Setiap Artikel Malaysiawaves ke Email Anda.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Dipersilakan untuk Like Facebook Page T. Besi

Search Malaysiawaves

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Reply to Aloysious Article in MalaysiaToday

Aloysius has responded to Khalid Samad’s earlier article with great haste. It can be read here. Khalid Samad took the trouble to reply as well and it can be read here.

I myself wish to undertake some of the points raise by Aloysius to bring more light to the issue. I shall pick and choose the some of the points raised by the article and rebut.

1.0 In so many words, Aloysius tries to paint a picture that the Medina Charter does not recognize the existence and rights of Polytheists which is very much in existence during the writing of the Medina Charter. Why? Because the name of the Polytheists tribes are not mentioned explicitly in the Medina Charter.

There is no mention because in the opening of the Charter the Polytheists are already referred to in the opening of the Charter:

"This is a document from Muhammad the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), governing relations between the Believers i.e. Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib and those who followed them and worked hard with them. They form one nation -- Ummah.]

It’s only natural for the Poltheists Arab tribes not mention in it’s name because the Yathrib’s Muslims are also from the same tribe as the Yathrib polytheists. To distinguish them at that point of time would be a sign of disrespect for the Polytheist tribes who are hosting the Prophet at that time.So instead, the Polytheist tribes are mentioned by their function and roles at the time, and that is “those who followed them and work hard with them”.

This is normal in the Arabic language and the Arabic culture. That is why it is most important to understand the Medina Charter in it’s original language.Even Montgomery Watt agrees that the Medina Charter covers Polytheists tribe of Yathrib.

2.0 Aloysius says:
“The Muslim legal scholars are consistent in treating the payment of jizya as an act of humiliation and punishment for the ahl al-kitab.”:

He also cites an example:
“This function of the jizya is highlighted by the famous (to those who bother to study early Islamic history) case of the Banu Taghlib, a powerful Arab Christian tribe that refused to pay jizya because they were keenly aware of the humiliation this represented.”

REPLY: The truth is humiliation prescribed to People of the Book are for those tribes whom are recaltirant or aggressive against the Islamic rule. The humiliation treatment is a prescription made out of “ijtihad” (not from Al quran or Sunnah) with the objective of subduing Ahlul Kitab tribes into not rebelling against the Muslim rulers. It is a better treatment than the alternative, that is open war against rebellious tribes. A nation cannot survive if it’s subject are treacherous and traitorous.Notice also Aloysious failure to mention the fact that such “ijtihad” is only found in the works of later scholars. And there is no examples from the Prophet or the Companions to support such practice. Which means it is merely an opinion of the Scholars and not binding in terms of it’s rule. This is because during the time of the Prophet and Companions, the non-muslim tribes are less treacherous as the government was seen as stronger and in control.

3.0 Aloysius makes reference to the Treaty of Umar repeatedly and he cited examples of a Al Azhar scholars referring to the treaty in one of their edicts:

“Take for instance the fatwa produced by Sheikh Damanhuri of the al-Azhar in 1739, which can be found in his tract, Iqamat al-hujja al-bahira ‘ala kana’is Misr wa’l-Qahira. The Sheikh declares that all Christian churches should be either be destroyed or be allowed to fall into ruin. He cites Ibn Hibban’s version of the Pact of Umar, and says, “It follows that the practice of men who knew what is proper was to forbid the erection of new churches and to prevent the repair of old ones”

REPLY: First of all, the authenticity of the Treaty of Umar is now seriously in question even by Western scholars. A reference to Wikipedia says on the treaty of Umar says:

Western orientalists doubt the authenticity of the Pact, arguing that it is usually the victors, not the vanquished, who propose, or rather impose, the terms of peace, and that it is highly unlikely that the people who spoke no Arabic and knew nothing of Islam could draft such a document. Academic historians believe that the Pact of Umar in the form it is known today was a product of later jurists who attributed it to the venerated caliph Umar I in order to lend greater authority to their own opinions. The striking similarities between the Pact of Umar and the Theodesian and Justinian Codes suggest that perhaps much of the Pact of Umar was borrowed from these earlier codes by later Islamic jurists. At least some of the clauses of the pact mirror the measures first introduced by the Umayyad caliph Umar II or by the early Abbasid caliphs.[1]

And trust me, Ibnu Hibban is not a source that is replied upon for 100% authenticity. Why do you think “As Sahih Ibnu Hibban” is not ranked the same as “As Majmu As Sahih” of Al Bukhari?

And, the rest Khalid Samad has effectively rebutted in his article. Please remember that there is always another side of the coin when it comes to Islamic literature.

Al Qardhawi has highlighted one very important point when dealing with Orientalist. That is, their deficiency in the Arabic language. They are mostly lacking and found wanting when trying to read classical Islamic text due to their deficient command of Classical Arabic.

Al Qardhawi has highlighted so many misunderstanding of Orientalist due to their inability to understand Classical Islamic text which is written in Classical Arabic.

There are so many lies being floated by enemies of Islam in the cyberworld. Mostly these lies are concocted by orientalist with deficient command of Classical Arabic. Most of them studies the Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) and tries to read classical Islamic text. In short, they are not trained to read classical Islamic text.

I have seen with my own eyes how pupils are trained in Classical Arabic and these pupils started their Arabic training since they are 9 years old. These Orientalists only studies Arabic in matters of 2-3 years. It’s no wonder that they keep making mistakes after mistakes.

Tulang Besi

.

386 comments:

1 – 200 of 386   Newer›   Newest»
John Bastille said...

I have the privilege to exchange some comments with Tulang Besi.

Allow me to share my experience with a different presentation. Tulang Besi has claimed that I have vivid imaginations and a drunk. Therefore, here goes:

FP = Free Person
MD = Muslim Debater.
MS = Muslim supporter

The challenge to debate

MD : I challenge anyone to debate with me. I claimed that there is no elephant in my backyard.

FP was nearby, walked closer and took a peek at MD's backyard and saw an elephant.

FP : What the heck are you talking about? There is an elephant.

MD : You damn liar. There is no elephant.

MS : kahkahkah FP is a liar kahkahkah

FP : Helloo !!!. I can see the elephant.

MD : What elephant?

FP : There-lah, standing at that corner - currently shitting.

MD : That one? We don't call it elephant. We have a special term in Classical Arabic. You know Classical Arabic or not? If don't, then shut up.

MS : kahkahkah FP doesn't know arabic and what to show off kahkahkah.

FP : What the? You claim that there is no elephant.

MD : That's true.

FP : That animal is an elephant. And it is at your backyard.

MD : You damn liar. You blasphemer. Why you so anti-Islam?

MS: kahkahkah FP is anti-Islam kahkahkah

FP : We call that animal an elephant and you have it there at your backyard.

MD : Why are you targeting me? You know, the Christians and Jews also have elephants at their backyard. Here, I can show you proof that some other ancient civilizations have elephants at their backyards. Why are you such an Islamphobia? Why such a hate speech?

FB : Look. You claimed that there is no elephant at YOUR backyard. I am not anti-Islam. Just because, of lately, there are a lot of muslims that claim that they never have elephants at their backyard.

MD : That's true. We are the best of mankind.

FP : Hello. In fact, I caught another person down the road claiming what you did and he HAS an elephant at his backyard. IT came out in the newspaper.

MD : That's Western bias and Jewish conspiracy. Always targeting muslims only. Other people also have elephants.

MS: kahkahkah FP may be a Jewish agent trying to smear the name of Islam kahkahkah.

FP : Yes, we admit. But you said no muslims have ....

MD : Those people are not the true muslims. True muslims do not have elephants at their backyards. We are oppressed people. Death to America! Death to Israel!

FP : The one in the newspaper?

MD: He doesn't understand Classical Arabic. He only knows Modern Arabic. And you, infidel, don't talk about elephant if you do not know arabic.

FP : What makes you the authority that that muslim is not a real muslim?

MD : Because real muslims do not have elephants at their backyards. If that person has an elephant at the backyard, he is not a true muslim. Please read our holy book.

FP : In fact, I have read your holy book. It says here that muslims are encouraged to have elephants at their backyards.

MD : Where?

FP : Here, at this aya.

MD : You idiot. That's an English translation. We only respect Classical Arabic. You cannot just read. You must have proper guidance on translation.


FP: You ask me to read.

MD : Don't simply read. You don't qualify. Please ask us for the correct translation. Only we have the correct translation.

FP : But you challenge anyone to debate.

MD : You are not qualified. You are a drunk and an infidel. Come to me only if you know Classical Arabic.

Anonymous said...

A very good characterization of your earlier thread. Well put, John Bastille!

Cruzeiro said...

John,
That is definitely the most classic and "intellectual" mother of debate of all time!!!

kahkahkahkah ....

Anonymous said...

TB said:

The humiliation treatment is a prescription made out of “ijtihad” (not from Al quran or Sunnah) (...) It is a better treatment than the alternative, that is open war against rebellious tribes. A nation cannot survive if it’s subject are treacherous and traitorous

1.0 are you saying that because this was a case of itjihad it was not based in The Quran or Sunnah? -kahkahkah

2.0 aren't the terms 'rebellious tribes', 'treacherous', and 'traitorous' relative? -kahkahkah

3.0 isn't the concept of a "nation" a modern one? -kahkahkah

Datuk

Anonymous said...

John Bastille,

I salute thee

Cheers

Anonymous said...

Good job JB. Tb desrves this. Hope he understood it! kah kah kah.

John Bastille said...

When muslims find themselves not being able to defend their point of arguments, they tend to hide behind the veil of "Classical Arabic".

In this manner, they can just shut up their infidel debaters. And the debate ends there and there.

For their own fellow muslims, it is easier. Just say - Allah knows best. Just shut up. Allahs says don't question.

Anonymous said...

Of course Allah knows best....but pundek maneys like John know what?Btw f*k nut,u should send en e mail to Uri Avnery to find out about child marrige amongst the semtic race group ..

Anonymous said...

I see nothing wrong in learning in pure arabic when it comes to interprating or undertanding the meanings of sacred texts..in fact there are words that cannot be translated into english..little bit diffuclt..the same thing applies in sanskrit..

Anonymous said...

[Yusufali 6:83] That was the reasoning about Us, which We gave to Abraham (to use) against his people: We raise whom We will, degree after degree: for thy Lord is full of wisdom and knowledge.

This is a very very meaningful/truthful verse..note the word degree ..this is how it's done..upward march/ascension..from truth to greater truth and finally to the highest truth..unveiling the veils that envelope us in an orderly manner

Anonymous said...

In the science of brahman..the full of wisdom,full of knowledge..raising whom he wills..is the aspect of Maheswari(one of the 4 prime shaktis/power..so indians..take note..ya..

Anonymous said...

GRITSAMADA BHARGAVA


SUKTA 8

2. He brings his perfect leading to the man who has given; he is invulnerable and wears out with wounds the foe. Fair is the front of him fed with the offerings.

hehehehe..;-)

Tulang Besi said...

JB says:

Alteratively the dialouge can go like this:

FP:Look there's the Hindu Kush mountain

MD: Where? I don't see any

FP: There right in front of you. Why? Because once upon a time Muslims had massacared Hindus somewhere. So, that's why the Hindu Kush mountain is there

MD: But we're standing on the beach. And it's the ocean right in front of us.

FP: It's not an issue what's in front of us. What's important is what I say that's in front of us

MD: You need some couch time. Why don't i recommend u a good shrink.

FP: You idiot, you are in denial.

Moral of the story: In order to be free, it's not important to be factually accurate.

In fact you're expected to form your own understanding of the subject regardless of the necessary consideration of the subject.

In the case of JB, he doesn't want to know Arabic and he doesn't want to understand Islamic text from an accurate standpoint.

So he creates his own understanding of the text and draw his own conclusion.

Ever heard of tunnel vision. That's JB.

Tulang Besi said...

Blogger Cruzeiro said...

John,
That is definitely the most classic and "intellectual" mother of debate of all time!!!

kahkahkahkah ....


Isn't this cruzeiro which was exposed in this blog time and time again of his fallacy?

I guess the blind really leads the blind.

It's not a saying anymore. it's a statement of fact.

Tulang Besi said...

Datuk says:



1.0 are you saying that because this was a case of itjihad it was not based in The Quran or Sunnah? -kahkahkah


REPLY:
Dear datuk,

In matters that has Quran and Sunnah, there is no ijtihad. Or Ijtihad is unnecessary.

The reason the ijtihad is made is because certain jurists sees it as necessary given the circumstances and requirement of the time.

Haha back to you.

2.0 aren't the terms 'rebellious tribes', 'treacherous', and 'traitorous' relative? -kahkahkah

No they are not. It hasn't been relative since men starts to roam the earth.

maybe to you i think cause you don't live in the real world.


3.0 isn't the concept of a "nation" a modern one? -kahkahkah

Datuk


REPLY: No it is not. Besides i used the word STATE not NATION.

Anonymous said...

In each man she answers and handles the different elements of his nature according to their need and their urge and the return they call for, puts on them the required pressure or leaves them to their cherished liberty to prosper in the ways of the Ignorance and perish(frm the four aspects of the DIVINE MOTHER by Sri Aurobindo..)

[Yusufali 6:113] To such (deceit) let the hearts of those incline, who have no faith in the hereafter: let them delight in it, and let them earn from it what they may.

:-)

Anonymous said...

Oh cruz the doc who walks with RPK..hahahaha..

Tulang Besi said...

Blogger John Bastille said...

When muslims find themselves not being able to defend their point of arguments, they tend to hide behind the veil of "Classical Arabic".



Yes that's right. That's why thousands of volumes of literature has been written proving Orientalists making mistakes in their understanding of Islamic text due to their deficiency in Classical Arabic.

Hmmm, i wonder if JB ever took the time to read this book.

One example is the book written by MM Azami entitled "On J Sacths Muhammedan Jurisprudence".

Yusud Qardhawi himself proved hundreds of examples from Orientalist making language mistake.

Of course JB feels threathened because all his attacks on Islam to date has to be reevaluated.

He only now realizes that Islam is based on the Classical Arabic and not english translations of which he relies so much.

You really need some couch time. People who denies facts are people who are very close to becoming loonies and deserve to spend some time in the loony bin.

Anonymous said...

ooo..the faithman..cruzithots..i wonder how many "let's walk with che det pete guevara" bumper stickers he managed to distribute?..kahkahkah

Anonymous said...

Yo cruz..faith in RPK or Christ?..kahkahkah....

Tulang Besi said...

JB,

Did it ever occur to you that your understanding of Islam maybe flawed?

Simple facts about Islam are now being denied by John Bastilles.

Facts JB, facts.

Anonymous said...

TB,

i asked you if the itjihad was based in The Quran and Sunnah. You seem to imply for the second time that it isn't... strange, how can you have itjihad w/o those sources?

ha ha ha

and rebellious, etc. certainly are relative. some people are freedom fighters, some are terrorists...all depends upon where you stand

ha ha ha

and you did indeed write NATION...i guess you are a LIAR (and now i can write that in every comment i make...sound familiar?)

a thousand ha-has on your sorry ass

Datuk

John Bastille said...

Tulang Besi,

Yes, you are correct. My understanding of Islam may in incorrect and flawed. Thus, I beseech you to teach us the right path, since you know the correct translation.

You are truly a scholar. There is only one incorruptible Quran and the only way to understand is to understand Classical Arabic. That's why, in Islam, there is no such divisions like those other religions. There is only one ummah and one school of Islamic thought.

Unlike others - they are broken into sects, schools and interpretations.

Thank you for correcting me.

In your free time, can you please explain the difference between "kill all non-believers" and "kill those that disbelieve"?

If you have time, teach us what "allazina" and "kullu" means. If you don't, all your readers will just understand that part of the Quran Verse: AL-TAWBA 009.029

This will showcase your understanding. Then, you can go after that Jesuit Priest, Aloysious.

Kudos.

Tulang Besi said...

Blogger John Bastille said...

Tulang Besi,

Yes, you are correct. My understanding of Islam may in incorrect and flawed. Thus, I beseech you to teach us the right path, since you know the correct translation.


Errr what's the point. You've already reached your conclusion. Haven't u.

What's there to teach. You wont learn. That's for sure.

Tulang Besi said...

Datuk,

Answer these questions:

a. What is Ijtihad in Islam?

b. People who rebel against a state that takes care of them and does not oppress them? Can u call them freedom fighters

c. Nation and State can be used interchangebly, can't it?

Anonymous said...

TB the LIAR who DENIES writing NATION (even though it is clear as day),

a) considering your confusion on the matter, I think YOU are the one who needs to answer that one. kahkahkah

b) you are only looking at one (paternalistic) point of view. what if a people do not want another to 'take care of them' or 'not oppress them'. any recourse? kahkahkah

c) you used nation and state interchangeably, not I. they are discursive constructions based in modern discourses and are not necessarily how people conceived of polities during Prophet Muhammad's time. why dont you use a classical arabic term since you are such an EXPERT. kahkahkah

Datuk

Tulang Besi said...

Datuk the idiot. Nation tu maknanya UMMMAH la.

it's not a modern concept at all.

It's your ignorance in action

Anonymous said...

TB,

go back and do your research. you might just learn something about nations and states (hint, its not ummah -- you are probably reading an English translation, kahkahkah).

In the meantime, try not denying (AND LYING!!!) you wrote things that are there for all to see.

TB caught with his pants down for the millionth time. methinks you are a bit nyanyuk, kahkahkah.

Datuk

Anonymous said...

TB whose LIES cannot be contained:

By the way, what language medium did you learn all of your vast knowledge? kahkahkah

Chinese? Tamil? Malay? English? Classical Arabic?

methinks some of that tak sah. better go back and re-learn everything in Classical Arabic.

kahkahkah

Datuk

Anonymous said...

The Medina Charter. Accepting dhimmi status means recognition of protector status of muslims.

Wonder why America never demanded payment of jitzah or whatever from weaker nations, and instead gave them most favoured nation trade status?

Anonymous said...

JB, 'Datuk' and other Anonymous folks --

This is my first time on this blog but from what I see you lack substance and anyone can talk crap/nonsense and ridicule others and values of others. Why don't you talk substance?

Nirvana

Anonymous said...

Kahkahkah..John..he must be one of "I walk wit Che Det Easy Rider Pete Guevara" jin n tonic,pub n bistro pundek maney..kahkahkah..ooo..i did see the barisan rakyat of che det easy rider pete guevara @ P44 by elections..minus zorro and haris ib,those 2/3 pot bellied talivars looked like typical "saturday nite party ka polah variyaaaaaah" koodi karen kudians..kahkahkah..

Anonymous said...

Ok wanna talk substance..how many types of nirvan can one person attain?

Anonymous said...

Nirvana,

One person's crap is another's substance. Please do not interrupt. Sometimes one must fight fire with fire, or in this case, confront base stupidity with equal stupidity. (kahkah?) In fact, leave this blog and never come back. I will consider that a partial success.

Datuk

John Bastille said...

Tulang Besi,

You mentioned:
Errr what's the point. You've already reached your conclusion. Haven't u.

What's there to teach. You wont learn. That's for sure.


I am not too sure. You're the one fluent in Classical Arabic. I think, you may mean that:

I am Allah's creation. Allah created me. He blessed with with life but he has predestined hell-fire for me. He has caused me to be blind to the truth. He has sealed my heart.

Oh, Allah most merciful. Most forgiving. He is most fair.

But then, how about your other readers? Like Wei M. Really, you need to shed truth where there is darkness.

Anonymous said...

Allah exalted in power..represent the divine warrior with the aspects of power-will-ananda/blis..u digg moron?This power is The slayer of falsehhod ..all those hostile beings he cannot tolerate..ignorance,sloth,hah..gerenti kena slayings..very few people are aware of this..not only wahyu flowed from the seventh heavens..but descended too were pure power plus pure wisdom..it's one of the most remarkable episodes of transformation in human's history..

Anonymous said...

Most mercyful,most compassionte is the aspect of the divine wisdom..in fact the holy quran seems to be penuh with wisdom n power..

Tulang Besi said...



I am not too sure. You're the one fluent in Classical Arabic. I think, you may mean that:

I am Allah's creation. Allah created me. He blessed with with life but he has predestined hell-fire for me. He has caused me to be blind to the truth. He has sealed my heart.


The same Allah SWT that sent down his Quran in Classical Arabic???

Anonymous said...

Yo John..stop lah ur tom foolery..u r not interested to know..u r the typical chootias who like to do kuchootey panaa..kahkahkah..podah pulti..kahkahkah..

Now where is that bum who signed as NIRVANA..how many types of nirvana..what's buddhistic nirvana..?

Anonymous said...

Yoohoo bum..where art though?Nirvana's serve the servents is your nirvana kot..kahkahkah

Anonymous said...

JB, good start.
I can say your spirituality is on an upward curve.

As for TB, he should called himself Otak Besi, i.e. with a brain that is atrophized, dead and hardened with rigid thinking.

Anonymous said...

the korek word is poise..in sanskrit it's known as siddhi..Rumi's "only breath" is the "featureless" poise of the absolute..dat one lah Budhha obtained..

John Bastille said...

We can see your elephant at your backyard

We do not need to known what an elephant is called in Classical Arabic, to know that there is one.

Islam is as Islam does.

It is true that one must know Classical Arabic to fully comprehend the Islamic text.

But then, the system is subject to abuse. The people who has the right to interpret the Quran, those with knowledge in Classical Arabic such as Tulang Besi, are humans and can be wrong.

There have been cases where fatwas were issued, only to be retracted. Some fatwas could lead to the deaths of people. If mistakes were made, innocent lives would be taken.

In fact, Tulang Besi has rightly pointed out that many people, including myself, could have misintrepreted the teachings of Quran.

Thus, the solution is simple. We respect the religion of Islam but we do not implement the hudud laws as they are laws of one religion. This is because:

1. Hudud laws or syariah laws can be exposed to wrong interpretation from scholars.

2. It practices double standards. I will not go into the semantics of definition jizyah for the Free People, but is undeniable that double standards are practiced.

Tulang Besi will also agree with me that practising double standards is wrong. He dedicated one blog describing how double standards is wrong.

Anonymous said...

JB, good start.
I can say your spirituality is on an upward curve.

kahkahkah..does this dumbo know JB is scaling the upper hemisphers?..Yo Jb aah..plzlah..can u giv us a lil bit of hint..what the things u see n feel..where the action takes place?

Anonymous said...

JB ur back!1Well,well,well..now we know u r a secularist arsehole climbing up to see ur secular godheads..describe siki..

Anonymous said...

Dont feel shy Jb..forget all other matter..couple of minutes ago,one ur asre lickers said ur on the go!go!go!!..yippy!!....now,we are interested to knowlahlah..dis somrething new..tel lah..dont feel shy..

John Bastille said...

Dear Tulang Besi,

The same Allah SWT that sent down his Quran in Classical Arabic???

Yes. Don't you agree that it is Allah that created me? Is there another Creator?

You are also Allah's creature. That why I have great respect for you. As mentioned much earlier, I will commit to never degrade or insult you.

That's why I beseech you, with your knowledge in Classical Arabic, to teach us the right translation.

Come on lah. This is your platform and an opportunity to defend Islam, demonstrate your ability in Islamic knowledge (especially with your knowledge in Classical Arabic),, and win pahala for yourself.

I'm not inviting you to debate with me. Because you possess similar oratorical skills as your prophet, I don't think I could win.

I don't think I have half the skills of Abu Afak and Asma' binti Marwan. They have also lost to your Prophet.

Just showcase your Classical Arabic. You intend to debate with Aloysious, right?

Anonymous said...

Oh Jb..according to secular dharma,religion and stat affairs should be separate..now,does it forever remain separated in the upper hemispheres of secular dharma?..human rights..what r those rights anyway?right to do anything one likes?.if no,that means there are limits in secular dharma..we know dat it took a very long time for women to vote in US,and the african american..hah..did u see rev Jesse jackson crying.. he talked about the sacrifices of Medger Evers,MLK..why aah,ur secular dharma is so slow and zig zag..full of contradictions...

Anonymous said...

I think we should send John to Nariman"s house..or to al ultra orthodox jewish community and preach secular dharma to them..kahkahkah..btw,Jews have not accidently killed children in Gaza..ya?

John Bastille said...

Tulang Besi,

Is there a difference between Classical Arabic and Modern Arabic?

If yes, then why are you muslims "changing" the language?

I mean, changes until people can misinterpret the Quran.

By the way, how come the other Books given to mankind by Allah before the Quran are not in Classical Arabic?

By the way, what happened to those books? Have the cursed Jews and Christians distorted every copy? Any original ones left or not? I mean, these Books contains Allah's divine revelation. Surely, one copy would have survived.

Can you tell me where? I also want to study those books.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

In france,muslim girls tak boleh pakai tudung in school..any thing related to religion is barred in schools..pity the sikhs too..can u all imagine telling a sikh..yo bayee!!jgn pakai turban aaah.ini s ekolah tau..bukan gurwara!!..he for sure will naik stim(and rightly so)..it's a serius violation of his dharma(of course some modern ones dont carelah..).. french's version of secular dharma for schools ok ke?

Anonymous said...

Have the cursed Jews and Christians distorted every copy?

How many versions of Bible we have?Me thinks poor John doesnt understnd the meaning of revelations..haiyaah moron..it so happend to be in the arab world..and since the verses are in the form of revelations..careful study is needed..and since it's arabic language,naturally it will be better understood in that language..same thing in sanskrit.. haiyaah..itu buku mimpi tikam nombor pun kasi orang confuse o..e2 makan petek apa nombo ah?

Anonymous said...

Actaully the cursed jews are cursing specialists..kesian isteri Yitzhak Rabin..

Anonymous said...

There are 2 sacred book on this planet that have been written based on truth hearing truth seeing,which in its short form is known as revelations or wahyu..they r the vedas and the al quran..i say this without any fear!!

Anonymous said...

Go thru the rig vedas or the four vedas,and the quran..it's not all easy to decipher..in fact certain inventions of the english word is necessary to explain the meanings of the verses..bcause the english vaocabulary doesnt have the range..(i lately noticed lately that certain arabic vowels appear like "sound ascending in a higher order..even numbers take a different meaning in the higher levels..)

John Bastille said...

Dear Anon dated December 16, 2008 11:08 PM,

You stated that:

In france,muslim girls tak boleh pakai tudung in school..

Yes, that's true. Heard that Turkey is similar. But, is that your worst complain about secularism, or do you have better examples?

There is no perfect system of governance. Secularism has its downside, as you rightly pointed out. Muslim girls cannot wear tudung.

But in countries that tried to implement Islamic laws, muslims girls run the risks of being stoned to deaths. In public.

For example:

Two months ago.A 13-year-old Somali girl, Aisha Duhulow was stoned to death in a stadium full of spectators in the southern port city of Kismayo on 27 October after authorities found her guilty of adultery.

Reports indicate that she had been raped by three men while walking to visit her grandmother in the capital Mogadishu. After the attack, Aisha asked for protection from prosecutors, who in turn accused her of adultery and sentenced her to death.

Source" http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=28859&Cr=Somali&Cr1="

You see, under true Islamic law as per the Quran and Hadiths, a female rape victim needs to have FOUR pious male muslims as witnesses. Female muslims are counted as half-person. Non-believers cannot be counted.

Don't as why. Allah knows best. Allahu Akhbar!!

Muslims questioning the reasoning will shake their faith. Free People questioning is tantamount to hating Islam.

Why 4? Why not 5? why not 3? Oh, sorry. 3 cannot. Otherwise Ayesha would have been stoned to death herself. If can, ask Ayesha (one of the wives of the Prophet). The child-bride.

So Anon, between the evils of secularism or Islamization, I would prefer secularism. Not because I think it is perfect. At least, when women get rape, they do not have to produce 4 pious male muslim witnesses.

You complain about muslims girls not getting the right to wear tudung. The Free People complain and grieved on the death of Aisha Duhulow.

Anonymous said...

Boy oh boy..look at the list of words englishu ciplak frm arab..fooh..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arabic_loanwords_in_English

Anonymous said...

A hindu woman is burnt to death for failing to pay dowry..whose fault? the religion's fault or the person who poured kerosene on her and lighted it up..??

Anonymous said...

Has anyone ever noticed how much Jewish Orthodoxy and Islam have in common? I mean, we generally consider Israel to be a modern secular democratic state, that acts much like any European or North American state. This may be because the Jewish majority in the West are what’s referred to as “Reform” Jews, who are more like Catholics, if you pardon the analogy.

There are sizable Hasidic and Orthodox sects in some areas of London and New York, and other cities (Those guys with the Homburgs and side dreadlocks), but we mostly have little contact with them, so don’t consider what they mean in today’s world. However, these groups wield great power in the Israeli state, and therefore on the future of the Middle East.

With only 1.5% of the vote giving you one seat, small orthodox parties can wield great power in the ever shifting politics of Israeli coalitions – the National Religious Party or Agudat Israel (Hasidic) parties normally both hold some ministries in any government. This gives them power far in excess of their numbers in both internal and external affairs.

It should be noted that some Orthodox groups actually don’t approve of the state of Israel, because of religious issues which are too arcane to go into, and that some Orthodox Jewish groups were actually guests of Iran in their “Holocaust” denial conference last year.

My attention was drawn to these Orthodox Jews, when a series of news stories about “Modesty Buses” started appearing on the web. Women who get on these public buses are harassed and threatened if they attempt to sit on the front seats of them. This is the same whether they are orthodox or non orthodox, Jew or non Jew. The similarities between this, and the Iranian or Taliban attitudes towards women’s rights was striking enough for me to consider how much power these groups hold within Israel (due to the extreme form of proportional representation that Israel follows).

What got me even more curious was the fact that the main Orthodox groups hold many practises and social attitudes, which are in common with Islam theocratic regimes or groups. E.g. The Haridimn


Obviously the dietary (Kosher) and Muslim (Halal) are almost identical, particularly the killing of animals
The segregation of women in the Synagogue, or the Mosque
A strict male dress code often involving beards
Women being considered secondary to men in religious law
Women who are menstruating being considered ‘unclean’, and in need of ritual cleansing
Practitioners should wash or immerse themselves daily, or before prayer
Extreme modesty of dress is a requirement, enforced by berating those who are considered immodest (See Iran link above for Muslim version)
The use of Hebrew for Synagogue prayer (Yiddish for daily use) is not dissimilar from Arabic in Mosques and local language for daily use in non Arab Muslim countries
Many social attitudes e.g. towards divorce, are similar

Now none of this is new, and in fact obviously Mohammad was influenced by the fact that many of the Arab tribes were in fact Jewish when he set up Islam. Desert dwellers would have had certain practises driven by conditions around them, and it’s interesting that Christianity spread mainly in the non desert areas of the Roman Empire, during the early centuries after its foundation, whereas the other two religions founded in the area, remained in the hot desert areas for centuries. Christianity has moved towards equality of treatment of women (maybe too much?), as has the 'westernised' Reform Jews, but Islam and Orthodox Jewish sects have not.

In fact with so much in common it’s hard sometimes to see why they and Islam are at each others throats, but they are. We all fear militant Islam and its actions, but what

Would happen to Israeli support if 'Militant Jewry’ was in power in Israel?
How would differentiate them from Islamic states, apart from the fact that Jewish orthodoxy is not a proselytising faith?
In fact, would we be criticising Orthodox Jewish attitudes, in the same way that we criticise similar Islamic practises?

It’s ironic that one of the main western criticisms of Islamic states, is their treatment of and attitude towards women, but we say little about the fact that many of these values are apparently shared by an orthodox Jewry that holds great power in the Israeli state.

'Fundamentalists' are 'Fundamentalists', whatever the religion, and just because they are our "political friends" that doesn't change ..... we also support the Saudi regime, but that's the main exporter of Radical Islam (how dumb is that?).

Fortunately Israel is not a fundamentalist state, but democracy is a funny thing and throws up some odd results. The 'old guard' parties, who have held secular power in Israel since its foundation, are increasingly discredited (corruption is apparently endemic), so who's to say what the future may hold?

Some other links:

Jewish Religious Students spit on Christians

The Rise of the Haredim - Israels hidden problem

http://no-pc.blogspot.com/2007/05/orthodox-jewish-and-islamic-treatment.html

Anonymous said...

Woman in Islam

The role of women in Islam has been misunderstood in the West because of general ignorance of the Islamic system and way of life as a whole, and because of the distortions of the media.

The Muslim woman is accorded full spiritual and intellectual equality with man, and is encouraged to practice her religion and develop her intellectual faculties throughout her life. In her relations with men both are to observe modesty of behavior and dress and a strict code of morality which discourages unnecessary mixing of the sexes. Her relations with her husband should be based on mutual love and compassion. He is responsible for the maintenance of the wife and children, and she is to give him the respect due to the head of the family. She is responsible for the care of home and the children's early training. She may own her own property, run her own business and inherit in her own right.

She may not be married without being consulted and is able to obtain divorce. The system of limited polygamy can be seen to have its uses which may be in the interests of women as well as men. Finally she can look forward to an old age in which she is respected and shown every care by her children and by the society as a whole.

It would appear therefore that the Islamic system has achieved the right mixture of freedom and security that women seek and that is in the interest of the society as a whole. [As I mentioned at the start of this paper,] I have given the relevant quotations directly from the Qur'an and hadith since these are obviously the most authentic sources. If at different times and in different places these principles and laws have sometimes been distorted, ignored or flouted, it is not the principles and laws which are at fault, but man's selfishness which sometimes leads them to distort, ignore and flout what they do not like, and turn aside from the truth.

Fortunately no one has changed or can change the words of the Qur'an, and the regulations for the protection of women which were revealed in the 7th century can be easily verified by anyone in the 20th century, as we have just been doing. I believe that these laws and social regulations regarding women contain certain fundamental truths which will benefit whoever applies them. The present time of widespread rethinking of the role and rights of women is perhaps the appropriate time to look with fresh eyes at the Islamic point of view, which has contributed to the formation of stable societies in both sophisticated and underdeveloped peoples in vast areas of the world over the past fourteen centuries, which has retained the continuity of its principles, and from which the Western world may have something to learn.

http://www.jamaat.org/islam/WomanIslam.html

John Bastille said...

Muslims are so concerned about the tudung.

Are you muslims out there are munafiqs. Raja Petra is correct. The Quran primarily calls for the wearing of the hijab or tudung, if you wish, only for the Prophet's wives.

That also, only when they go out to defecate. When they go to the Al-Manasi Mosque to defecate, there are some 'gatal' male muslims spying on them from a nearby bush (or gathering).

So, Umar bin Al-Khattab requested the Prophet for a divine revelation from Allah. And so, there it became - that all female muslims now must pay the price of wearing the hijab.

So, I may be wrong in my interpretation and hope that Tulang Besi, which is fluent in Classical Arabic, to correct me.

Anonymous said...

intersting..

1. The Bible Convicts Women as the original Sinners (ie. Eve picking from the forbidden tree){Genesis 2:4-3:24}.

The Koran Clarifies it was Adam Not Eve {Koran 7:19-25}


2. The Bible says "The Birth of a Daughter is a loss" {Ecclesiasticus 22:3}.

The Koran says both are an Equal Blessing {Koran 42:49}


3. The Bible forbids women from speaking in church {I Corinthians 14:34-35}.

The Koran says women can argue with the Prophet {58:1}

4. In the Bible, divorced Women are Labeled as an Adulteress, not men {Matthew 5:31-32}

The Koran does Not have Biblical double standards{Koran 30:21}


5. In The Bible, widows and sisters do not inherit Any property or wealth, only men do {Numbers 27:1-11}

The Koran abolished this male greed {Koran 4:22} and God protects all.


6. The Bible Allows Multiple Wives {I Kings 11:3}

In The Koran, God limits the number to 4 only under certain situations (with the wife's permission)and prefers you marry only one wife {Koran 4:3} The Koran gives the woman the right to choose who to marry.


7. "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives" {Deuteronomy 22:28-30}

One must ask a simple question here, who is really punished, the man who raped the woman or the woman who was raped? According to the Bible, you have to spend the rest of your life with the man who raped you.

The Prophet Muhammad Says {Volume 9, Book 86, Number 101} Narrated by Aisha:"It is essential to have the consent of a virgin (for the marriage)".

Would the Non-Muslim men reading this prefer the Women they know to be Christian or Muslim?


8. The Bible also asks women to wear veils as in Islam {I Corinthians 11:3-10}



9. Women were given rights to Vote less than a 100 years ago in the (US), while the Koran gave women voting rights almost 1,500 years ago.

John Bastille said...

Dear Anon,

The role of women in Islam has been misunderstood in the West because of general ignorance of the Islamic system and way of life as a whole, and because of the distortions of the media.

Yes, that's right. Death to America! Death to Israel! Curse the Americans! Curse the Crusaders! Curse the Jews!

A 13 year old muslim girl was raped by muslim men and tried by muslims under Islamic law and was sentenced to death by stoning in a public stadium cheered by muslims. That bloody adultress dared to show up in court to fitnah her rapist without producing 4 pious male muslims.

All she need is to produce 4 pious male muslims that is kind enough to watch her get raped. She deserves death !!

Allahu Akhbar !!! Allahu Akhbar !!!
Allah is most merciful. Allah is most compassionate. Allah is most forgiving.

The Muslim woman is accorded full spiritual and intellectual equality with man, ...

Oh, so beautiful. We can see such equality. It's only the bloody West that keeps harping on things such as pedophilia and stoning teenage adultress. These insensitive bastards. They disrespect our religion and value system. Wait a minute, it's a bloody Jewsish conspiracy.

Anonymous said...

umm..interesting indeed..

Woman is recognized by Islam as a full and equal partner of man in the procreation of humankind. He is the father; she is the mother, and both are essential for life. Her role is not less vital than his. By this partnership she has an equal share in every aspect; she is entitled to equal rights; she undertakes equal responsibilities, and in her there are as many qualities and as much humanity as there are in her partner. To this equal partner- ship in the reproduction of human kind God says:


O mankind! Verily We have created your from a single (pair) of a male and a female,m and made you into nations and tribes that you may know each other... (Qur'an, 49:13; cf. 4:1).



She is equal to man in bearing personal and common responsibilities and in receiving rewards for her deeds. She is acknowledged as an independent personality, in possession of human qualities and worthy of spiritual aspirations. Her human nature is neither inferior to nor deviant from that of man. Both are members of one another. God says:

And their Lord has accepted (their prayers) and answered them (saying): 'Never will I cause to be lost the work of any of you, be he male or female; you are members, one of another... (3:195; cf 9:71;33:35-36;66:19-21).



She is equal to man in the pursuit of education and knowledge. When Islam enjoins the seeking of knowledge upon Muslims, it makes no distinction between man and woman. Almost fourteen centuries ago, Muhammad declared that the pursuit of knowledge is incumbent on every Muslim male and female. This declaration was very clear and was implemented by Muslims throughout history.

She is entitled to freedom of expression as much as man is. Her sound opinions are taken into consideration and cannot be disregarded just because she happen to belong to the female sex. It is reported in the Qur'an and history that woman not only expressed her opinion freely but also argued and participated in serious discussions with the Prophet himself as well as with other Muslim leaders (Qur'an, 58:1-4; 60:10-12). Besides there were occasions when Muslim women expressed their views on legislative matters of public interest, and stood in opposition to the Caliphs, who then accepted the sound arguments of these women. A specific example took place during the Califate of Umar Ibn al-Khattab.

Historical records show that women participated in public life with the early Muslims, especially in times of emergencies. Women used to accompany the Muslim armies engaged in battles to nurse the wounded, prepare supplies, serve the warriors, and so on. They were not shut behind iron bars or considered worthless creatures and deprived of souls.

Anonymous said...

Islam grants woman equal rights to contract, to enterprise, to earn and possess independently. Her life, her property, her honor are as sacred as those of man. If she commits any offense, her penalty is no less or more than of man's in a similar case. If she is wronged or harmed, she gets due compensations equal to what a man in her position would get (2:178;4:45, 92-93).

Islam does not state these rights in a statistical form and then relax. It has taken all measures to safeguard them and put them into practice as integral articles of Faith. It never tolerates those who are inclined to prejudice against woman or discrimination between man and woman. Time and again, the Qur'an reproaches those who used to believe woman to be inferior to man (16:57-59, 62; 42:47-59; 43:15-19; 53:21-23).

Apart from recognition of woman as an independent human being acknowledged as equally essential for the survival of humanity, Islam has given her a share of inheritance. Before Islam, she was not only deprived of that share but was herself considered as property to be inherited by man. Out of that transferable property Islam made an heir, acknowledging the inherent human qualifies in woman. Whether she is a wife or mother, a sister or daughter, she receives a certain share of the deceased kin's property, a share which depends on her degree of relationship to the deceased and the number of heirs. This share is hers, and no one can take it away or disinherit her. Even if the deceased wishes to deprive her by making a will to other relations or in favor of any other cause, the Law will not allow him to do so. Any proprietor is permitted to make his will within the limit of one-third of his property, so he may not affect the rights of his heirs, men and women. In the case of inheritance, the question of quality and sameness is fully applicable. In principle, both man and woman are equally entitled to inherit the property of the deceased relations but the portions they get may vary. In some instances man receives two shares whereas woman gets one only. This no sign of giving preference or supremacy to man over woman.The reasons why man gets more in these particular instances may be classified as follows:
First man, is the person solely responsible for the complete maintenance of his wife, his family and any other needy relations. It is his duty by Law to assume all financial responsibilities and maintain his dependents adequately. It is also his duty to contribute financially to all good causes in his society. All financial burdens are borne by him alone.

Secondly, in contrast, woman has no financial responsibilities whatsoever except very little of her personal expenses, the high luxurious things that she likes to have. She is financially secure and provided for. If she is a wife, her husband is the provider; if she is a mother, it is the son; if she is a daughter, it is the father; if she is a sister; it is the brother, and so on. If she has no relations on whom she can depend, then there is no question of inheritance because there is nothing to inherit and there is no one to bequeath anything to her. However, she will not be left to starve, maintenance of such a woman is the responsibility of the society as a whole, the state. She may be given aid or a job to earn her living, and whatever money she makes will be hers. She is not responsible for the maintenance of anybody else besides herself. If there is a man in her position, he would still be responsible for his family and possibly any of his relations who need his help. So, in the hardest situation her financial responsibility is limited, while his is unlimited.

Thirdly, when a woman gets less than a man does, she is not actually deprived of anything that she has worked for. The property inherited is not the result of her earning or her endeavors. It is something coming to them from a neutral source, something additional or extra. It is something that neither man or woman struggled for. It is a sort of aid, and any aid has to be distributed according to the urgent needs and responsibilities especially when the distribution is regulated by the Law of God.

Now, we have a male heir, on one side, burdened with all kinds of financial responsibilities and liabilities. We have, on the other side, a female heir with no financial responsibilities at all or at most with very little of it. In between we have some property and aid to redistribute by way of inheritance. If we deprive the female completely, it would be unjust to her because she is related to the deceased. Likewise, if we always give her a share equal to the man's, it would be unjust to him. So, instead of doing injustice to either side, Islam gives the man a larger portion of the inherited property to help him to meet his family needs and social responsibilities. At the same time, Islam has not forgotten her altogether, but has given her a portion to satisfy her very personal needs. In fact, Islam in this respect is being more kind to her than to him. Here we can say that when taken as a whole the rights of woman are equal to those of man although not necessarily identical (see Qur'an, 4:11-14, 176).

John Bastille said...

Dear Anon dated December 17, 2008 1:33 AM,

You published a comparative analysis between your Quran and the Bible.

Everytime someone say that they found something in the Quran, must you quickly find the same or similar thing in the Bible?

Why do that?

You need validation from another religion's holy book to substantiate your faith?

What message are you trying to achieve?

Since it is also in the Bible, it's okay?

Whatisthematter? are you muslim or christian?

You said that:"8. The Bible also asks women to wear veils as in Islam {I Corinthians 11:3-10}"

So?

Anonymous said...

In some instances of bearing witness to certain civil contracts, two men are required or one man and two women. Again, this is no indication of the woman being inferior to man. It is a measure of securing the rights of the contracting parties, because woman as a rule, is not so experienced in practical life as man. This lack of experience may cause a loss to any party in a given contract. So the Law requires that at least two women should bear witness with one man. if a woman of the witness forgets something, the other one would remind her. Or if she makes an error, due to lack of experience, the other would help to correct her. This is a precautionary measure to guarantee honest transactions and proper dealings between people. In fact, it gives woman a role to play in civil life and helps to establish justice. At any rate, lack of experience in civil life does not necessarily mean that women is inferior to man in her status. Every human being lacks one thing or another, yet no one questions their human status (2:282).

Woman enjoys certain privileges of which man is deprived. She is exempt from some religious duties, i.e., prayers and fasting, in her regular periods and at times of confinement. She is exempt from all financial liabilities. As a mother, she enjoys more recognition and higher honor in the sight of God (31:14-15;46:15). The Prophet acknowledged this honor when he declared that Paradise is under the feet of the mothers. She is entitled to three-fourths of the son's love and kindness with one-fourth left for their father. As a wife she is entitled to demand of her prospective husband a suitable dowry that will be her own. She is entitled to complete provision and total maintenance by the husband. She does not have to work or share with her husband the family expenses. She is free to retain, after marriage, whatever she possessed before it, and the husband has no right whatsoever to any of her belongings. As a daughter or sister she is entitled to security and provision by the father and brother respectively. That is her privilege. If she wishes to work or be self-supporting and participate in handling the family responsibilities, she is quite free to do so, provided her integrity and honor are safeguarded.

The standing of woman in prayers behind man does not indicate in any sense that she is inferior to him. Woman, as already mentioned, is exempt from attending congregational prayers which are obligatory on man. But if she does attend she stands in separate lines made up of women exclusively . This is a regulation of discipline in prayers, and not a classification of importance. In men's rows the head of state stands shoulder to shoulder to the pauper. Men of the highest ranks in society stand in prayer side by side with other men of the lowest ranks. The order of lines in prayers is introduced to help every one to concentrate in his meditation. It is very important because Muslim prayers are not simply chanting or the sing-a-song type. They involve actions, motions, standing, bowing, prostration, etc. So if men mix with women in the same lines, it is possible that something disturbing or distracting may happen. The mind will become occupied by something alien to prayer and derailed from the clear path of mediation. The result will be a loss of the purpose of prayers, besides an offense of adultery committed by the eye, because the eye-by looking at forbidden things - can be guilty of adultery as much as the heart itself. Moreover, no Muslim man or woman is allowed during prayers to touch the body of another person of the opposite sex. If men and women stand side by side in prayer they cannot avoid touching each other. Furthermore, when a woman is praying in front of a man or beside him, it is very likely that any part of her dressed body may become uncovered after a certain motion of bowing or prostrating. The man's eye may happen to be looking at the uncovered part, with the result that she will be embarrassed and he will be exposed to distraction or possibly evil thoughts. So, to avoid any embarrassment and distraction to help concentrate on mediation and pure thoughts, to maintain harmony and order among worshippers, to fulfill the true purposes of prayers, Islam has ordained the organization of rows, whereby men stand in front lines, and women behind the children.Anyone with some knowledge of the nature and purpose of Muslim prayerscan readily understand the wisdom of organizing the lines of worshippers in this manner.

The Muslim woman is always associated with an old tradition known as the "veil". It is Islamic that the woman should beautify herself with the veil of honor, dignity, chastity, purity and integrity. She should refrain from all deeds and gestures that might stir the passions of people other than her legitimate husband or cause evil suspicion of her morality. She is warned not to display her charms or expose her physical attractions before strangers. The veil which she must put on is one that can save her soul from weakness, her mind from indulgence, her eyes from lustful looks, and her personality from demoralization. Islam is most concerned with the integrity of woman, with the safeguarding of her morals and morale and with the protection of her character and personality (cf. Qur'an, 24:30-31).

By now it is clear that the status of woman in Islam is unprecedentedly high and realistically suitable to her nature. Her rights and duties are equal to those of man but not necessarily or absolutely identical with them. If she is deprived of one thing in some aspect, she is fully compensated for it with more things in many other aspects. The fact that she belongs to the female sex has no bearing on her human status or independent personality, and it is no basis for justification of prejudice against her or injustice to her person. Islam gives her as much as is required of her. Her rights match beautifully with her duties. The balance between rights and duties is maintained, and no side overweighs the other. The whole status of woman is given clearly in the Qur'anic verse which may be translated as follows:

And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but man have a degree (of advantage as in some cases of inheritance) over them (2:228).


This degree is not a title of supremacy or an authorization of dominance over her. It is to correspond with the extra responsibilities of man and give him some compensation for his unlimited liabilities. The above mentioned verse is always interpreted in the light of another (4:34).


It is these extra responsibilities that give man a degree over woman in some economic aspects. It is not a higher degree in humanity or in character. Nor is it a dominance of one over the other or suppression of one by the other. It is a distribution of God's abundance according to the needs of the nature of which God is the Maker. And He knows best what is good for woman and what is good for man. God is absolutely true when He declares:


O mankind! reverence your Guardian-Lord, Who created you
from a single person, and created of like nature his mate,
and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and
women (4:1).

Anonymous said...

hahaha..i m neither..hahaha..moron..

Anonymous said...

normally i dont look at the rituals aspects..in fact havent done anything traditional le..but i m learning certain interesting things..

Tulang Besi said...

Jb rants:

Are you muslims out there are munafiqs. Raja Petra is correct. The Quran primarily calls for the wearing of the hijab or tudung, if you wish, only for the Prophet's wives.

See, you're not interested to learn. You already made up your mind

Raja Petra has been proven factual wrong on this issue. And why? BEcause he fail to understand the Quran in it's original language, Classical Arabic.

But. you choose to be in the wrong because of your hate towards Islam.

You're the hypocrite JB

John Bastille said...

Dear Tulang Besi,

You are such a scholar. You can spot errors very quickly. Could you please show all your readers the correct translation to the following?

"Sahih Bukhari: Volume 8, Book 74, Number 257:

Narrated 'Aisha: (the wife of the Prophet)

'Umar bin Al-Khattab used to say to Allah's Apostle "Let your wives be veiled" But he did not do so.

The wives of the Prophet used to go out to defecate at night only at Al-Manasi.'

Once Sauda, the daughter of Zam'a went out and she was a tall woman.

'Umar bin Al-Khattab saw her while he was in a gathering, and said, "I have recognized you, O Sauda!" He ('Umar) said so as he was anxious for some Divine orders regarding the veil (the veiling of women.)

So Allah revealed the Verse of veiling. (Al-Hijab; a complete body cover excluding the eyes). (See Hadith No. 148, Vol. 1)


You see, a innocent reader of the Sahih Bukhari would have translated that the original request for Allah's revelation was meant only for Prophet's wives.

In another verse,

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 1, Book 8, Number 395:

Narrated 'Umar (bin Al-Khattab):

My Lord agreed with me in three things:

1. I said,"O Allah's Apostle, I wish we took the station of Abraham as our praying place (for some of our prayers). So came the Divine Inspiration: And take you (people) the station of Abraham as a place of prayer (for some of your prayers e.g. two Rakat of Tawaf of Ka'ba)". (2.125)

2. And as regards the (verse of) the veiling of the women, I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! I wish you ordered your wives to cover themselves from the men because good and bad ones talk to them.' So the verse of the veiling of the women was revealed.

3. Once the wives of the Prophet made a united front against the Prophet and I said to them, 'It may be if he (the Prophet) divorced you, (all) that his Lord (Allah) will give him instead of you wives better than you.' So this verse (the same as I had said) was revealed." (66.5).


Tulang Besi, can you understand why kafirs like me can translate wrongly? And muslim munafiqs can easily become syirik?

Upon Umar's request, Allah has decreed: Quran (YUSUFALI) 033.059: O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.


Tulang Besi, we need your expert knowledge in assisting us in defining "when abroad" because, some may interpret that to mean "when going out to defecate".

In a way, that's fair because the Prophet's wives (with the exception of two) were very very Hot Chicks. Some were beauty queens from captured towns, like Safiyah. She was very pretty. Only 17 when the Prophet chose her from the raid of Khaibar. She was Kinana's wife. If not mistaken, she married your Prophet on the same day that Kinana was tortured and beheaded.

Anyway, I digress. The prophet's wives were young and sexy looking. Thus, there were Peeping Toms everywhere. Near the tent as well as where the wives would go when defecating. Including Umar? I can only speculate. What is he doing behind the bush, to begin with?

Look, it is understandable that Allah wants to protect the dignity of the Prophet's wives. Thus, the hijab.

I may be wrong since I do not know Classical Arabic. You do. Please correct us. I may be ignorant.

If you do, perhaps the West will understand Islam better.

Anonymous said...

It's very clear to me now.What Islamic scholars,law experts did(and doing) is to find the right balance,a proper equilibrium based on the revelations of the holy quran.Life is organic,must be harmonius as we see in our planet's ecosystem.Asian society has always tried to formulate laws based on spiritual laws..only lately,we have adopted western methods..and the results,as we can see in all over asia,hasnt been effective at all.Why?becos,the results arent that efefctive at all in Europe.European laws,principals are based on idealism powered by egoistic vitality/mind etc etc..As we saw in the 60's,and starting to see some form of it the form of GAIA society,community,and green societies..europeans thatselves r getting fed up of the very systems they created.. The principles of equality in Islam are not merely slogan,mental conjectures..they are based on the very principals of the undying self,status of the absolute..doesnt matter if the current laws are limited..becos it's not all easy deiphering the alpha,omegas that govern everything (that also govern us)..the important thing that needs to be noted is the foundation is rock solid..and new lights on an eternal truth will make it more complete..

Anonymous said...

Hi John Good..good morning..finished phak chu chenging ur quota for 2day?..man..ur bringing in The Prohets wives..goodlah..Che Det Pete Guevara's has released his pariah dogs to kencing ,kongkek here n there..what else to expect frm Pete,the man,who whacked,boozed,doped,played cards,fine tuned bikes,juai beras,whealin n dealin thru out his live..just like a typical UMNO warlord..kahkahkah..

Tulang Besi said...

Another one of JB's imagination running wild.

A 13 year old muslim girl was raped by muslim men and tried by muslims under Islamic law and was sentenced to death by stoning in a public stadium cheered by muslims. That bloody adultress dared to show up in court to fitnah her rapist without producing 4 pious male muslims.

Tulang Besi said...

Dear JB aka village idiot.

Please show me where does it say in the hadeeth that ONLY PROPHET's WIVES MUST WEAR VEILS and it does not apply to other Muslim women?

Quote from JB's rant:


You are such a scholar. You can spot errors very quickly. Could you please show all your readers the correct translation to the following?

"Sahih Bukhari: Volume 8, Book 74, Number 257:

Narrated 'Aisha: (the wife of the Prophet)

'Umar bin Al-Khattab used to say to Allah's Apostle "Let your wives be veiled" But he did not do so.

The wives of the Prophet used to go out to defecate at night only at Al-Manasi.'

Once Sauda, the daughter of Zam'a went out and she was a tall woman.

'Umar bin Al-Khattab saw her while he was in a gathering, and said, "I have recognized you, O Sauda!" He ('Umar) said so as he was anxious for some Divine orders regarding the veil (the veiling of women.)

So Allah revealed the Verse of veiling. (Al-Hijab; a complete body cover excluding the eyes). (See Hadith No. 148, Vol. 1)


Plus, the verse on Hijab says it applies to all muslim women, not just to Prophet's wives.

Tulang Besi said...

JB craps again:

You see, a innocent reader of the Sahih Bukhari would have translated that the original request for Allah's revelation was meant only for Prophet's wives.

You mean, idiots who read sahih bukhari.

Innocent readers of Sahih Bukhari doesn't come to your twisted conclusion, JB. Only idiots do.

Plus, your Sahih Bukhari is in English. The real Sahih Bukhari is in Classical Arabic.

So, in fact, JB DID NOT read Al Majmu As Sahih of Imam Bukhari.

Tulang Besi said...

JB quotes and doesn't understand what he quoted:

2. And as regards the (verse of) the veiling of the women, I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! I wish you ordered your wives to cover themselves from the men because good and bad ones talk to them.' So the verse of the veiling of the women was revealed.

Then he quoted this verse:

"YUSUFALI) 033.059: O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women....."

JB must've been very blind of the part "the believing women" of the verse.

It means the verse is designated not just for Prophet's wives and daughters but for all Believer's women.

So, it's clear that JB is another example of idiotic islamophobe in action.

John Bastille said...

Tulang Besi,

My power of vivid imagination must have a significant influence on the world.

Why don't you google the name "Aisha Ibrahim Dhuhulow", yourself?

Anonymous said...

I think JB got his points from the following site on an article written by Abdul Kasem.

It is quite clear that there is absolutely no compelling reason to impose the intolerable and ugly hijab on Muslim women. If there was any reason, it could reasonably be attributed to the prehistoric toilet facilities that Muhammad offered to his wives. Do today's women still head towards the open fields to defecate or to ease themselves? It may be true that in some very backward Muslim countries in Africa and Asia the sanitary/toilet facilities may still be very primitive but it is definitely not like what it used to be during Muhammad's time.

Unveiling the Islamic Veil
by Abul Kasem.


What are your counter arguments against Abdul Kasem points?

John Bastille said...

Tukang Besi,

JB must've been very blind of the part "the believing women" of the verse.

Exactly. That's the very contention that has caused confusion, misinterpretation, and many beatings and deaths to muslim women.

Could you please tell us, what were the words "believing women" used in Classical Arabic?

You see, over the years, this precise debate was split into two primary arguments.

Similar to the one adopted by Raja Petra, the aya needs to adhere to the original intention.

Upon Umar's request, the wahyu was issued. Thus, a school of thought follows that the aya was meant only for the wives of the Prophet. With the primary intention to avoid being annoyed or molested.

The issue of "going abroad" has been expanded from a narrow interpretation of "defecating" to a broader reach of "out of the house".

Umar claimed later that his Lord agreed with him, as per his original request.

Your tendency focuses on the term of "believing women", which was not part of Umar's request ad has been the issue since.

The first school contends that the layout of "wives, daughters, and believing women", would be in classical terms, means that the believing women are the concubines of the Prophet.

For example, where would we classify Maria the Copt? She's not a wife, neither a daughter. But she bore the Prophet a son.

Your interpretation is based on the term that "believing women" means all female muslims.

Now, please clear the air. What is the Classical Arabic words for "believing women", in the context of this aya?

John Bastille said...

Tulang Besi,

By the way. If you reply on the issue of hijab, I'd appreciate if you explain from your Classical Arabic term.

The last rebut you made, you copied by English translated version and used that against my proposition.

Tat is tantamount to you interpreting in English.

Please. Please. Where is your Classical Arabic? Help clear the air lah.

Tulang Besi said...

Abul KAsseim says:

I think JB got his points from the following site on an article written by Abdul Kasem.

It is quite clear that there is absolutely no compelling reason to impose the intolerable and ugly hijab on Muslim women. If there was any reason, it could reasonably be attributed to the prehistoric toilet facilities that Muhammad offered to his wives.


Maybe Abdul Kasem needs to go back to school and learn Arabic

Didn't God use the word "Al Khimar" which means "Head Cover"?

Another example of Liberal Muslims embarassing themselves over small mistakes just to appease their Western masters.

Tulang Besi said...

Another example of JB's deep ignorance of the Arabic language and not to mention Classical Arabic.

Upon Umar's request, the wahyu was issued. Thus, a school of thought follows that the aya was meant only for the wives of the Prophet. With the primary intention to avoid being annoyed or molested.

Listen JB, stop behaving like a loser.

Notice the word "wa" between "wives", "daugthers" and "the women believers".

In Arabic, the "wa" is called "atf" which signifies "difference" between the articles they connect.

If you say that "the believer women" are the same as "Prophet's wives" then you're saying God has committed a gramatical error.

Now which is right, JB or God?

Tulang Besi said...

John BAstilles.,



My advice is for you to stop debating about Islam.

The more you debate the more people see how stupid your are.

To many, you look more like a born loser.

To me you look like a sore loser.

Anonymous said...

Another example of Liberal Muslims embarassing themselves over small mistakes just to appease their Western masters.

This matters of interpretation is secondary to the actual blind adherence in the standard dressing of covering from head to toe by women all over the world regardless of variable climatic and other conditions.

Different humans has different body characteristics. Some sweat too much and stinks with odour when they get near to you.

Some weaker one who cover themselves maybe deprived of vitamin D from lack of exposure to sunlight.

It is from this odd behavior that Abdul Kasem tried to investigate whether there is any wrong interpretation and the call to wrap totally maybe contextual.

It is not a significant issue compare to other more controversial ones.

Tulang Besi said...


This matters of interpretation is secondary to the actual blind adherence in the standard dressing of covering from head to toe by women all over the world regardless of variable climatic and other conditions.


I think no Arab women has actually complained about the heat.

Especially when the covering of "aurah" is specified clearly in the Quran.

John Bastille said...

Tulang Besi,

As per the verse:
Al-Ahzab 33:59)

You highlighted:

"Yā 'Ayyuhā An-Nabīyu Qul Li'zwājika Wa Banātika Wa Nisā'i Al-Mu'uminīna Yudnīna `Alayhinna Min Jalābībihinna Dhālika 'Adná 'An Yu`rafna Falā Yu'udhayna Wa Kāna Allāhu Ghafūrāan Raĥīmāan"

That's not Classical Arabic. That's just the word for "and"

My humble question is on the term:
"Yā 'Ayyuhā An-Nabīyu Qul Li'zwājika Wa Banātika Wa Nisā'i Al-Mu'uminīna Yudnīna `Alayhinna Min Jalābībihinna Dhālika 'Adná 'An Yu`rafna Falā Yu'udhayna Wa Kāna Allāhu Ghafūrāan Raĥīmāan"

Look, I may be wrong. I'll stand corrected. That term does not seem to be consistently applied to denote muslimahs when being addressed as part of the muslim ummah, when investigating via the application of Classical Arabic (pre-100 A.D) instead of contemporary Arabic.

As you mentioned, one must always refer to the hadiths for further clarification and support to understand the origin of the aya.

There were 3 accounts of hadiths verifying to this thought not counting the hadith pertaining to Ayesha (the one that Raja Petra has mistakenly taken to state his claim).

You have rightly pointed out his error. But the error is on the selection of a hadith but not the interpretation that hijab was meant only for the women associated with the Prophet.

I am sure you're not one of those anti-hadith muslims.


In the words of Karen Armstrong (Islam: A Short History, 2000):

"The Quran prescribes some degree of segregation and veiling for the Prophet's wives, but there is nothing in the Quran that requires the veiling of all women or their seclusion in ....


By the way, correct me if I am wrong. According to Yousuf Ali's translation, the word KHIMAR was put back in place instead of (veils).

"Khimar" is an Arabic word that means, cover, any cover, a curtain is a Khimar, a dress is a Khimar, a table cloth that covers the top of a table is a Khimar, a blanket can be used as a Khimar..etc. The word KHAMRA used for intoxicant in Arabic has the same root with Khimar, because both covers, the Khimar covers (a window, a body, a table . etc.) while KHAMRA covers the state of mind. Most of the translators, obviously influenced by Hadith (fabrications) translate the word as VEIL and thus mislead most people to believe that this verse is advocating the covering of the head.

John Bastille said...

Tulang Besi,

You said:
My advice is for you to stop debating about Islam.

Fair enough. I have overstayed here at your blog.

My advice is:

1. Don't make offensive and utterly stupid statements such as "In fact, Islam prohibits the killing or hurting of any living beings." Especially immediately after every terrorists acts perpetrated by muslims.

That statement rings very hollow and is insensitive to the victims. Those that died on 9/11, London bombings, Beslan children, Bali, Spain, and many others played no part of the atrocities of the US or Israel.

Linking them and defending the terrorists with your pathetic cry of Islamophobia pisses the Free People.

Thus, I intend to reciprocate your rude remarks and I will continue to do so.


2. Don't push for the implementation of an Islamic state. It will not solve the collective muslims problems. Learn from the errors of the Christians. They have come with terms on the concept of the separation between church and state.

Why would you expect the Free People to accept a notion such as the Medina Charter when early muslims can't even build lavatories for your women?

For goodness sake. Dig a hole and make a tent. Get the women to go into the tent to defecate. Instead, you ask them to wear a tent each.

I may be a born loser when I debate with you. But the muslims (collectively) have been born losers in almost every aspect of contemporary humanity and society.

Praise God for He is fair. He gave you guys oil. Imagine if US has oil or the Chinese. You guys will be oppressed until extinction.

Stop emulating the actions of the early muslims. Their sources of economic income were raiding neighbouring towns and collecting jizyah. Very much like the Somali pirates.

Stop whining. The Vietnamese were bombed to kingdom come and the U.S. just lifted trade embargo a fews years ago. Many more nations have been oppressed. It's mostly the muslims left.

Just bloody well focus on developing the minds and mindset of muslims. You guys need a Reformation of the mind, not the implementation of an Islamic state.

One more thing. If you muslims are really really concerned about the Palestine, help them to build their economy. Buying rocket launchers and get the kids to throw stones, ain't cutting it. After a few years, and if it doesn't work, change strategy lah.

Anonymous said...

JB, your postings reflect good sense for the common good of all.

Tulang Besi said...

JB repeating his ignorance once again:

"1. Don't make offensive and utterly stupid statements such as "In fact, Islam prohibits the killing or hurting of any living beings." Especially immediately after every terrorists acts perpetrated by muslims."

SO, when Muslims gets killed and massacared, they're supposed to lie down and accept it?

Or do they rise up and defend themselves?

But, we have idiots like you JB who considers this act of self defence as terrorism.

so should we Muslims feel guilty just because JB doesn't like what we're doing?

Please JB, i am dissapointed. A little bit of heat and your already considering yourself as overstaying.

There's an old saying, if you can't run with the big dogs, then stay on the porch.

Tulang Besi said...

JB rants:

That statement rings very hollow and is insensitive to the victims. Those that died on 9/11, London bombings, Beslan children, Bali, Spain, and many others played no part of the atrocities of the US or Israel.

Yet there is very little evidence linking these acts of terrorism with Muslim activist.

For instance, family of Imam Samudra insists Imam Samudra is with them during the Bali bombings.

ANd the only evidence of London bombings are CCTV blur footage of some of the suspect entering the subway train.

As for Spain, who's to say it's not the work of the Basque separatists?

Beslan? Do u know how many Chechen children killed by Russian indiscriminate bombings.

Your one sided and biased view of the whole affair is nausiating.

Tulang Besi said...

JB shows his ignorance again:

That's not Classical Arabic. That's just the word for "and"

It's not "and" it's "wa". There is a DIFFERENCE.

One major difference ( and u have to know Classical Arabic to know this) is that articles connected by "wa" are different from each other.

That's classical arabic in your face, JB.

This means that your "theory" on the verse is CONTRADICTORY to the wording of the verse.

Go and learn more about Arabic next time JB.

You're making a jack-ass of yourself by making these silly arguments repeatedly.

Tulang Besi said...

JB'ignorance once again.


My humble question is on the term:
"Yā 'Ayyuhā An-Nabīyu Qul Li'zwājika Wa Banātika Wa Nisā'i Al-Mu'uminīna Yudnīna `Alayhinna Min Jalābībihinna Dhālika 'Adná 'An Yu`rafna Falā Yu'udhayna Wa Kāna Allāhu Ghafūrāan Raĥīmāan"

Look, I may be wrong. I'll stand corrected. That term does not seem to be consistently applied to denote muslimahs when being addressed as part of the muslim ummah, when investigating via the application of Classical Arabic (pre-100 A.D) instead of contemporary Arabic.


Dude, the Prophet's wives are called "Ummul Mukminin".

"Nisa Al Mukminin" refers to all Muslim women.

Try to get that thru your thick subconcious. Please, for the sake of humanity.

John Bastille said...

Tulang Besi,

So, when Muslims gets killed and massacared, they're supposed to lie down and accept it?

Or do they rise up and defend themselves?


Of course you can defend yourself. But you are supposed to say that when muslims are getting killed. However, you said it when you whined about the Mumbai killings.

Secondly, how do you defend the bombing of tourists in Bali as self-defence? Killing citizens of Mumbai as self-defence?

Just like your Prophet and the early muslims. Raiding Khaibar early in the morning against an armyless group of farmers and call it a defensive and pre-emptive war.

Torturing people for hidden treasures of Nadir and call them rebellious people for not paying jizyah.

Your white-washing Taqiyya is wearing off very quickly.

By the way, if you do read carefully, I mentioned that Thus, I intend to reciprocate your rude remarks and I will continue to do so.

I won't be going away. I enjoyed your teaching so much. It's rare to meet someone who is strong-willed and an expert in Classical Arabic.

Tulang Besi said...

JB erred again:

I may be a born loser when I debate with you. But the muslims (collectively) have been born losers in almost every aspect of contemporary humanity and society.

Really, wasn't it a Muslim from Bangladesh who won the Nobel Prize for Microfinancing in 2006?

It's good you confess that you're a born loser. Admission is one step towards change.

Losers? Mostly because Muslims around the world are living in varous nation states which are rule by secular elites.

Secularism is the reason why Muslims lag behind so much.

John Bastille said...

Tulang Besi,

Dude, the Prophet's wives are called "Ummul Mukminin".

"Nisa Al Mukminin" refers to all Muslim women.


I thought you are an expert in Classical Arabic? You're sure those are the terms? Really?

Just confirm it here.

Tulang Besi said...

Ever since Palestinians and Hizbullah started suicide bombings, they've been kicking Israel's ass.

I hardly call that losing.

So, what the US and Israel did is to tell Muslims that suicide bombings are acts of terrorism and therefore, it must be stopped.

After that they keep calling Muslims losers.

Tulang Besi said...

JB says:

"I thought you are an expert in Classical Arabic? You're sure those are the terms? Really?

Just confirm it here."


Even if I do, you wouldn't be able to know cause you don't know anything about Classical Arabic.

Plus, you just tell me why I am wrong since before this, you happen to be very much of an expert in Islam and the Quran.

Maybe u can tell me why I am wrong?

John Bastille said...

Tulang Besi,

Really, wasn't it a Muslim from Bangladesh who won the Nobel Prize for Microfinancing in 2006?

Congratulation. How many as non-muslims won? Especially Jews?

Secularism is the reason why Muslims lag behind so much.

Yeah, that's not too wrong either. Because in secularism, meritocracy and industry are practiced.

The ideals of secularism promotes a government that protects her citizens without regard to religion, race, gender and political views. I said not perfect.

The ideals of an Islamic state practices double standards. One for muslims and one for non-muslims.

Tulang Besi said...


Of course you can defend yourself. But you are supposed to say that when muslims are getting killed. However, you said it when you whined about the Mumbai killings.


Dude, Muslims got killed in 2002 in Gujurat, Kashmir etc.

Or are you blind to the max, JB???

Tulang Besi said...

Not only JB is ignorance in Islam but also he doesn't have the faintest idea about secularism:

He says:

Yeah, that's not too wrong either. Because in secularism, meritocracy and industry are practiced.

Almost the entire African continent are secular states.

Yup, Africa is a banner for meritocracy and industry.

See how simplistic this JB is. He lacks all capability in critical thinking.

He's just following the herd. He's like a cow.

Tulang Besi said...


The ideals of secularism promotes a government that protects her citizens without regard to religion, race, gender and political views. I said not perfect.


Yup we saw all that in former Communist countries.

Weren't they secular as well.

JB, not only you're ignorant in Islam, you're also ignorant in western ideology.

John Bastille said...

Tulang Besi,

Err. You missed out the second part:

The ideals of secularism promotes a government that protects her citizens without regard to religion, race, gender and political views. I said not perfect.

Next time. Read until finish.

Tulang Besi said...

JB,

Whomever says that secularism promotes meritocracy, equality and all the crap you mention shows that he/she is complete ignorant of what secularism is.

Your statement:
The ideals of secularism promotes a government that protects her citizens without regard to religion, race, gender and political views. I said not perfect.

It only underline the fact that you're an idiot and making a fool out of yourself.

You need to go back to school and learn more.

Anonymous said...

aiyoh, tb! u stupid or wat?

u argue like wat JB predicted.

elephant elephant.

kahkahkah

Anonymous said...

Ah..western ideals,secularism..so nice to hear..all very good,but there was huge riot in France couple of years back ..commited by the blacks of that country..umm..why the riots happend John?

"It only underline the fact that you're an idiot and making a fool out of yourself."
Oh John was born a retard..kahkahkah..nah..he need not go back to school..his brains need to be rewired..kahkahkah...

Anonymous said...

Racial Discrimination: The Record of France, Human Rights Documentation Center (September 2001) http://www.hrdc.net
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Racist and xenophobic ideas are deeply embedded in Europe. France is no exception where an alarmingly strident xenophobia exists among a substantial portion of the population manifest in the attitudes towards immigrants, minorities and foreigners. The trend has been to see immigrants as racial minorities and racial minorities as immigrants - - regardless of these individuals' country of origin or their citizenship - Accordingly, issues facing "immigrants" often relate to the problems of racial and ethnic minorities in France as well.

http://academic.udayton.edu/Race/06hrights/GeoRegions/Europe/France01.htm

Discrimination Still Shadows France

By CECILE BRISSON
The Associated Press
Tuesday, October 24, 2006; 5:39 PM

PARIS -- Any jobseeker in France's down-and-out housing projects knows that if you want work, it's better to be named Alain than Mohamed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102400635.html

Arabs, Africans Face Worst Discrimination in France
Hugh Schofield, Agence France Presse

PARIS, 24 November 2004 — An official report presented to the French government yesterday paints a damning picture of racial discrimination in the workplace and recommends a series of measures including the mandatory introduction of anonymous CVs.

According to the report, young people of Arab and African origin are up to five times more likely to be unemployed than the rest of the French population, while their chances of even achieving an interview are severely reduced as a result of their name and skin color.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=54967&d=24&m=11&y=2004

kahkahkha..tudia..this is just france..

Anonymous said...

Combating Racism and Racial Discrimination in Europe
By Isil Gachet

In today’s world, contemporary forms of racism and racial discrimination are complex and disturbing. In Europe, these issues increasingly lie at the heart of political and social concerns. Faced with persistent expressions of racism and xenophobia, the Council of Europe Member States1 have, for several years now, been taking firm and sustained action to combat these trends.

http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2007/issue3/0307p24.html

John the cacat tolong jelaskan..means John the retard..plz explain..kahkahkah

John Bastille said...

Tulang Besi,

No system of governance is perfect.

Not secularism. Not your narrow interpretation of secularism or my broad understanding of it. But neither is an Islamic state.

However, we can see our faults and admit our failings. We can go after our own kind. We can adapt, learn and discern.

We can advance. We are not bound by the rigid and absolute laws. Definitely not laws decreed by a 7th century prophet that can't even solve sanitary problems for his wives.

We humbly decline Allah's laws in many aspects. If there are good ones, we can adopt.

We would revisit some ayas for they may have already been abrogated, specifically requested by Umar, or satanic ones.

Personally, I do favor Islam's conservative governance towards issues like alcohol, gambling, and prostitution. But I don't agree in banning them. We learned from the failure of the U.S.'s Prohibition.

Islam's modesty in clothing is a virtue that I support. But not to the point where girls get killed for not wearing their hijab.

Islamic banking has its strenghs. It can be explored and developed.

As for rape victims, we prefer to apply a more inferior approach such as forensic science. We would like to decline Allah's decree that you need 4 pious male muslims with female muslims counted as half-person and non-muslims are not considered.

You have daughters. I pray that you do not need them to seek justice with the last example of Islamic jurisprudence above.

John Bastille said...

Dear Anon dated December 19, 2008 12:59 AM,

Before you drown us with more cut and paste of articles and start the Elephant debate all over again, kindly take note of one part of your article:

An official report presented to the French government yesterday

We learn. We recognise our failings. We do not deny them. We will find better ways to improve.

You can contribute. Together we can fight for justice.

Just, please don't fight only when muslims are affected lah. Fight without regard to religion. Can?

Anonymous said...

This ongoing debate shows that:

Tulang Besi doesn't know sh1t about classical arabic, he just pretends

Tulang Besi can't answer a direct challenge, he is a coward

Tulang Besi is a misanthrope, an obnoxious person, a true A$$h0le

I am embarrassed that, because he calls himself a Muslim, I am associated with his type. He does not speak for Muslims, but for Satan.

more later...

Anonymous said...

157. "Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper."
158. Say: "O men! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but He: it is He That giveth both life and death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, who believeth in Allah and His words: follow him that (so) ye may be guided."
Al A’raaf (The Heights-VII translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali)

Anonymous said...

Tulang besi,
Please don’t be so rude even to a cow, ..or cows.
Anti-Islamists existed since the beginning of the appointment of the Holy Prophets. No matter what we say to some of these anti-Islamists, it will never do any good.

Surah 2. The Cow
18. Deaf, dumb, and blind, they will not return (to the path).
171. The parable of those who reject Faith is as if one were to shout Like a goat-herd, to things that listen to nothing but calls and cries: Deaf, dumb, and blind, they are void of wisdom.
Surah 6. Cattle, Livestock
25. Of them there are some who (pretend to) listen to thee; but We have thrown veils on their hearts, So they understand it not, and deafness in their ears; if they saw every one of the signs, not they will believe in them; in so much that when they come to thee, they (but) dispute with thee; the Unbelievers say: "These are nothing but tales of the ancients."
33. We know indeed the grief which their words do cause thee: It is not thee they reject: it is the signs of Allah, which the wicked deny.
34. Rejected were the apostles before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those apostles.
35. If their spurning is hard on thy mind, yet if thou wert able to seek a tunnel in the ground or a ladder to the skies and bring them a sign,- (what good?). If it were Allah.s will, He could gather them together unto true guidance: so be not thou amongst those who are swayed by ignorance (and impatience)!
39. Those who reject our signs are deaf and dumb,- in the midst of darkness profound: whom Allah willeth, He leaveth to wander: whom He willeth, He placeth on the way that is straight.
Surah 31. Luqman
7. When Our Signs are rehearsed to such a one, he turns away in arrogance, as if he heard them not, as if there were deafness in both his ears: announce to him a grievous Penalty.

Al Quran(Translations by Abdullah Yusuf
ali)

Serious Shepherd said...

Tulang Besi,

I would like to agree with Anon just above me.

A good example is how when PAS wanted to ban sexy dressing, these kafir harbi demanded for a research being done that links sexy dressing with rape. However, there are already researches being done on the danger of alcoholic drinks but when MBSA wanted to limit the sales of alcohol, Tony Pua angrily responded to such action.

In my opinion, this guy is simply 'flushing out militants' and get the reward from pihak tertentu yang saya malas nak tuduh awal2 just like what the local neocon Scott Thong is doing.

Anonymous said...

JB: The ideals of secularism promotes a government that protects her citizens without regard to religion, race, gender and political views. I said not perfect.

TB: Whomever says that secularism promotes meritocracy, equality and all the crap you mention shows that he/she is complete ignorant of what secularism is.
It only underline the fact that you're an idiot and making a fool out of yourself.
You need to go back to school and learn more.


TB, you are the idiotic and foolish one here.

Secularism refer to a separation religion from politics.

Anything that is not religious is definitely very very wide. You cannot expect a person to go into the details here.

If you are matured enough, you would have asked JB to be specific as to which area of secularism is he refering to. Like a small kid grabing for a candy you attack JB's secular point based on pure generalization. You are a sicko.

From what i read of JB's post, i am certain he is not refering to Communism or promoting the ills of any society.

While the ideals of meritocracy, equality has its pros and cons, what the core drive is freedom of change and continuous improvements for the survival and progress of humanity.

In a religious setting, especially abrahamic religion, rules formulated 1000+ years ago are rigidly enforced.
These theological rulers would have no hesistation in annihilating the Earth with nuclear bombs, in exchange for 'virgins' and other rewards(as promised in their holy texts).

Anonymous said...

Serious Shepard: A good example is how when PAS wanted to ban sexy dressing, these kafir harbi demanded for a research being done that links sexy dressing with rape. However, there are already researches being done on the danger of alcoholic drinks but when MBSA wanted to limit the sales of alcohol, Tony Pua angrily responded to such action.

This is a problem with rigid religious thinking arising out of fear of death within oneself.

There is room for discretion on dressing and alcohol as they are not outright dangerous like heroin, LSD, and other poisons.

We are not talking about near nudity. Islamic dressing rules are too basic and subjective. Just because some ulama gets an erection from seeing a woman's skin does not mean everymen reacts as such.

As far as alcohol is concern, it is only excessive alcohol that is dangerous but low consumption of alcohol can be a health benefit. Personally, i am not a drinker.

IMO, the above are not significant issues to humanity. But for PAS to ban them based on faith (belief without reason or proof) is outright political suicide (if not serious damage) for PKR.

Instead of forcing, PAS should find means to ensure the jihad-of-the-nafs is effective. Banning and forcing others (especially normal adults) to obey is a weakness of a religion and will not promote spirituality at all.

Serious Shepherd said...

So who invented the nuclear bombs? The theological rulers?

Just a silly reminder. Here in Malaysia, the multi-face Perikatan/BN coalition said to the Malays that when the communists come to power, they will turn Malaysia into a secular state that closes all mosques like what happened in -stan states under Soviet Union. Thus the Malays have no choice but to fight the communists in Malaysia's jungle and later on at Afghanistan's mountains.

At the same time, Perikatan/BN coalition leader made a statement in English (which was not widely used by any pak lebai at that time) that Malaysia is a secular country.

Can't help it if the Malays equate secular country as communist countries or for those who can speak English, they will se it as defined in Cambridge Dictionary Online and its sample sentences.

Tulang Besi said...

If you are matured enough, you would have asked JB to be specific as to which area of secularism is he refering to. Like a small kid grabing for a candy you attack JB's secular point based on pure generalization. You are a sicko.

now we have a JB sympathizer, who chose to perpetuate JB's mistake.

Listen, secularism has nothing to do with meritocracy, industriness etc.

Secularism is only about taking religion out of the public sphere. That's all.

ANd no, JB thinks there's only one type of secularism.

Clearly his knowledge of secularism is limited.

Tulang Besi said...

JB rants:

Tulang Besi,

No system of governance is perfect.

Not secularism. Not your narrow interpretation of secularism or my broad understanding of it. But neither is an Islamic state.


Here's where you're wrong. The ISlamic state model has been in existence for 1400 years and still exists until today.

THIS IS A FACT.

Secularism is only around for not more than 200 years already people are rejecting it.

THe most is not more than 100 years and secularism will be gone for good.

So please, get your facts straight next time.

Also, majority of Muslims in the world wants Islamic state back after being betrayed by Secularism for the last 150 years.

Islamic state has treated the Muslims FAAAAAAAAAAR better than secular states.

All secular states ever done is fail the Muslims at every junction.

Anonymous said...

Serious Shepherd said...
So who invented the nuclear bombs? The theological rulers?


Hey..there is a big difference between inventor and users.

You know what is meant by "double-edged sword"?

The problem is with the religious (abrahamic) way of thinking by many (not all), not the availability of nuclear energy or bombs.

I would prefer to get rid of stupid rigid religious thinking and leaders than nuclear energy.

Someday, humanity will need nuclear energy to travel to other planets when the Earth resources run out or the Earth is burned as it gets closer to the Sun.

Anonymous said...

"This is a problem with rigid religious thinking arising out of fear of death within oneself."


What has religion got to do with fear of death?Death,is part of life's process..man,u talak belajar sains kot..

In fact,the source is religion is the DEATHLESS SPHERE..

Anonymous said...

now we have a JB sympathizer, who chose to perpetuate JB's mistake.

I don't sympathize in this case. I can see and support a progressive human (JB) in constrast to a beastly one (TB).

Note i emphasized earlier that the essential core positive trait of secularism are change, continuous improvement and progress for humanity sake.

Whereas the religious (esp. abrahamic) is sticking to rigidity based on man-made holy texts for heaven sake of personal salvation.

Anonymous said...

In a religious setting, especially abrahamic religion, rules formulated 1000+ years ago are rigidly enforced.

religions in the semitic world or even in the rest of asia were formulated?Alo..knock..knok..if u r mat salleh..oklah..if u r a mat salleh wannabe..i say..chootia..pi mapuihlah..kahkahkha..dungu moron...

The west thinks the world revolves around them..they r the masters of everything..they have the perfect/correct formula for everything..and our imitators..those low life feaces think by imitation,by borrowing all the models,methods from the west,life will be better..kahkahkah..

Look at the present situation..kahkahkah..mat sallehs versions of communism,secularism,capitalism,and yes even democracy dah gagal..massive changes r taking place,yet our local imitators who born n brought to be an arse licker,penjilat k0te of the mat salleh,think all those collapsing models r still better then anything from the east..kahkahkah..

Anonymous said...

a progressive human (JB0]

kahkahkah..this fella is freakin retard..kahkahkha..progressive my ass..what's the qualification of JB anyway?..i think he must be some sort of loyar buruk..TB is an engineer (I think so)..someone highly qualified frm a technical background..and JB?Based on his blabla..he must be one those loyar beruks frm kay yell..or a typical whelin dealin cash n carry f*k nut..kahkahkah..

Anonymous said...

JB pracatically knows nothing..he doesnt know religion,he doesnt know science,he doesnt know philosphy,he doesnt know spirituality,dia apa apa lanchau pun tak tau.kahkahkah..simply tau menyalak..and his followers r the snooker playing,babe hooking,Gary Moore listeninn pundek manay..kahkahkah..

Anonymous said...

What has religion got to do with fear of death? Death,is part of life's process..man,u talak belajar sains kot..
December 19, 2008 10:19 AM


You are ignorant of human life.

It is very natural for any human to have a feeling of fear when they realize that they will eventually die. If you do not feel it then you are not normal.

For some, this fear is a terror and psychological painful to them, so they seek ways of how to resolve this fear and terror.
Fear of Death

The concept of religion and God was created to comfort the above terror with a promise of eternal life in heaven.

The problem with some religion is because it has to cater for the masses, it comes with rigid and ridiculous rules. One must think, dress, eat and behave in a certain rigid way.

Once you get the comfort of being a believer, you have no choice but to obey, otherwise the fear of death will be very painful.

Many will blindly obey what is interpretated out of their holy books. Once imprison in religious thoughts, some will even commit suicide bombing when exploited.

There are others who do not take the religious paths but resolve the fear of death in other nore effective ways.

Anonymous said...

Tb: Here's where you're wrong. The ISlamic state model has been in existence for 1400 years and still exists until today.

I'll reserved my not-so-nice critical comments for fear that these so-called Islamic states will come after me.

Anonymous said...

Hey! fucktard kahkahkah sounding gagak..

Apparently you do have knowledge of some substance.

However the knowledge from your brain is coming out as shit when is posted.
It is really wasted when you post in the present manner you do.
Nobody is going to take you seriously for that.

Anonymous said...

Hey chootia..me not botheredlah wheter i m taken seriusly or not..one thing for sure..u n the the rest of ur geng r punde r retards,shallow,lifeless,souless chotias..kahkahkah..

Anonymous said...

You are ignorant of human life.


oh realy?ok bum..tell me..frm where the impulses of fear come frm?is it psychological or something else?

Anonymous said...

The concept of religion and God was created to comfort the above terror with a promise of eternal life in heaven

but,but,my dear arse hole..life is INDEED DEATHLESS,ETERNAL in the asbolute..of course,mat salleh chootias woudn't know this becos,spirtual/religion/dharma ..almost all of them took bith in the east..these mat salleh savages terpaksa importlah..kahkahkah..so,in thier blood they dont have a rich,vast spiritual heritage..of course,not all mat salleh countries r like that..but,the range the asiatic countries have is far greater..far far greater...

Anonymous said...

who is willing to believe that ,fundemantaly there is only one reality that has taken shape in infinite number of shapes,n forms,thru extension of time and space?Can we get those hints in mat saleh falsampahs, in modern science?Where do we get these clues/hints?

Anonymous said...

In modern sains..yes..the saintis are "catching' certain truths of the eternal realities..but they got a long long way to go..what has heppend is,asiatic light was dimming bout 300 to 500 years ago,and when the european savages colonised,that spirit has almost vanished,gone....as a result,a very big inertia has set in asiatic countris..2day we see,indian,chinese,arabs,all trying to westernised thier values in order to be accepted in western societies..what should we do is to trackback,n explore once again n rediscover all those laws,spirtual truths,systems of life..by any means we should do that..and by rediscovering,we have a great oppourtunity to broaden them..becos,hehe..by degrees,step by step,humanity marches from lesser truth to a greater truth and finally to the ultimate truth..

Anonymous said...

but,but,my dear arse hole..life is INDEED DEATHLESS,ETERNAL in the asbolute..of course,mat salleh chootias woudn't know this becos,spirtual/religion/dharma ..

btw I (not hindu) am a fan of Vedanta
Vedanta and understand its spirituality VERY well.
Don't waste your time with me on this.

Note some of the sites i visit frequently.

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/books_4.html

http://www.vivekananda.org/

http://www.ramakrishna.org/sv.htm

Anonymous said...

hahahah..thank god u brought in Vivekananda..wanna know what he said?India can only maju by integrating two differt systems..that is by having VEDANTA BRAIN,ISLAM BODY..now why he mentioned only those two? can u answer that?..and who were the earliest vedantints?

Anonymous said...

Macha..I am fully aware of Ramkrisha Miission lah woi..since u brought up Ramkrishna,n Vivekananda,did u notice the construction of the temple in belur?..it's a mix of what aah?

Anonymous said...

The arrival of Ramkrishna,Vivekananda,and Sri Aurobindo were extremely important..India was becoming(and still is) a mat salleh gulam/ares licker!!..In India's case,everytime there is an invasion of 'something" that contradicts the soul of that subcontinent/nation whatever,enlightened souls will take birth to correct,to stem the flow,or wipe those rude barbaric influence ..but indians are quite weak becos,life's organisation based on the caste system has turned into a frankenstein..as a result,we see,fear,no will amongst the politicins,or even the activists,the saints to spread the true meanings of vedanta to the masses..the arabs,r not that big of an arse licker..becos,the spirit of islam is still relatively new..but,the chinese n the japs have become 1st class imitators of anything mat salleh...

Anonymous said...

TB,

Are you really qualified to interpret Classical Arabic and MSA?

Please explain

Anonymous said...

India can only maju by integrating two differt systems..that is by having VEDANTA BRAIN,ISLAM BODY..now why he mentioned only those two?

Vivekananda was an interfaith guy and the conditions in India in 1898! when he wrote that, was in a way pragmatic from his perspective to unite the country of 'Hindu' and Muslims.

What he stated was not a universal spiritual principle but based on conditions in India in 1898 thereabout.

Note he did not compromise Hindu spirituality, i.e Vedanta Brain, as for the body which is controlled by the brain is not that significant.

In anycase it was never practical in reality. Subsequently India and Paki/Bangla was separated.

Being an interfaith person and a pragmatist, he would no problem saying "Vedanta Brain, Christian Body" in another country where the situation warrant it.

If Vivekananda had seem the Mumbai attacks, he would not had advocated that.

And if he insisted on it publicly now, he would have been killed by Jihadists.

John Bastille said...

Tulang Besi holds the key to Islamic Reformation

The world we live remains much of a mystery. Newer Sciences are being discovered and the Human Conscience is evolving.

It is not wrong to call another person ignorant, as Tulang Besi has rightfully called me. I dare not claim to have learned all that there is neither will I complete the process of learning. That's why, I welcome TB when he call me names such as liar, dumb, drunk, ignorant, etc.

The Free People are not pure secularist. We are Free. Secularism is a movement, initially towards the separation of church and state for the initial purpose of removing the monopoly of power and thought of a theocratic state for the simply fact that the church leaders knew very little outside their narrowly confined world.

We can evolve and progress because whenever there are errors and mistakes, we can learn to improve. We can learn to condemn ourselves and our laws.

In Islam, muslims have to follow strictly the laws that were passed down via the Quran. Cannot question and cannot critisise, for Allah knows best.

Since the Quran is in "Classical Arabic", not written in chronological order, and some ayas don't make sense on their own, hadiths and sunnahs are required for interpretations.

That's where the problem is - interpretation by humans. Abuse and misuse to achieve political goals and ambitions. That's why the Free People humbly decline Islamic rule.

It's very true that the Quran needs to be interpreted with experts in Classical Arabic, such as Tulang Besi. I think. That's also why the Free People are also learning Classical Arabic.

We try lah. Not that good yet. That's why - need TB's guidance.

However, the muslims can never go against the Quran. Some political leaders, in order to whitewash Islam will fall back to reinterpret Classsical Arabic for reforms. Some scholars, embarrassed with the Hadiths call for a anti-hadith Quran only movement.

But whatever it is, Islamic Rule has not changed since it's beginning and cannot be changed.

Cannot critisize it self. Cannot improve. Cannot modify. Cannot develop.

That's why when Malaysian sent her first muslim to space, the muslims were more occupied about how he can perform his prayers since he will be circumventing the earth several times a day.

To the muslism - let's look at the Quran for guidance. Hopefully our space tourist will not forfeit his points to Paradise.

To the Free People - God is everywhere and He is timeless. Pray to God where you are and at anytime for He is Almighty.

I have not said that secularism is the best solution for no governance is perfect. But I prefer it over hudud laws.

You see, we have already invented lavatories with flushing water and piping system. In fact, The Romans 1000 years before the Prophet have aqueducts and lavatory systems.

Thus, we humbly decline Allah's idea of asking our female to wear a lavatory tent suit when defecating in public.

Anonymous said...

JB: It is not wrong to call another person ignorant, as Tulang Besi has rightfully called me.

Ignorant if used in the right context is OK.

But for TB who is the ignorant one to call another ignorant in the spirituality context is haram lah. He is not qualified to do so.

IMO, TB has low self-esteem and is emotionally insecure. That is why he retorted our posts in that sort of uncouth manner.

Thus, we humbly decline Allah's idea of asking our female to wear a lavatory tent suit when defecating in public.

Read up Ali Sina's interesting view on this as well.

There are other explanations why those women would want to wear them, i.e. salvaging some power for themselves after being psychological abuse by others.

John Bastille said...

It is undeniable that one has to be an expert in Classical Arabic to correctly interpret the Quran. Same goes to every other religious texts.

But that there are facts that we do not really need Classical Arabic to see what actually happened. Allah created us and bless us with intelligence. We use that intelligence to discern.

For example, there is a hadith that the Prophet married Safiyyah.

We can say that we need Classical Arabic to define what was the term married means here. Is it nikah, which means “to penetrate”, or what. What does

Just look at Safiyyah. A pretty 17 year old girl, married to Kinanah, son of Khaibar’s chief. One early morning, the muslim warriors "liberated" their treacherous town. Killed many Jewish “soldiers” armed with “farming spades”.

After the raid, err sorry, liberation exercise, was over, the women were distributed amongst the muslim warriors – for marriages. For Allah is most compassionate and most loving. In the hostile Arab desert, no female can survive without being accompanied by a male. The Prophet was so moved with mercy that he begged the muslim warriors to be kind enough to marry these capture women, err sorry, war widows. Safiyyah was allotted to one regular bloke. But news got to the Prophet that Safiyyah was a babe. The Prophet, moved with mercy and compassion for Safiyyah because marriages with regular muslims warriors were harsh. They practice coitus interruptus (pulling their penises out before ejaculating), thus preventing the captured, err sorry for the typo, newly wedded wives the sexual pleasures.

Therefore he took her in and married her, for the Prophet is a role model for all mankind. Show mercy and compassion to war widows by protecting them.

You see, the Free People argue and made enquiry when “rape” has taken place for it is very illogical for a women to “willingly” embrace Islam and “marry” the very leader of the liberation army that has just ordered the killing of her husband, father, and many relatives. To consummate the marriage to the Prophet on the same night that her husband was tortured and killed sounds like, looks like rape. But it is not rape, for the Prophet married her under full and proper Islamic ritual.

You see, sometimes, Classical Arabic is merely used to shut us up.

Anonymous said...

You see, sometimes, Classical Arabic is merely used to shut us up.

I note nowadays it is usually used by Muslims.

Prior to that the classical language excuse had been used by Christians, Hindus, Taoists, Confucianist, greek theism, etc.

With so much modern knowledge these days and expanding, there is nothing that classical languages can hide from us.

These days we can use a convergence of knowledge from different and wide variety of sources to verify the reliability of various truths.

One good source is the,
DSM Manual

Anonymous said...

Don't languages change in meaning over time?

Don't meanings change their meanings over time?

In past experiences speaking with older generations, I have found some of their language unintelligible.

Some of the younger generations language escapes me as I get older.

We speak differently because we have different experiences.

How about the language used in books printed a hundred years ago or more?

Two hundred?

Do they all make sense to you?

To say that Classical Arabic as we understand it today is understood exactly the same as it was in Nabi Muhammad's time seems far fetched.

I am sure there are experts who know as much as is humanly possible about language and society from those times, but their data is only a fraction of the whole. (Not to mention the languages and experiences of the transmitters of Islamic traditions who form our current understanding.)

That is why we need open minds.

And that is why Tulang Besi is wrong.

Esiu Omynona

Anonymous said...

Vivekananda was an interfaith guy

kahkahkah..tipu lagi..good lord..now they have turned Vivekananda into something like that screwed up Gandhi..kahkahkah..what a dunggu u r man..u have no idea what vivekananda represented..he was born to revive the spirit of true sanatan dharma..the essence of the hindu faith..in fact,he once said,it better to play football,tand play it well,then wasting time blablaing...his whole life was about experencing the sorrows of india/indian subcontinent,and uplifting the masses..u digg!!

Anonymous said...

exremely stupid u fellas are..The Vivekanandas,The Ramakrishna's, The Sri Aurobindo were sages,seers,not 1/2 past 6 chootias scholars talking kot that these personalites were "interfaith" saints...Ramakrishna had little learning..but he explored every system..the truths of the Gita,and every path..n reached the summit of every reaslitaion of various faith..Vivekannada had a mission,to revive,the spirit of sanatan dharma and Sri Aurobindo..toooo vast...

All these talk about ooo "interfiath" shows what a big ignorant,dungu u fellas r..kahkahkah..

Anonymous said...

Wanna know why Vivekananda said Vedanta brain/Islam body?..because both r revelations frm the absolute/supreme..yes f*k nuts..the essence,the dynamics,the principal powers that are mentioned in the quran are also in the vedas..hahaha..indians tak tau..the principal powers of the supreme consciousness/knowledge/power represented by the 4 suprem mahashaktis..maheswari/mahakali/mahasaraswati/mahalaksmi..in the holy quran,they r represented as the 99 attributes/names of Allah,the eternal,the absolute/the supreme...hahahaha..all these are supramental powers..and Nabi Muhammmad was the messenger of the supramnetal!!!Mampuih hampa!!! It was Sri Autrobindo who discovered the similarities..and gave detail explanations..that's why all these mighty sages/seers openly said they welcomed the revival of Islam..hahaha..mampuih u morons!!!hahaha...

Anonymous said...

..maheswari/mahakali/mahasaraswati/mahalaksmi..in the holy quran,they r represented as the 99 attributes/names of Allah,the eternal,the absolute/the supreme...only thing is in the indian context,the dynamic powers r represented as SHE..the HE speading out as SHE..the supreme HE/PURUSHA spreading out as SHE/PRAKRITI..the atrributes of all the supreme powers/energies/conciousness as mentioned in sanatan dharma r the same as the ones mentioned int he holy quran..why?becos there is only ONE REALITY..hahaha..mampuih u f*kin morons!!!hahaha...

Anonymous said...

Hey psycho.. note the following;

The basis of Swami Vivekananda interfaith inclinations.

As a guru Ramakrishna taught him Advaita Vedanta and that all religions are true, and service to man was the most effective worship of God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Vivekananda

Anonymous said...

There is a constant refrain in the Quran: “All that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth glorifieth Allah, and he is the Mighty, the Wise.” Mahakali-Maheshwari aspects are immediately recognized in this, but the absence of the other two powers brings imbalance in social organization. Which means that in the unregenerate state of society the Mahakali power gets appropriated by the Asuric forces
Sri Aurobindo

hahaha..it means absence of the other attributes (dlm indian context mahalaksmi(grace ,beauty,bliss,harmony) n mahasaraswati(patience,perfection,the supreme builder/designer/engineer/perfectionist)..in the 1/2 past 6 "party ka polah variyaah society.let's talk interfaith" society,the mahakali aspect degenerates lah...all 4 as one costantly coexcists in everything,everywhere!!..so any kekurangan..habishlah..hahaha..mampuih u all!!!

Anonymous said...

Yo f*k nut..what's vedanta?..Look haramjadah chootia..i dont need some wiki explantion..bcos my dear f* nut haramjadam..i have beeen therelah moron!!!!I have been to the mission..as matter of fact,i have been to sankaracharya mutt also,and Sri Aurobindo Ashram..hahaha..moron!!

Anonymous said...

That's right morons...That Buddhism emphasis on pure featureles,static,motionless,absolute..and pralaya(dissolving into the absolute)..was not suitable for life growth on earth all,becuase it the absolute HIMSELF manifested,extended..Budhha was not wrong..but the "other side" ie the dynamic aspect of the absolute is also true..the truth of the dynamic aspect of it appeared briefly in the form early christianty..then the whole truth of it had to come,and it came as Islam.....messages on equality in spirit ,justice n others are truths of the supreme that had to appear

Anonymous said...

Gagak.. why associate Vivekananda with Quran only. I don't think you understand his spirituality with your demented mind.
Here is what he said,

We want to lead mankind to the place where there is neither the Vedas, nor the Bible, nor the Koran; yet this has to be done by harmonizing the Vedas, the Bible, and the Koran.

Mankind ought to be taught that religions are but the varied expressions of THE RELIGION, which is Oneness, so that each may choose the path that suits him best.


source: http://www.sriramakrishna.org/x-holytrinity-vivekananda-life.asp?Page=S203

Anonymous said...

Timur Elangs invasion was a badly needed wake up call for the indians..there was no use in meditating ,n desiring of dissolving into the absolute and labelling the world as an illusion..

"Mahomed's mission was necessary, else we might have ended by thinking, in the exaggeration of our efforts at self-purification, that earth was meant only for the monk and the city created as a vestibule for the desert"
Sri Aurobindo

Anonymous said...

harmonsing lah..that true,jack ass..harmonising the essence, the spritual aspects of those systems/religions..faham tak barua...lol!!

Anonymous said...

And what is that oneness..can u explain it?

Anonymous said...

How many identity/poises of the ONENESS..boleh tak bag itau siki,my dear haramjadah chootia?

Anonymous said...

jangan diam diam..chootia..bagi jawaban what's that ONENESSS..

Anonymous said...

Mahomed's mission was necessary

wtf.. look at India's progress todate and sending a moon probe recently.

Was it because of "Mohamed's mission"?

If India had been suppressed with Islam until today, it would not had progressed but by sunk into chaos like Paki or Bangla and maybe Zimbawe.

It is the flexible Vedanta and other spiritual practices that facilitated India's progress.

Anonymous said...

Why the silence?..u dah dissolve ke in pralaya..kahkahkah..i do not wih to be rude..but,hey this is blog,and anything goes...can logic/mental explantion give the sight/vison of that ONENESS?

Anonymous said...

And what is that oneness..can u explain it?

Don't waste my time lah .. choon..nik
You don't hve the brain to understand.

Anonymous said...

moon mission?hahah..u call the progress?One crash landed..man,the whole society is highly imbalance..so much of ineuqwlity..its exploding in every nook n corner,n u call moon mission as the sign of ultimate progress..about 800 million of it's citzen earn 1/2 of USD and the India's rangking for hungry children is at 116,worse then Ethopia..

Anonymous said...

Ok..I dont know..u givelah explantaion..barua chootia beer drinking khankir pola..hahaha..

Anonymous said...

barua chootia beer drinking khankir pola..hahaha..
t niamah .. KNNCCB
fire with fire eh..
u won't get any sensible reply fm me till you stop yr nonsense first.

Anonymous said...

Sudhahlah..no need to trade insults..i myself dont enjoy it..what's important ,imo,is to find out more..no need to syok sendiri by downgrading any faith or system..

Anonymous said...

Ok..wat sort of sensible reply do u wish to give..i m ready to listen..

Anonymous said...

helo?what is the sensibly reply do u wish to give?About trinity?About Oneness? Wat?

Anonymous said...

Come on..i dont have all day..say out loud n clear,n project out ur thots into this blog about the sensible things u wish to say

Anonymous said...

Dont feel shy mate..hehe..me not going to lash out at ya...dont worry..

Anonymous said...

times up..gotta chou..b4 that..here is somthing..


Sri Aurobindo on oneness and multiplicity
This material is from Sri Aurobindo's The Upanishads: Texts, Translations and Commentaries, pp. 22-23 (verses) and pp. 64?9 (commentary). In Sanskrit, Vidya means oneness; Avidya means multiplicity.

The complete path

rahman embraces in His manifestation both Vidya and Avidya and if they are both present in the manifestation, it is because they are both necessary to its existence and its accomplishment. Avidya subsists because Vidya supports and embraces it; Vidya depends upon Avidya for the preparation and the advance of the soul towards the great Unity. Neither could exist without the other; for if either were abolished, they would both pass away into something which would be neither the one nor the other, something inconceivable and ineffable beyond all manifestation.

http://www.collaboration.org/96/fall/text/7.oneness.html

Anonymous said...

times up..gotta chou..b4 that..here is somthing..


Sri Aurobindo on oneness and multiplicity
This material is from Sri Aurobindo's The Upanishads: Texts, Translations and Commentaries, pp. 22-23 (verses) and pp. 64?9 (commentary). In Sanskrit, Vidya means oneness; Avidya means multiplicity.

The complete path

rahman embraces in His manifestation both Vidya and Avidya and if they are both present in the manifestation, it is because they are both necessary to its existence and its accomplishment. Avidya subsists because Vidya supports and embraces it; Vidya depends upon Avidya for the preparation and the advance of the soul towards the great Unity. Neither could exist without the other; for if either were abolished, they would both pass away into something which would be neither the one nor the other, something inconceivable and ineffable beyond all manifestation.

http://www.collaboration.org/96/fall/text/7.oneness.html

Tulang Besi said...

Dear JB,

Please cut the crap. It's clear you don't have the faintest idea what Classical Arabic is.

So, even your understanding of the Saifah hadeeth is seriously suspect.

So, let's not waste my time and the time of the readers by answering your stupid questions.

The right thing for you to do is to go back to school and learn.

Anyways, your issue on the Safiya issue has been answered 1400 years ago. You chose to believe in some crack pot Islam basher, kindda like yourself.

Anonymous said...

Does Tulang Besi know Classical Arabic? What exactly are his qualifications? (or is he a pretender?)

The questions has been asked several times but he is silent.

Tulang Besi said...

JB, when wives lost their husbands to wars in those days, the wives and children are not usually left behind in the middle of the desert to die a slow death.

They are taken as slaves. And in the case of Safiyya, she is taken as a wife by the Prophet SAW>

Another thing, didn't the Jews betrayed the Muslims and Yathrib?

They went and form alliances with enemies of Medina. Isn't that an act of war?

Anonymous said...

In the beginning you start by making this offering in a general way, as though once for all; you say, "I am the servant of the Divine; my life is given absolutely to the Divine; all my efforts are for the realisation of the Divine Life."
The Mother

[Yusufali 3:19] The Religion before Allah is Islam (submission to His Will): Nor did the People of the Book dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny the Signs of Allah, Allah is swift in calling to account.

[Yusufali 3:20] So if they dispute with thee, say: "I have submitted My whole self to Allah and so have those who follow me." And say to the People of the Book and to those who are unlearned: "Do ye (also) submit yourselves?" If they do, they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, Thy duty is to convey the Message; and in Allah's sight are (all) His servants.

Tulang Besi said...

JB rants:

You see, sometimes, Classical Arabic is merely used to shut us up.

What's the matter JB? Giving up I see.

Here's another brain buster for JB. If it's not Classical Arabic, then what is the language of the Quran?

My other question would be, what is the language of JB's Quran and Al Hadeeth?

Please answer these questions JB, we would like to know.

Tulang Besi said...

It seems JB pick and chooses sources he likes and stay away from those he hates.

So much for intellectual impartiality. It looks like Jb's level of islamic knowledge is tabloid quality at best.

here's another excerpt of the history of Safiah that can bring us proper context of the entire event, which JB chooses to ignore of course:



Like Umm Habiba, Safiyya was the daughter of a great chief. The only person who could save her from becoming a slave after having enjoyed such a high position was the Prophet. Although her father had planned to assassinate Muhammad (salAllahu alayhi wasalam) after the battle of Uhud, and had conspired with the Banu Qurayza to exterminate all the Muslims during the battle of al-Khandaq, it was characteristic of the Prophet Muhammad (salAllahu alayhi wasalam) that he did not bear any grudges. For those who did wrong, he felt pity rather than anger, and for those who had done no wrong, he had even greater compassion.
The Prophet Muhammad (salAllahu alayhi wasalam) invited Safiyya to embrace Islam, which she did, and having given her, her freedom, he then married her. Some people may have wondered how it was that Safiyya could accept Islam and marry the Prophet when her father had been his bitter enemy, and when bloody battles had taken place between the Jews and the Muslims. The answer may be found in what she has related of her early life as the daughter of the chief of the Banu Nadir.

Tulang Besi said...

I also notice that John Bastilles the liar seems to leave out several historical facts when he talks about Banu Quraizah and Battle of Khaibar.

For instance he missed on mentioning:

a. The jews conspired with Mushrikin Mekah to destroy Madinah

b. The Jews twice attempted to assasinate the Prophet SAW

c. They refuse to defend Yathrib as they had originally promised to do in their earlier treaty

d. The Jews conducted espionage and feed enemies of Medina vital information on Medina's defence.

Now, JB did claim that the Jews actually cooperated with the Muslims, but this is yet another example of JB's wild imagination. He didn't bring any sort of evidence to support his claim.

Tulang Besi said...

JB declares:

We can evolve and progress because whenever there are errors and mistakes, we can learn to improve. We can learn to condemn ourselves and our laws.

we have seen countless mistakes committed by JB here in this blog, yet we do not see any evolution coming from him.

what we see is vehement and incessant denial of facts i.e. Quran in Classical Arabic, done by John Bastilles.

These are nothing but empty rhetoric of JB and his Free People.

In truth, they chose to remain free by denying important facts in the Quran and Hadeeth by making stupid interpretation of the quran and sunnah.

so much for being free, more like being ignorant if u ask me.

Tulang Besi said...

JB rants again:


You see, the Free People argue and made enquiry when “rape” has taken place for it is very illogical for a women to “willingly” embrace Islam and “marry” the very leader of the liberation army that has just ordered the killing of her husband, father, and many relatives.


Why may I ask it's illogical? Everyone knows at that time knows the fate that had befallen the Jews of Medina is a direct result of their treachery and betrayal of their own treaties and accords with Prophet Mohd SAW.

Plus,Safiyya realizes that what is done by Prophet Mohd is for the good of Medina as a whole while what was done by the Jews are nothing but contempt to the Jewish people.

What Free People (sic) has done is to use their ignorance and assume that the Battle of Khaibar was conducted with perfect justification by any standard.

They do so by shutting their minds out from important facts of events that had taken place before the battle of Khaibar.

this is how Free People like JB operates. Their main weapon is ignorance.

These people are not free. They are pathetic.

Anonymous said...

DO YOU KNOW/SPEAK/UNDERSTAND CLASSICAL ARABIC TULANG BESI?

ANSWER PLEASE

Tulang Besi said...

Anonymous said...

Don't languages change in meaning over time?

Don't meanings change their meanings over time?

In past experiences speaking with older generations, I have found some of their language unintelligible.


Not Classical arabic. As long as the Quran is alive and well, the language will remain alive.

Tulang Besi said...

Yes I do

Tulang Besi said...

JB rants again:
That's where the problem is - interpretation by humans. Abuse and misuse to achieve political goals and ambitions. That's why the Free People humbly decline Islamic rule.

Really, can u show me one evidence to this claim of yours.

To date, all your examples are either stupid or just plain lie.

I've debunked your lies repeatedly in this forum, in case you haven't noticed.

So, in short, you reject Islamic rules and interpretation for imaginary reasons which you conjour up by yourself in order to gain your main objective, to be free.

That sounds very pathetic,especially when you cannot substantiate your above accusation

Anonymous said...

TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU KNOW/SPEAK/UNDERSTAND CLASSICAL ARABIC?

-A LITTLE
-CAN SMALL TALK WITH CLASSICAL ARABS
-MOSTLY FLUENT
-ACADEMIC CREDENTIALS

PLEASE REPLY

Tulang Besi said...

Why should I reply? Can u give me one good reason?

Tulang Besi said...

The Free People wants to reject Islam because they think Islam is misinterpreted when Classical Arabic is used to understand the Quran.

That is why JB's "hijab for Prophet's wives" theory was blown to smitherine. WHenever rules on Classical Arabic is applied, JB's understanding of Islam becomes nullified.

So the best thing for JB to do now is to completely deny the fact that the Quran is in Classical Arabic.

JB's way of interpreting the Quran should reign supreme, that is from it's English and Malay translation.

That's why JB makes simplistic statement like " wa simply means and and it doesn't carry any significance" in 33:59.

but, the problem is with that argument is if it has no significance, why is it used in the first place?

Then one will have to ask, what other phrases that is insignificance in the Quran that should be cast out on the instructions of JB?

So, whenever the Free People do not find parts of the Quran to their liking,we will be forced to discard that particular part.

I think clown colleges have more discipline in their way of learning as compared to the Free People.

Anonymous said...

its not whether you should reply or not. the fact is you are not qualified to talk about classical arabic. you are a pretender.

period.

now please shut up.

Tulang Besi said...

I ask you a simple question. Why the bad response?

What's the problem with answering simple question like what I asked you?

Tulang Besi said...

JB says:

John Bastille said...

When muslims find themselves not being able to defend their point of arguments, they tend to hide behind the veil of "Classical Arabic"


What veil JB? We've been in the know of this fact for the last 1400 years. It's not even a surprise for us. It's a known fact for all of us in Islam.

In fact, we know of this fact so much, we send thousands of our children to study Classical Arabic every year.

My only surprise is when there are still people who don't know a simply fact like this.

tsk x3

Tulang Besi said...

And what do you mean we can't defend ourselves?

Ever since you came here, i've been kicking your behind with relative ease, JB.

You know ever since the Hindu Kush blooper.

Or do you have a short memory, JB?

Anonymous said...

you have managed to both avoid answering while continuing to lecture as if an expert in Classical Arabic.

you can clear this up very easily. either tell us your qualifications. this is not about me, not about any of the other posters. it is purely about YOU!

i am deeply familiar with the complexities of spoken and written languages and find your glibness disturbing. your arguments come across as very superficial, you sound like a neophyte trying to pretend to be an expert.

That's how it sounds. feel free to correct me by stating your credentials.

Tulang Besi said...

i am deeply familiar with the complexities of spoken and written languages and find your glibness disturbing. your arguments come across as very superficial, you sound like a neophyte trying to pretend to be an expert.

And i find your line of questioning very nausiating.

Especially, when all your accusations above lacks details needed to make this conversation more time worth.

Also, have I ever claimed myself to be an expert?

Opps, someone trying to put words in my mouth I see.

Also, before i reveal my qualifications, may I know what's your qualification, first.

It's not in my habit to reveal my qualifications especially to strangers who refuse to give me their names.

That's why i kept asking you why do you need to know? It sounds more like a trap to me.

And all your accusation above only tells me that you yourself are not very sure of the complexities of Classical Arabic.

You're just hitting in the dark and hopes that something sticks.

Tulang Besi said...

Oh let me guess? You're one of those who have absolute faith in the works of Orientalists based in Oxford universities who has a habit of questioning everything about Islam. Just that the questions are never forwarded to the rightful authority in islam i.e. Al Azhar University.

Tulang Besi said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

its not whether you should reply or not. the fact is you are not qualified to talk about classical arabic. you are a pretender.

period.

now please shut up.


I won't reveal my qualification to you, and for that I have to shut up.

I am confused. Why should I follow the words of someone whom himself/herself I am not sure qualified to be talking about Classical Arabic?

Is this one of your tricks again, JB???

Tulang Besi said...

Oh and another thing, of all that I've written about QUran and Sunnah thus far, is there anything i wrote that is contradictory to the rules of Classical Arabic?

I'm just wondering, cause JB is having a hard time pointing out my mistakes it seems.

Anonymous said...

What are your qualifications?

It is simple. Anyone who is reading this thread knows that you claim to understand the issues better because you know Classical Arabic.

I don't believe you do. You are an insulting little person who hides behind Islam, like a child hides behind his mommy, calling others names.

what could possible be a trap. i am not asking for your name or address, just an overview of your credentials to support why your statements, rude as they often are, should be given any attention.

you are an embarrassment.

Signed,
A Muslim

Tulang Besi said...

No Muslim,

I am questioning you now, what are your qualification to question my ability in Classical Arabic

THe question is simple enough. Please answer it first before i answer yours.

Remember i am not obliged to answer yours.

You know, i think you're JB in disguise.

Tulang Besi said...

JB

am not easily duped by your cheap tricks.

Anonymous said...

That's where the problem is - interpretation by humans. Abuse and misuse to achieve political goals and ambitions. That's why the Free People humbly decline Islamic rule.


but,but,dats wat Dubya Bush n and his gremlins did..Gitmo,waterboard treatment,over1 million dead..

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 386   Newer› Newest»
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.