Ikim D-G Dr Syed Ali Tawfik Al-Attas sheds light on Subashini case: 'This has nothing to do with religion'ANIZA DAMIS speaks to Institute of Islamic Understanding of Malaysia (Ikim) director-general Dr Syed Ali Tawfik Al-Attas on the impact of the ruling on Muslims and non-Muslims in the country. Read the full text here.
Abstracts:
Q: What is justice in Islam?
A: Justice means putting things in the right place. Everything has a place. In this case, if you make a contract in a civil ceremony, the right place to seek a termination of that contract would also be at that civil ceremony.
T. Saravanan @ Muhammad Shafi should have been told, by the people who furthered his interest in the religion, that Islam places a great emphasis on the making and breaking of contracts.
Here is a person who had conducted a marriage in a civil ceremony with R. Subashini, a Hindu. Therefore, in order to terminate that contract made in a civil ceremony, he should go back to that civil authority and break it.
Q: The second child is not Muslim at the moment.
A: Who said the child is not Muslim? According to Islam, all children are born with fitrah, meaning a natural inclination towards Islam.
You could be the product of a Hindu, Buddhist or Christian marriage, but for Muslims, children are not seen as Christian, Buddhist or Hindu. What we see is, "Here is Allah's majesty. Look at what He has created".
Q: So, then there would be no need for conversion?
A: Exactly. How can you convert a child? First of all, when you talk about conversion, you are talking about responsibility. In order to have responsibility, you have to comprehend what you are responsible for. Can a child of that age understand what he is being held responsible for?
Allah does not hold a child accountable. That is why in Islam, there is this thing called the age of baligh -- the age of maturity -- which is generally thought to be around 15. He is then ready to accept the responsibility entrusted to him. And he is also ready to accept accountability -- in other words, punishment. But before that, there is no punishment.
Q: So, why the need to convert?
A: There is no need. God Himself does not consider the child responsible.
Q: The thing that upsets non-Muslims is that Muslims are detained when they wish to leave the religion.
A: Does that have to do with religion or is it an administrative injustice? It has nothing to do with religion, as far as I am concerned. How they do it, that's another matter altogether. When you start talking about detention, rampas mayat (seizing the corpse) and so on, those are all administrative. I disagree with all that.
Q: Why is it happening?
A: Loss of adab (manners), ignorance, and people who are put in positions of power who really have no ilm (knowledge). They don't have any hikmah. They are just allowing these things to occur and they don't care. All in the name of religion. You can't do that.
I don't care whether your religion is Islam, Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism. You cannot use this as a tool for your political considerations. And that's what's happening.
Now, in the Subashini and Saravanan case, I feel very, very badly for these two people, and for the children. These are the victims.
As far as Islam is concerned, the Prophet abhorred divorce. He really despised it. But he did say, "If there is no other choice but to divorce, let the divorce be amicable". Let it be settled in a nice way.
Why was Shafi not advised about this? Why are Subashini's lawyers not advising her like this? Ultimately, these are the people who are suffering. You think the lawyers and the judges suffer? No. These people -- Shafi, Subashini and the children -- they suffer.
This is a family case. Why is society sticking its nose into this?
Q: Maybe they have become the standard-bearers of a bigger fight?
A: Society has become confused. What is the bigger fight? Freedom of religion? Are you not free? Nobody is forcing anybody.
Q: Perhaps not in the case of Shafi, but there have been instances where non-Muslims convert to Islam to escape responsibility.
A: They are abusing the system. You cannot simply run to the syariah court, to Islam, to escape something else. Contracts are very important in Islam.
Q: But in the instance where someone says he is Muslim, you have to take his word for it that he is Muslim. Should the syariah court be giving him shelter, where perhaps he is seeking shelter for the wrong reasons?
A: When somebody claims he is a Muslim, you can actually judge if he really is a Muslim or not, by three things:
When he makes a contract, he breaks it; when he is given a responsibility, he shirks that responsibility; when he speaks, he lies. These are the signs of an evil person.
So, if a fellow claims he is a Muslim, and yet his actions do not reflect it, then he is not a Muslim. So if a fellow is converting because he wants to escape something, you cannot shelter him for that. You have to live up to your responsibility.
If a person has recently converted to Islam, there is no question about the division of property according to Islam, because he accumulated all that when he was not a Muslim.
Whatever property he accumulates after he becomes a Muslim, that's different. That belongs to him -- his wife has no say in that.
In my opinion, in the Subashini case, the wife should have custody of the children. They are still young. They need their mother.
Q: What would you say to people who see this as a Muslim/non-Muslim argument?
A: It's not. This has got nothing to do with religion. This has to do with administrative justice.
Q: So, what do we need to do to correct this administrative injustice?
A: Remove the people who are causing the problem, and put in the ones who are qualified to deal with it. Remove the unqualified, because they are misguiding society.
A: Justice means putting things in the right place. Everything has a place. In this case, if you make a contract in a civil ceremony, the right place to seek a termination of that contract would also be at that civil ceremony.
T. Saravanan @ Muhammad Shafi should have been told, by the people who furthered his interest in the religion, that Islam places a great emphasis on the making and breaking of contracts.
Here is a person who had conducted a marriage in a civil ceremony with R. Subashini, a Hindu. Therefore, in order to terminate that contract made in a civil ceremony, he should go back to that civil authority and break it.
Q: The second child is not Muslim at the moment.
A: Who said the child is not Muslim? According to Islam, all children are born with fitrah, meaning a natural inclination towards Islam.
You could be the product of a Hindu, Buddhist or Christian marriage, but for Muslims, children are not seen as Christian, Buddhist or Hindu. What we see is, "Here is Allah's majesty. Look at what He has created".
Q: So, then there would be no need for conversion?
A: Exactly. How can you convert a child? First of all, when you talk about conversion, you are talking about responsibility. In order to have responsibility, you have to comprehend what you are responsible for. Can a child of that age understand what he is being held responsible for?
Allah does not hold a child accountable. That is why in Islam, there is this thing called the age of baligh -- the age of maturity -- which is generally thought to be around 15. He is then ready to accept the responsibility entrusted to him. And he is also ready to accept accountability -- in other words, punishment. But before that, there is no punishment.
Q: So, why the need to convert?
A: There is no need. God Himself does not consider the child responsible.
Q: The thing that upsets non-Muslims is that Muslims are detained when they wish to leave the religion.
A: Does that have to do with religion or is it an administrative injustice? It has nothing to do with religion, as far as I am concerned. How they do it, that's another matter altogether. When you start talking about detention, rampas mayat (seizing the corpse) and so on, those are all administrative. I disagree with all that.
Q: Why is it happening?
A: Loss of adab (manners), ignorance, and people who are put in positions of power who really have no ilm (knowledge). They don't have any hikmah. They are just allowing these things to occur and they don't care. All in the name of religion. You can't do that.
I don't care whether your religion is Islam, Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism. You cannot use this as a tool for your political considerations. And that's what's happening.
Now, in the Subashini and Saravanan case, I feel very, very badly for these two people, and for the children. These are the victims.
As far as Islam is concerned, the Prophet abhorred divorce. He really despised it. But he did say, "If there is no other choice but to divorce, let the divorce be amicable". Let it be settled in a nice way.
Why was Shafi not advised about this? Why are Subashini's lawyers not advising her like this? Ultimately, these are the people who are suffering. You think the lawyers and the judges suffer? No. These people -- Shafi, Subashini and the children -- they suffer.
This is a family case. Why is society sticking its nose into this?
Q: Maybe they have become the standard-bearers of a bigger fight?
A: Society has become confused. What is the bigger fight? Freedom of religion? Are you not free? Nobody is forcing anybody.
Q: Perhaps not in the case of Shafi, but there have been instances where non-Muslims convert to Islam to escape responsibility.
A: They are abusing the system. You cannot simply run to the syariah court, to Islam, to escape something else. Contracts are very important in Islam.
Q: But in the instance where someone says he is Muslim, you have to take his word for it that he is Muslim. Should the syariah court be giving him shelter, where perhaps he is seeking shelter for the wrong reasons?
A: When somebody claims he is a Muslim, you can actually judge if he really is a Muslim or not, by three things:
When he makes a contract, he breaks it; when he is given a responsibility, he shirks that responsibility; when he speaks, he lies. These are the signs of an evil person.
So, if a fellow claims he is a Muslim, and yet his actions do not reflect it, then he is not a Muslim. So if a fellow is converting because he wants to escape something, you cannot shelter him for that. You have to live up to your responsibility.
If a person has recently converted to Islam, there is no question about the division of property according to Islam, because he accumulated all that when he was not a Muslim.
Whatever property he accumulates after he becomes a Muslim, that's different. That belongs to him -- his wife has no say in that.
In my opinion, in the Subashini case, the wife should have custody of the children. They are still young. They need their mother.
Q: What would you say to people who see this as a Muslim/non-Muslim argument?
A: It's not. This has got nothing to do with religion. This has to do with administrative justice.
Q: So, what do we need to do to correct this administrative injustice?
A: Remove the people who are causing the problem, and put in the ones who are qualified to deal with it. Remove the unqualified, because they are misguiding society.
Remove the Unqualified!
They are the ones that are misguiding society!
That's the message!
But it takes an intellectual philosopher who is also the leader of a nation to grasp this message, understand the problem, how it was first created so that there is then a need for a solution. All it does to cause a rife is for someone with power to issue a directive or fatwa, in the name of an authority, often, in the name of God, to give it the power and authority, to say something he wants and preferred, and without consideration of the whole truth, without consideration of the society at large of which he belongs, but of which he wants what he preferred and preferred all others to do and act as he had preferred, all in the name of an omnipotent; sadly, he prevails because the system allowed him so, allowed him to destroy the lives of others, to glorify his thinking and preference. Syed Ali Tawfik said: This is not religion; it has nothing to do with religion and God; it's all about administrators and their administration of pseudo-justice, satisfying a particular person who commands power and influence.
They are the people who had what Syed Ali said, "Loss of adab (manners), ignorance, and people who are put in positions of power who really have no ilm (knowledge). They don't have any hikmah. They are just allowing these things to occur and they don't care. All in the name of religion. You can't do that."
But they are still doing that, everywhere, everyplace, everything, from divorce, to child conversion, to dead bodies, to temple, to statutes, to crosses, in schools, temples, churches, and in media, in licensing, and in festivities.
But they are still doing that, everywhere, everyplace, everything, from divorce, to child conversion, to dead bodies, to temple, to statutes, to crosses, in schools, temples, churches, and in media, in licensing, and in festivities.Najib said: "There must be Give-and-Take".
Give what? Take what?
The Mazu statute was approved for construction. Then someone issued a fatwa and the state government immediately ordered a stop and withdraw approval.
Now the state government agrees again, is that "Give-and-Take"? What was taken and then given back; that's the Give-and-Take?
If you steal my money, and being "gracious" give it back to me; that's Give-and-Take?
The government withheld the permits of Herald Catholic Weekly and now decides to allow it to continue. Was it Give-and-Take? And they are suppose to rejoice with this gracious decisions!!!
If you steal my money, and being "gracious" give it back to me; that's Give-and-Take?
The government withheld the permits of Herald Catholic Weekly and now decides to allow it to continue. Was it Give-and-Take? And they are suppose to rejoice with this gracious decisions!!!The traffic police did not give a summon ticket if he takes something of consideration. Isn't that give-and-take?
The police arrest people under the ISA and then later release them. is that Give-and-Take too?
They take away your rights and freedom, cause a commotion, extreme anxieties, pain and sufferings; and then they decides to give some back to you, in the name of Give-and-Take ... that's give? that's take? And yet we are suppose to rejoice for "winning-back" our partial and subordinated freedom!!!What the shit!!
So, What is Give? And what is Take?
Take away the unqualified and mischievous bigots, and we will give you our votes.
46 comments:
IMO, he's both wrong and right ....in that order.
When somebody claims he is a Muslim, you can actually judge if he really is a Muslim or not, by three things: When he makes a contract, he breaks it; when he is given a responsibility, he shirks that responsibility; when he speaks, he lies. These are the signs of an evil person.
Ahaa, Saravanan, you tambi. Gotchaaa!
Ikim D-G Dr Syed Ali Tawfik Al-Attas: "If a person has recently converted to Islam, there is no question about the division of property according to Islam, because he accumulated all that when he was not a Muslim."
So Shafi@Saravanan the keling-turned-mamak should surrender custody of the children to the mother because they were accumulated when he was not a Muslim
This further proves IKIM`s terrorism and Star should stop running their terrorist articles.
Since birth, I never had any inclination towards that religion. I`m repulsed by it in fact.
http://www.rense.com/general13/koran666.htm
They are fan-a-ticks all:
gangeticus said...
I was thinking of joining too! Alas, I saw your other posts, such as this one:
http://pasnationalunity.blogspot.com/2007/12/muhamad-in-hindu-scriptures.html
In itself, its OK. You may comment on my religion, its free speech. But when you mention stuff like this "...Kitab-kitab agama Hindu ini walaupun telah dirubah dan dikotori dengan begitu teruk..." Well, still OK, I guess.
The part that makes me reject whatever you are peddling is when you say its "wajib" to convert the non muslims.
Thanks, but no thanks! I happen to believe in my religion, and I think I can physically proof the truth of my religion.
PS: the article deals with only one of the interpretations of the scriptures. HINT HINT
http://pasnationalunity.blogspot.com/2007/12/pas-indian-supporters-bridging-earth.html
Ikim D-G Dr Syed Ali Tawfik Al-Attas does sound like a fair and objective man in this interview.
I really hope he is and I hope the government will rely on his objective view in implementing islam rather than the slanted mind, self righteous religious bigots we come across in the news most of the time.
I share his view that most of the time it is the "administration" that is the main cause of the problem.
And this tied back to the way the government operates.
Lackeys and boot lickers are promoted. The slightest hint of intellectual vigor detected in a candidate and he will be dropped like a hot potato.
So in the end we have MPs who spews industry waste which is not only smelly but serve to pollutes the population.
We have so call religious authority who live with a besieged mentality for e.g. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5tMD57H20)
We have MP who think they have a copyright to a word use all over the world.
We have plenty more example of these administrator who "administer" based on their limited frog in a well mentality.
So yes - I support wholeheartdly what Dr Syed Ali Tawfik says:
A: Remove the people who are causing the problem, and put in the ones who are qualified to deal with it. Remove the unqualified, because they are misguiding society
And I hope the PM is not too sleepy or too engrossed in his oversea trip to LISTEN to some sound advice and it did not come from the opposition less he again say he pantang di cabar!
So, am i to understand correctly that the good Dr said, in this circumstances; upon baligh, the child can choose whether to be a muslim / not? so before baligh, the parents have the rights to raise them in any environment?
what Dr Syed Ali Tawfik Al-Attas said makes much sense and i also tend to believe that it has got nothing to do with religion, only administrative of justice which is screwed up. why does it takes an intellectual philosopher to think this through? why no input from the ulamas? having said that, does what the Dr said has any impact at all to the muslims in Malaysia? will he later on come up with a supplimentary statement saying that these are only his personal views and not the views of ikim? will he be treated as just a rambling fool?
in his 3rd last statement he said "But I also agree with Shafi. He is also being treated unjustly",can anyone pls explain how is shafi being treated unjustly in this context?
anon 11:54, dont be so upset. What the Dr said is through an eye of a muslim. this is what the muslim believes. it's like the buddhist believes in karma.
I afraid many people just don't get what Dr Syed Ali Tawfik Al-Attas saying.
People that does not read his message carefully can simply interpret the message as "pro-Islam" or "anti-Islam". IMHO, that's how Wits0 derive the conclusion of "both of right and wrong".
All I see Dr Syed Ali address the blind spot : what is the goal of the whole things? When you see the real goal, you will NOT fools by all sort of distraction, but overcome it. So the whole episode as the Dr.Syed Ali claim, it is nothing to do with religion. IMHO, the goal is about family!!!!.
IMHO the f*d*r*l court and Sy*r**h court(hope I don't get Doc Mave into trouble in contempt) are rubbish if it can't achieve its own goal : to uphold the justice. In such case, we see there is clear case of breach of contract and duty (of marriage), when the husband didn't perform his duty to inform his wife.
And the c**rtroom just breach its duty/contract trying to evade the family breach of contract. WTF!!!
Yes, it is nothing to do religion, just a row of people breach their duty.
ycg, doctrines and dogmas can be differentiated. While any belief system would necessarily contain doctrines, dogmas can, and will eventually, be detrimental to all.
Here' s the UN way of protecting sensitivities:
http://www.israpundit.com/2007/?p=6918
It is also capable of cutting both ways too but meanwhile its proponents think they've won it all.
A blind spot is only a portion of the main views, like in driving.
Mave, just want to wish you and your family a very Happy New Year ahead.
Najib's " Give & take...?"
Give and take .. a joke to share.
A man is walking on the beach when he trips over a lamp. A few seconds later, a genie pops out and says, "I’m required to grant three wishes, but since you did not treat my lamp with respect, I will give twice what you get to the person you hate most—your boss."
The man agrees and makes his first wish: "I want lots of money." Instantly $20 million appears in bags on the beach, and $40 million appears in his boss’ bank account.
Next the man asks for an incredible sports car. Instantly a Lamborghini appears, and at the same moment, two show up outside his boss’ house.
Finally the genie says, "You have but one wish left; you should choose carefully."
The man says, "Well, I’ve always wanted to donate a testicle...
Happy New Year to you, Maverick
So the whole episode as the Dr.Syed Ali claim, it is nothing to do with religion. IMHO, the goal is about family!!!!.- moo_t
What a funny way of being mootly `politically correct`.
The whole issue is of religion. Please lah tolong baca baik2 sebelum mooting.
Mave,
When those with real Ilm (knowledge) talk, perspectives are given their real homes and everything fall into place. As always, problems occurs when there is no understanding and knowledge. Happy New Year Mave. May you be guided...whatever you want it to mean.
Do they have the right meeting point?
-------------
Civil Court and Syariah Court meet at the Administration!
so CJ, AG out of questions?
A cart with horses in different directions?
A marriage stands on points of
contract, religion and mingled with traditions?
A building approval against directive by negotiation?
turning into a religious and Give & Take situation
relating to "Peace & Stability"?
A topic standing on many points with different heights and strengths.
Can anyone imagine how it stands?
The wonder of all, it all depends on what the lips said!!
Forgetting laws and systems fading out with such talks!
A man is doing the talk
forgetting how a Government should do the work!
Let Grandpa and Grandma talks!!
'Take away the unqualified and mischievous bigots, and we will give you our votes.'
I certainly agree with this statement, but would like to add, the liars, the plunderers, the arrogant, those who speak with forked tongues, the intolerant, the narrow minded, the racialists, the self centred and the uncaring.
There may be others too, anyone care to add to the list?
Wishing you all a Very Happy, Humble, Healthy, Equitable, Free and Fair, Equally Prosperous, Open Minded and Tolerant New Year 2008.
mental jog
very good post, mave.
i agree that this has nothing to do with religion but administrative justice. these are 'laws' - religion laws and laws are man made. men had hijacked religion! put in this and that on their whims and fancies!
oh sorry, forgot to wish you HAPPY NEW YEAR, MAVE.
wishing you all the best for 2008. continue blogging the way you do! (i luv it)
wits0,
I can only say that I am totally in agreement and concurrence with Dr Syed Ali. He is a true philosopher, an intellectual Muslim philosopher who understands Islam much better than many muftis. The mufti that I respect is the mufti if Perlis.
Agnos,
I do not agree to the statement that Dr Syed Ali does sound fair and objective. He is, and his statements are in comliance with the Al Quran. And I am glad you conclude that you support wholeheartedly with Syed Ali.
i agree that this has nothing to do with religion but administrative justice. these are 'laws' - religion laws and laws are man made.- lucia
How can lah. Her husband converted to islam (which is a religion) and impose his new religion laws on an earlier marriage contracted under administrative law.
Both are laws - but here religion laws in conflict with administrative law.
In future it may not be so simple:
Hardline Islamic law could be introduced across Malaysia under reforms proposed by the country's chief justice.
[ ]
Ahmad Fairuz, the chief justice, told an Islamic conference in Kuala Lumpur that 50 years of independence had failed to free Malaysia from the "clutches of colonialism". Sharia law should be "infused" into the gaps created by abolishing common law, he said.
Malaysia's non-Muslim Chinese and Indian communities, who form 40 per cent of the population, are alarmed at creeping Islamisation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/01/wmalay101.xml
Ycg,
No, a child cannot choose his religion as he will be responsible.
Dr Syed Ali said: "In order to have responsibility, you have to comprehend what you are responsible for. Can a child of that age understand what he is being held responsible for?"
If you read the whole story of Shafi and his wife, you have to agree with Dr Syed Ali that both have been treated unfairly; and I agree totally with Syed Ali's viewpoint on this.
Moo_t,
I share your point, that many, in particular, those muftis and those religious appointed leaders, may not have the intellectual capacity and capability to consumed and digest the knowledge expounded by Syed Ali; not because they can't but more because they would not, being of calcified mindset.
wits0,
I believed Doctrines, Dogmas & Tenets, are analogous, and suppose to refer to the same thing.
Doctrine is defined as: " principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief. It is a principle of law established through past decisions"
Dogmas are defined as: "an established opinion; a definite authoritative tenet. Dogmas is a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by the religious institution.
Tenets are defined as: "a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true by members of an organization or profession.
Helen,
Thanks and Happy New Year to you too.
Beeranyone,
hahaha...a nice joke for the year. Thanks you and Happy New Year to you.
Gukita,
I agree wholeheartedly that when those with "Real Ilm" talk, they put everything, every of those problems into proper perspective in accordance with "THE BOOK".
However, I do not agree that those who created the problem do not understand the knowledge. Very often, it is what they preferred, over and above what it should be, in order to direct all Muslims to accept his point of belief which is much preferred over the "truth".
Thanks Gukita and Happy New Year to you. I am certain I will be guided, by the omnipotent, for I have the Quran to lead me to understand the way of life.
Sharing,
Another great poem from you. But I prefer the last para to be: "A man is doing the talk, forgetting how a government ought do the walk.
Clear as a Bell,
Wah, you add so many; then no more people left, for all of them are within the category!!!
Lucia,
Men did not hijacked religion. They (the religious bigots and ministers) made God in their own image, the image that they preferred, and that only them can call God as God, for all others who do not share their belief and doctrines, all these others must suffer hell from them.
And Happy New Year to you.
Mave: "I believed Doctrines, Dogmas & Tenets, are analogous, and suppose to refer to the same thing."
If you have to put it that way, then I will put it to you that not all religions accord the same universally expected (human) rights by the very nature of their creed.
To see that clearly, you'll have to lay down your rose tainted glasses and step aside from political correctness and other distorted idealism. You can delete what you think was an inappropriate comment by a certain anon commentator but the facts will not be erased that moral equivalence will convince many that Suba suffers a great injustice and the cause of it is religion embedding itself forcefully into politics - where it does not belong.
I cannot believe that muftis do not understand their own religion after all those years of studying their holy book. To say that is to avoid the obvious.
The muftis understand it better than this ikim chap who has his own interpretation which is not in line with the majority.
But in his moment of candor, he does let slip:
Q: The second child is not Muslim at the moment.
A: Who said the child is not Muslim? According to Islam, all children are born with fitrah, meaning a natural inclination towards Islam.
wits0,
I see your point. But the fact is, "It's got nothing to do with religion." It's about those administrators who abuses others, caused hardship to others, using religion as a front, to justify their personal wishes and belief.
Even without religion in any political issues, injustice in our system is justified, for as long as we have Barisan-UMNO institutional desires which is centered on wealth acquisition without the need to toil and sweat.
You can never see such things happening in other multi-racial countries, including Indonesia.
upon baligh wor. you mean he said the child upon mature age also cannot choose his/her religion in this case...hmmm then sorry ha, got to disagree with you and the Dr on this. I do not agree to automatically dictate a child (product of a marriage between a muslim and a non muslim, in this case) to be a muslim or otherwise. I believe the child upn maturity, has the right to choose.
Mav, been trying to search for the complete story on this couple, only found bits and pieces. can provide a pointer? in the meantime, i think i'll check jeff's archive...alot of good stuff in there..hehe.
Ycg,
Ya, Dr Syed Ali said a child, once he reached the age where he can take responsibility, that's upon maturity, can choose his own religion.
Ycg, I did keep their news but I have to find them as it's not in my archives. If I found it, I will mail to you.
Only once in history have Malaysia’s sayriah courts ruled to allow anyone to change religious identity and that case involved an 89-year old woman named Nyonya Tahir who converted to Buddhism in 1936. Her decision was accepted 69 years later in 2006, after she had died.
http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=957&Itemid=31
However, the `loss` was made up thru inducting moorthy when he died.
Mave, injustice done outside the name of religion is far less pernicious by implication. I needn't explain why for you already know.
Mave, finally the whole thing will always return to the matter of apostasy, as to why a religion cannot allow apostasy while others can. You see, it always come back to the matter of human rights as universally understood and I'm not referring to the inverted Cairo wannabe version.
Correction:
"but the facts will not be erased that moral equivalence will NOT convince many that Suba suffers a great injustice and the cause of it is religion.."
In the `Nyonya Tahir` case the S`ban Syariah Court was guided by Ibn Khaldun (a Star article made mention that Islam Hadhari is based on the `wisdom` of Ibn Khaldun).
The Court was of the decision that an apostate be given 3 opportunities to recant failing which `death` was the appropriate remedy. Since Nyonya was dead, they accepted her apostasy.
Badawi was to call this a wise decision. In other words it`s death for muslim apostates, which is why Lina Joy is in hiding.
Ikim has upheld similar views in the Star newspaper articles.
Maverick
Thanks your input, you have think quite well in ahead!
"A man is doing the talk, forgetting how a government ought do the walk."
Q: if one is "Forgetting laws and systems...
(fading out with such talks)"
Will he has "Government" and the right Responsibility in mind to do so?
A lot of "Officials" are only so by the badges!!
Did Judges need to look up their own books and the constitution before appointment of judicial commissioner?
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/content/view/13140/2/
A mono-rail by imagination is running on the traditional tracks!!
It is still some kind of Railway System!! hahaha!!
Mind can also and always be running out of Tracks
when speeches are full of holes and tricks!!
Surf well and sleep well
get a good meal and go to bed!
Sweet Dreams for shopping on what you expect
but non-delivery in 2007 from Bolehland!!
A long list so a longer journey to ride!
All the best for 2008 for those who drops by!
If we don't remove the unqualified, soon the whole Cabinet may be issuing fatwas.
wits0,
Apostasy is allowed in the Quran but those who opt out must go through a rehabilitation process. The objective is to guide them and bring them back to their senses such that they can make a informed decision. After a period of guidance and the person still decide to quit, then he is allowed.
As said by Dr Ali, it's the administrators who uses their own pseudo-knowledge of Islam to interpret the Quran in accordance with their own belief and wishes.
Sharing,
What a nice poem to close 2007 and to auger the way for the coming 2008. Thanks.
Mave, check this out:
"It is clear quite clear that under Islamic Law an apostate must be put to death"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001590.php
wits0,
This is the problem with Muslims themselves. They take part of the Quran, a verse, and try to connect it to anything that they wish to fit.
Surah Al Nisa is called "Woman" and largely deals with women's rights.
Verse 89 of Surah Al Nisa relates to the earlier verses. In verse 88, Muhammad was relaying about a particular group of alleged converts from among the Arabs, who afterwards relapse into idolatry, and concerning whom there were two opinions among the Muslims.
So, verse 89 said: "They [it refers to those hypocrites who allegedly converts] long that ye should disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level with them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back [which means they turn back and start a war with the Muslim brothers] then kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them.
Wits0, Surah 4:88-89 refers to those hypocrites whom Muhammad advice not to accept them as friends until they repent and return back to Allah. And if the hypocrites decides to wage war on the Muslims, then the Muslims are advices to take them and kill them wherever they can find them.
These verse do not refer to Apostasy; not at all.
However, words are subject to varying interpretations to suit the interpretor.
I am firm; that this verse has nothing to do with apostasy.
Surah Al Baqarah 2:217 states that: “… But whoever of you recants and dies an unbeliever , his works shall come to nothing in this world and the next, and they are the companions of the fire for ever.”
This verse says very clearly that whosoever renegades from your religion [referring to Muslims] and died a disbeliever, they are rightful owners of the Fire and they will abide therein.
Surah Al Baqarah 2:217 does refer to apostasy. But the punishment is by Allah, not by any other human being.
However, some religious preachers may want to bring in the Hadith as another added way to justify their interpretation. But Hadith are guide books to assist Muslims and provide guidance to help explain the Quran; not to usurp the authority of the Quran or to add words to the Quran; for the Quran is complete, the Prophet said.
Mave: "This is the problem with Muslims themselves. They take part of the Quran, a verse, and try to connect it to anything that they wish to fit."
U got it! Coupled to this an authoritarian("u may not critique!") approach, whaddya get? U know, I know, an impossible worldview and expectation, to say the least. Can hide behind "sensitivities, ah?
"Freedom of religion? Are you not free? Nobody is forcing anybody."
Oh, really?
Mave,
I'm amazed at how much you understand Islam that even Muslims failed to understand. I am totally in aggreement about your understanding of the above except the bottom part regarding Hadiths but I decline to engage in polemics here..
" A: Who said the child is not Muslim? According to Islam, all children are born with fitrah, meaning a natural inclination towards Islam. "
..This is not a slip by the learned Doc; he meant it in general term; NOT administratively. Muslims are taught that Islam is in-line with Fitrah (natural tendency / law); hence all newborns; untainted by any teachings are Muslims generally until they are taught other beliefs by their parents.
Gukita,
I love Islam and with the guidance from Syed Naquip and Al Gazzali together with the Quran, I will make myself a better person by seeking the wisdom expounded.
And I agree with you and Dr Syed Ali that all children are born with a natural inclination towards Allah, and that's exactly what the Quran said.
Post a Comment