A person by the name of “An Observer” commented on an article I posted entitled “Answer on MTODAY Article on Tudung from Quinary". An apparently, it is published in the anti Islam website, MalaysiaToday. Why I say he is not observant is because the writer thinks that the article is written by me. He says: “Dear Anti Anti Hadeeth, Firstly you are NOT a woman. You are lying. You are Abdul Rahman aka Cabearth aka Tulang Besi. You are the owner of the website ANTI ANTI HADEETH http://antiantihadeeth.blogspot.com/. I do not know why the people like you who claim to be Muslims like to tell so many lies. “ “I believe that you have outdone Imam Ghazali, Imam Syafie, Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Hambali, Imam Maliki, Imam Jabar al Karuti and all the other Imams and ulama because none of them has said that whether a woman covers her head or does not cover her head is her personal choice and 'does not affect our aqidah'.” My problem with this statement is that it is a lie. If one were to open Imam Syafiee’s book “Al Umm”, clearly he stated the “compulsion” of wearing “hijab” for women. In fact, all of the Al Imam Al Arbaah ( the four Imam) says states the same fact? It’s funny where u get this nonsense from? Then he went on rambling: “For your information, the ulama say that the hair on the head is considered part of the woman's aurat. And it is part of the aqidah for a woman to cover her aurat. Since her hair is aurat, then she must cover her hair. And since her hair grows on her head, she must therefore cover the head. Covering the aurat is definitely part of aqidah. How can you say that it does not affect our aqidah?” It’s clear that Observer don’t know the difference between Aqidah and Ibadah. The entire subject of Aurah is not an issue related to Aqidah(creed) but it reflect Observer’s level of knowledge of Islam. Third, Observer also says refered to an Orientalist from It’s either Particia is making a false claim or Observer is not very observant. But, it’s the trait of people like Observer and Raja Petra. Their main reference is Western, Christian and Jewish Orientalist. They rely upon these people blindly for their source in understanding Islam. The fact that people like Observer have no ability to understand Arabic confirms the fact that he doesn’t refer to scholars of Islam at all except through Western, Christian and Jewish Orientalists eyes. Little does people like Observer know, Orientalist contradicts each other. If Patricia Crone says that Prophet Mohd’s existence cannot be confirmed, another Orientalist name Nabia Abbott confirms the existence of Al Hadeeth and even linked directly to the Prophet. Nabia says: [quote] ... the traditions of Muhammad as transmitted by his Companions and their Successors were, as a rule, scrupulously scrutinised at each step of the transmission, and that the so called phenomenal growth of Tradition in the second and third centuries of Islam was not primarily growth of content, so far as the hadith of Muhammad and the hadith of the Companions are concerned, but represents largely the progressive increase in parallel and multiple chains of transmission.  N. Abbott, Studies In Arabic Literary Papyri, Volume II [Qur'anic Commentary & Tradition], 1967, [/quote] A reference to the article by Patricia Crone shows that she relies heavily on PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to support her work But, at the same time she didn’t study the “papyrus” or “manuscripts” plus various oral traditions that is abundance and great in numbers. It is probably because Patricia Crone is not trained enough to read and understand Classical Arabic and as such she is unable to appreciate the massive and abundance evidence Now Nabia Abbot chooses to study the abundance of evidence and she confirms the existence of Prophet Mohd SAW thus making Particia looking like an idiot. In addition, another orientalist, J Robson, wrote a book entitled “The Isnad of Muslim Tradition” actually proving the soundness of the Isnad system. (End of Part 1)
In truth, it is written by a blogger name Quinary. She wrote her response entitled “Raja Petra's The Great Tudung Debate - My Response”. But, because the observer is not so observant, he missed out this fact. I, in fact, mention the name Quinary in the title and at the bottom of the article.
Second point, the Observer says that :
“Dear Anti Anti Hadeeth,
Then he went on rambling:
(End of Part 1)