Article 11 Movement is About Secular Liberalism, Period

Article 3 of Malaysia's Constitution is clearer than day, Islam is the religion of the Federation. It clearly states that Islam has a special status in this country and therefore it cannot be accorded the same treatment as other religion in Malaysia. At the same time, other religion are allowed to be practiced and believed in by their respective followers without the state interference.

Suddenly out of nowhere, came a group who calls themselves Article 11. They claim they want to set things straight in Malaysia and ensure that everything, religous wise, that occurs in Malaysia must adhere to the Article 11 of the Constitution.

Some of the members of this group considers themselves to be Muslims, yet they practice some of the things that Shariah prohibits them from doing like drinking alcohol, committing zina and many more. I don't want to name names yet, but if I am forced to I will.

Yet, can we really trust the Article 11 group? Are their interpretation of Article 11 valid? Can their interpretation of Article 11 be allowed to roam the free earth of Malaysia?

They argue that since Article 11 states that every Malaysians are accorded freedom of religion, therefore all Shariah enacments we have today are null and void. Basically, Islamic laws cannot be enforced upon the Muslims as, in their view, it contradicts Article 11 of the Constitution.

The Article 11 people have forgotten that ISlamic shariah laws have been the law of this land preceeding the country's constitution. Article 4 of the Constitution states that the COnstitution is Supreme and that any laws passed after Merdeka which is contradictory to the Constitution is nulled.

It doesn't say anything about laws enacted BEFORE merdeka. Therefore, it is safe to take that laws before Merdeka are not subject to Article 4 of the Constitution as the "contradictory" clause only applies to laws enacted after Merdeka.

Most Shariah laws enactments are passed LONG before Merdeka such as the one in Selangor, Perak, Kelantan, Perlis etc. Therefore, how could the Article 11 group claim their interpretation of the Article 11 be valid? Clearly Article 4 of the Constitution recognizes the supremacy of the various Islamic laws that had existed before Merdeka.

What about the fact that Islam is the RELIGION OF THE FEDERATION. Hamid CAJ (as he then was) in Kamariah bte Ali v Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan, Malaysia opined that in allowing Article 11 to be construed so liberally would entail making invalid entire bodies of Islamic law; e.g. Zakat laws, marriage laws, et cetera. (In short, all Islamic laws would be rendered null and void.)

By invalidating Islamic laws, wouldn't that constitute an insult to the "religion of the Federation" and by extension, an insult to the Federation itself? You insult the religion of the Federation, you're insulting the Federation itself.

What about the fact there exists Article 121 1A of the Constitution that guarantees supremacy of the Shariah courts? ANd the countless preceedence dating back to Merdeka where jurisdiction of the Shariah courts are almost always conceeded by Civil court judges? Why didn't the Article 11 group take into consideration these acts?

The truth of the matter is that Article 11 is nothing but a bunch of western lackeys trying to impose Secular Liberalism upon the Muslims in this country. They know what they stand for is HIGHLY unpopular. THey know 99% of Muslims in this country loathes, despise, hates, look down and reject their actions.

So, they have to find a way to insert their disgusting Liberal Secularism ideology and they decided to use the High Courts of Malaysia.

In truth, the Article 11 group's interpretation of the Article 11 of the constitution represents the recolonization of the West upon the Muslim population of Malaysia. It is trying to destroy Islamic institution and especially Shariah. It is trying to project Islam as a mere belief meant for private domain only.

It's classic ideological nonsense taken lot,stock and barrel from their liberal "buddies" in the West. Do they know that the Liberal policies have been exposed one after another to have been a miserable failure. All of liberal policies have been nothing but a human disaster and a failed experiment.

For instance, feminism has done nothing but promotes lesbianism. More and more western women are rejecting Feminism. More and more Western women are opting to be stay home mothers.

I think the ultimate nonsensical move by the feminists is when they started to sue launderates in the US for charging differently between men and women's clothing. I saw an episode of 60 minutes where the nonsense of feminism was exposed.

In short, from an Islamic perspective, the Muslims in Article 11 movements and their supporters are what Allah SWT describe as infidels, as enemies of Allah, as those who are trying to extinguish the light of Allah SWT.

But heed the assurance of Allah SWT in the Quran:

"61:8. Their intention is to extinguish Allah.s Light (by blowing) with their mouths: But Allah will complete (the revelation of) His Light, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it)"


I dare not call them Muslims now except maybe some of them are deceived into supporting the movement or they are genuinely ignorant.

As such, there is a group called PEMBELA who are fighting the efforts of HAris Ibrahim, Malik Imtiaz and all in trying to get judgements that will impose secular liberalism upon Muslims in this country.

THey are all imbeciles, decoits, a waste of the air they're breathing, taking up precious space on God's green earth. Their existance is unwanted and therefore unwarranted.

They are truly enemies of Islam.

And here is the rest of it. Read more!

Hadeeth on Flies

Assalamualaikum to Muslims only, The Anti Hadith species have rejected the following hadeeth with reason that the hadeeth is ILLOGICAL. My task in this posting is to answer such accusation based upon an article written by Dr. Amin Ridha of the Surgical Department of the Medical Department in University of Alexendria of Egypt. The
article was published in 1977 in a magazine called AT TAUHID. So the Anti Hadeeth THEORISTS is a couple of decades late for the explanation. The hadith is as follows:
"When a fly falls into your cup, then we are to dip the fly into the cup since one of it's wings contains a disease while the other wing contains the antidote" (Bukhari)

The Lie: This hadith is illogical as this goes against any LOGIC and COMMON SENSE. Besides,everybody knows that flies only carry disease and the notion that flies carry antidote as well is a hoax. Bukhari is really lying to us.1
The Truth:1) In fact, this hadith contains a SCIENTIFIC PHENOMENON which was never discovered until after 1200 years this hadeeth was uttered by the Prophet SAW. For 1200 years no scientists has ever discovered DISEASES that is caused by FLIES. It is only in the last two centuries that scientist were able to discover that flies carries with them diseases. So,this hadeeth is CERTAINLY TRUE as such scientific phenomenon was UTTERED by the Prophet 1200 years before it was discovered

2) The idea that FLIES carry DISEASE only is also a hoax since ANTIDOTES has been
discovered to have been extracted from flies. This is proven by the PHDdisertation presented by an intern under me by the name of Dr. Abdul Futuh Mustafa which was presented to the University of Alexandria a few years ago. It has been discovered that flies carry with them ANTIDOTES that can cure bone fractures and cuts. This is due to the fact that flies carries with them the virus BACTERIOFAG which can kill germs at the same time that the flies carry. That is why flies are now being rared for the purpose of extracting antidotes.

3) WE all know that GERMS and VIRUS are now used to CURE diseases.
HEnce,the discovery of ANTIBIOTICS. So what is so strange about FLIES carrying germs and viruses when we ourselves use virus and germs for medical purposes.

4) Those who claim that this hadith is hoax base their argument solely on LOGIC and COMMON SENSE and none of them could come up with a scientific study, a dissertation or anything of the sort to REFUTE this hadeeth. Yet they can claim that others are lying.

5) The hadith DOES NOT forbid Doctors and Medical officers from destroying all the flies that exist in a community. So the belief that FLIES should not be killed is an
assumption only and not stated by the Hadeeth.

6) There are SO many SCIENTIFIC phenomenon that man has yet to discover.
Just because they have not been discovered yet does not make them false.

7) ALways remember that the hadeeth was uttered to a people who are ILLITERATE and UNEDUCATED. So it's kindda difficult for them to understand the hadeeth should the Prophet SAW had used modern medical terms. But many of those who doubt this hadeeth are STUPID enough not to know this.

There are other INSULTS that the good doctor has made, in a nice manner of course, to those who doubt this hadeeth. As for the people of SIGNS magazine and many in ROPE or TAATRASUL, their doubt in this hadeeth and OTHER hadeeths is based solely on IGNORANCE, ARROGANCE and EXTREME STUPIDITY. The people of SIGNS magazine are nothing but a bunch of clowns and they come up with RUBBISH in their magazine expecting people to swallow everything that they spit out.

That's what it is.... a bunch of spits. If the hadeeth on FLIES can be supported by scientific facts, then you can bet the hadeeth on camel urine and many other hadeeth of which you UNSCIENTIFIC mind thought to be ILLOGICAL and IRRATIONAL can contian
scientific proof.

May Allah SWT render His blessings on the good doctor Amin Redha and also to the great Imam, Imam Al Bukhari rhm. May Allah bless Imam Syafiee, Ahmad, Abu Hanifah, Malik, Imam Muslim, Tirmizi, Abu Dawud, An Nasai, Ibnu Majjah, Ad Dairimi and the rest. May Allah show those who doubt the hadeeth the RIGHT path and stop followingthe rubbish made by the Anti Hadeeth Read more!

Haris Ibrahim and his Band of Misfits Committed to Destroy Islam in Malaysia

The same straegy is adopted by HAris Ibrahim and his band of misfits. The worse is that Haris claims to be a Muslim, just like Malik Imtiaz.

Muslims in this country OPENLY rejects what Haris and his band of misfits is trying to do. Even Lina Joy's mother came out in public asking the public's help to bring her daughter back to Islam. That is the measure of unpopularity of Haris Ibrahim's agenda.


Dear Haris Ibrahim,

I'm sorry to say this, but what you and group is trying to do is unscrupolous.

Your interpretation of Article 11 is hardly objective and within the context of the Constitution.

The interpretation is based on Secular Liberalism meant to destroy the Islamic Institution of this land, and thus destroying Islam.

Your interpretation of Article 11 is meant to relegate Islam to a mere faith based system limited to within the private domains.

CLEARLY this is an insult to the Quran, to Islam and to Muslims around the world.

Your attempt to use the courts mimics your mentors in the United States where Anti Christians laws like abortion and pornography are pushed down the populations throat through Supreme Court Rulings.

They know that these laws can never see the light of day is it is pushed democratically.

Let me cite examples such as below:

a.U.S. Supreme Court’s Everson decision in 1947 which imposed an unconstitutional “Wall of Separation” between Church and State

b. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Griswold in 1965 (which found a new constituitional “right to privacy” for contraception) was the next big judicial construct. This helped the sexual revolution

c.Roe vs Wade which legalize abortion that makes promiscous sex easier and more accessible within the American Christian electorate.

d. Lawrence decision by the US Supreme Court which allows homosexual sodomy

e. THe recent gay marriage decision allowed by the California Supreme court is another example.

f. Supreme Court's decision on pornography.

You see, no politician in America would dare to champion these laws as the Christian electore will reject them outright without question.

The liberals then took the back way and used the courts to imposed laws alien to the American Christian soceity. What happened is that these laws in time demolish Christian values in America and wipe out Christianity's role in the public life.

In short, the liberals used the courts to destroy Christianity in America.

The same straegy is adopted by HAris Ibrahim and his band of misfits. The worse is that Haris claims to be a Muslim, just like Malik Imtiaz.

Muslims in this country OPENLY rejects what Haris and his band of misfits is trying to do. Even Lina Joy's mother came out in public asking the public's help to bring her daughter back to Islam. That is the measure of unpopularity of Haris Ibrahim's agenda.

Yet they openly work towards destroying Islam in this country.

I will never cease to expose your evil scheme Haris Ibrahim. Heed the assurance from Allah AlMighty in the Quran

"61:8. Their intention is to extinguish Allah.s Light (by blowing) with their mouths: But Allah will complete (the revelation of) His Light, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it)"

You will never succeed Haris, Allah will never permit it.
Read more!

The Lina Joy Case -- An 'Easy' Version

Beware Muslims, had they won the Lina Joy case, Islam will cease to exists as we know it. I wrote this article a while ago, to answer a certain request made by a representative from The Brunei Times. Unfortunately, my article succeeded not in getting through the editor's filter. But instead of scrapping it, I'm posting it here, so that anyone interested in the facts of the case may access an abridged version of it. And most importantly, you would be able to understand what grave implications the case would have had in store for the rest of us Muslims had it been decided in Lina Joy's favour. (The implications of the case also happen to be something few people are aware of.)


I used very simple English and tried my best not to use any legal terms, so this should be a very accessible article. If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask, and I'll try my best to answer them. (I have direct access to the PPI lawyers, so if you have any questions of legal nature that I am unable to answer myself I will immediately forward it to them.)


====================================


I think it better to grab than lose your attention, hence I will explain using layman's terms and refrain from bombarding you with legalese while I go about explaining the Lina Joy case.



Lina Joy, born 'Azlina Jailani', claimed to have embraced Christianity at the age of 26.


Over the years she has expressed her desire to enter into a legal marriage and have a child. However, she could not do this for the laws of Malaysia forbid inter-religious marriages.To this effect she then sought legal recognition of her faith from the National Registration Department (NRD), by applying for the removal of the word 'Islam' from her identity card. The NRD, thinking itself unfit to take religious affairs into its hands (being only an administrative body), insisted that she first produce a declaration from the Syariah court that acknowledged her renunciation of Islam, and went on to reject her application when she could not do so.


Lina refused to visit the Syariah court. She also claimed that it had become unfit to hear her matter, by virtue of her having left the Islamic faith. Thus began the legal battle that would span nearly a decade.


Lina Joy's claims were founded upon two grounds:



* 1) Whether the NRD had acted properly in rejecting her application, and
* 2) Her insistence that the provisions of Article 11 of the Constitution gave her the complete freedom to profess any religion of her choosing.


The respondents (the Majlis Agama Islam, the Government of Malaysia, and the NRD) based their claims upon these grounds:

* 1) Article 160 of the Constitution, which states that a Malay must be of none other than the Islamic faith - i.e. He or she must be Muslim, and
* 2) As the issue of apostasy falls under the category of Islamic matters and doctrine, the only means of recourse, as provided for by Article 121 (1A) of the Constitution, would be available to her only through the Syariah court.

The High Court dismissed Lina Joy's claims on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction to hear her matter. She appealed to the Court of Appeal, on the grounds of administrative law, but did not succeed there. She then appealed to the Federal Court.



The Federal Court's decision was handed down on the 30th of May 2007, with the majority judgment ruling in favour of dismissing Lina Joy's appeal. (One judge dissented.) In essence, the majority judgement came to these conclusions:


* 1) For a Muslim, his religious rights and duties prior to his conversion remains unchanged until he gets a declaration from the Syariah Court saying that he is no longer a Muslim.
* 2) Article 11 (1) does not give rise to absolute freedom of religion.
* 3) The right to profess and practice a religion is subject to the principles and practice of that religion.



Mention must also be made of the two languages employed to deliver the decision -- Bahasa Malaysia (by the Chief Justice) and English (Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak). (This has resulted in the dissenting judgment enjoying more immediate coverage than the former. )


-----------


The multi-religious composition of Malaysia explains why there has been so much interest from the public since the very beginning.


For brevity's sake, perspective on this case could be said as coming from two camps: In the first, the Muslims, who feel enraged that Lina Joy has attempted to circumvent the jurisdiction of the Syariah court and hold that it amounts to an act of condescension towards the current dual-legal system in practice. In the second, the non-Muslims
and a small group of Malays (whose members fancy themselves 'liberal' Muslims), who endeavour to support Lina Joy's cause for it would champion issues such as human rights and fundamental liberties, which are dear to them.


I certainly beg to differ with the opinions of some who claim that at the heart of the Lina Joy case lies a dispute on religious freedom. I am inclined to offer this correction to them: that the case of Lina Joy has all along been concerned with the question as to which court has jurisdiction to try cases of apostasy involving Muslims, and that the issue of freedom of religion was auxiliary to this.


I must bring to light the fact that Lina Joy is not restricted from leaving the religion if she wishes for that. The decision affirms this contention of mine and makes lucid the fact that she needs to apply to visit the Syariah court to obtain a formal declaration to that effect, subject of course to the limits of jurisprudence.


Why then have some groups stretched the truth to fit their claims that the Lina Joy case amounts to obstructing altogether their right to freedom of religion? There has been much ado about this, especially on the Internet. (That's not taking into account their other interesting claims; for example, that the Lina Joy case has been decided unfairly
and has thus caused devastating implications to be wrought upon the citizens of this country.)


Unbeknownst to the masses, even ghastlier implications would have come to manifest had Lina Joy's appeal succeeded. I beg you to consider these, for instance:



* 1) The nullification of a vast array of laws - Abdul Hamid CAJ (as he then was) in Kamariah bte Ali v Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan, Malaysia opined that in allowing Article 11 to be construed so liberally would entail making invalid entire bodies of Islamic law; e.g. Zakat laws, marriage laws, et cetera. (In short, all Islamic laws would be rendered null and void.)

* 2) The coming to existence of a constitutional paradox - Article 160 of the Constitution states that a Malay must be a Muslim; thus, if a Malay person declares himself a non-Muslim, what race would he (legally) belong to then? As he cannot satisfy the constitutional criteria of a Malay, he would lose not only his Malay status but his Bumiputra privileges as well.

* 3) The diminution of the powers of the Syariah court - Not only would our Islamic court would be deprived of its right to adjudicate on matters of apostasy involving Muslims, said right would then be conferred to the civil court, whose judicial members are comprised of Muslims and non-Muslims trained in the intricacies of civil laws but not Islamic laws.

* 4) Of inheritance rights - Seeing as to the fact that Muslims and non-Muslims are governed by different inheritance laws, and the fact that non-Muslims cannot inherit from Muslims, one can easily imagine then the gory court battles that would emerge from disputes on inheritance.

* 5) The impossibility of religious enforcement - Consider perhaps, a man eating eating in public in the fasting month of Ramadhan who, when arrested by religious officers, professes to having left the Islamic faith. The religious officers would be unable to perform their duties if so.


One need not look more than twice at the above list to understand that it is the Muslims, comprising roughly 60% of the country's population, who would be adversely affected the most. (Article written by Mr Wan Zafran)

Read also:

• Haris Ibrahim and his Band of Misfits Committed to Destroy Islam.

Read more!

Official Stand On Position of Ahmadiyya/Qadyani

This is the position on Ahmadiyya/Qadyanni issued by scholars in Indonesia way back in 1935, when Qadyani was about to enter Indonesia. I have produced it in it's original language and i'd like to thank Ibnu Hasyim blogspot for taking the time to copy it down in your website.

Bagaimanakah pendapat dan putusan ahli-ahli Agama Islam terhadap Mirza Gulam Ahmad dan pengikut-pengikutnya?


KAOEM MOESLIMIN DAN MOESLIMAT SELOEROEHNJA.
Oentoek mendjelaskan dan menjatakan dengan seterang-terangnya tentang kepertjajaan dan i’tikad partai Ahmadiyah Al-Qadiany menoeroet poetoesan


‘Oelama-oelama Islam yang bersendikan Al-Quranoelkarim dan Al-Hadits beserta Idjma’ Oelama, teroetama oelama-oelama di Sumatera Timoer, maka oleh Komite Pembanteras i’tikad Ahmadiyah Al-Qadiany jang didirikan pada tanggal 10 Nopember di Medan telah mengemoekakan pertanjaan pada seloeroehnya oelama-oelama Islam terseboet dari keadaan i’tikad mereka itoe.


PENDAPATAN DAN KEPOETOESAN
Menoeroet penjelidikan dan pemeriksaan ahli-ahli Agama Islam maka njata dan teranglah menoeroet dalil-dalil (boekti-boekti) bahwa:


1. Mirza Gulam Ahmad Al-Qadiany jang mengaku dan mendakwakan dirinja Nabi (Rasul) dikemoedian Nabi Muhammad s.a.w. adalah pengakoean ini menjebabkan akan ianya murtad (kafir).

2. Demikian djuga pengikoet-pengikoetnja jang mereka itu mengakoei dan mempertjajai bahwa Mirza Gulam Ahmad Al-Gadiany berpangkat Nabi dan Rasoel dikemoedian Nabi Moehammad s.a.w maka dengan kepertjajaan ini mereka menjadi kafir.


KESIMPOELANNJA:
MIRZA GULAM AHMAD AL-QADIANY KAFIR (MOERTAD). PENGIKOET-PENGIKOETNJA DJUGA KAFIR (MOERTAD) BERLINDUNGLAH KITA DARI KEADAAN INI.


Di sinilah dinjatakan nama-nama oelama-oelama Islam jang telah mengkafirkan akan mereka itu;


1. J.M.T.Fachruddin Ketua Madjlis Syar’iy Kerajaan Serdang di Perbaungan.
2. Kadhi Perbaungan.
3. Sjech Al-Hadji Zainuddin bekas Mufti Kerajaan Serdang di Perbaungan.
4. Sjech Al-Hadji Mhd. Yunus Guru Besar Maktab Al-Islamiyah, Medan.
5. Sjech Al-Hadji Mhd. Ziadah bekas Guru Besar Madrasah Al-Maslurah Tandjung Pura, Langkat.
6. Sjech Abdullah Afifuddin Guru Besar Madrasah Al-Maslurah Tandjung Pura, Langkat.
7. Abd. Rahim Abdullah Guru Madrasah, Al-Maslurah Tandjung Pura, Langkat.
8. Al-Hadji Mhd. Nur Abd. Karim Kadhi Tandjung Pura, Langkat.
9. Al-Hadji Dja’far bekas Guru Besar Al-Islamiyah Medan Deli.
10. Madjlis Al-Fatwa Al-Djam. Washliyah Medan Deli.
11. Al-Hadji Abd. Madjid Abdullah Guru Agama Medan Deli.
12. Al-Hadji Abd. Karim Guru Agama Bindjai.
13. Al-Ustaz Al-Hadji Abd. Halim Hasan Guru Besar Madrasah Al-Ariyah Bindjai.
14. Abd. Rahim Hitamy Guru Madrasah Arabiyah Bindjai.
15. Zainal Arifin Abas Guru Madrasah Arabiyah Bindjai.
16. Al-Hadji Abd. Wahab Guru Agama Bandar Sinembah Bindjai.
17. Al-Hadji Mhd. Nur Khadi Bindjai
18. Al-Haji Mahmud Ismail Lubis Kadhi Sei. Kerah Medan.
19. Al-Hadji Islas Kadhi Suka Piring Medan.
20. Al-Hadji Zainal Abidin Kadhi Pematang Siantar, dan 33 oelama lainnya.


KAOEM MOESLIMIN DAN MOESLIMAT SELOEROEHNJA


Maka menilik keadaan ini terang dan njatalah:


1. Mirza Gulam Ahmad dan pengikoet-pengikoetnja kafir (keluar dari agama Islam).


2. Pengakoean (Asjsjahadah) mereka kepada Allah, yaitu dengan perkataan: “Asjhadu Alla Ilaaha Illalloh” binasa dan tiada diterima selama mereka tetap ber’itkad sebagai tersebut.


3. Pengakoean (Asjsjahadah) mereka kepada Nabi Muhammad s.a.w. dengan perkataan “Asjhaduanna Muhammadarrasuululloh”, djuga tidak makbul (sia-sia) selama mereka tetap beri’tikad sebagai tersebut.


4. Pergaulan dan perhubungan serta persaudaraan setjara Islam telah poetoeslah di antara umat Islam dengan mereka itu :


(i). Dua kalimah Asjsjahadah yaitu “Asjhadu Alla Illallooh wa asjhaduanna Muhammadarrasuullullooh” jang mereka otjapkan dan mereka tuliskan di papan-papan mereka jang tergantung di muka-muka rumah mereka itu, tidak lain melainkan sebagai umpan atau topeng untuk menjesatkan umat Islam terutama umat Islam jang kurang pengetahuannja.


(ii) Da’wah atau pengakuan mereka bahwa mereka itu orang Islam pengikut Nabi Muhammad s.a.w. dan pengikut Kitabullah Al-Quranul Karim, tidak benar dan kosong semata-mata. Hal ini tidak lain melainkan perkakas untuk penjesatkan umat Islam soepaja terdjerumus pada djaring mereka.


(iii) Segala perkataan-perkataan jang manis-manis baik jang diutjapkan dengan mulut mereka sendiri ataupun jang tertulis di dalam majalah-majalah dan soerat sebaran (maklumat) jang sengadja mereka terbitkan demikian djuga jang mereka masukkan di dalam surat-surat chabar jang dari kalimat-kalimatnja ada terbajang bahwa partai mereka ada tunduk di bawah pandji-pandji Islam dan pengikut Nabi Muhammad s.a.w. adalah doesta dan tipoean semata-mata.


KAOEM MOESLIMIN DAN MOESLIMAT SELOEROEHNJA
Sebagai telah njata dan terang bahwa Mirza Gulam Ahmad Al-Qadiany dan pengikoetnja adalah dengan sebab i’tikad mereka telah menjadi murtad (kafir). Oleh sebab itu mka segala perhoeboengan dan pertalian yang tiada diharoeskan pada Sjara’ antara oemat Islam dengan lain-lain Islam, maka tiada diharoeskan djuga dengan mereka itu. Soepaja umat Islam seluruhnja dapat mengetahui di sini diterangkan hal-hal yang terbesar misalnya.


1. Kalaoe mereka mati tidak harus (haram) disembahjangkan dan dikoeboerkan di tanah perkuburan (tanah wakaf orang Islam).

2. Perkawinan (nikah) mereka tidak sah dan tidak halal dengan orang Islam.
3. Sembelihan mereka tidak halal dimakan orang Islam.

4. Tidak harus dibebaskan mereka beribadat di Mesjid-mesjid dan langgar-langgar serta surau-surau wakaf orang Islam.

5. Kitab Al-Quran an Al-Hadis serta kitab-kitab Agama kepoenjaan orang Islam tidak haroes diserahkan ketangan mereka.

6. Oemat Islam tidak diharoeskan memberi salam kepada mereka.

7. Antara oemat Islam dengan mereka tidak poesaka mempoesakai.

8. Dan lain-lain. }
Read more!

Haris’es Verses Don’t Negate Death Penalty for Apostates

Haris has provided a rebutal to my article entitled Haris Ibrahim Probably Will Have to Renounce Prophet Musa AS. His rebuttal is entitled Judge ye the tree by its fruit.

Haris says: I can almost hear Rahman screaming that we must give effect to a literal reading of Surah 2 verse 54.
Well, would Rahman also then give effect to a literal reading of the following, please?
‘Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.’ - Surah 2 verse 256
MY REPLY: In only says there is no compulsion to force others converting into Islam. Have nothing to do with death penalty to apostates. Sorry Harris.

Haris quotes:‘If it had been thy Lord’s will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe?’ - Surah 10 verse 99

MY REPLY:Has nothing to do with apostasy at all. I do not see it at all with regards to Apostasy.

Haris quotes:"‘Do not make excuses; you have denied indeed after you had believed; if We pardon a party of you, We will chastise (another) party because they are guilty. The hypocritical men and the hypocritical women are all alike; they enjoin evil and forbid good and withhold their hands; they have forsaken Allah, so He has forsaken them; surely the hypocrites are the transgressors. Allah has promised the hypocritical men and the hypocritical women and the unbelievers the fire of hell to abide therein; it is enough for them; and Allah has cursed them and they shall have lasting punishment.’ -Surah 9 verses 66-68.

MY REPLY:The verse speaks about the Hypocrites, which are Muslims on the outside but kufr on the inside. In other words, hypocrites are those who do not express their kufr feeling to Allah. They project an image of being a Muslim but in their hearts they reject Islam.
How then can they be punished for crime of apostasy when they do not express their riddah?
If they expose their true beliefs then they will be subjected to the laws of apostasy. If they don’t then there is no evidence, is there?

Haris says: Also, could Rahman reconcile his obsession with killing the apostates against the following command of God?
‘Tell those who believe to forgive those who hope not for the days of Allah; in order that He may requite folk what they used to earn.’ - Surah 45 verse 14

MY REPLY: I struggle to find what this verse has anything to do with apostasy? The term “hope not for the days of Allah” could mean Muslims who are not prepared for the Day of Judgement.

Haris says: Finally, perhaps Rahman would care to share with us why, when so many verses heavily point to God dealing with apostates to the exclusion of all others, he would choose to read one verse as an imperative to kill?

MY REPLY: First of all, none of the verses Haris quoted “heavily point to God dealing with apostates”. It is only Haris’s interpretation of the verses. Nothing more.
Second, it is a Sunnah shown by the Prophet SAW and Sunnah is part of God’s revelations as stated in 62:02 and many more. And not to mention, Saidina Musa does it too as reported in 02:54.

In conclusion, there are no verses in the Quran that supports Haris’s case at all. Haris will be struggling to find his justification from the Quran’s perspective.

Read more!

Problems With Anti Hadeeth Methods When Interpreting The Quran

The Anti Hadeeth have a deep believe that the Quran must only be interpreted by the Quran. Any other external information must never be applied to the Quran as it is not from God.

The trouble with this method is that it will translate into the Quran having a lot of contradictions.

For example:
1) In 5:69 "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi'uuna wan-Nasaaraa man 'aamana bilaahi wal-Yawmil-'Aakhiri wa 'amila saali-hanfalaa khaw-fun 'alay-him wa laa hum yah-zanuun."
You notice that the word was written Saabi'uuna in 5:69 and was written Saabi'iina in 2:62 and 22:17. In the last two verses the word was declined correctly because the word inna in the beginning of the sentence causes a form of declension called "nasb" (as in cases of accusative or subjunctive) and the "yeh" is the "sign of nasb". But the word Saabi'uuna in 5:69 was given the 'uu, waw which is the sign of "raf'a" (as in cases of nominative or indicative).
Based on Anti Hadeeth methods, this will result in contradictions in the Quran
2) In 7:56 "The mercy of God is near."
"... inna rahmata Allahi qaribun min al-mohseneen."
The above verse is a nominal clause. In such a clause the predicate should match the subject (rahmata) of the nominal clause in gender. The word qaribun (meaning "near") is the predicate of rahmata Allahi ("mercy of Allah"), they should match each other in gender. But this is not the case in the Arabic text. Rahmata is feminine in Arabic and so the word qaribun (which is masculine) should instead be qaribah (its feminine form). This rule was correctly observed in other Qur'anic verses. For example, in 9:40 we read: "Kalemat ul-llah heya al-'ulya."Here both Kalemat and heya are feminine. To say instead: "Kalemat ul-llah howa al-'a'la" would never be correct. That would be just as wrong as saying: "... inna rahmata Allahi qaribun min ... "
Based on Anti Hadeeth methods, there’s a contradiction in the Quran


3) In 41:11 "Then He lifted Himself to heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth,'come willingly, or unwillingly!' They said, 'we come willingly.'"
"... faqal laha wa lel-Arad 'iteya taw'aan aw karha qalata atayna ta'e'een."
Heaven and earth in Arabic are feminine nouns, the verb said in "they said" is accordingly feminine and dual (qalata), but the adjective "willing" at the end of the verse is masculine and plural (ta'e'een), being at variance with the rule that the adjectives should match their nouns in number in gender, thus ta'e'een which is used for plural, should be ta'e'aat which is used for feminine dual.
Based on Anti Hadeeth methods, there’s a contradiction in the Quran
4) In 20:63 "They communed secretly saying, 'These two men are sorcerers'." (Arberry)
"Qaaluuu inna haazaani la-saahiraani ..."
The word saahiraan should be saahirayn. The word saahiraan was declined incorrectly because the word inna in the beginning of the nominal sentence causes a form of declension called "nasb" to the nominative and the "yeh" is the "sign of nasb". The entire Quran observes the singular, dual and plural rule?
Based on Anti Hadeeth methods, there are contradiction in the Quran as showed above.
As a reminder, the pathetic accusations above are taken from anti Islam websites (not to say that anti hadeeth themselves are not anti Islam). Answers have been provided adequately and I long to see how Anti hadeeth can rebut this effectively based on their methodology.
But, as an initial conclusion, suffice to say that anti hadeeth beliefs are useful to anti islam elements of the world as they will never be able to defend the Quran effectively. It will then result in the Quran being rejected and mocked beyond any recognition.
Read more!

Respond to Some Blogger's Comments on Al Hadeeth An Nabawy

Question 1:There are many scientific and logical errors and contradictions in the Book of Bukhari, as well as the other books. Some examples:a.The prophet according to Bukhari in one of the narration tells his companion Abu- Dharr Ghafari that the sun goes around the earth, in the apparent description that he gives (Hadith 421, pg. 283, vol. 4 of M.Muhsin Khan's translation of Sahih Bukhari). This erroneous view was very popular at the time Bukhari compiled his collection. However this is absurd, we know today that the earth rotates around the sun, proven by scientific evidence. The Koran not only corrected this erroneous notion but also gave an accurate description of a round earth centuries before scientists discovered it.

Answer: Isn’t it a scientific fact that the sun has it’s own orbit and revolves around the center of the universe? Anyways the wording of the hadeeth does not say outrightly that the “sun revolves around the earth”

Question 1b. According to Hadith no disease is contagious [Adwa]. This as we all know is inaccurate. What about the common cold and viruses like Ebola etc. [Hadith 649, page 435, volume7]

Answer: This is why it is important to understand Arabic before interpreting the hadeeth. When the Prophet SAW says “no disease is contagious” he was referring to a specific disease plaguing the people of Makkah at that time. He did not speak of it in general terms.But since he is speaking in Arabic, everyone understood it in it’s right context.

Question 1c:Books of Hadith contain many home-remedies, according to ideas prevalent at that time, which are scientifically absurd. The Hadith mentions there being a cure for every ailment in black cumin seed [Hadith 591, pg.400, vol 7]. This is evidently not true. Can it cure cancer or AIDS, not to mention even the common cold?

Answer: Please bear in mind that the list of diseases known to the people of Mekkah and Madinah at that time is NOT THE SAME as list of diseases known to us. The Hadeeth was meant for the consumption of the people of makkah and madinah of that time.All this was before we discovered antibiotics.

Question 1d:Hadith suggests that we drink "camel-urine" to recuperate after an illness [Hadith 590, pg.399, vol.7]. This is disgusting, naturally speaking. Urine is toxic stuff. The Koran places extreme importance on cleanliness and clean eating (tayyab).

Answer: If any it only exhibits the miracle of the Prophet Mohd SAW. The hadeeth DOES NOT suggest anyone to drink camel-urine to cure illness. The camel urine drinking incident only happens that one time.e.

Question 1e: The Hadith mentions that "fever" is from the "heat of hell" [Hadith 621,622, page 417, vol 7]. Atrocious!

Answer: That’s because it was a common saying at that time that when someone is having a high fever, he is having a “heat from hell”. It was just a local saying at that time. Nothing to be taken in literal.

Question 1f:The Hadith books insult the prophet by giving him a contradictory personality. In one instance it mentions that the prophet ate with a leper and in another it mentions that he refused to meet with a leper who had come to take allegiance at his hand and accept Islam. He told the man to leave and accepted his allegiance in absentia.

Answer: I have not seen this hadeeth yet. Can u quote me please.

Question 1g:The famous Hadith about the fly: "If a fly falls into the vessel of any of you, let him dip all of it (in the vessel) and then throw it away [and use the material in the vessel], for in one of its wings there is a disease and in the other there is a healing [Bukhari, Hadith 673, pg. 452, vol 7]Beware world, there is going to be an outbreak of typhoid and cholera if people take the above as "Hadith-truth", just like "gospel truth" made some people get castrated just because it reports Jesus saying, "....and there are some who make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of God." Beware these myths can harm you!

Answer: The fact that the fly is mentioned to carry disease shows that the hadeeth is extrodinary. Remember, it is only about 200 years ago that people discover that flies carry disease. Refer to this link entitled "Hadeeth on Flies" for further explanation.

Sheikh Yusuf Qardhawi in his famous book “Al fatawa al maasirah” has explained this hadeeth. He quoted a research from a Professor in University of Alexandria on extraction of antidote from flies. Please read his answer cause it’s very interestingh.

Question 2:Why muslims are divided? 2.1 Madzhab2.2 Syiah – Sunnah

Answer: Muslims are divided because they are also humans.

Question 3:Dear Ali Cordoba:Can you kindly clarify a point? Are the hadith what the prophet s.a.w actually said, or are those statements are what some people (like Muslim, Bukhari, etc) said the prophet was presumed to have uttered? Al hadeeth are reports of what the prophet actually said, done or agreed upon.I am of course excepting the hadith qudzi, that is, those referenced in the Quran.Incidentally the collections of Bukhari are widely viewed to be the most sahih "authentic," but the poor soul was not even born till about 200 years after the prophet's death.

Answer: The collection of Al Hadeeth is done since the time the Prophet was still alive. Refer to book from MM Azami. Al Imam Al Bukhari came up with the As Sahih to fit the requirement at that time.Further, is it true that in the preamble to his extensive collections, Bukhkari humbly declared that he may have omitted some valid hadiths and incldued some false ones?This may be true but it is not applicable to his book As Sahih. Al Bukhari has also other collections i.e. At Tarikh Al Kabeer, Al Adabul Mufrad and many more.

Question 4:I must give credit to this Rahman guy from celcom. He is a very smart. I'm not talking about his interpretation/understanding of the religion, but his cunning move of leading this whole polemic into linguistic issue.I find this very interesting, and can't wait what the other party has to say.

Answer: The Arabic language is the language of the Quran. It is said so in the Quran 10 times. If one where to try to interpret the Quran, one must be able to understand it in it’s original language. To interpret the Quran in it’s translated form is a sure way of introducing mistakes and misunderstanding of the true meanings of the quran.


Question 5:bananaeel wrote:Menurut sebuah hadith, (kononnya) Nabi Muhammad bersabda, "Umatku akan berpecah kepada 73 kumpulan dan kesemua kumpulan ini akan masuk neraka kecuali satu kumpulan".Hadith translation : "My community will be divided into 73 sects and each of them will end up in Hell save one".

Answer: Again another confusion caused by ignorance of the Arabic language. Arabs uses the word “seventy” to mean “numerous”.

Question 6:Various accusations from Rentap against Abu Hurairah, unsubstantiated, of course.All of the issues raised by Rentap are based on lies and hearsay, including the incident where Umar was allegedly to beat up Abu Hurairah.Refer to this url for more explanation http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/in_defense_of_abu_hurairah.htmSuffice to say that scholars who studies the classical texts in it’s original language have a completely good opinion of Abu Hurairah. Scholars such as:(a) Dr. Mustafa al-Siba'i (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria), in his thesis, al-Sunna wa Makanatuha fi l-Tashri' al-Islami, (Cairo: 1380/1961); (b) 'Abd al-Razzaq Hamza (the head of Dar al-Ahaadeeth in Makka and Imam of Masjid al-Haram),Zulumat Abi Raya amam Adwa' al-Sunna al-Muhammadiya, (Cairo: n.d.); and (c) the definitive response by 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Yahya al-Mu'allami al-Yamani (the Librarian of Masjid al-Haram), al-Anwar al-Kashifa lima fi Kitab Adwa' 'ala al-Sunna min al-Zallal wa l-Tadlil wa l-Mujazafa, (Cairo: 1378) - may Allah have mercy with them all.Wallahualam bissawab.
Read more!