so, mesti le everything ada and complete..tak payah nak argue le.. Cuba Dato tanye other religions than Islam, dia org ada ke Sistem Undang2,Kewangan,Ekonomi etc macam Islam???
Hanya ISLAM sahaja yang sempurna kerana ia diturunkan oleh DIA yang maha sempurna..Pegi le dok fikir sikit,guna le akal yang ALLAH kurniakan tu..

Anonymous said...

Yang confront dgn tulang besi ni adalah yang takut dgn bayang-bayang sendiri... Undang-undang ISLAM hanya menghukum pada yang salah aje... dan undang-undang ISLAM adalah lebih adil... memaafkan yg bersalah jika mangsa memaafkannya...

org yg berpangkat DATo dan tulang TITANIUM tu, tak faham sgt pasal undang-undang ISLAM ni.. mungkin tahu pun dari perpepsi barat... hmmm....

Anonymous said...

Tulang TITANIUM tu pun kurang ajar jugak.. memperlekehkan doa dan mempersendakan kaabah dan hajar aswad. Hujah dia pun menunjukkan KEJAHILAN dia tentang agama ISLAM... apatah lagi tentang undang-undang ISLAM.
maklum lah kalau dah terpengaruh dgn nafsu dan harta dunia... macam tu lah jadinya.. sampai ISLAM pun dah dipanggil orthodox..

nawfal said...

Islam is nor a religion. Budhism, Christianity, Judaism are soem examples of religion (albeit corrupted ones).

Islam is ad-deen or the way of life.

Tulang Besi said...

Tulang Titanium,

again you are demonstrating your dimwit qualities.

That is, unable to understand simple request and unable to understand simple arguments.

Maybe u can answer me this:

a. What exactly has been done by Islamists that is NOT supported by Islam?

You say various banning is detrimental to Islam.

I ask you, these banning that u refer to, are they not sanction by Islam?

Tulang Besi said...

Anonymous tulang titanium said...

you're pretending again,see what i mean.

let me tell you this tulang besi,i'm here not to argue or reason with you but solely to whack you. that's all.

REPLY: Well if that is true, then you're doing a very bad job.

It's you that's being super whacked, from where i'm sitting.

Tulang Besi said...

Dear Dato kamaruddin duta

I admit that 40% of the population are non muslims.

My concern now is that are these 40% in possesion of the correct understanding of Islamic Shariah and Islamic law?

Or they are simply operating on various lies that is being spread by many "Muslims"?

tulang titanium said...

anon 4.34pm,

kpd org-org yg tak reti-reti bahasa mcm tulang besi - dibolehkan utk kurang ajar. hukumnya sunat .... kah,kah,kah

aku tak ada memperlekehkan apa-apa pun. aku cuma memperlekehkan si tulang besi.

aku tak kata Islam orthodox. aku kata tulang besi yg orthodox. apahal lu...tak reti membaca ke? itu pun tak tau beza.

and tulang besi, keep your question to yourself. i've already made it clear that i'm not here to argue with you. why can't you understand simple thing?

btw, have a nice vacation/umra. don't forget to doa for God guidance.hopefully God will put in some common sense in you for you to see the light. Amen.

Dato' Kamaruddin Duta said...

Saudara Anonymous:

Berkenaan ulasan saudara mengenai isu adanya atau tidak sistem perundangan, ekonomi/kewangan dalam agama yang selain dari Islam:

Jawapannya ya. Misalnya, cuba rujuk kanun/aturan ("canon", dalam bahasa Inggeris) agama Hindu (agama Hindu lama dikenali sebagai "a way of life"). Tamadun Hindu mempunyai tulisan yang dinamakan Arthashastra (atau ertinya apabila diterjemah adalah "Ekonomik") yang melibatkan hukum ekonomi/kewangan yang meluas. Fakta ini dimaklum oleh beberapa profesor ekonomik ternama sebagai teks ekonomiks yang antara yang terawal sekali. Ini perlu kita akui dan terima.

Juga, dalam Tamadan Hindu telah lama wujud sistem perundangan yang sofistikated (sila rujuk, misalnya, era empayar Maharaja Asoka Maurya).

Sila rujuk ensiklopedia atau Internet untuk maklumat selanjutnya.

Ingin saya tegaskan kepentingan kita menyelidik serba sedikit ajaran agama-agama lain dengan minda yang terbuka, bukan dengan minda yang prejudis atau tertutup, dengan mana kita menganggap agama lain kurang baik atau buruk dari agama kita sendiri. Sikap seperti ini harus dikikis, terutamanya oleh kita umat Muslim; agama kita mendidik agar kita kenal-mengenal dengan ikhlas agama/kepercayaan dan adat masyarakat dunia dan membentuk hubungan akrab dengan seluruh umat manusia di dunia ini. Inilah jalan ke arah kedamaian dan kemakmuran keinsanan sewaktu kita masih di alam bumi.

Sekian.

Wong said...

Tulang Besi said:

In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation. Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act.

--------------

No. 1 - Rape and adultery do not happen in full view of the public. Might you be able to give one example where a rape or adultery has been committed in public? Why else do the Islamic Police encourage citizens to call them when they notice 'suspicious going ons' when a man visit a woman's house, and vice versa? Unless the walls are see-through, it would be near impossible to convict anybody of adultery or even the more serious matter of rape.

Children have been raped, and suppose the accused was caught. Would the rapist or adulterer be so Moronic to commit such acts in full view of the public? THe child might be traumatized for life, even dead as we clearly saw in recent cases in Malaysia. Yet, under Syariah law, how do we convict? We can't find the rapist, let alone 4 men who witnessed a child being raped, and did nothing about it.

No. 2 - I read somewhere that the higher the social standing/status of the witnesseses, the better. You are assuming that every Muslim is pious, and his standing in society indicative of his nearness to God. Tell me, is that something wrong with that assumption? and WHY would 4 men of GOOD social standing stand by idly while Adultery and rape is going on in full view????? Should the 4 of them testify against the accused, but the accused refuses to confess 4 times, does that mean the accused would not be convicted?

No. 3 - I simply do not have to confess to committing adultery or rape. Of course, there is god's judgment after I die, and that is what I find in all the religious. God knows whats going on, and you'll get your due in the afterlife. Very simplistic and beautiful. And basically, why don't the religious let God/Allah punish the wrong doers in the afterlife?

Wong said...

On a note, I made a mistake

I commented on the social standing of the witnesses. Suppose the prosecuter produces 4 men of good social standing who witnessed the act, but the ACCUSED produces 4 men of BETTER social standing to speak for the accused. Would the testimonies of the eyewitnesses of lower social standing be null then?

Very convenient if you ask me.

Tulang Besi said...

t titanium kata;

"aku tak kata Islam orthodox. aku kata tulang besi yg orthodox. apahal lu...tak reti membaca ke? itu pun tak tau beza."

REPLY: Kau tak kata kau buat fitnah.
Sampai sekarang takda bukti pun,

Tapi nak buat camana, memang kau punya standard pemikiran rendah.

Tulang Besi said...

Dear Wong,

TQ for raising such good questions:

a. For rape, there is no need for coming up with 4 witnesses.

Rape is an offense under "taazeer". in our Malaysia context, "taazeer"
can take the form of our Civil Law.

But, it also mean that that "hudud" punishment can be prescribed for rape. A lesser degree of punishment applies.

b. The 4 good standing witnesses cannot take action on their own as they are not empowered to stop another individuals from committing adultery especially when adultery is mutually consented.

In any case, the law is preventive in nature. Not mere punishing for the sake of punishing.

In the case of the existance of 4 witnessess, then even if there is no admission, the punishment will still hold.

c.When a man is punished here in the world, he will escape punishment in the afterlife, which is 100x more severe.

It is a guarantee that your sins is forgiven.

Wong said...

Question, why is Rape less severe than adultery? Is it because the woman "asked for it"?

Tulang besi Said:
But, it also mean that that "hudud" punishment can be prescribed for rape. A lesser degree of punishment applies.
_______________________

Did the children asked to be raped? or can the 'bad influence' from the westerners and 'other reigions' be blamed for being the cause, and thus a lesser degree of punishment applies?

As for all sins being erased when punished in the mortal world, It sounds "perfect", then all Muslims should gladly be punished in the mortal realms.

Anonymous said...

ni lagi satu nak tunjuk betapa jahilnya Tulang TITANIUM pasal undang2 ISLAM.

Apa yang Tulang BESI sebutkan berdasarkan undang2 shariah... bukan direka2.. kalau dah mengata tulang besi tu orthodox maksudnya mengatakan ISLAM itu ORTHODOX... kalau tak paham2 lagi Tulang titanium ni.. memang jahil sungguh la nampaknya dia... tertutup agaknya pintu hati dia.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mister Tulang Besi:

Please can you state details of your age and your educational qualifications for us so that we may evaluate your postings more thoroughly?

Thank you very much from Edwin William Thornberry III

Anonymous said...

Saudara Dato,
Sebagai seorang Muslim, tidaklah saya bermaksud utk merendahkan agama lain dlm tulisan awal saya.
Setiap penganut mempunyai alasan masing2 utk mempercayai agama yg mereka anuti.
Tetapi sebagai seorang Islam, tidaklah saya anuti agama ini semata-mata kerana saya dilahirkan Islam, tetapi saya pernah terperangkap dlm dilema utk mencari agama yg sebenar sehingga mempelajari agama lain terutamanya Kristian kerana saya tidak mahu menjadi seorang Islam hanya kerana dilahirkan dlm keluarga yg menganuti agama tersebut.Dan pernah juga mengikuti kursus perbandingan agama.
Kita mestilah menganuti sesuatu agama atau fahaman kerana kita benar2 faham dan yakin bahawa agama tersebutlah yang akan membawa kita kearah kebenaran dan keselamatan di dunia dan akhirat.
Mungkin agama Hindu ada menyentuh mengenai perundangan,kewangan dll,tetapi sepastinya ajaran dan panduannya tidak menyeluruh,ketinggalan zaman dan tidak sesempurna sistem Islam.Dan setahu saya, dlm Kristian adalah amat kurang disentuh atau mungkin hampir tiada langsung.
Telah dikatakan Allah bahawa Islam itu adalah yg tertinggi dan tiada yg lebih tinggi dari Islam...
1. Adakah kita ragu dan sangsi akan kenyataan Allah itu, sehingga kita sanggup menyamaratakan Islam dgn agama lain?
2. Tidakkah Nabi Muhammad itu diutuskan Allah ke mukabumi ini utk mempraktik dan membuktikan bahawa Islam itu adalan satu sistem cara hidup yg sempurna dan yg terbaik utk umat manusia?
Yg sebenarnya,penolakan terhadap sistem hidup Islam ini adalah kerana namanya ISLAM..
Cuba kita tukar namanya kepada (contoh).. Sistem Cara Hidup Sempurna..dan sistem ini dikaji,diselidiki dan dipelajari di seluruh dunia.Dan bandingkanlah ia dgn apa saja sistem,cara hidup dan agama yg wujud di atas mukabumi ini dengan adil dan tanpa rasa "bias" atau berat sebelah, yakinlah sesungguhnya TIADA yg lebih elok,cantik,adil dan sempurna daripada sistem ini (ISLAM).
Semestinya sebagai manusia kita tidak boleh lari dari hidup dlm satu sistem kehidupan, cara Islam ke? Sekular ke? Komunis ke?..
Kaji,selidiki dan bandingkanlah, yg penting,
pilihlah sistem yg Allah redha dan jgn lupa utk sampaikan,ajarkan dan sebarkan kpd yg lain...

Tulang Besi said...

Dear Thorn,

I am below 40 and have a diploma in Electrical and Computer Engineering.

Tulang Besi said...

Wong says:

"Did the children asked to be raped? or can the 'bad influence' from the westerners and 'other reigions' be blamed for being the cause, and thus a lesser degree of punishment applies?"

REPLY: I think the question of who does what doesn't arise.

The rule is that rape is not subejected to the vigorous requirement of evidence under Shariah.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mister Tulang Besi:

Thank you kindly for your prompt reply. If I may ask just one more question. Could you please provide greater details as to the background of your religious education?

Warmest regards from Edwin William Thornberry III

Jem Hall said...

Wong said: Did the children asked to be raped? or can the 'bad influence' from the westerners and 'other reigions' be blamed for being the cause, and thus a lesser degree of punishment applies?

As for all sins being erased when punished in the mortal world, It sounds "perfect", then all Muslims should gladly be punished in the mortal realms.

Me: The rulings upon whether the person being raped did/did not ask for it is separate from the rulings for rape. For example a sane, matured woman who follows a guy to questionable places shall be punished to set example for others, but the punishment is OF COURSE not to the extent of zina, it will be lesser. In fact even if the women did not get raped she is still guilty for not taking care of her own safety & honour. Children do not fall into this "sane,matured women" category so they won't be prosecuted as such.

The rapist, if proven that he had 'entered his screw into the nut' will be punished under the same prosecution of zina. Otherwise the judge may stipulate other methods to punish the rapist - conventional civil law can substitute this.

Now if you look at the rulings carefully, the Shariah law did not miss any spot which the conventional civil laws has already consented, in fact the added rulings to the person being raped can be a useful preventative method.

BTW Wong I'd suggest you to read about how the majority of Islamic scholars dealing with the bad & unIslamic Pakistani's Hudood practice. I think you may have swelled from reading about mistreatment of women in Pakistan in particular. I find that non-muslims usually use Pakistan as a base for their argument/condemnation on Shariah.

But I may be wrong though, because some people these days do really speak as if they know Islam better than the Muslim themselves.

Tulang Besi said...

dear Edwin,

My religious training is part-time. In fact, I am self taught when it comes to Islam.

Anonymous said...

(heha): PEACE be upon all mankinds,
muslims & non-muslims , ok ! amen .

tulang titanium said...

hanya setakat diploma shj...hmmm. That explains why kepandaian mu tak begitu menyerlah.

Ramadhan Kareem Tulang besi.

Tulang Besi said...

Tulang Titanium tulis:

" hanya setakat diploma shj...hmmm. That explains why kepandaian mu tak begitu menyerlah.
"

REPLY: oh sorry, it's clear you are not familiar with American Tertiary Education lingo.

I have a Bachelor Degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from an American University

What's so great about your diploma Tulang Titanium? Did u get your diploma from University of Screwups?

Anonymous said...

Tulang Titanium

kamu keparat dan bangsat kerana menghina Islam dan tempat termulia di alam ini yakni Kaabah. kamu bangsat yang perlu di hukum dengan sebaik mungkin dan jangan ingat keparat macam kamu boleh terlepas dari hukuman tersebut.Malah darah kamu halal.... bangsat!

Dato Kamaruddin

tolol macam kamu yang beragama islam dan bergelar datuk patut insaf dan sedar yang kamu dilahirkan dalam agama yang syumul walhal terkotak katik berjuta orang kafir mendambakan kebenaran tetapi tidak dapat mengecapinya. Otak dunggu kamu lebih teruk dari otak udang. Kalau semua agama mmenuju kepada yang Satu, tak payahlah Rasulullah bersusah payah berdakwah kepada Abu Jahal, Abu Sufyan dan kuncu-kuncu mereka.Mereka pun daha ada agama pun..agama berhala yang mirip kepada agama hindu, shinto dan taoisma sekarang.Begitu juga dengan Musa, Isa dan nabi-nabi yang lain tak usahlah mereka berkorban demi umat mereka. Bangsat! kenapa mubaligh kristian nak berdakwah pada yang lain kalau semua agama itu menuju kepada yang sama. tentu sahaja, sebab mereka ingat agama mereka yang wahid. Begitu juga dengan puak Shiv Sena dan BJP di India Bangsat.. kamu tidak fahamke bahawa Allah azza wa jalla hanya menerima Islam sebagai agamaNya.

Dan jamgan merepek! Asoka bukan mengamalkan Hindu tetapi Buddha dan empayar Maurya yang diasaskan bapanya itu asalnya Hindu ( zaman Chandragupta). Walhal, Buddha sendiri merupakan satu penolakkan keatas agama Hindu dan falsafahnya begitu juga dengan agama Jain yang diasas Mahavira. Masakan kalau Hindu itu best, Buddha nak menolaknya walhal asalnya Hindu. dan cabaran kepada Datuk siasat apa yang disembah Hindu kuno dulu baru cakap... Ajaran agama asal tiada berhala, berhala semua yang terbit kemudian. Mereka berpaksikan kepada Brahman, tuhan yang satu. tanya Hindu sekarang, mana pergi brahman itu nescaya mereka terkebil-kebil.Asal semua agama adalah berpaksikan kepada tuhan yang esa, Allah azza wa jalla dan ini difirmankan oleh Allah dalam kitab sucinya : samada kamu memanggilKu Rahman atau.... dan juga : sesungguhnya Ibrahim, Musa, Isa adalah Islam..........saya tak payah cakap banyak, cari sendiri dalam AlQuran kalau Dato seorang Muslim jati. manusia yang selewengkan tauhid sebab itu diutuskan nabi dan rasul membetulkan keadaan dengan mengembalikan umat kepada syariat azali yang ternukil dalam Lauh Mahfuz. Get it, idiot.. the originality of monotheism was corrupted by the ways and greed of men under the influence of Satan. sebab itu ada agama yahudi dan nasrah sekarang sebagai cermin bagaimana manusia boleh selewengkan syariat dan mengada2kan bidah seperti konsep Tuhan, anak tuhan, roh (kristian) dan pemberhalaan dalam mazhab katholik laknatullah suci dll dan yahudi pula bagi tunjuk bagaimana manusia boleh selewengkan syariat dan amanah.

Lagi satu, datuk bangsat, jangan anda mengada-ada lagi tentang kesamarataan semua agama kalau tidak hendak disamakkan dengan Tulang Titanium yang berotak rapuh itu.

Anonymous said...

Tulang titanium... when you start commenting on a persons education/qualification, therein you lose every credibility in whatever 'argument' or discourse you present.
It only relects badly on you as a person.

A person can only have a Form 5 cert but what matters is the substance not certainly not a piece of paper....

a pity, i thought you could present your argument in a better way.
Provocation and

Anonymous said...

Pembetulan kepada komen 10.31am 24/9
Kepada Tulang Titanium bansgat dan Datuk tolol

1. Masakan kalau itu Hindu best, Gautama Buddha nak menolaknya walhal asal diri beliau Hindu.

2. samada kamu memanggilKu Rahman.....

Bukit Chandan said...

Tulang Besi is right and Tulang Titanium is wrong. Tulang Titanium does not understand Islam as a complete way of life.

Our support to Tulang Besi.

Best Regards.........

Tan said...

I gone through half of this post and I can't go on anymore.

Tulang Besi, i respect you for your knowledge and your faith towards your religion.

The only sentence I agree here is
- Each religions have their own laws, and one should respect each other, and shalt not cross the border.
- We respect each other and be done with it.

That is the whole point. Some people might not agree what Shariah Law's punishment and such, for example the rape cases and adultery debate. There is nothing to argue about, those that don't agree is because they aren't from Islam, if not they would have agree.

Please too, keep extremist from all sides out. Extremist will only tarnish the image of either side.


From the 2nd post by Tulang Besi
"No it is not. It is not applied to Non Muslims because Islam cannot be imposed on those who do not believe in ISlam"

Are you very sure of this? I think everybody read a news happened...last year or the year before where a retired British husband and wife were raided in the middle of the night by religious officers in Pulau Langkawi. Please comment on this.

Tan said...

Sorry it wasn't a British couple, it was an American couple

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/10/28/nation/15839442&sec=nation


ALOR STAR, Dec 5 (Bernama) -- Kedah Menteri Besar Kedah Datuk Seri Mahdzir Khalid,
"During their stay, his (Barnhart)'s wife like to wear a batik sarung, so the local people thought she was a local and reported it to the Langkawi Religious Office,"


What an explanation from the Kedah MB, click on thestar newspaper link and see if those 60++ couples have any resemblance to a local Malay couple.
Things like this reflects really badly on Malaysia.

Anonymous said...

It just a simple explanation about that. The local folk make a report thinking that they are a MUSLIM couple. A mistake that we a human being always make. And the couple not been charged. So the law only apply to muslim only.

Dato' Sharifuddin Duta said...

Anonymous,

Kata orang tua-tua kurang ajar namanya sikap kamu itu.

Kalau benar-benar kamu seorang Melayu yang beradab, seorang Muslim yang beriman, sudah tentunya kamu tidak membalas campur hujah-hujah dalam mana-mana perbincangan atau diskusi yang sopan dengan kata-kata kesat, kasar dan jahil kamu.

Seharusnya kamu merasa malu dengan diri sendiri bukan sahaja kerana menonjolkan sikap yang buruk dan jijik kamu itu terhadap orang-orang yang berusia, tetapi juga kerana memalukan bangsa kamu sendiri di khalayak umum dalam satu forum elektronik yang terbuka seperti ini.

Sekiranya kurang didikan, biar bertanya dan berbincang dengan beradab. Jangan buat pandai-pandai. Manusia yang benar-benar ingin belajar tidak akan malu untuk bersoal atau mendengar. Seorang Muslim itu wajib bertutur dengan lembut tetapi berasas.

Dengan itu, mula-mula sekali, saya ingin menyentuh mengenai beberapa isu yang saudara sebutkan sebelum ini. Untuk pengetahuan saudara, walaupun Asoka itu menganuti agama Buddha, edik atau kanun Asoka itu adalah berdasarkan hukum Dhamma atau Dharma yang asalnya dari agama Hindu. Dharma itu pula asal usulnya daripada Dharmasastra, skrip Hindu yang menggariskan satu sistem perundangan yang rapi. Dalami dahulu topik perbincangan sebelum membuka mulut, saudara, terutamanya dengan orang tua-tua, dan dengan mereka yang pernah mengajar atau adalah terdiri daripada golongan guru. Bersopan dengan guru-guru kamu.

Kedua, berkait Buddha: Buddha itu menolak intepretasi dan istiadat golongan Brahmin, dan bukan prinsip-prinsip agama Hindu yang menjadi landasan agama itu. Tambahan, kedua-dua agama Buddha serta Jain yang kamu sebutkan itu terasnya adalah daripada agama Hindu, dan tidak bercanggah dengan prinsip-prinsip agama Hindu, misalnya Hindu Advaita. Seperti saya sarankan tadi, bacalah dengan terperinci sebelum berhujah atau berpidato.

Akhir sekali, saya tekankan lagi berhujah itu biarlah dengan sopan dan rasional. Bukan dengan menghina atau memperkecilkan orang-orang lain atau sumbangan agama-agama lain.

Sikap fanatik yang enggan menerima bahawa setiap agama itu ada baiknya atau tauladannya menjadikan kita seolah-olah katak di bawah tempurung. Ini kerana dari awal-awal lagi premis kita itu sudah menolak nilai-nilai agama lain berbanding agama kita sendiri. Dengan atitud seperti saudara, usaha untuk memperoleh ilmu yang sebenar-benarnya sudah gagal dari garis permulaan lagi.

Saya pendekkan sahajalah sampai ke sini. Ruang ini dan cara percakapan saudara tidak mengizinkan perbincangan mengenai Nabi Muhammad S.A.W. Juga, tidak tersampai hati saya membawa masuk nama Nabi kerana tidak elok ianya diletakkan bersebelahan dengan kata-kata kesat saudara. Cukuplah setakat saya doakan agar saudara sedar, insaf, berluas pandangan dan berlembut hati sedikit. Jangan malukan bangsa dan agama kita sendiri atau menghina kepercayaan orang lain.

Wassalam.

Anonymous said...

salam

saya setuju dengan Datuk..hujah biar beradab..for all non muslims..if u aRE christian..be a TRUE christian..if u a hindu..be a TRUE hindu as mention in BHAGAVADGITA..if u are BUDDHIST..be a TRUE buddhist ..

so what?for me..AKHLAK is first rather than the LAW..mostly people will judge ISLAM based on AKHLAK rather than LAW itself..

if AKHLAK is better..then..SYARIAH will foloow better..learn how Malacca Sulatanate introduce SYARIAH..

-moga jiwa Syeikh Siti Jenar dipelihara al-Haq-

zen non said...

Salam/Peace

Argue as you may,but history won't change, unless mankind craft a new pathway, to lead their sons to the right road, the route to jannah..there is only one way.

Hi, I'm just sharing this link, it is about the beginning of idols worshiping.

http://tinyslave.blogspot.com/2007/06/concept-of-idol-in-post-millennium-era.html


Kisah perjalanan manusia tidak berhenti seketika, menitipi benang masa, menantikan saat seterusnya tiba, apa yang kau lakukan di waktu ini, adakah kau lupa mengingati Dia?

Dato' Sharifuddin Duta said...

Salam sejahtera.

Anonymous 10:13 am di atas telah merumuskan prinsip yang harus kita pegangi dengan bernas dan tepat.

Komen Anonymous 10:13 am mengingatkan saya akan ucapan Gandhi yang berbunyi seperti berikut:

"I came to the conclusion long ago... that all religions were true... and whilst I hold by my own, I should hold others [iaitu, agama-agama yang lain] as dear as Hinduism. So we can only pray, if we are Hindus, not that a Christian should become a Hindu... but our innermost prayer should be a Hindu should be a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim, a Christian a better Christian."
Mahatma Gandhi (19 January 1928).

Seperti diterangkan Anonymous 10:13 am diatas, yang penting sekali adalah akhlak, dan akhlak murni dipupuk oleh semua agama. Sekiranya akhlak itu baik, maka yang selainnya akan ikut dengan automatik... syariah atau tidak.

Inilah sumber perpaduan dan persaudaraan antara seluruh umat manusia tidak kira Islam, Kristian, Hindu, Buddha atau selainnya.

Maka usahlah kita bertengkar. Ayuh kita menghargai kebaikan masing-masing dan menggalakkan pembangunan akhlak yang baik dan pembangunan intelek yang dalam sesama kita semua tidak kira bangsa atau agama.

Di sinilah tanahair kita, Malaysia, dapat menjadi contoh unggul kepada seluruh dunia.

Mag M said...

The best and most peaceful way is respect everybody's religion and do not encroach or impose your religion on others. Only then, will there be peace and harmony wherever we live. Everyone will say their religion is the best. Therefore, it is better to respect and not force upon anyone what we believe. To convince others we are better, we should show we are good by example but not by forcing. Forcing scares people away.

Peace and love to everyone and every race here. As usual, let us mind the language we use.

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.