ANTI ANTI-HADEETH

How A Feminist Daugther Disown Her Mother for Destroying Her Life

2011-07-21T00:23:00.000-07:00

EDITOR's NOTE: Confessions of a feminist's daughter about how her mother destroyed her life by imposing the feminist ideology upon her.

Notice how Feminists encourage:

a. Promiscous sex

b. Neglect of parental responsibilities

c. Support the practice of abortion

d. Destroys the family institution

e. Neglect of children

f. Infanticide

g. Feminism is against human nature

How my mother's fanatical views tore us apart

By Rebecca Walker
Last updated at 1:18 PM on 23rd May 2008

Comments (0)
Add to My Stories
Share

She's revered as a trail-blazing feminist and author Alice Walker touched the lives of a generation of women. A champion of women's rights, she has always argued that motherhood is a form of servitude. But one woman didn't buy in to Alice's beliefs - her daughter, Rebecca, 38.
Here the writer describes what it was like to grow up as the daughter of a cultural icon, and why she feels so blessed to be the sort of woman 64-year-old Alice despises - a mother.
The other day I was vacuuming when my son came bounding into the room. 'Mummy, Mummy, let me help,' he cried. His little hands were grabbing me around the knees and his huge brown eyes were looking up at me. I was overwhelmed by a huge surge of happiness.

Maternal rift: Rebecca Walker, whose mother was the feminist author of The Color Purple - who thought motherhood a form of servitude, is now proud to be a mother herself

I love the way his head nestles in the crook of my neck. I love the way his face falls into a mask of eager concentration when I help him learn the alphabet. But most of all, I simply love hearing his little voice calling: 'Mummy, Mummy.'
It reminds me of just how blessed I am. The truth is that I very nearly missed out on becoming a mother - thanks to being brought up by a rabid feminist who thought motherhood was about the worst thing that could happen to a woman.
You see, my mum taught me that children enslave women. I grew up believing that children are millstones around your neck, and the idea that motherhood can make you blissfully happy is a complete fairytale.

Family love? A young Rebecca with her parents

In fact, having a child has been the most rewarding experience of my life. Far from 'enslaving' me, three-and-a-half-year-old Tenzin has opened my world. My only regret is that I discovered the joys of motherhood so late - I have been trying for a second child for two years, but so far with no luck.
I was raised to believe that women need men like a fish needs a bicycle. But I strongly feel children need two parents and the thought of raising Tenzin without my partner, Glen, 52, would be terrifying.
As the child of divorced parents, I know only too well the painful consequences of being brought up in those circumstances. Feminism has much to answer for denigrating men and encouraging women to seek independence whatever the cost to their families.
My mother's feminist principles coloured every aspect of my life. As a little girl, I wasn't even allowed to play with dolls or stuffed toys in case they brought out a maternal instinct. It was drummed into me that being a mother, raising children and running a home were a form of slavery. Having a career, travelling the world and being independent were what really mattered according to her.
I love my mother very much, but I haven't seen her or spoken to her since I became pregnant. She has never seen my son - her only grandchild. My crime? Daring to question her ideology.
Well, so be it. My mother may be revered by women around the world - goodness knows, many even have shrines to her. But I honestly believe it's time to puncture the myth and to reveal what life was really like to grow up as a child of the feminist revolution.
My parents met and fell in love in Mississippi during the civil rights movement. Dad [Mel Leventhal], was the brilliant lawyer son of a Jewish family who had fled the Holocaust. Mum was the impoverished eighth child of sharecroppers from Georgia. When they married in 1967, inter-racial weddings were still illegal in some states.
My early childhood was very happy although my parents were terribly busy, encouraging me to grow up fast. I was only one when I was sent off to nursery school. I'm told they even made me walk down the street to the school.

Alice Walker believed so strongly that children enslaved their mothers she disowned her own daughter

When I was eight, my parents divorced. From then on I was shuttled between two worlds - my father's very conservative, traditional, wealthy, white suburban community in New York, and my mother's avant garde multi-racial community in California. I spent two years with each parent - a bizarre way of doing things.
Ironically, my mother regards herself as a hugely maternal woman. Believing that women are suppressed, she has campaigned for their rights around the world and set up organisations to aid women abandoned in Africa - offering herself up as a mother figure.
But, while she has taken care of daughters all over the world and is hugely revered for her public work and service, my childhood tells a very different story. I came very low down in her priorities - after work, political integrity, self-fulfilment, friendships, spiritual life, fame and travel.
My mother would always do what she wanted - for example taking off to Greece for two months in the summer, leaving me with relatives when I was a teenager. Is that independent, or just plain selfish?
I was 16 when I found a now-famous poem she wrote comparing me to various calamities that struck and impeded the lives of other women writers. Virginia Woolf was mentally ill and the Brontes died prematurely. My mother had me - a 'delightful distraction', but a calamity nevertheless. I found that a huge shock and very upsetting.
According to the strident feminist ideology of the Seventies, women were sisters first, and my mother chose to see me as a sister rather than a daughter. From the age of 13, I spent days at a time alone while my mother retreated to her writing studio - some 100 miles away. I was left with money to buy my own meals and lived on a diet of fast food.
Sisters together
A neighbour, not much older than me, was deputised to look after me. I never complained. I saw it as my job to protect my mother and never distract her from her writing. It never crossed my mind to say that I needed some time and attention from her.
When I was beaten up at school - accused of being a snob because I had lighter skin than my black classmates - I always told my mother that everything was fine, that I had won the fight. I didn't want to worry her.
But the truth was I was very lonely and, with my mother's knowledge, started having sex at 13. I guess it was a relief for my mother as it meant I was less demanding. And she felt that being sexually active was empowering for me because it meant I was in control of my body.
Now I simply cannot understand how she could have been so permissive. I barely want my son to leave the house on a play-date, let alone start sleeping around while barely out of junior school.
A good mother is attentive, sets boundaries and makes the world safe for her child. But my mother did none of those things.
Although I was on the Pill - something I had arranged at 13, visiting the doctor with my best friend - I fell pregnant at 14. I organised an abortion myself. Now I shudder at the memory. I was only a little girl. I don't remember my mother being shocked or upset. She tried to be supportive, accompanying me with her boyfriend.
Although I believe that an abortion was the right decision for me then, the aftermath haunted me for decades. It ate away at my self-confidence and, until I had Tenzin, I was terrified that I'd never be able to have a baby because of what I had done to the child I had destroyed. For feminists to say that abortion carries no consequences is simply wrong.
As a child, I was terribly confused, because while I was being fed a strong feminist message, I actually yearned for a traditional mother. My father's second wife, Judy, was a loving, maternal homemaker with five children she doted on.
There was always food in the fridge and she did all the things my mother didn't, such as attending their school events, taking endless photos and telling her children at every opportunity how wonderful they were.

Alice Walker's iconic book was made in to a film in 1985, and starred Whoopi Goldberg and Margaret Avery (pictured)

My mother was the polar opposite. She never came to a single school event, she didn't buy me any clothes, she didn't even help me buy my first bra - a friend was paid to go shopping with me. If I needed help with homework I asked my boyfriend's mother.
Moving between the two homes was terrible. At my father's home I felt much more taken care of. But, if I told my mother that I'd had a good time with Judy, she'd look bereft - making me feel I was choosing this white, privileged woman above her. I was made to feel that I had to choose one set of ideals above the other.
When I hit my 20s and first felt a longing to be a mother, I was totally confused. I could feel my biological clock ticking, but I felt if I listened to it, I would be betraying my mother and all she had taught me.
I tried to push it to the back of my mind, but over the next ten years the longing became more intense, and when I met Glen, a teacher, at a seminar five years ago, I knew I had found the man I wanted to have a baby with. Gentle, kind and hugely supportive, he is, as I knew he would be, the most wonderful father.
Although I knew what my mother felt about babies, I still hoped that when I told her I was pregnant, she would be excited for me.
'Mum, I'm pregnant'
Instead, when I called her one morning in the spring of 2004, while I was at one of her homes housesitting, and told her my news and that I'd never been happier, she went very quiet. All she could say was that she was shocked. Then she asked if I could check on her garden. I put the phone down and sobbed - she had deliberately withheld her approval with the intention of hurting me. What loving mother would do that?
Worse was to follow. My mother took umbrage at an interview in which I'd mentioned that my parents didn't protect or look out for me. She sent me an e-mail, threatening to undermine my reputation as a writer. I couldn't believe she could be so hurtful - particularly when I was pregnant.
Devastated, I asked her to apologise and acknowledge how much she'd hurt me over the years with neglect, withholding affection and resenting me for things I had no control over - the fact that I am mixed-race, that I have a wealthy, white, professional father and that I was born at all.
But she wouldn't back down. Instead, she wrote me a letter saying that our relationship had been inconsequential for years and that she was no longer interested in being my mother. She even signed the letter with her first name, rather than 'Mom'.
That was a month before Tenzin's birth in December 2004, and I have had no contact with my mother since. She didn't even get in touch when he was rushed into the special care baby unit after he was born suffering breathing difficulties.
And I have since heard that my mother has cut me out of her will in favour of one of my cousins. I feel terribly sad - my mother is missing such a great opportunity to be close to her family. But I'm also relieved. Unlike most mothers, mine has never taken any pride in my achievements. She has always had a strange competitiveness that led her to undermine me at almost every turn.
When I got into Yale - a huge achievement - she asked why on earth I wanted to be educated at such a male bastion. Whenever I published anything, she wanted to write her version - trying to eclipse mine. When I wrote my memoir, Black, White And Jewish, my mother insisted on publishing her version. She finds it impossible to step out of the limelight, which is extremely ironic in light of her view that all women are sisters and should support one another.
It's been almost four years since I have had any contact with my mother, but it's for the best - not only for my self-protection but for my son's well-being. I've done all I can to be a loyal, loving daughter, but I can no longer have this poisonous relationship destroy my life.
I know many women are shocked by my views. They expect the daughter of Alice Walker to deliver a very different message. Yes, feminism has undoubtedly given women opportunities. It's helped open the doors for us at schools, universities and in the workplace. But what about the problems it's caused for my contemporaries?
What about the children?
The ease with which people can get divorced these days doesn't take into account the toll on children. That's all part of the unfinished business of feminism.
Then there is the issue of not having children. Even now, I meet women in their 30s who are ambivalent about having a family. They say things like: 'I'd like a child. If it happens, it happens.' I tell them: 'Go home and get on with it because your window of opportunity is very small.' As I know only too well.
Then I meet women in their 40s who are devastated because they spent two decades working on a PhD or becoming a partner in a law firm, and they missed out on having a family. Thanks to the feminist movement, they discounted their biological clocks. They've missed the opportunity and they're bereft.
Feminism has betrayed an entire generation of women into childlessness. It is devastating.
But far from taking responsibility for any of this, the leaders of the women's movement close ranks against anyone who dares to question them - as I have learned to my cost. I don't want to hurt my mother, but I cannot stay silent. I believe feminism is an experiment, and all experiments need to be assessed on their results. Then, when you see huge mistakes have been paid, you need to make alterations.
I hope that my mother and I will be reconciled one day. Tenzin deserves to have a grandmother. But I am just so relieved that my viewpoint is no longer so utterly coloured by my mother's.
I am my own woman and I have discovered what really matters - a happy family.

Dawn of the flexisexual: The new word for the women who refuse to play it straight

2010-11-28T05:43:00.000-08:00

AND THEY CALL MUSLIMS BARBARIC?????

Dawn of the flexisexual: The new word for the women who refuse to play it straight
By Louise EcclesLast updated at 7:13 PM on 27th November 2010
First there was that infamous on-stage kiss between Madonna and Britney Spears.

Then Katy Perry sang that she kissed a girl and she liked it.

Now a new word has been coined for the growing number of straight women who flirt with bisexuality... flexisexual.

Courting controversy: Britney and Madonna kiss
It refers to people who have a sexual preference but refuse to be bound by it.

And it seems heterosexual women in their 30s and 40s are leading the trend.

Angelina Jolie: Had a sexual relationship with Jenny Shimizu
Psychologist Dr Cecelia D’Felice said: ‘Women are often more open to these experiences when they reach their 40s and are more confident with their sexuality. If an opportunity presents itself they may think “why not”, particularly if they have come out of a long relationship.’

Hollywood actresses Angelina Jolie and Drew Barrymore, both 35, have been open about being attracted to women and having flings with them. Jolie, who is now with Brad Pitt, has admitted having a sexual relationship with actress Jenny Shimizu.

Twice-married Barrymore has been quoted as saying: ‘Being with a woman is like exploring your own body, but through someone else.’

Actress Lindsay Lohan, 24, is among younger flexisexuals who see it as ‘on trend’.
When she dated DJ Samantha Ronson she denied being a lesbian and said she was ‘maybe’ bisexual. She has since returned to seeing men, including rugby star Danny Cipriani.

Dr D’Felice admitted flexisexuality had become fashionable as a result of its recent celebrity endorsement, but said it had always existed. She added: ‘Women are more fluid about their sexuality than men and are more likely to be attracted to people rather than a certain gender.’

Sam Roddick, 39, founder of erotic boutique Coco de Mer, said: ‘It acknowledges the huge number of straight women who do not want to label themselves bisexual and yet may have kissed a girl or fancied their best friend.’

A third of 6,000 women surveyed by Coco de Mer said their favourite fantasy was to have sex with a woman.
Kissed A Girl: Katy Perry's hit song
Explore more:People: Samantha Ronson, Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Drew Barrymore, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Danny Cipriani

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333546/Flexisexual-The-new-word-women-refuse-play-straight.html#ixzz16aIY51YrHere And here is the rest of it.

CHALLENGE FOR PUBLIC DEBATE WITH RAJA PETRA KAMARUDDIN ON THE TOPIC OF ISLAMIC SHARIAH

2010-09-29T08:46:00.000-07:00

Raja Petra in his latest article decided not to answer my argument, instead creates a “fictitious” Tulang Besi and attacked that fictitious “Tulang Besi”.

I do not blame him for doing so because that is what we have come to know in the world of Psychiatry as “Defence Mechanism”. When under threat, defence mechanism will kick in automatically. It’s a knee jerk reaction and everybody knows that.

If Raja Petra was writing from his heart or from his mind, he would have chosen to at least address the argument I presented and NOT attack a fictitious TUlang Besi. He would have addressed these facts that I had presented in my earlier postings:

1.0 Shariah has been in practiced for 1400 years ago and continues to be in practice to the present day
2.0 Islamic Penal Code was removed forcibly by the Colonialists when Muslim lands were invaded by the Europeans i.e. English, French, Belgians, Dutch, Americans etc.
3.0 The Muslims themselves were not the ones removing the Islamic Penal Code from their societies or communities. They were forced to do so by their colonial masters
4.0 And another fact I did not add in my original posting is that Islamic Penal Code has made a comeback and more and more Muslims wants the Islamic Penal Code to be implemented.
5.0 The Susilawati case falls under QISAS and not HUDUD. Raja Petra clearly do not know where the case of Susilawati should be classified showing his deep ignorance of the Islamic Shariah he is criticizing
6.0 His usage of the history of Christianity to criticize the Islamic law is clearly a sign of abject ignorance of the Islamic Shariah. The Islamic Shariah DOES NOT FOLLOW the same historical as Christinanity. In fact, it is miles apart.

The arguments presented above were largely ignored by Raja Petra. Instead he went on a character assassination routine labeling me as this and that, which is all UNTRUE.
The truth is Raja Petra is TAKEN ABACK by the simplicity of the argument I presented. The fact I presented is simple and common knowledge to all that has a fully functional brain. It doesn’t take a person with PHd in Islamic history or law to acknowledge it.

Except, of course, Raja Petra.

So, in the interest of the TRUTH I hereby CHALLENGE RAJA PETRA to a PUBLIC DEBATE. I am willing to fly up to London just as long the debate is a reality.

I am also willing to debate Raja Petra on the issue of Al Hadeeth An Nabawi and it’s legality in the Islam. So let’s settle this issue like men, not like children.

My email is malaysiawaves@rocketmail.com. Send me an email RPK, if you think you are on the side of the truth. We can broadcast this debate over the internet and let the world see and hear. Let the world decide whether Tulang Besi is really what Raja Petra had accused him of or that Raja Petra is lying through his teeth.

Tulang Besi

Freedom to oppose as long as you agree with me

Tuesday, 28 September 2010 Super Admin
What some people in PAS can’t seem to understand is that PAS is a political party. And as a political party it has every right to propagate and promote its political ideology. And in the case of PAS it is Islamic politics. But PAS can’t deny Malaysians their rights as well. And this right is to reject the PAS brand of politics in favour of some other political ideology.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
I was wondering when Rahman Celcom a.k.a. Tulang Besi would crawl out of his hole in the ground. In case some of you are not aware, Rahman was the person who revealed that Ustaz Hadi Awang, Mustaffa Ali, Hassan Ali and a few other top PAS leaders were engaged in secret talks with Umno soon after the March 2008 general election.
People like Rahman and those of his ilk have only one view. And that is if you agree with everything they say, then you are learned (ulamak). If, however, you disagree with what they say, then you are ignorant (jahil).
Your status -- whether you are a learned or an ignorant person -- depends on whether you agree or disagree with what these people think and say. In my case, since I disagree with them, then I am an ignorant person.
It does not matter where I studied. It does not matter how long I studied. It does not matter from whom I studied. It does not matter how many books I may have read and who wrote those books. I am learned only if I agree with their opinion and am ignorant if I do not.
These people are of the view they have the right to propagate, propose, promote, etc., their brand of politics. In this case it happens to be Islamic politics. You and I, however, do not have the right to reject their brand of politics. You must agree with them and not reject them or dispute what they say.
Oh, it’s not that they do not believe in freedom of speech, expression, opinion, association, or whatever. They do. But this freedom is only allowed as long as you too share their views as to what is right and wrong and what is permitted and not permitted.
For example, if they oppose Ketuanan Melayu, and you too oppose Ketuanan Melayu, then they allow you the freedom to oppose Ketuanan Melayu. Your freedom extends to only those areas of ‘common interest’. But once you part company on certain issues then you forfeit your right to this freedom.
Another thing these people believe in is that they have a right to impose their opinion on you. They have a certain opinion and you must accept this opinion. You may not disagree with what they think. Malaysia may be a democracy. But democracy is only allowed as long as you do not disagree with their opinion.
Think what you want. Say what you want. Just make sure you think and say what they too think and say and not opposite to that.
This is the mentality of Rahman Celcom and those of his ilk. And the fact that they tolerate other religions -- although tolerate is something you do when it is a nuisance -- proves that they are very reasonable people.
**********************************************
J. Hussain wrote:
“In Islamic law, crimes are classified in three ways: hudud, qisas (and) Ta’azir...Hudud crimes are those specifically mentioned in the Koran as transgressing the limits which God himself has placed on people's behavior. The hudud crimes are: theft, highway robbery, drinking alcohol, unlawful sexual intercourse and false accusation of unchastity. Some jurists also include murder and apostasy (al-riddah) among the categories of hudud crimes.”
Schacht wrote that hudud is reserved for crimes against Allah for which there can be no mercy or judicial discretion.
Further, Al-Awwa adds “unlawful rebellion” to the list of hudud crimes.
Schacht sets out the specifics of huhud:
“The death penalty either by stoning (the more severe punishment for unlawful intercourse) or by crucifixion or with the sword (for highway robbery with homicide); cutting off hand and/or foot (for highway robbery without homicide and for theft....”
Schacht also confirms the rigidity of Islamic law; that hudud is meted out as:
“... a right or claim of Allah, therefore no pardon or amicable settlement is possible.”
However, in some cases, Muslim law allows a criminal defendant to pay off the victim (diyya) and thus, to escape punishment; an option obviously only available to the wealthy.
REFERENCES:
* Al-Awwa, Muhammad Salim, “The Basis of Islamic Penal Legislation”, published in The Islamic Criminal Justice System (Rome: Oceana Publications Inc., 1982), page 127
* Duhaime, Lloyd, Legal Definition of Ta’azir
* Hussain, J., Islamic Law and Society (Sydney: Federation Press, 1999), page 134
* Schacht, J., An Introduction to Islamic Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), page 175
*****************************************
Raja Petra went to town attacking the PAS Youth Chief for suggesting Hudud as an alternative. My initial response is : AT LEAST SOMEONE IS THINKING OF A SOLUTION TO THE WORSENING CRIME PROBLEM in Malaysia.
Instead of providing a sound alternative, RPK chose to redicule the PAS Youth Chief.
He went to cite the failure of Christian laws in Europe from the history of Christianity. The trouble with this argument is that the same cannot be said about Islamic laws or Hudud. The Islamic Penal Code has been in practiced for 1400 years and NO ONE complained about it's implementation.
The removal of Islamic Penal Code from the lives of Muslims are mostly the handiwork of Colonials like British, Russians, France, Belgium, Dutch etc when Muslim Lands were invaded by them.
In fact, in India, women were prevented from getting inheritence from their fathers because the Common Law of Britain forbids any inheritance to women, at that time, when British first invaded India. For a few hundred years before that women were getting inheritance without any hinderance because they were subjected to Shariah Laws.
So, there lies Raja Petra's main weakness in his argument: he cites examples from the history of CHRISTIANITY which DIFFERS greatly from the history of Islam and Islamic Penal Code.
As far as history has shown, Islamic Penal Code is practiced by Muslims for the last 1400 years and no one complained about it despite the coming and going of Muslim rulers throughout the ages.
So, i beg Raja Petra to come up with a better argument to negate the effectiveness of Islamic Penal Code.
Oh, and Raja Petra also made this argument:
If this is true then why quote the example of the murder of Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya? This woman was allegedly killed by Indian Hindus, not by Malay Muslims. And since Hudud applies only to Muslims then it does not matter whether Malaysia does or does not implement these Islamic laws. It would not have deterred these Indian Hindus from killing Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya because they would have been exempted from these laws anyway.
It so happens, the crime of murder falls under QISAS and not HUDUD. And trust me, anyone would agree to QISAS regardless of their religion.
As for me, if a Jewish gentleman name Noah Feldman who actually thinks that Islamic Penal Code is good and practical.
Funny, a guy like RPK who claims to be Muslims, giving hell about Islamic laws while a Jewish professor from Harvard wrote and article in the New York TImes to defend the Shariah.
How the world has turned upside down. Did I mention the Jewish guy is a professor of law from Harvard?
Tulang Besi a.k.a Rahman Celcom
ps i've written before about Raja Petra's shallowness in understanding Islam and the Islamic Penal Code. No matter what RPK says, majority Muslims supports the Shariah and wants it's implementation. Hell, even in Britain, the Shariah is being practiced albeit still limited.

America's sexual revolution: Engineered by pedophiles

2010-09-28T10:50:00.000-07:00

How 1 secretly twisted scientist destroyed nation's morality laws
Posted: September 18, 2010

By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A shocking report at WND's "Taking America Back" conference in Miami, Fla., contends the sexual revolution of the 1960s and beyond was manufactured by a single pedophile with deep financial backing.

Dr. Judith Reisman, author of "Sexual Sabotage: How One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America," unveiled at the confab a hidden history of scandal and scientific fraud that she says convinced not only America's legal system but also its culture to unjustifiably embrace sexual deviancy.

Reisman explained how Dr. Alfred Kinsey, a scientific pioneer who was lauded in the 1950s for his research and who launched modern-day sexology, received his financial backing from the Rockefeller Foundation in 1941 and used it to twist science and law to fulfill his licentious agenda.

For example, Kinsey's landmark study from 1941-1945 claimed to describe the "normal" sexual practices of "everyday" Americans. Reisman contends, however, that Kinsey didn't have access to the majority of "normal" American men and women, who were engaged with World War II at the time, and so he used a tainted sample.

"Eighty-seven percent of his subjects," Reisman stated, "were sex addicts, homosexuals, criminals, rapists, prostitutes, pedophiles and prisoners."

Reisman further shocked the audience by posting a chart of Kinsey's research detailing how many orgasms children of various ages could be made to experience in a 24-hour period. Reisman quoted Kinsey's defenders, who insisted that the men conducting the experiments were not pedophiles, but merely "trained observers" with stopwatches, counting orgasms among 4-year-olds and even infants.

Kinsey's research later claimed that 100 percent of children were capable of being sexually active from birth, so long as they had "help" from adults.

Reisman also pointed to studies and surveys by Kinsey that consistently and grossly inflated data to prove that licentious behavior had "no social consequences."

The results, she explained, were staggering.

"Kinsey radicalized university faculties with his [corrupt and agenda-driven] data, then told the students to ditch 'hypocritical' parental values," Reisman stated, "hence the 'me' generation of sex and drugs was born."

Reisman then quoted significant court cases and journals that had so radically shifted from previous legal opinion that the law itself "was divided into pre-Kinsey and post-Kinsey periods."

"Pre-Kinsey, sex laws were based on biblical authority and considered an area of 'public rights,' meaning we recognized sex had civil consequences on society," Reisman said. "Post-Kinsey sex laws are based on 'scientific authority' and are considered 'private rights,' which claims sex has no social consequences."

"Only seven years ago, the Supreme Court case Lawrence vs. Texas, which struck down all anti-sodomy laws in the nation, was based on Kinsey," Reisman said. "But the Supreme Court was never told it was all based on [intentionally flawed] Kinsey data.

"The No. 1 sexpert versus Prop 8," said Reisman, referring to the more recent case in which a federal judge overturned California's prohibition of same-sex marriage, "who was quoted 58 times by [Judge] Walker, was quoting Kinsey data."

Reisman also showed the more immediate impact of Kinsey's widespread research in the 1950s, quoting a 1962 Vanderbilt Law Review that opined "even at the age of four or five [a girl] can seduce" a man into committing sexual abuse.

The 1969 Georgia law review called child sexual abuse "a minor crime" and said the need to relax laws prohibiting pedophilia should be obvious to all but the "prudish."

All of the examples, and several more, Reisman contended, are based on Kinsey's data, which legal scholars accepted despite its dubious origin.

Reisman demonstrated the legal shift in America by pointing to changes in the law. In the pre-Kinsey period, the legal age of sexual consent was somewhere between 16 and 21 depending on the state, whereas now it is 12-18. Prior to Kinsey, rape was a crime punishable by death in 18 states, by life sentence in 22. Now, Reisman stated, the standard sentence is six months to four years.

No-fault divorce, the decriminalization of adultery and even the decision by the American Psychiatric Association to no longer consider homosexuality a sexual disorder, Reisman said, are the result of using Kinsey data that was specifically manipulated to redefine "normal" and exaggerate deviant behavior.

Reisman's final charge to the "Taking America Back" audience was based on the words of a lesbian professor, who in 1998 warned that if the truth about Kinsey were revealed, "50 years of sexual progress is undone; biography is the battleground."

Reisman challenged the conference not only to make Kinsey's work known but also to overturn the laws Kinsey "twisted."

"Biography is only the battleground if it enters the courtroom," she concluded.

PEDOPHILIA: THE TALMUD'S DIRTY SECRET

2010-09-28T09:25:00.001-07:00

By Rev. Ted Pike
28 Sep 10 (Update)

Editor’s Note:

This year, top Israeli Rabbi Moti Elon was indicted by police for sex crimes against minors. “Far from being the rabbi of an obscure Hasidic sect, the charismatic Elon is a high-profile leader, educator and media personality, representing the more mainstream religious Zionists and former head of the renowned HaKotel (Western Wall) Yeshiva. He comes from a family of high achievers in law, politics and academia that has drawn comparisons with the Kennedy clan.”

In 2006, Elon was restricted by an organization of rabbis in his contact with students, after confessing to sexual relationships with male students. Yet he continued to act as the president of a Talmudic academy in Jerusalem and did not fully honor the agreement. One Ha’aretz commentary says Elon “managed to turn himself into almost a kind of saint” –a fate certainly to be envied by American religious figures turned pedophiles.

Dr. Aviad Hacohen, dean of the Sha'arei Mishpat College, in 2007 reported that “95% of sexual offences in Jerusalem were performed by the religious and haredi.” “Several years ago, I began looking into the issue on a data-based level," said Hacohen. "It turned out that the law enforcement authorities, both the police and the prosecutor's office, were aware of the data but refused to expose it based on sectorial affiliation in order to avoid branding a certain group in the population…”

Since the following article was written in 2006, cases of Jewish leadership figures in Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Judaism being involved in homosexuality or pedophilia scandals continue to mount not only in Israel, but in New York, where Ultra-Orthodox are strongest. The reason is simple: some of the very greatest rabbis who wrote the Talmud were pedophiles.

Read this shocking and timely article for complete documentation.

PEDOPHILIA: THE TALMUD'S DIRTY SECRET

By Rev. Ted Pike
11 Oct 06

For nearly a century, the Jewish-dominated Hollywood film industry and big media have conspicuously influenced Christian America away from Biblical morals and values. (See, "Jews Confirm Big Media Is Jewish")

Yet, with the hippie rebellion of the early sixties, the Jewish media found exponential opportunities to hasten America’s moral decline. Encouraging drugs and pornography it persuaded America that "free love" and living together outside of marriage were socially acceptable. With astonishing rapidity the movie, TV, and print media helped produce a generation of sexual libertines. By the end of the sixties, it hastened the sexual revolution to its next stage, homosexuality.

Now, more than 40 years later, even homosexuality has lost its attraction to many children and grandchildren of the hippie generation. Pedophilia (sex with little boys and girls along with child pornography) is the latest underground obsession sweeping America and the world.

Last fall, I alerted the nation to the power of the pedophile lobby in Congress; Sen. Edward Kennedy, long backed by homosexuals in support of the federal anti-hate bill, betrayed them to favor the evidently more powerful and rewarding pedophiles. (See "How Kennedy and His Pedophiles Weakened the Child Safety Bill")

Rotten Roots

What kind of moral foundations do Jews of the media rest upon, that they could consciously ignite and fan the flames of a sexual inferno that continues to ravage our once Christian society?

Virtually all the media moguls who founded Hollywood and the big three TV networks were immigrants, or their children, from predominantly orthodox Jewish communities in Eastern Europe.

In the late 19th century, most European Jews were a people of the book. But their book wasn’t the Bible. It was the Babylonian Talmud. To this day, the Talmud remains Judaism’s highest moral, ethical and legal authority.

Does the Talmud share Christianity's foundation of wholesome moral values? Hardly. Instead, the Talmud is the sleazy substrata of a religious system gone terribly astray; it is that code of Pharisaic unbelief Christ described as "full of all uncleanness" (Matt. 23:27). Shockingly, Judaism’s most revered authority actually endorses such sins as lying, oath-breaking, and indirect murder. And it even sanctions one of the greatest sins of all: child molestation.

Three Year Old Brides

When Christ accused the Pharisees of His day of being Satan’s spiritual children, He fully realized what they were capable of. Second century Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, one of Judaism’s very greatest rabbis and a creator of Kabbalah, sanctioned pedophilia—permitting molestation of baby girls even younger than three! He proclaimed, “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and a day is permitted to marry a priest.” 1 Subsequent rabbis refer to ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia as "halakah," or binding Jewish law. 2 Has ben Yohai, child rape advocate, been disowned by modern Jews? Hardly. Today, in ben Yohai’s hometown of Meron, Israel, tens of thousands of orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews gather annually for days and nights of singing and dancing in his memory.

References to pedophilia abound in the Talmud. They occupy considerable sections of Treatises Kethuboth and Yebamoth and are enthusiastically endorsed by the Talmud’s definitive legal work, Treatise Sanhedrin.

The Pharisees Endorsed Child Sex

The rabbis of the Talmud are notorious for their legal hairsplitting, and quibbling debates. But they share rare agreement about their right to molest three year old girls. In contrast to many hotly debated issues, hardly a hint of dissent rises against the prevailing opinion (expressed in many clear passages) that pedophilia is not only normal but scriptural as well! It’s as if the rabbis have found an exalted truth whose majesty silences debate.

Because the Talmudic authorities who sanction pedophilia are so renowned, and because pedophilia as “halakah” is so explicitly emphasized, not even the translators of the Soncino edition of the Talmud (1936) dared insert a footnote suggesting the slightest criticism. They only comment: “Marriage, of course, was then at a far earlier age than now.” 3

In fact, footnote 5 to Sanhedrin 60b rejects the right of a Talmudic rabbi to disagree with ben Yohai's endorsement of pedophilia: "How could they [the rabbis], contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon ben Yohai, which has scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?" 4

Out of Babylon

It was in Babylon after the exile under Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC that Judaism's leading sages probably began to indulge in pedophilia. Babylon was the staggeringly immoral capitol of the ancient world. For 1600 years, the world’s largest population of Jews flourished within it.

As an example of their evil, Babylonian priests said a man's religious duty included regular sex with temple prostitutes. Bestiality was widely tolerated. So Babylonians hardly cared whether a rabbi married a three year old girl.

But with expulsion of the Jews in the 11th century AD, mostly to western Christian lands, Gentile tolerance of Jewish pedophilia abruptly ended.

Still, a shocking contradiction lingers: If Jews want to revere the transcendent wisdom and moral guidance of the Pharisees and their Talmud, they must accept the right of their greatest ancient sages to violate children. To this hour, no synod of Judaism has repudiated their vile practice.

Sex with a “Minor” Permitted

What exactly did these sages say?

The Pharisees justified child rape by explaining that a boy of nine years was not a “man” (See, "Judaism and Homosexuality: A Marriage Made in Hell") Thus they exempted him from God’s Mosaic Law: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Lev. 18:22) One passage in the Talmud gives permission for a woman who molested her young son to marry a high priest. It concludes, “All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not." 5 Because a boy under 9 is sexually immature, he can't "throw guilt" on the active offender, morally or legally. 6

A woman could molest a young boy without questions of morality even being raised: "…the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act." 7 The Talmud also says, "A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with his deceased brother's wife acquires her (as wife)." 8 Clearly, the Talmud teaches that a woman is permitted to marry and have sex with a nine year old boy.

Sex at Three Years and One Day

In contrast to Simeon ben Yohai's dictum that sex with a little girl is permitted under the age of three years, the general teaching of the Talmud is that the rabbi must wait until a day after her third birthday. She could be taken in marriage simply by the act of rape.

R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. (Sanh. 55b)

A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation. . . .(Yeb. 57b)

A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her she becomes his. (Sanh. 69a, 69b, also discussed in Yeb. 60b)

It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phineas (who was priest, the footnote says) surely was with them. (Yeb. 60b)

[The Talmud says such three year and a day old girls are] . . . fit for cohabitation. . . But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him, it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation. (Footnote to Yeb. 60b)

The example of Phineas, a priest, himself marrying an underage virgin of three years is considered by the Talmud as proof that such infants are "fit for cohabitation."

The Talmud teaches that an adult woman’s molestation of a nine year old boy is "not a sexual act" and cannot "throw guilt" upon her because the little boy is not truly a "man.” 9 But they use opposite logic to sanction rape of little girls aged three years and one day: Such infants they count as “women," sexually mature and fully responsible to comply with the requirements of marriage.

The Talmud footnotes 3 and 4 to Sanhedrin 55a clearly tell us when the rabbis considered a boy and girl sexually mature and thus ready for marriage. "At nine years a male attains sexual matureness… The sexual matureness of woman is reached at the age of three."

No Rights for Child Victims

The Pharisees were hardly ignorant of the trauma felt by molested children. To complicate redress, the Talmud says a rape victim must wait until she was of age before there would be any possibility of restitution. She must prove that she lived and would live as a devoted Jewess, and she must protest the loss of her virginity on the very hour she comes of age. “As soon as she was of age one hour and did not protest she cannot protest any more.” 10

The Talmud defends these strict measures as necessary to forestall the possibility of a Gentile child bride rebelling against Judaism and spending the damages awarded to her as a heathen - an unthinkable blasphemy! But the rights of the little girl were really of no great consequence, for, "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (three years and a day) it is as if one put the finger into the eye." The footnote says that as “tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.” 11

In most cases, the Talmud affirms the innocence of male and female victims of pedophilia. Defenders of the Talmud claim this proves the Talmud's amazing moral advancement and benevolence toward children; they say it contrasts favorably with "primitive" societies where the child would have been stoned along with the adult perpetrator.

Actually, the rabbis, from self-protection, were intent on proving the innocence of both parties involved in pedophilia: the child, but more importantly, the pedophile. They stripped a little boy of his right to "throw guilt" on his assailant and demanded complicity in sex from a little girl. By thus providing no significant moral or legal recourse for the child, the Talmud clearly reveals whose side it is on: the raping rabbi.

Pedophilia Widespread

Child rape was practiced in the highest circles of Judaism. This is illustrated from Yeb. 60b:

There was a certain town in the land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an inquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day, and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest.

The footnote says that she was “married to a priest” and the rabbi simply permitted her to live with her husband, thus upholding “halakah” as well as the dictum of Simeon ben Yohai, “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest.” 12

These child brides were expected to submit willingly to sex. Yeb. 12b confirms that under eleven years and one day a little girl is not permitted to use a contraceptive but “must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner.”

In Sanhedrin 76b a blessing is given to the man who marries off his children before they reach the age of puberty, with a contrasting curse on anyone who waits longer. In fact, failure to have married off one’s daughter by the time she is 12-1/2, the Talmud says, is as bad as one who “returns a lost article to a Cuthean” (Gentile) - a deed for which “the Lord will not spare him.” 13 This passage says: “… it is meritorious to marry off one’s children whilst minors.”

The mind reels at the damage to the untold numbers of girls who were sexually abused within Judaism during the heyday of pedophilia. Such child abuse, definitely practiced in the second century, continued, at least in Babylon, for another 900 years.

A Fascination with Sex

Perusing the Talmud, one is overwhelmed with the recurrent preoccupation with sex, especially by the most eminent rabbis. Dozens of illustrations could be presented to illustrate the delight of the Pharisees to discuss sex and quibble over its minutest details.

The rabbis endorsing child sex undoubtedly practiced what they preached. Yet to this hour, their words are revered. Simeon ben Yohai is honored by Orthodox Jews as one of the very greatest sages and spiritual lights the world has ever known. A member of the earliest "Tannaim," rabbis most influential in creating the Talmud, he carries more authority to observant Jews than Moses.

Today, the Talmud’s outspoken pedophiles and child-rape advocates would doubtlessly spend hard time in prison for child molestation. Yet here is what the eminent Jewish scholar, Dagobert Runes (who is fully aware of all these passages), says about such “dirty old men” and their perverted teachings:

There is no truth whatever in Christian and other strictures against the Pharisees, who represented the finest traditions of their people and of human morals. 14

Aren’t Christ’s words more appropriate?

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. (Matthew 23:27, 28.)

(Adapted from Ted Pike's book, Israel: Our Duty, Our Dilemma)

Endnotes:

1 Yebamoth 60b, p. 402.
2 Yebamoth 60b, p. 403.
3 Sanhedrin 76a.
4 In Yebamoth 60b, p. 404, Rabbi Zera disagrees that sex with girls under three years and one day should be endorsed as halakah.
5 Sanhedrin 69b.
6 Sanhedrin 55a.
7 Footnote 1 to Kethuboth 11b.
8 Sanhedrin 55b.
9 Sanhedrin 55a.
10 Kethuboth 11a.
11 Kethuboth 11b.
12 Yebamoth 60b.
13 Sanhedrin 76b.
14 Dagobert Runes, A Concise Dictionary of Judaism, New York, 1959.

Hudud: Raja Petra Has Failed Again to Make His Case

2010-09-27T13:32:00.000-07:00

Raja Petra went to town attacking the PAS Youth Chief for suggesting Hudud as an alternative. My initial response is : AT LEAST SOMEONE IS THINKING OF A SOLUTION TO THE WORSENING CRIME PROBLEM in Malaysia.

Instead of providing a sound alternative, RPK chose to redicule the PAS Youth Chief.

He went to cite the failure of Christian laws in Europe from the history of Christianity. The trouble with this argument is that the same cannot be said about Islamic laws or Hudud. The Islamic Penal Code has been in practiced for 1400 years and NO ONE complained about it's implementation.

The removal of Islamic Penal Code from the lives of Muslims are mostly the handiwork of Colonials like British, Russians, France, Belgium, Dutch etc when Muslim Lands were invaded by them.

In fact, in India, women were prevented from getting inheritence from their fathers because the Common Law of Britain forbids any inheritance to women, at that time, when British first invaded India. For a few hundred years before that women were getting inheritance without any hinderance because they were subjected to Shariah Laws.

So, there lies Raja Petra's main weakness in his argument: he cites examples from the history of CHRISTIANITY which DIFFERS greatly from the history of Islam and Islamic Penal Code.

As far as history has shown, Islamic Penal Code is practiced by Muslims for the last 1400 years and no one complained about it despite the coming and going of Muslim rulers throughout the ages.

So, i beg Raja Petra to come up with a better argument to negate the effectiveness of Islamic Penal Code.

Oh, and Raja Petra also made this argument:

If this is true then why quote the example of the murder of Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya? This woman was allegedly killed by Indian Hindus, not by Malay Muslims. And since Hudud applies only to Muslims then it does not matter whether Malaysia does or does not implement these Islamic laws. It would not have deterred these Indian Hindus from killing Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya because they would have been exempted from these laws anyway.

It so happens, the crime of murder falls under QISAS and not HUDUD. And trust me, anyone would agree to QISAS regardless of their religion.

As for me, if a Jewish gentleman name Noah Feldman who actually thinks that Islamic Penal Code is good and practical.

Funny, a guy like RPK who claims to be Muslims, giving hell about Islamic laws while a Jewish professor from Harvard wrote and article in the New York TImes to defend the Shariah.

How the world has turned upside down. DId I mention the Jewish guy is a professor of law from Harvard.

Tulang Besi

ps i've written before about Raja Petra's shallowness in understanding Islam and the Islamic Penal Code. No matter what RPK says, majority Muslims supports the Shariah and wants it's implementation. Hell, even in Britain, the Shariah is being practiced albeit still limited.

Temuramah Malaysiakini Bersama Tulang Besi

2010-02-18T05:38:00.001-08:00

. And here is the rest of it.

SOLAH HAJAT & CERAMAH PERDANA SELANGOR

2010-02-17T18:56:00.001-08:00

Nota Editor: Rekod Tok Guru Nik Aziz memerintah Kelantan 20 tahun menunjukkan bahawa senjata ampuh beliau menentang kezaliman UMNO adalah dengan mengadu kembali kepada Allah SWT. Kerajaan negeri Selangor sekarang ini sedang diserang dalam dan luar. Maklumat saya dapat dari dalaman UMNO, pihak atasan UMNO masih belum berpuas hati Selangor belum jatuh kembali ke UMNO. Alhamdulillah, setiap percubaan mereka gagal dan makan tuan i.e. pembunuhan Tee Beng Hock. Penggunaan SPRM untuk melemahkan serta mensabotaj kerajaan Negeri juga gagal. Percubaan Suwardi Yaakob untuk menjatuhkan MB juga menemui kegagalan yang luhur sehingga ke tahap Nazlee GERAK masuk PKR. Namun, segalanya adalah ketentuan Allah SWT dan bukan kerana kekuatan kita.

Solat hajat ini WAJIB dihadiri oleh SELURUH RAKYAT MALAYSIA tidak kira agama atau bangsa. Saya berharap untuk melihat Stadium Melawati dipenuhi bukan sahaja dengan orang Islam tetapi juga orang bukan Islam. Dicadangkan keseluruhan kepimpinan DAP dan PKR yang bukan Islam untuk turut hadir menunjukkan sokongan. Pakatan Rakyat adalah lemah dan hanya bergantung kepada kekuatan Allah SWT. Biarlah Allah SWT melindungi kita dari kezaliman dan kejahatan UMNO dan Barisan Nasional

Tulang Besi

SOLAH HAJAT & CERAMAH PERDANA

BERSAMA;

DATO' TUAN GURU NIK ABD AZIZ NIK MAT

DATO' SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM

DATO' TAN SRI KHALID IBRAHIM

SABTU MALAM AHAD : 20 FEB 2010 @ 7 MALAM

STADIUM MALAWATI, SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR

ANJURAN BERSAMA : PAKATAN RAKYAT SHAH ALAM

Explanation from a Prima Damansara Resident on the Khalwat Raid Squad

2009-10-23T11:10:00.000-07:00

Suddenly the issue of “Anti Khalwat Squad” is popularized by the media, and of course in a negative manner. The report can be read here. (http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/28035/84/#jc_writeComment)And again we see the so call women’s group protesting any effort towards enforcing religious values and eradicating vice and sinful acts. It’s the trend around the world that Women’s Rights Groups are the number one champions of immorality and indecency. Anytime any one tries to do something decent, the women’s group will come to the forefront and resist. I remembered in Turkey when the government tried to pass a law outlawing adultery, it was the Turkish women’s group that came to the forefront resisting the law.

Yet, the anti khalwat group (and the adultery law in Turkey) doesn’t discriminate against gender. I mean, it takes two to tango. If you do it alone, then it’s not called khalwat, it’s called masturbation.

Below is a quotation from a resident of Prima Damanasara name budaktapah that is taken from Malaysiatoday. Hope we can share the information he gives and form a balanced opinion on the issue.

But before that, I’d like to advertise a seminar entitled:

“ SIS Pembela atau Perosak Wanita”
Seminar: Sisters In Islam - Pembela atau Perosak Wanita?
Ahad, 25 Oktober 2009 08:00
Satu lagi seminar anjuran Ikatan Intelektual Nusantara (IKIN) dengan kerjasama HTM dan Muslimah HTM pada 25 oktober 2009 (Ahad). Maklumat lanjut seperti berikut:

Tarikh: 25 Oktober 2009
Tempat: Dewan Serbaguna, Jalan 51A/227, Petaling Jaya, Selangor DE
Masa: 9.00 Pagi - 1.30 Petang
- Masuk Adalah Percuma, Semua Dijemput Hadir -

Start of budaktapah comments:

written by budaktapah, October 23, 2009 15:39:09
heyyyy...i live there!! sorry that i was not around that weekend. If not, i will gladly joint the khalwat group.

to others, please don't bla bla bla, please don't intefere, unless you are living there, unless you are a muslim. If not, please fcuk off.

you are talking about the Muslim are trying to impose Islamic rules upon other non-muslim. But whaat about you all non-muslim directly or indirectly are imposing your free lifestyle, your free mingling, your free huha huha among males & females and called it modern-lifestyles. We muslim have compromise a lot, and still you all trying to say like, let them do what they like, let them have free life style, let them fcuk each other and have babies whom we do not know who the father are, let them be drunk and drive a car in the middle of the night and hit my bikes and my neighbour car (this actually happened infront of my unit), let them be drunk and rempit-ing in the middle of the night.

Well no more guys. One thing i like living in Prima Damansara is because the area is quite safe. The residents there almost know each other and care about each other and we will protect our area and not letting it became seriously "infested" with bad things, only then we act. How confident you all to allow some youngsters to "berkhalwat" in the middle of the night, and might eventually leads to some naughty behaviour, then some poor lady will become pregnant, she will become scared, give birth then throw the baby into some drain some where.

Islam is not about letting things to happen first only then will act, Islam is about prevention.

I'm not going to let somebody do whatever they like in my area. If you wish to be like that and say, hey its my house, i pay for it, well please think again cause you are living in an area where others also live. Unless you are staying some where in a jungle all alone, only thennn you can do whatever you like.

i am damned mad if you all say that i cannot look after my place, my area. Since the beginning we have our set of conduct to follow, be it in Islam, Hindu, Christian etc. Please do not confuse people by saying what was previously bad, but nowadays is ok to follow, like maybe in the 50s, 60s or 70s, showing your bras is considered obscene, but nowadays is normal.

I like to watch chinese kungfu movies, whereas during some scene the actress was strip off their dress and only left with her undergarment dress (something corset like dress) the actress will act to be very very ashamed and will tried to cover herself frantically. but hey, nowadays we all can see the ladies even not ashamed to wear those kind of undergarment-like dresses to offices, to markets, to movies. BUT does we the muslim say anything about it? no we do not, we act as if its your right to wear like that. So please do not say that we the muslim do not compromise.

Buttt, when we tried to protect our communities, tried to shield our son, daughters, our brothers and sisters, all hell break loose.

Do you know that in Prima Damansara we manage to counter a lot of bad things from happening. Glue sniffing children, rempit-ing, bohsia, penyamun, penyangak. We manage to minimise these things. We are not "Taliban", we are just protecting ourself.

So we all must improvise and not start banging everybody because what we the residents there are doing are just what we thought are right to do.

Your advise are most welcome, but if you all start to comment with the intention to condemn, please go away.

Raja Petra Kamaruddin’s Confusion: Shariah vs Fiqh

2009-10-22T21:59:00.001-07:00

Here's is my part of a series of writings about Raja Petra's glaring mistakes in his understanding of Islam and also his attempt to spread his confusion to the masses.
Raja Petra in his latest article is quoted to be saying():

“However, as I have written in the last few articles, the Shariah is not constant and neither standardised. The interpretation of the Shariah developed over 300 years from the mid-600s to the mid-900s. And there are variants to the interpretation, depending on time and place.
Sudan, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, India, the UK, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc., all have different variants to the interpretation of the Shariah. Some even combine the Shariah with Roman, Greek, English, French, Italian, etc., laws. So which version is Zul talking about?
If you want, I can go into detail on the different interpretations of the Shariah. But this will take, maybe, 20 or 30 pages and I am sure many of you would just skip it without bothering to read it because you will find it boring or not of concern to you.”

Apparently, this is the source of Raja Petra’s confusion. He is unable to distinguish between “Fiqh” and “Shariah”. Allow me to quote Noah Feldman from his brilliant article whom I have quoted so many times:

“In fact, “Shariah” is not the word traditionally used in Arabic to refer to the processes of Islamic legal reasoning or the rulings produced through it: that word is fiqh, meaning something like Islamic jurisprudence. The word “Shariah” connotes a connection to the divine, a set of unchanging beliefs and principles that order life in accordance with God’s will. Westerners typically imagine that Shariah advocates simply want to use the Koran as their legal code. But the reality is much more complicated. Islamist politicians tend to be very vague about exactly what it would mean for Shariah to be the source for the law of the land — and with good reason, because just adopting such a principle would not determine how the legal system would actually operate.”( )

In truth, Shariah is a set of laws shown to us from Divine sources that cannot be compromised i.e. prohibition of iqour, fornication, adultery, usury etc. These laws are set and fixed and remain fixed until the end of time.

“Fiqh” on the hand is the product of “Ijtihad” which in turn requires “mujtahid” to make interpretations or current circumstances in order to allow shariah to be applied effectively. The Fiqh is where all variations occur because in matters of fiqh, the Quran and Sunnah is silent.
Malaysia is already a hybrid state as we speak
RPK says:

“Yes, that is what the Thesaurus has to say about the word hybrid. So, a Hybrid State, as opposed to a Secular State, Theocratic State, Republic, Monarchy (meaning absolute monarchy and not Constitutional Monarchy), and whatnot, would mean it is a state that is a mixture of two or more systems.
Malaysians have a name for this. Malaysians call it rojak. And rojak would be similar to the English salad, except that it is hotter (meaning spicy rather than temperature), a mix of many types of fruits and vegetables. Hey, is the tomato a fruit or vegetable? The jury is out on that one as is the argument about whether the chicken or the egg came first. Did the chicken come from an egg or the egg that came from a chicken?
I will let Zul sort this one out as I am sure if he can make sense from a Hybrid State then he can certainly answer the question as to whether the chicken or the egg came first.”

In case RPK has been living elsewhere, Malaysia has been existing as a hybrid state since it’s inception. That is why the various Shariah courts are recognized and never considered to be illegal or ultra vires to the constitution.
In fact, shariah courts preceeds the Federal Constitution by about 2 centuries. So, for Raja Petra to think that Malaysia is a secular state is a clear sign of misapprehension. (Read here for more information http://www.malaysiawaves.com/2009/08/shariah-law-has-been-enacted-in.html)

RPK, you need to stop interpreting Islam from the English version of the Quran. That is your source of confusion. The Quran is in Arabic and it was sent down in Arabic. As such, it must be interpreted and understood in it’s original language.
Then only you can tell the difference between confusion and clarity within the Islamic world.

Tulang Besi

Islam is Against Paganism, not Modernity

2009-10-07T20:21:00.000-07:00

The Arabs during the time the Prophet received his appointment as Prophet were steeped in Paganism and pagan cultures. Part of the pagan Arab culture at that time is:
a. gambling,
b. alcoholism,
c. fornication (free sex),
d. adultery (free sex),
e. nakedness (hence we have the jilbab),
f. idolatry,
g. disregard for hygiene ( there is a hadeeth on torcher for those who do not clean properly after urinating)
h. murder,
i. infanticide (otherwise known today as abortion)
j. homosexuality
and many more.

Many question why the punishment for alcohol in Islam is “harsh” like in the Kartika Sari’s case. In truth, the punishment is not meant for consumption of alcohol. The real enemy behind the punishment is pagan paradigm. The harsh punishment prescribed by Islam for the list above was meant to cleanse the Arabs ( and Muslims) from Paganism.

Islam views Paganism as a crime against humanity. So, there is a need to cleanse human beings from going back to their pagan ways and cultures. And it seems that humans, without guidance and enforcement will almost always slide back into paganism subconsciously.

We see now in the West that cultures like gambling, alcoholism, free sex, nakedness, infanticide etc is now considered as human rights and no legislation is allowed to be passed prohibiting them. This is where Islam will come into collision with the Western values and culture.

The West worships and upholds paganism while Islam strive to clean the human race from it. Islam’s struggle is made harder when Paganism is now masked as “human right” when it is nothing more than a deviation from human nature.

Islam on the other hand is painted as being unprogressive and repressive and not in tuned with modernity. Funny thing is that the detractors never seem to bother to mention the fact that 40 years after the law of caning for alcohol was passed, the “Pagan” and backward Arabs came out from the Arabian Peninsula and conquered the Persian Empire and 4/5 of the Roman Eastern Empire, including Spain and 4/5 of Gaul/France.

Muawiyyah was able to turn camel riding Arabs in the desert into fighting sailors and defeated the Roman navies thus preventing them from resupplying their garrisons in Alexandria resulting in the fall of the entire Northern Africa territory once belonged to the Roman Eastern Empire

So, no. The harsh punishment for alcoholism, among others, helped the Prophet SAW to turn a backward, pagan, uncivilized people of the desert into one of the most prolific empire man has even known in less than 60 years while at the same time destroying the Persian empire and reducing the Roman Eastern Empire to 1/5 of their former territories.
Their emperor, Heraklius, went into seclusion and thus insanity after his army was decimated by Khalid Ibnu Walid in Yarmuk ( Jordan).

So, I think it’s the other way round. The West is going back to Paganism. That explains their contempt to Christianity and their tolerance for anything that is not Christian including secularism. They even view progress as being anything that turns back Christianity or religion. Their most important vessel towards paganism is of course secularism.
\
On the hand, Islam despise and had worked tirelessly from day one to turn back the tide of paganism. This explains the tension between Western trends and Islam and I believe the tide will not subside and will forever continue.

The West are proud of their models/actresses who parades in clothes that exposes 4/5 of their bodies. It is exactly the culture of the pagan Arabs during the time of the Prophet where women were proud of exposing the cleavages. Hence, Islam prescribed the “jilbab” to cure this element of paganism. The West decides to ridicule the “Jilbab” and labels them as being backward and anti progress when it is them that is sliding into “cave men” mentality.

So, the way Western media responded to the Kartika Sari’s caning should not have been a surprise to any Muslim. Since, the Kartika Sari’s punishment is a step towards climbing out of paganism which the West despises so much, It is a slap in the face to Western hypocrisy and western media responded the only way they know, the Pagan way.

Tulang Besi

Sisters in Islam Should Mind Their Own Business

2009-09-18T23:33:00.001-07:00

It is reported that Sisters in Islam (SIS) is planning to appeal the Kartika Sari sentence. This is despite Katika’s own plea for her to be left alone. Kartika herself is willing to go through her punishment and had refused to appeal. Why is SIS acting like a busybody and sticking their nose where it’s not needed?(“Kartika: Leave me alone, I'll face the music”)

For an organization who advocates equality among men and women in Islam, their action to file for appeal on the Kartika Sari sentence is nothing less than an act of hypocrisy. The right stand that SIS should adopt to to commend the Pahang Shariah court for prescribing the same type of punishment to women as they would men.
Also, I wonder if SIS finds the whipping punishment prescribed by the civil courts in our country to be more “humane” compared to that of the Shariah courts. For one, the whipping in Shariah court is not meant to physically hurt. That cannot be said about lashings under civil laws.

In other words, SIS will tolerate punishment that is more inhumane simply because it is prescribed by a secular court. It’s really the true ideology of Sisters in Islam, secularism. If they’re really interested in fighting for humanity, they should then protest the lashings methods used by the civil laws. That would make more sense and consistent.

In truth, SIS is a secular organization, anti to patriarchy, and by extension, anti to Islam. They dislike the Kartika Sari sentence because it is prescribed by a Shariah court. If it came from a secular court, SIS will not even make a noise.

Thus far, all of the issues raised by SIS is irrelevant and weak. None of their case against the Shariah courts and shariah law is substantive. All their attacks against Islam and Islamic jurisprudence is nothing more than their own ill feelings towards Islamic law and thus far has provided zero evidence that the Shariah law is discriminatory to women. In short, we have yet to see one proof from SIS showing the Shariah system to be unfair.

The good news is majority of Muslims in Malaysia, men and women alike, rejects SIS. They see SIS as nothing more than a loud mouth organization bent on imposing secularism on the Muslims and fighting to their ideology rather than the welfare and benefits of Muslim women in Malaysia.

For example, if SIS was really interested in the welfare of Muslim women, they should instead fight for the rights of Muslim women to work part-time as practiced in the Netherlands. (Refer to my last article entitled "Women in Netherlands Prove Feminism Wrong")

They’d be better of pursuing this type of policy change as compared to trying to shut down the entire Shariah court system in Malaysia. Their current course is just a waste of time as it is based on nothing more than lies and fictitious ideology.

SIS is a waste of oxygen for all Malaysians as their existence serves no purpose to the Malaysian public. Their like our tonsils. They should be removed fast if we want to have a healthier life in the future.

In conclusion, SIS’s latest move to appeal the Kartika Sari’s sentence is hypocritical, inconsistent to their ideology, waste of time and money and not to mention disrespectful to the wishes of Kartika Sari herself.

My advise to SIS is to start looking into their own ideology rather than being a busybody and sticking their noses where they are not needed.

Tulang Besi

Islam is Against Paganism, Not Modernity

2009-09-09T00:47:00.000-07:00

The Arabs during the time the Prophet received his appointment as Prophet were steeped in Paganism and pagan cultures. Part of the pagan Arab culture at that time is:
a. gambling,
b. alcoholism,
c. fornication (free sex),
d. adultery (free sex),
e. nakedness (hence we have the jilbab),
f. idolatry,
g. disregard for hygiene ( there is a hadeeth on torcher for those who do not
clean properly after urinating)
h. murder,
i. infanticide (otherwise known today as abortion)
j. homosexuality
and many more.

Many question why the punishment for alcohol in Islam is “harsh” like in the Kartika Sari’s case. In truth, the punishment is not meant for consumption of alcohol. The real enemy behind the punishment is pagan paradigm. The harsh punishment prescribed by Islam for the list above was meant to cleanse the Arabs ( and Muslims) from Paganism.

Islam views Paganism as a crime against humanity. So, there is a need to cleanse human beings from going back to their pagan ways and cultures. And it seems that humans, without guidance and enforcement will almost always slide back into paganism subconsciously.

We see now in the West that cultures like gambling, alcoholism, free sex, nakedness, infanticide etc is now considered as human rights and no legislation is allowed to be passed prohibiting them. This is where Islam will come into collision with the Western values and culture.

The West worships and upholds paganism while Islam strive to clean the human race from it. Islam’s struggle is made harder when Paganism is now masked as “human right” when it is nothing more than a deviation from human nature.

Islam on the other hand is painted as being unprogressive and repressive and not in tuned with modernity. Funny thing is that the detractors never seem to bother to mention the fact that 40 years after the law of caning for alcohol was passed, the “Pagan” and backward Arabs came out from the Arabian Peninsula and conquered the Persian Empire and 4/5 of the Roman Eastern Empire, including Spain and 4/5 of Gaul/France.

Muawiyyah was able to turn camel riding Arabs in the desert into fighting sailors and defeated the Roman navies thus preventing them from resupplying their garrisons in Alexandria resulting in the fall of the entire Northern Africa territory once belonged to the Roman Eastern Empire.

So, no. The harsh punishment for alcoholism, among others, helped the Prophet SAW to turn a backward, pagan, uncivilized people of the desert into one of the most prolific empire man has even known in less than 60 years while at the same time destroying the Persian empire and reducing the Roman Eastern Empire to 1/5 of their former territories.

Their emperor, Heraklius, went into seclusion and thus insanity after his army was decimated by Khalis Ibnu Walid in Yarmuk (Jordan).

So, I think it’s the other way round. The West is going back to Paganism. That explains their contempt to Christianity and their tolerance for anything that is not Christian including secularism. They even view progress as being anything that turns back Christianity or religion. Their most important vessel towards paganism is of course secularism.

On the hand, Islam despise and had worked tirelessly from day one to turn back the tide of paganism. This explains the tension between Western trends and Islam and I believe the tide will not subside and will forever continue.

The West are proud of their models/actresses who parades in clothes that exposes 4/5 of their bodies. It is exactly the culture of the pagan Arabs during the time of the Prophet where women were proud of exposing the cleavages. Hence, Islam prescribed the “jilbab” to cure this element of paganism. The West decides to ridicule the “Jilbab” and labels them as being backward and anti progress when it is them that is sliding into “cave men” mentality.

So, the way Western media responded to the Kartika Sari’s caning should not have been a surprise to any Muslim. Since, the Kartika Sari’s punishment is a step towards climbing out of paganism which the West despises so much, It is a slap in the face to Western hypocrisy and western media responded the only way they know, the Pagan way.

Tulang Besi
.

To Those Who Doubt the Caning Punishment for Alcohol Drinkers

2009-09-02T09:34:00.001-07:00

This is an answer to those who doubt the lashing punishment for intoxicants in Islam.

Zaharuddin Abd Rahman

www.zaharuddin.net

araksebat.jpg

Negarawan Malaysia, Tun Dr Mahathir, berkata di dalam blognya : Tetapi benarkah hukuman ini tepat bagi jenayah minum arak? Beliau kemudiannya berkata :

"Dalam Al-Quran terdapat 43 ayat yang menegaskan; "Apabila kamu hukum, hukumlah dengan adil". Apakah mungkin seorang hakim itu tidak adil ataupun tersilap dalam pertimbangannya? Apakah tidak ada dalam Islam belas kasihan bagi yang bersalah buat kali pertama?
Saya harap pihak-pihak yang pakar dalam perkara ini dapat menunjuk ayat-ayat Al-Quran dan kitab-kitab yang dirujuk oleh hakim apabila hukuman ini dijatuhkan."

Sebagai menyahut pertanyaan Tun tersebut, saya sediakan artikel ringkas ini memberikan input kepada beliau dan mereka yang masih tertanya-tanya.

ARAK DAN STATISTIK KEBURUKANNYA

Sebelum saya menghuraikan secara ringkas jawapan bagi persoalan Tun Dr Mahathir, izinkan saya meningingatkan pembaca berkenaan arak dan statistik keburukannya, sehingga menyebabkan Islam begitu bersungguh melarang dan meletakkan undang-undang ke atas peminumnya juga. Ia sebenarnya tidak lain kecuali untuk mengutamakan keadilan umum, di atas hak individu.

Menurut statistik rasmi di United Kingdom, Alcohol-related crime adalah seperti berikut :-

* Hampir 45 - 46 % kejadian jenayah, mangsa meyakini bahawa penyerangnya di bawah pengaruh alkohol (arak).

* Angka tadi naik kepada 58% dalam kes serangan oleh individu yang tidak dikenali.

* 39% keganasan dalam rumahtangga melibatkan alkohol (arak)

* Hampir sejuta serangan ganas yang berlaku dalam tahun 2007-2008, dipercayai dilakukan oleh mereka yang sedang mabuk atau separa mabuk.

(Source: British Crime Survey 2007/08)

Manakala di Russia pula, sekitar 72 % kes pembunuhan adalah berkait dengan akibat minuman arak. 42 % pula kes mati bunuh diri hasil dari arak. Menurut Prof Nemtsov, Russia kehilangan (mati) rakyatnya seramai 500,000 ke 750,000 akibat arak. ( sumber )

Tanpa had dan kawalan berkesan, lebih menggerunkan di UK statistik menunjukkan 30% kanak-kanak berumur 11 hingga 15 tahun turut minum arak sekurang-kurangnya sekali seminggu.

Selain penyebab jenayah, arak juga turut memberi impak amat buruk kepada kesihatan.

Seorang doktor di London memaklumkan purata umur pesakit dari kesan arak adalah berumur 20 ke 30 tahun, sebelum ini biasanya mereka yang berumur 50 tahun ke atas sahaja yang kerap ke hospital akibat arak. (rujuk)

Dilaporkan oleh organisasi kesihatan, di United Kingdom jumlah penduduk yang dirawat akibat penyakit dari kesan minuman arak bertambah dua kali ganda sejak sepuluh tahun lepas.

Secara purata rakyat Britain 'menelan' arak sebanyak 9.6 liters arak keras dan tulen secara tahunan, ia lebih dahsyat dari Russia yang mencatatkan 8.7 liter sahaja. Sedangkan Russia diwartakan sebagai negara yang terbanyak ‘peminum arak' sebelum ini.

Hasil dari petikan statistik ringkas ini, adakah masih terdapat pemimpin yang begitu ‘TIDAK BERTANGUNGJAWAB' sehingga sanggup mempertahankan penjualan arak dengan MELUAS tanpa kawalan dan hanya beriman dengan ‘kawalan diri'?, disamping membawakan hujjah hak kebebasan individu, bangsa, agama tertentu dan hak syarikat?.

Sebenarnya, membenarkan penjualan arak adalah satu pencabulan hak bagi majoriti masyarakat Malaysia yang lain, kerana ia mendedahkan individu lain dalam keadaan bahaya sebagaimana yang berlaku di UK, Russia dan lain-lain negara aktif arak.

HUKUMAN MINUM ARAK DALAM ISLAM

Dalam Islam, arak itu sendiri adalah haram atau dilarang. Sama ada minum sedikit atau banyak adalah sama sahaja larangannya. Demikian juga dadah. Sabda Nabi s.a.w

ما أسكر كثيره فقليله حرام

Ertinya : Apa-apa yang banyaknya memabukkan, maka sedikitnya juga haram ( walaupun belum memabukkan) ( Riwayat Ahmad, Tirmizi, Abu Daud : Ibn HIbban : Sohih )

Ayat al-Quran dan hadis berkenaannya terlalu banyak dan amat biasa kita baca. Islam mengakui wujudnya manfaat kecil dari arak tetapi manfaatnya adalah berdiri di atas kehancuran pihak yang lain. Sama seperti judi, yang menang sememangnya gembira namun ia menang di atas kekalahan pihak yang lain.

Firman Allah swt :

يَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الْخَمْرِ وَالْمَيْسِرِ قُلْ فِيهِمَا إِثْمٌ كَبِيرٌ وَمَنَافِعُ لِلنَّاسِ وَإِثْمُهُمَآ أَكْبَرُ مِن نَّفْعِهِمَا

"Mereka bertanyakan kepada kamu tentang arak dan judi, katakanlah (kepada mereka) pada kedua-duanya terdapat dosa yang besar dan kebaikan kepada manusia, dan dosa pada kedua-duanya lebih banyak dari kebaikan" (Al-Baqarah : 219)

Lagi Allah menegaskan :-

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ إِنَّمَا الْخَمْرُ وَالْمَيْسِرُ وَالأَنصَابُ وَالأَزْلاَمُ رِجْسٌ مِّنْ عَمَلِ الشَّيْطَانِ فَاجْتَنِبُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ

Ertinya : Hai orang-orang yang beriman, sesungguhnya (meminum) khamar, berjudi, (berkorban untuk) berhala, mengundi nasib dengan panah, adalah perbuatan keji termasuk perbuatan setan. Maka jauhilah ( DIHARAMKAN) perbuatan-perbuatan itu agar kamu mendapat keberuntungan ( Al-Maidah : 90)

Terbukti secara teori dalam ilmu Islam dan realiti dari statistik yang diberikan, arak adalah salah satu punca utama jenayah, selagi ruang dan peluang dibuka seluasnya selagi itulah manusia akan melakukan kesalahan mabuk.

Kerana itu nabi menyebut :-

الخمر أم الخبائث

Ertinya : Arak itu adalah ibu kepada kejahatan ( Hadis Hasan : Albani ; Silsilah Ahadith As-Sohihah, 1854)

Gunakan kuasa dengan tepat dan adil, selaras dengan perjuangan kamu. Adil dalam konteks arak adalah mengharamkannya dalam penjualan bebas.

HUKUMAN SEBAT BAGI PEMINUM ARAK

Bagi sesiapa sahaja yang bertanya dari kitab mana, dan buku mana, sumber mana diambil hukuman sebat bagi peminum arak, jawapannya adalah seperti berikut, tindakan mengenakan sebatan bagi peminum arak adalah diambil dari kumpulan hadis-hadis Nabi yang cukup banyak, antaranya :-

1) Hadis Nabi :

إذا شربوا الخمر فاجلدوهم , ثم إن شربوا فاجلدوهم , ثم إن شربوا فاجلدوهم

Ertinya : Apabila mereka minum arak, sebatlah mereka, dan kemudian jika mereka minum lagi, sebatlah mereka dan kemudian jika mereka minum lagi, sebatlah mereka ( Riwayat Abu Daud)

2. Hadis Nabi :

أن النبي أتي برجل قد شرب الخمر , فجلده بجريدتين نحو أربعين

Ertinya : Nabi telah didatangi oleh seorang lelaki yang telah meminum arak, lalu telah disebatnya dengan dua pelepah tamar sebanyak 40 kali (Riwayat Muslim) [1]

3. Hadis Nabi

كان يضرب في الخمر بالنعال والجريد أربعين

Ertinya : Sesungguhnya dipukul (sebat) bagi arak (peminum) dengan kasut-kasut dan pelapah tamar sebanyak 40 kali (Riwayat Muslim) [2]

4. Hadis Nabi :-

أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : جلد في الخمربالجريد والنعال , ثم جلد أبو بكر أربعين فلما كان عمر ودنا الناس من الريف والقرى , قال : ما ترون في جلد الخمر؟ فقال عبدالرحمن بن عوف : أرى أن نجعلها كأخف الحدود , فجلد عمر ثمانين

Ertinya : Sesungguhnya Nabi s.a.w merotan (sebat) dalam kes arak dengan pelepah tamar dan sepatu, kemudian Abu Bakar ( di zaman pemerintahannya) juga menyebat dengan 40 kali sebatan, di ketika pemerintahan Umar, beliau meminta pandangan orang ramai dari kampong dan desa lalu berkata : Apa pandangan kamu berkenaan sebatan bagi peminum arak?, lalu Abd Rahman Auf berkata : Aku berpandangan kita menjadikannya hudud yang paling ringan (merujuk kepada sebatan qazf) [3], maka Umar membuat keputusan untuk menyebat dengan 80 kali sebatan ( Riwayat Muslim dan Abu Daud)[4]

5. Athar sahabat

قال علي : جلد رسول الله في الخمر أربعين , وأبو بكر أربعين , وعمر ثمانين , وكل سنة وهذا أحب إليّ

Ertinya : Berkata Ali r.a : Rasulullah menyebat peminum arak 40 sebatan, Abu Bakar juga 40 sebatan, Umar menyebat 80 sebatan, semuanya adalah sunnah, dan ini ( merujuk kepada 40 sebatan) adalah lebih aku sukai. ( Riwayat Muslim ) [5]

6. Hadis Nabi

أن رجلا رفع إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قد سكر ، فأمر قريبا من عشرين رجلا ، فجلدوه بالجريد ، والنعال

Ertinya : Seorang lelaki dibawa ke penghakiman Nabi s.a.w kerana telah mabuk (minum arak), lalu Nabi s.a.w mengarahkan sekitar 20 orang lelaki untuk menyebatnya dengan pelepah tamar dan sepatu ( Al-Bayhaqi)[6]

Jika dikatakan, itu semuadari hadis, maka apakah pula dalil al-Quran yang menyuruh? jawabnya adalah

وَأَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الذِّكْرَ لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ مَا نُزِّلَ إِلَيْهِمْ وَلَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ

Ertinya : Kami turunkan kepadamu Al Qur'an, agar kamu menerangkan kepada umat manusia apa yang telah diturunkan kepada mereka dan supaya mereka memikirkan ( An-Nahl : 44)

Maka itulah tugas hadis nabi yang bersumber dari kata-kata, perbuatan dan perakuan baginda Nabi s.a.w yang menjadi penjelas kepada Al-Quran.

PERBEZAAN TASFIRAN ULAMA

Ulama telah bersepakat bahawa mesti dijatuhkan hukuman bagi peminum arak, sama ada ia minum banyak atau sedikit. Namun ulama berbeza pandangan dalam sekurang-kurang dua perkara iaitu :-

1) Adakah hukuman sebatan ke atas peminum arak adalah dalam kategori hukuman hudud atau hanya ta'zir.

Kebanyakan mazhab seperti Hanafi, Maliki, Syafie meletakkan hukuman sebat ke atas peminum arak sebagai hukuman hudud.

Namun demikian, sebahagian ulama lain seperti At-Tabari, Ibn Munzir, As-Syawkani, Ibn Qayyim, Al-Qaradhawi, Al-Uthaymin menganggapnya sebagai ta'zir semata-mata, yang mana ia terserah kepada hakim untuk menentukan jumlah sebatan dan keperluan untuk menyebat atau tidak.

Menurut Al-Qaradhawi, ia terbukti sebagai ta'zir kerana wujud pelbagai dalil yang menunjukkan :-

a- Jumlah pukulan berbeza mengikut keadaan peminum. Ada yang dikenakan 40 kali dan ada yang dikenakan 80 kali. Sifat hukuman hudud adalah tetap, namun ini berbeza-beza menunjukkan ia hanyalah dari hukuman ta'zir, yang terserah kepada kebijaksanaan hakim menentukan jumlahnya.

b- Dalam salah satu hadis yang tesebut di atas, Abd Rahman Auf r.a mencadangkan kepada Umar agar diletakkan hukuman yang paling rendah berbanding hudud, ini menunjukkan hukuman ini adalah ta'zir kerana menurut majoriti ulama, hukuman ta'zir tidak boleh melebihi hudud.

c- Cara penjatuhan hukuman juga berbeza, ada yang disebat menggunakan sepatu, ada yang menggunakan tangan, baju dan sebahagian lain menggunakan pelepah tamar[7]. Tidak mungkin hukuman ini dari jenis hudud jika sedemikian kerana hukuman hudud semestinya fixed atau tetap jumlahnya.

Berdasarkan penelitian terhadap dalil dan perbincangan para ulama yang panjang lebar dan mendalam, secara peribadi saya cenderung kepada hukuman ini adalah ta'zir dan bukan hudud. Wallahu'alam.

2) Jumlah sebatan yang perlu dikenakan.

Dalam hal ini, para ulama terbahagi kepada dua kumpulan :-

Pertama : Mazhab Hanafi, Maliki, At-Thawry dan Hanbali : Sebatan sebanyak 80 kali sebatan sama ada lelaki atau perempuan.

Kedua : Mazhab Syafie : 40 kali sebatan sahaja. Namun jika hakim mendapati kesalahannya berat, hakim boleh menambah sehingga 80 kali sebatan, dan lebih dari 40 sebatan itu dikira sebagai ta'zir , manakala 40 sebatan yang awal adalah hudud.

BOLEHKAH PESALAH TIDAK DISEBAT?

Ia bergantung kepada mazhab mana yang dterima pakai oleh Mahkamah Syariah Malaysia, hakim dan negara Malaysia.

Jika Hudud

Jika kesalahan meminum arak diterima sebagai kesalahan hudud sebagaimana pandangan mazhab Syafie. Pesalah tidak boleh dielak dari hukuman sebat tadi kerana hukuman sebat dikira sebagai hak Allah swt. Hak Allah perlu didahulukan dari sekalian hak makhluk dan sesuatu itu termasuk dalam hak Allah apabila kemudaratannya meluas dan umum, seperti zina, riba, murtad dan sebagainya. Namun pelaksanaan hukuman hudud ke atas seseorang pesalah, boleh ditangguh berdasarkan keperluan tertentu.

Dalam kategori ini, semua pesalah walau kali pertama[8] melakukan kesalahan, akan dihukum kerana mudarat ke atas masyarakat umum.

Jika Ta'zir

Jika kesalahan ini dianggap dari jenis Ta'zir, maka hakim mempunyai kuasa untuk mengampun sama ada atas alasan ia kesalahan kali pertama, ia seorang yang lemah, ia seorang tidak sihat dan sebagainya. Demikian menurut mazhab Syafie.

Justeru, sebelum dikritik keputusan hakim, bincangkan terlebih dahulu mazhab mana yang ingin diikuti di Malaysia, khususnya dalam konteks hukum minum arak ini.

SEJAUH MANA SEBATAN INI ADIL?

Pertama

Jika ia benar-benar hudud dan termasuk dalam hak Allah swt, tidak layak manusia yang hina untuk mempersoalkan tentang keadilan, kerana Allah swt sentiasa adil walau menghumban sesorang manusia ke nerakaNya. Allah tetap adil walau Dialah yang menyesatkan sekumpulan manusia dan memberi hidayat kepada sebahagian yang lain. Kerana apa adil? Kerana piawan adil Allah tidak sama dengan manusia yang dicipta. Keadilan Allah adalah kerana dia yang mencipta kita, dan Dia berhak untuk menentukan apa sahaja yang diinginiNya. Jika kita merasakan Allah tidak adil menyesatkan sekumpulan manusia, maka individu tersebut perlu memulangkan nyawa yang Allah berikan kepada mereka dan beredar dari galaksi ciptaan Allah swt ini ke sebuah alam ciptaan sendiri.

Kedua

Sebatan ini, tidak zalim sama sekali kerana ia bukan bertujuan menyakitkan seperti sebatan ekor pari yang menghakis kulit, daging dan sampai ke tulang. Sebatan ini hanyalah untuk pengajaran, seperti denda cikgu kepada muridnya, ibu kepada anaknya atas tujuan mengajar, atas asas belas kasihan dan bukan dendam kesumat dan ‘geram' memukul.

Hasilnya, pelbagai displin sebatan telah ditentukan dalam hukum Islam iaitu [9] :-

* Tidak boleh dipukul wajah dan kemaluan.[10]
*
Alat yang digunakan mestilah tidak besar, bukan tongkat yang besar, ia adalah seperti dahan dan ranting sederhana sahaja.
*
Tidak diharuskan si pemukul mengangkat tanganya melebihi paras ketiaknya, atau tidak boleh terlihat bawah lengannya semasa mengangkat pemukul, dan pukulan tidak terlalu menyakitkan, tidak pula terlalu perlahan.
*
Yang diangkat adalah sikunya sahaja dan bukan lengan.
*
Lelaki disebat secara berdiri, wanita secara duduk.

Adakah jenis pukulan yang sebegini pun dianggap zalim? Jika demikian guru-guru sekolah, ibu bapa, suami memukul, adalah lebih zalim kerana hukumannya tidak dibicarakan di mahkamah.

Bagi saya, jika hukuman sebegini pun masih zalim, tentunya yang menuduh ia zalim itu akan jadi lebih zalim kerana bercakap dan mengkritik tanpa ilmu.

Cara sebatan di bawah adalah yang dilaksanakan di Arab Saudi. Lebih lembut dari apa yang didemokan di Malaysia

Ketiga

Sejauh mana pula adilnya orang luar seperti Tun Dr Mahathir dan yang lainnya, mempertikaikan hak seorang hakim dalam membuat keputusan?.

Bukankah sang hakim lebih berhak menentukan hukuman yang paling adil disebabkan beliau berada sepanjang sesi perbicaraan dari kedua-dua belah pihak, mendengar pandangan kesemua pembela dan pendakwa. Justeru, adalah TIDAK ADIL bagi orang di luar mahkamah untuk mengkiritk sewenangnya keputusan hakim, sedangkan mereka tidak mempunyai gambaran sebenar di sebalik sesebuah kes. Mungkin sahaja, si pesalah sendiri redha dan ingin hukuman dilaksanakan. Justeru itulah keadilannya.

Keempat

Bukankah keputusan hakim patut dihormati sebagai menunjukkan autoriti badan kehakiman dari sebarang gangguan luar?. Kita kerap mendengar di mahkamah civil bahawa sebarang keputusan mahkamah tidak boleh dikritik terbuka sama ada di dalam mahkamah atau diluarnya, kerana akan termasuk di dalam kesalahan ‘menghina mahkamah' (contempt of court), lalu mengapa pula pihak yang kurang maklumat di luar ini dengan senang dan mudah mengkritik keputusan mahkamah Syariah?.

Kelima

Di dalam Islam, adil atau tidak bukan terletak pada logik aqal manusia semata-mata, namun adil yang sebenarnya adalah melaksanakan apa yang diperintahkan oleh Allah swt dan baginda Nabi s.a.w. Kalau dalam konteks kes ini, pesalah juga telah bersedia menjalani hukuman tersebut sebagai satu proses kesedaran dirinya. Adilkah kita mempersoalkan hak pesalah untuk mendapat hukuman.?

KESIMPULAN

Sebagai kesimpulan kepada beberapa jawapan kepada persoalan yang diutarakan oleh Tun Dr Mahathir.

* DR. M : Tetapi benarkah hukuman ini tepat bagi jenayah minum arak?

Ye, benar, bukti-bukti berkenaan wujudnya hukuman ini bersumberkan hadis-hadis yang sohih.

* DR. M : Apakah ada larangan dalam Islam untuk mengkanunkan undang-undang syariah?

Di dalam Islam, tiada larangan sama sekali, malah digalakkan bagi mencapai keseragaman dalam keputusan hakim.

* DR. M : Jika Kerajaan tidak mengkanunkan undang-undang syariah melalui proses perbahasan dan kelulusan oleh dewan-dewan undangan, atau melalui fatwa oleh ulama-ulama, bolehkah tulisan-tulisan ulama tertentu dijadikan asas hukum mengikut pendapat hakim?

Ini saya tidak pasti, memang sepatutnya tidak boleh hakim menjatuhkan hukuman tanpa undang-undang itu dikanunkan, cuma saya tidak pasti mengapa ia belum dikanunkan. Sepatutnya sesebuah kerajaan negeri bertanggungjawab untuk mengkanunkannya. Namun sebelum ia dikanunkan, pertikaian yang diutarakan oleh Tun memang relevan dalam konteks hukum dunia, namun adalah salah di sisi Islam, kerana semua hukum Islam sepatutnya dikanunkan.

Mahkamah ini pula adalah mahkamah Syariah yang khusus untuk hal ehwal orang Islam dan bukannya mahkamah sivil. Justeru apa ertinya sebuah mahkamah dinamakan ‘SYARIAH' jika keputusan yang berlandaskan hukum Islam juga tidak boleh dilaksanakan.? Jika demikian, tiada erti nama ‘syariah' pada sebuah mahkamah Syariah lagi.

* DR.M : Dalam Al-Quran terdapat 43 ayat yang menegaskan; "Apabila kamu hukum, hukumlah dengan adil". Apakah mungkin seorang hakim itu tidak adil ataupun tersilap dalam pertimbangannya? Apakah tidak ada dalam Islam belas kasihan bagi yang bersalah buat kali pertama?

Lebih zalim yang mengkritik tanpa ilmu. Hukuman ini adalah adil atau tidak telah diulas di atas, dan ia juga tertakluk kepada penentuan sama ada hukuman sebat peminum arak adalah hudud atau takzir.

* DR. M : Sudahkah kita rujuk kepada Al-Quran berkenaan dengan minum beer (arak) dan hukuman yang perlu dikenakan supaya keadilan tercapai?

Oleh kerana dirujuk kepada hukum al-Quran dan Hadis nabi, hukuman tersbeut patut dijalankan. Kerna arak terbukti merosakkan umum dan bukan hanya individu terbabit semata-mata. Cuba lihat dan fahami statistik yang disertakan di atas.

* DR. M : Saya harap pihak-pihak yang pakar dalam perkara ini dapat menunjuk ayat-ayat Al-Quran dan kitab-kitab yang dirujuk oleh hakim apabila hukuman ini dijatuhkan.

Jika seseorang itu berkefahaman sesat 'anti hadis', sudah tentu hanya akan mendakwa tiadanya ayat Quran yang specifik sebagai alasan, namun terlalu banyak ayat-ayat al-Quran yang menjelaskan keperluan untuk taat dan mengikuti Rasulullah, bagaimana cara taat? tidak lain dengan merujuk kepada sumber perincian ayat-ayat Al-Quran yang biasanya bersifat umum, sumber itu adalah hadis-hadis Nabi. Tidak menerima Hadis bermakna seseorang itu tidak menerima Al-Quran. Gelaran yang tepat bagi kumpulan yang tidak meyakini hadis, sebenarnya bukan kumpulan 'anti hadis' tetapi golongan anti 'Al-Quran dan Hadis' sekaligus.

Kalaulah semua hadis itu tidak boleh dipercayai sebagaimana dakwaan kumpulan sesat 'anti hadis (& Quran) tadi,' bagaimana mungkin boleh wujud ayat-ayat Al-Quran seperti di bawah yang menyuruh kita mengikut Rasulullah? Sudah tentu akan berlaku kontradiksi, dan mustahil Allah akan mengarahkan kita kepada sesuatu perkara yang mustahil atau di luar kemampuan untuk diikuti.

Kerana itu jelas bahawa apabila Allah memberitahu bahawa Allah menjaga Al-Quran, maka yang termasuk juga di dalam peliharaan Allah adalah hadis-hadis. Kerana itu sehingga hari ini, kita dapat lihat sistem yang sangat terperinci dalam tapisan sesebuah hadis.

Dalam konteks sebatan ini, ayat-ayat yang menjadi sumber hukumannya merujuk kepada semua ayat-ayat yang mengarahkan kita untuk patuh kepada Nabi s.a.w dan mencontohinya, itulah satu-satunya jalan selamat dan diredhai Allah swt . Sebagai contoh ,ayat nya adalah dari Surah Al-Imran ayat ke- 31

Ertinya : Katakanlah: "Jika kamu (benar-benar) mencintai Allah, ikutilah aku, niscaya Allah mengasihi dan mengampuni dosa-dosamu." Allah Maha Pengampun lagi Maha Penyayang. ( Ali- Imran : 31 )

dan sebuah ayat lagi :-

Ertinya : Hai orang-orang yang beriman, taatilah Allah dan taatilah Rasul (Nya), dan ulil amri di antara kamu. Kemudian jika kamu berlainan pendapat tentang sesuatu, maka kembalilah ia kepada Allah (Al Qur'an) dan Rasul (sunnahnya), jika kamu benar-benar beriman kepada Allah dan hari kemudian. Yang demikian itu lebih utama (bagimu) dan lebih baik akibatnya. ( An-Nisa : 59)

Jadi bagaimana ingin mengikuti dan merujuk kepada Rasul dalam konteks hukuman bagi peminum arak ini?. Jawapannya sekali lagi, iaitu dengan merujuk kepada hadis-hadis baginda Nabi. sebahagiannya telah disebut di atas. Manakala kitab-kitab rujukannya boleh rujuk senarai kitab yang dirujuk di dalam nota kaki artikel ini. Itulah kitab-kitabnya. Jika mahu melihat gambar kitabnya, saya sertakan salah sebuah darinya yang amat penting. Semoga dapat membacanya dengan faham.

AKHIRNYA DIHARAP TUN DR MAHATHIR SUDI UNTUK MEMBACA ULASAN DAN JAWAPAN SAYA KEPADA SOALAN-SOALAN BELIAU INI.

fathbari.jpg

Gambar : Kitab Fathul Bari Syarah Sohih al-Bukhari, Karangan Imam Ibn HajarAl-Asqolani.

Semoga beroleh manfaat, sekian

Zaharuddin Abd Rahman

www.zaharuddin.net

5 Ramadhan 1430 H

26 Ogos 2009

[1] Sohih Muslim, mp 1706, jil 11, 216

[2] Riwayat Bukhari, no 6391, Jil 6, hlm 2487 ; Sohih Muslim, no 1706, Jil 11, hlm 211

[3] Dalam satu riwayat yang lain, Abd Rahman Auf berkata : "Seringan-ringan hudud adalah lapan puluh sebatan". Abd Rahman Auf mencadangkan agar diikut sebatan hudud yang paling ringan iaitu 80 sebatan bagi pesalah qazf. Lalu cadangan ABd Rahman tersebut, diterima Umar r.a.

[4] Sohih Muslim, no 1706, jil 11, hlm 215 ; Sunan Abu Daud, JIl 2, hlm 472

[5] Sohih Muslim, no 1707, Jil 11, hlm 216

[6] Sunan Al-Kubra, Al-Bayhaqi ; Al-Talkhis al-habir, IBn Hajar, no. 2118, jil 4, hlm 144,

[7] Rujuk hadis sohih riwayat al-Bukhari, no 6395, Jil 6, hlm 2488

[8] Tetapi mestilah pesalah memenuhi syarat-syarat berikut : 1) Islam 2) Sudah baligh dan beraqal 3) buat atas pilihan sendiri dan bukan dipaksa 4) Mengetahui berkenaan haramnya arak. 5) Minum arak dengan jelas sama ada melalui mulut atau suntikan dan sedar. 6) Minuman yang diminum itu memabukkan ( Rujuk MUghni al-Muhtaj, 4/178 ; AL-Muhazzab, As-Syirazi, 5/467 ; Al-Majmu' , An-Nawawi, 22/258)

[9] Al-Muhazzab, 5/458 ; Al-Majmu', An-Nawawi, 22/261 ; Al-Mu'tamad Inda As-Syafie, 5/228

[10] Dari hadis riwayat Abu Daud, 2/476

KAJIAN SANAD HADIS, ANTARA JOSEPH SCHACHT DAN M.M. AZAMI

2009-06-05T02:30:00.000-07:00

KAJIAN SANAD HADIS, ANTARA JOSEPH SCHACHT DAN M.M. AZAMI
Oleh : Zailani, M.Ag
I. Pendahuluan
Kajian tentang sumber hukum Islam telah banyak dibahas oleh para pakar,
baik di kalangan umat Islam, maupun dari luar Islam. Di antaranya menyangkut
dengan sumber hukum Islam, terutama Hadis Nabi saw. Hal ini dapat dipahami
bahwa Hadis Nabi mempunyai fungsi yang sangat urgen dalam pertumbuhan dan
perkembangan hukum Islam

Di samping fungsi Hadis tersebut secara khusus sebagai salah satu sumber
dalam penetapan hukum, Hadis juga tidak sama dengan al-Qur’an, sebab al-Qur’an
telah ditulis pada masa Nabi dan telah dibukukan pada masa pemerintahan Usman
bin Affan. Sedangkan Hadis baru dibukukan pada akhir abad pertamadan awal abad
kedua hijrah yaitu pada masa pemerintahan Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (61-101 H)1 yang
mana pada masa ini merupakan masa penutup sikap pro dan kontra tentang
penulisan Hadis.
Disebabkan lamanya tenggang waktu antara Rasulullah dengan masa
pembukuan Hadis ini, menjadikan Hadis sebagai sasaran empuk bagi orang yang
tidak senang dengan agama Islam, khsusnya oleh kaum orientalis yang ingin
menginginkan agar umat Islam tidak percaya kepada Hadis, atau paling tidak
membuat umat Islam meragukan sumber hukum Islam yang kedua itu dari hasil
penelitian yang mereka lakukan.
Salah seorang orientalis yang sangat mengguncangkan dunia Islam oleh hasil
penelitiannya adalah Joseph Schacht, salah seorang murid Ignaz Goldziher, yang
mengatakan bahwa sanad Hadis itu merupakan buatan para qadhi yang yang ingin
melegitimasi pendapat mereka dengan menyandarkannya kepada Rasul, atau
kepada tokoh-tokoh yang ada di belakang mereka, yang dikenal dengan teori
projecting back. Makalah ini mencoba untuk melihat teori yang dikembangkan oleh
Joseph Schacht ini, serta bantahan yang dilakukan oleh para tokoh Islam
sesudahnya.
Prof. Dr. Joseph Schacht lahir di Silisie Jerman pada 15 Maret 1902.
Karirnya sebagai orientalis dimulai dengan belajar pilologi klasik, theologi, dan
bahasa-bahasa Timur di Universitas Berslauw dan Universitas Leipzig. Ia
meraih gelar Doktor dari Universitas Berslauw pada tahun 1923, ketika ia
berusia 21 tahun.
Pada tahun 1925 ia diangkat menjadi dosen di Universitas Fribourg, dan
pada tahun 1929 ia dikukuhkan sebagai Guru Besar. Pada tahun 1932 ia pindah
ke Universitas Kingsbourg, dan dua tahun kemudian ia meninggalkan negerinya
Jerman untuk mengajar tata bahasa Arab dan bahasa Suryani di Universitas
Fuad Awal (kini Universitas Cairo) di Cairo Mesir. Ia tinggal di Cairo sampai
tahun 1939 sebagai Guru Besar.2
Ketika perang dunia II meletus, Schacht meninggalkan Cairo dan pindah
ke Inggeris untuk kemudian bekerja di Rasio BBC London. Meskipun ia
seorang Jerman, namun dalam perang dunia II ia berada di pihak Inggeris. Dan
ketika perang selesai, ia tidak pulang ke Jerman, melainkan tetap tinggal di
Inggeris, dan menikah dengan wanita Inggeris. Bahkan pada tahun 1947 ia
menjadi warga negara Inggeris.
Meskipun ia bekerja untuk kepentingan negara Inggeris dan mengkhianati
tanah airnya sendiri, namun pemerintah Inggeris tidak memberikan imbalan
apa-apa kepadanya. Sebagai seorang ilmuan yang menyandang gelar Propesor-
Doktor, di Inggeris ia justeru belajar lagi di tingkat Pasca Sarjana Universitas
Oxford, sampai ia meraih gelar Magister (1948) dan Doktor (1952) dari
universitas tersebut.
Pada tahun 1954 ia meninggalkan Inggeris dan mengajar di Universitas
laiden Negeri Belanda sebagai Guru Besar sampai tahun 1959. Di sini ia ikut
menjadi supervisor atas cetakan kedua buku Dairah al-Ma’arif al-Islamiyah.
Kemudian pada musim panas tahun 1959 ia pindah ke Universitas Colombia
New York, dan mengajar di sana sebagai Guru Besar, sampai ia meninggal
dunia pada tahun 1969.3
Meskipun ia seorang pakar Sarjana Hukum Islam, namun karya-karya
tulisnya tidak terbatas pada bidang tersebut. Secara umu, ada beberapa disiplin
ilmu yang ia tulis. Antara lain, kajian tentang Manuskrip Arab, Edit-Kritikal
atas Manuskrip-manuskrip Fiqh Islam. Kajian tentang ilmu Kalam, kajian
tentang Fiqh Islam, kajian tentang Sejarah Sains dan Filsafat, dan lain-lainnya.
Karya tulisnya yang paling monumental dan melambungkan namanya
adalah bukunya The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence yang terbit pada
tahun 1950, kemudian bukunya An Introduction to Islamic Lau yang terbit pada
tahun 1960.4 Dalam dua karyanya inilah ia menyajikan hasil penelitiannya
tentang Hadis Nabawi, di mana ia berkesimpulan bahwa Hadis Nabawi,
terutama yang berkaitan dengan Hukum Islam, adalah buatan para ulama abad
kedua dan ketiga hijrah.
2. Pembahasan
Dalam mengkaji Hadis Nabi, Schacht lebih banyak menyoroti aspek sanad
(transmisi, silsilah keguruan) dari pada aspek matan (materi Hadis). Sementara
kitab-kitab yang dipakai dalam ajang penelitiannya adalah kitab al-Muwaththa’
karya Imam Malik, kitab al-Muwaththa’ karya Imam Muhammad al-Syaibani,
serta kitab al-Umm dan al-Risalah karya Imam al-Syafi’i. Menurut Prof. Dr.
M.M Azami, kitab-kitab ini lebih layak disebut kitab-kitab Fiqh dari pada kitabkitab
Hadis. Sebab kedua jenis kitab ini memiliki karakteristik yang berbeda.
Oleh karena itu, meneliti Hadis-Hadis yang terdapat dalam kitab-kitab fiqh
hasilnya tidak akan tepat. Penelitian Hadis haruslah pada kitab-kitab Hadis.5
Prof. Schacht menegaskan bahwa Hukum Islam belum eksis pada masa
al-Sya’bi (w. 110 H). penegasan ini memberikan pengertian bahwa apabila
ditemukan Hadis-Hadis yang berkaitan dengan hukum Islam, maka Hadis-hadis
itu adalah buatan orang-orang yang hidup sesudah al-Sya’bi. Ia berpendapat
bahwa Hukum Islam baru dikenal semenjak masa pengangkatan para qadhi
(hakim agama). Pada khalifah dahulu (khulafa al-Rasyidin) tidak pernah
mengangkat qadhi. Pengangkatan Qadhi baru dilakukan pada masa Dinasti Bani
Umayyah.6
Kira-kira pada akhir abad pertama hijrah (+ 715-720 M) pengangkatan
qadhi itu ditujukan kepada orang-orang “spesialis” yang berasal dari kalangan
yang taat beragama. Karena jumlah orang-orang spesialis ini kian bertambah,
maka akhirnya mereka berkembang menjadi kelompok aliran fiqh klasik. Hal
ini terjadi pada dekade pertama abad kedua hijrah.
Keputusan-keputusan hukum yang diberikan qadhi ini memerlukan
legitimasi dari orang-orang yang memiliki otoritas lebih tinggi. Karenanya,
mereka tidak menisbahkan keputusan-keputusan itu kepada diri mereka sendiri,
melainkan menisbahkan kepada tokoh-tokoh sebelumnya. Misalnya, orang Iraq
menisbahkan pendapat mereka kepada Ibrahim al-Nakha’i (w. 95 H).
Perkembangan berikutnya, pendapat-pendapat para qadhi itu tidak hanya
dinisbahkan kepada tokoh-tokoh terdahulu yang jaraknya masih dekat,
melainkan dinisbahkan kepada tokoh yang lebih dahulu, misalnya Masruq.
Langkah selanjutnya, untuk memperoleh legitimasi yang lebih kuat, pendapatpendapat
itu dinisbahkan kepada tokoh yang memiliki otoritas paling tinggi,
misalnya Abdullah ibn Mas’ud. Dan pada tahap terakhir, pendapat-pendapat itu
dinisbahkan kepada Nabi Muhammad saw. Inilah rekontruksi terbentuknya
sanad Hadis menurut Prof. Schacht, yaitu dengan memproyeksikan pendapatpendapat
itu kepada tokoh-tokoh yang legitimit yang ada dibelakang mereka,
inilah yang disebut oleh Schacht dengan teori projecting Back.7
Kemudian dari itu, menurut Prof. Schacht menuculnya aliran-aliran fiqh
klasik ini membawa konsekwensi logis, yaitu munculnya kelompok oposisi
yang terdiri dari ahli-ahli Hadis. Pemikiran dasar kelompok Ahli-ahli hadis ini
adalah bahwa hadis-Hadis yang berasal dari Nabi saw. harus dapat mengalahkan
aturan-aturan yang dibuat oleh kelompok aliran-aliran fiqh. Oleh karena itu,
untuk mencapai tujuan ini, kelompok ahli Hadis membuat penjelasan-penjelasan
dan Hadis-hadis, seraya mengatakan bahwa hal itu pernah dikerjakan atau
diucapkan oleh Nabi saw. Mereka juga mengatakan bahwa hal itu mereka
terima secara lisan berdasarkan sanad yang bersambung dari para periwayat
Hadis yang dapat dipercaya.
Kesimpulan dari teori Prof. Schacht ini adalah baik kelompok aliran-aliran
fiqh klasik maupun kelompok ahli-ahli Hadis, keduanya sama-sama pemalsu
hadis. Karenanya, sebagaimana yang dikutip oleh Ali Mustafa Yaqub, Prof.
Schacht mengatakan : we shall not meet any legal tradition from the prophet
which can be considered authentic. (kita tidak akan dapat menemukan satu pun
Hadis nabi yang berkaitan dengan hukum, yang dapat dipertimbangkan sebagai
Hadis Shaheh.8
Untuk membantah teori yang dikemukakan oleh para orientalis,
khususnya Prof. Schacht, yang meneliti dari aspek sejarah, maka M.M. Azami
menghancurkan teori Schacht ini juga melalui penelitian sejarah, khususnya
sejarah Hadis. Azami melakukan penelitian khusus tentang Hadis-Hadis nabi
yang terdapat dalam naskah-naskah klasik. Di antaranya adalah naskah milik
Suhail bin Abi Shaleh (w.138 H). Abu Shaleh (ayah Suhail) adalah murid Abu
Hurairah shahabat nabi saw.
Naskah suhail ini berisi 49 Hadis. Sementara azami meneliti perawi Hadis
itu sampai kepada generasi Suhail, yaitu jenjang ketiga (al-thabaqah altsalitsah).
Termasuk jumlah dan domisili mereka. Azami membuktikan bahwa
pada jenjang ketiga, jumlah perawi berkisar 20 sampai 30 orang, sementara
domisili mereka terpencar-pencar dan berjauhan, antara India sampai Maroko,
antara Turki sampai Yaman. Sementara teks hadis yang mereka riwayatkan
redaksinya sama.9
Azami berkesimpulan bahwa sangat mustahil menurut ukuran situasi dan
kondisi pada saat itu mereka pernah berkumpul untuk membuat Hadis palsu
sehingga redaksinya sama. Dan sangat mustahil pula bila mereka masingmasing
membuat Hadis, kemudian oleh generasi berikutnya diketahui bahwa
redaksi hadis yang mereka buat itu sama. Kesimpulan Azami ini bertolak
belakang dengan kesimpulan Schacht, baik tentang rekontruksi terbentuknya
sanad hadis, maupun bunyi teks (matan) Hadis tersebut.
Sebagai contoh, Azami mengemukakan Hadis yang artinya di mana Nabi
saw. bersabda : “ Apabila salah seorang di antara kamu bangun dari tidurnya,
maka hendaknya ia mencuci tangannya, karena ia tidak tahu semalam
tangannya berada di mana “. Hadis ini dalam naskah Suhail bin Abi Shaleh
berada pada urutan nomor 7, dan pada jenjang pertama (generasi shahabat)
diriwayatkan oleh lima orang, yaitu Abu Hurairah, Ibn Umar, Jabir, Aisyah, dan
Ali bin Abi Thalib.
Abu Hurairah sendiri kemudian meriwayatkan Hadis tersebut kepada 13
orang tabi’in (generasi kedua). 13 orang tabi’in ini kemudian menyebar ke
berbagai penjuru negeri Islam. 8 orang tetap tinggal di Madinah, seorang tinggal
di Kufah, 2 orang tinggal di Basharah, seorang tinggal di Yaman, dan seorang
lagi tinggal di Syam.
Tiga belas Tabi’in ini kemudian meriwayatkan lagi kepada generasi
berikutnya (generasi ketiga = Tabi’ Tabi’in), dan jumlah mereka menjadi =
tidak kurang dari 16 orang. Mereka tinggal di Madinah (6 orang), Bashrah (4
orang), Kufah (2 orang), Makkah (1 orang), Yaman (1 orang), Khurasan (1
orang), dan Himsh-Syam (1 orang).10 Maka mustahil 15 orang yang
domisilinya terpencar-pencar di tujuh kota yang berjauhan itu pernah berkumpul
pada satu saat untuk bersama-sama membuat Hadis palsu yang redaksinya
sama, atau mustahil pula, bila mereka secara sendiri-sendiri di kediamannya
masing-masing membuat Hadis, dan kemudian diketahui bahwa bahwa redaksi
Hadis tersebut secara kebetulan sama. 16 orang rawi di atas adalah hanya dari
jalur Abu Hurairah. Apabila jumlah rawi itu ditambah dengan rawi-rawi dari
empat jalur lainnya, yaitu Ibn Umar, Jubir, Aisyah, dan Ali, maka jumlah
perawi itu akan menjadi lebih banyak.11
Dengan demikian apa yang dikembangkan oleh Prof. Schacht dengan
teorinya Projecting Back, yang mengemukakan bahwa sanad Hadis itu baru
terbentuk belakangan dan merupakan pelegitimasian pendapat para qadhi dalam
menetapkan suatu hukum, adalah tidak benar, hal ini sudah dibuktikan oleh
Azami dengan penelitiannya bahwa sanad Hadis itu memang muttashil sampai
kepada rasulullah saw. melalui jalur-jalur yang telah disebutkan di atas. Hal ini
membuktikan juga bahwa Hadis-hadis yang berkembang sekarang bukanlah
buatan para qadhi, tetapi merupakan perbuatan atau ucapan yang datang dari
rasul saw. sebagai seorang Nabi dan panutan umat Islam.
3. Kesimpulan
Teori Projecting Back yang dikemukakan oleh Joseph Schacht di atas,
terlihat ada kelemahan-kelemahan yang kemungkinan akan muncul dari teori itu
sendiri. Kelemahan tersebut di anataranya adalah bahwa bila sanad itu
diciptakan oleh seorang qadhi dalam melegitimasi pendapat mereka, maka
mustahil akan terdapat banyak jalur dalam satu sanad Hadis. Kemudian apabila
Hadis itu berasal dari para qadhi, maka tidak akan mungkin antara qadhi yang
terdapat di kufah, umpamanya sama lafaz atau bunyi yang ia ucapkan dengan
qadhi yang berada di tempat yang lain. Sebagaimana bantahan yang
disampaikan oleh M.M. Azami melalui penelitiannya di atas. Wa Allah ‘A’lam.
Catatan Kaki
1. Muhammad Ajjaj al-Khatib, Al-Sunnah Qabla al-Tadwin, Bairut, Daar al-Fikr, 1981, hlm. 373.
2. Ali Mustafa Yaqub, Kritik Hadis, Jakarta, Pustaka Firdaus, 1995, hlm. 19.
3. Abdurrahman Badawi, Mausu’ah al-Mustasyriqin, Bairut, Daar al-Ilmi al-Malayin, 1989, hlm. 252-
253.
4. Ibid, hlm. 253-255.
5. Muhammad Mushthafa Azami, Dirasat fi al-Hadits al-Nabawi wa Tarekh Tadwinih, Bairut, almaktab
al-Islami, 1980, hlm. 398.
6. Joseph Schacht, An Introductionti Islamic Law, Oxford, Clarendom Press, 1964, hlm. 34.
7. Ibid, hlm. 31-32.
8. Ali Musthafa Yaqub, op. cit., hlm. 22.
9. M. M. Azami, Studies in Early Hadits Literature, Indianapolis-Indiana, American Trust Publication,
1978, hlm. 222-223
10. Iibid, hlm. 225-226.
11. Ibid, hlm 227.

On The Nature Of Hadith Collections Of Imam Al-Bukhari & Muslim

2009-02-18T00:18:00.000-08:00

On The Nature Of Hadith Collections Of Imam Al-Bukhari & Muslim

Khalid al-Khazraji, Muhammad Ghoniem & M S M Saifullah

First Composed: 3rd September 1999

Last Modified: 24th August 2005

Assalamu-`alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

1. Introduction

Over the years, Christian missionaries have solidified their reputation for embracing zealous new recruits. One fresh addition to this delegation of holy servicemen is the neophyte, Andrew Vargo. More often than not, the missionaries have overlooked the academic backgrounds of these fresh recruits, apparently intoxicated by their impassioned hatred for Islam. Mr. Vargo has recently tried his hand as a student of comparative religion, introducing some of the most fantastic ideas yet to the discourse. Among these ideas is a rather boastful claim concerning the collection of ahadith by the great Muslim scholar, Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256 AH). The highlight of Vargo's claim lies in the following:

In fact, it is difficult, in spite of the Muslim "science" of Hadith to know which traditions are strong or weak! For example, Bukhari collected over 600,000 reports, but kept only 7,397 as true!

This is one of the most popular claims concerning the vast collection of ahadith of al-Bukhari in the Christian missionary literature and comes with fanciful explanations. For example, Anis Shorrosh, a well-known Arab missionary, says:

... Bukhari, collected twenty thousand of them, of which he rejected ten thousand, accounting them untrue. Of the remaining ten thousand he accepted only 7,275, declaring the rest to be untrustworthy. Abu Da'ud accepted as authentic only 4,800 rules out 50,000.^[1]

Similarly we find Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb claiming that:

...Bukhari, considered to be the most reliable collector, admitted that of the 300,000 hadith he collected, he considered only 100,000 might be true. He then narrowed this number down to 7,275, many of which are repetitions so that the total number is in fact near 3,000. That means that even he admitted there were errors in over 295,000 of them!^[2]

Nearly a similar statement is repeated by Geisler in his Baker Encyclopedia Of Christian Apologetics to cast doubts on the miracles performed by the Prophet Muhammad.^[3] Abdiyah Akbar Abdul-Haqq, on the other hand, labels what al-Bukhari did not include in his collection as "apocryphal".

As to the abundance of the apocryphal traditions, we learn that the famous authority al-Bukhari choose only 7,000 out of a host of 600,000 traditions that were current in his on time.^[4]

Similar statements were made by John Ankerberg and John Weldon, who quoted a "Muslim scholar".^[5]

Not surprising is the case of Rand Corporation, who have published an interesting report on Islam entitled "Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies". The report has two fold agenda: firstly, to try to create a version of Islam that suits the post-9/11 Western agenda and secondly encouraging creation of divisions in the Muslim society at home and abroad. The Rand Report's recipe to achieve this aim is to encourage and promote the so-called modernist Muslims and play one section of the society against another to split the Muslim society. A small example of it can be seen when the report uses the material from the hadith-rejectors (not surprisingly!) to claim "objectively" that:

Even if that were not the case, objectively speaking, there is little doubt that hadith is at best a dubious, flawed instrument. Consider that Al-Bukhari is the compiler of what is generally considered to be the most authoritative and reliable collections of hadith. He collected 600,000 hadith, examined them for their authenticity, eliminated all but 7,600 of them, deleted some for redundancy, and was left with a collection of about 4,000.^[6]

As we shall see, feisty statements such as the above only prove to be self-defeating in the end. This article intends to examine missionaries' thesis in light of the scholarship of Imam al-Bukhari, and thereby ascertain the actual worth of their claim.

To appreciate the broader perspective, we will also include a discussion of Imam Muslim's ahadith collection, insha'allah.

2. Imam Bukhari & The Nature Of His Collection

Vargo, Shorrosh, Geisler, Abdul Saleeb, Abdul-Haqq and Benard have practically begged the question for us already - where exactly did Imam al-Bukhari mention that among the 600,000 ahadith in his collection, only 7,397 are to be accepted as 'true'? They maintains the missionary tradition of conveniently omitting any references that would not support their thesis; the mark of a true academicians, indeed! Once again, it is left to the Muslims to enlighten the ill-informed missionaries on this matter.

Imam al-Bukhari's actual words have been reproduced below:

* The two sahih collections did not gather the totality of the authentic ahadith as proved by al-Bukhari's testimony: "I have not included in my book al-Jami` but what is authentic, and I left out among the authentic for fear of [excessive] length.(Footnote 2)"

Footnote 2 says:

He [al-Bukhari] meant that he did not mention all the turuq [parallel chains of transmission] for each and every hadith.^[7]

To reiterate this in elementary English, Imam al-Bukhari selected only a few authentic ahadith from his vast collection. However, he left out certain traditions, despite their authenticity, simply to avoid excessive length and repetition in his Al-Jami` (a discussion about which is given below). If anything, the privilege to make such a gesture is highly complimentary to the authenticity of the Islamic traditions. In another tradition, Imam al-Bukhari is also reported to have said:

He said, I heard as-Sa`dani say, I heard some of our companions say, Muhammad Ibn Isma`il said: I selected/published [the content of] this book - meaning the Sahih book - from about 600,000 hadiths/reports. Abu Sa`d al-Malini informed us that `Abdullah Ibn `Udayy informed us: I heard al-Hasan Ibn al-Husayn al-Bukhari say: "I have not included in my book al-Jami` but what is authentic, and I left out among the authentic what I could not get hold of."^[8]

The above quotation reflects Imam al-Bukhari's gallant honesty to admit that he was not able to collect each and every authentic tradition that existed in his day. Rather, his Al-Jami` is only a partial collection of authentic traditions, despite its massive volume. Furthermore, it should be clarified for the missionaries that the notion of a partial collection of authentic material is quite different from the notion of a partially authentic collection of material. However, it is not our aim to offer a course on propositional reasoning. Thus, we leave the point with the hope that they will eventually comprehend this piece of preschool logic.

Professor Mustafa al-Azami, who offered a devastating critique of Joseph Schacht's work, again clarifies the misunderstanding of many orientalists on this issue:

Al-Bukhari did not claim that what he left out were the spurious, nor that there were no authentic traditions outside his collection. On the contrary he said, "I only included in my book al-Jami` those that were authentic, and I left out many more authentic traditions than this to avoid unnecessary length." He had no intention of collecting all the authentic traditions. He only wanted to compile a manual of hadith, according to the wishes of his Shaikh Ishaq b. Rahwaih, and his function is quite clear from the title of his book al-Jami` al-Musnad al-Sahih al-Mukhtasar min umur Rasul Allah wa Sunanhi wa ayyamih. The word al-Mukhtasar, 'epitome', itself explains that al-Bukhari did not make any attempt at a comprehensive collection.^[9]

Yet, the missionaries seem to be living under the delusion that the 600,000 ahadith of Imam al-Bukhari's collection somehow means 600,000 separate narrations or bodies of text. His sloppy study of this issue becomes clear when one learns that a hadith is comprised of both a text (matn) and a chain of transmission (isnad). In the science of hadith, the same text with ten chains of transmission is regarded not as one hadith but rather as ten hadiths, despite the fact that the text attached to each chain is the same in every case.

Professor Mustafa al-Azami adds:

Now it is clear that when traditionalists give enormous numbers for the traditions, they mean channels and sources of their transmission, and do not mean real numbers of hadith.^[10]

Nabia Abbott, a prominent orientalist who conducted an extensive study on hadith literature, observed that the phenomenal growth of the corpus of this literature is not due to growth in content but due to progressive increase in the parallel and multiple chains of transmission, i.e., isnads:

... 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.^[11]

Take a highly simplified example of one Companion narrating a single hadith from the Prophet to two students: these students themselves teaching that narration again to two pupils each and so on until we reach the time of al-Bukhari and his contemporaries. We will find that in al-Bukhari's generation at least 16 individuals will be hearing the hadith from their respective teachers. Because each individual chain of transmission counts as a separate hadith, what started out as a single narration transmitted by one Companion only, has evolved within a short period of time to 16 ahadith; an increase of 1600%. The true nature of affairs, however, being far greater, with a far greater number of Companions transmitting a far greater number of narrations to a far greater number of students. This then is the form in which proliferation took place, the dispersion of narrators and chains of transmission. Using the mathematical application of geometric progression, Nabia Abbott concludes:

... using geometric progression, we find that one to two thousand Companions and senior Successors transmitting two to five traditions each would bring us well within the range of the total number of traditions credited to the exhaustive collections of the third century. Once it is realised that the isnad did, indeed, initiate a chain reaction that resulted in an explosive increase in the number of traditions, the huge numbers that are credited to Ibn Hanbal, Muslim and Bukhari seem not so fantastic after all.^[12]

The implications of explosive increase in of the isnad is dealt with here.

3. Imam Muslim & The Nature Of His Collection

Imam Muslim along the similar lines to that of Imam al-Bukhari , is reported to have said:

The translation of which is:

[...]. Imam Muslim said: "I have not included in my present book any thing but with proof [regarding authenticity] , and I have not left out anything but with proof". He also said: I did not include everything that I judge authentic/Sahih, I only included what received a unanimous agreement, i.e., what fulfilled all the criteria of authenticity agreed upon [by the scholars].

And Muslim has presented [his collection] to the scholars of his time, like Imam Abu Zar`ah, and retained what was void of defect, and left out what had some defect.^[13]

From the above quotation, it is clear that Imam Muslim's collection is also a partial collection of authentic material and not a partially authentic collection of material. He followed a certain set of criteria that demanded a proof for the inclusion of each and every hadith in his collection.

4. Conclusions

Imam al-Bukhari's collection of ahadith was maintained to be authentic on account of his authority, and it has been maintained as authentic ever since. The missionaries' assertion, that Imam al-Bukhari regarded almost 99% of his own collection as spurious, is among the most rash and foolhardy statements ever dared by Christian missionaries. On the contrary, the 7,397 refers to the number of hadiths that Imam al-Bukhari chose to include in his Al-Jami` and left out many authentic narrations from his vast collection for the fear of excessive length.

Again, according to the Vargo:

In fact, it is difficult, in spite of the Muslim "science" of Hadith to know which traditions are strong or weak!

We should wonder whether the neophyte is as quick to demonstrate the same puerile enthusiasm over the question of his own religious texts. Regardless, we will quote the famous trial of Imam al-Bukhari to show how maqlub^[14] (changed, reversed) ahadith can be identified with ease by a scholar of hadith:

The famous trial of al-Bukhari by the scholars of Baghdad provides a good example of a Maqlub isnad. The traditionists, in order to test their visitor, al-Bukhari, appointed ten men, each with ten ahadith. Now, each hadith (text) of these ten people was prefixed with the isnad of another. Imam al-Bukhari listened to each of the ten men as they narrated their ahadith and denied the correctness of every hadith. When they had finished narrating these ahadith, he addressed each person in turn and recounted to him each of his ahadith with its correct isnad. This trial earned him great honour among the scholars of Baghdad.^[15]

Finally, it is worth citing a significant trend in modern Western scholarship of the Prophetic traditions of Islam. For the past several decades, criticism of these traditions has been the Orientalist's whipping post, an opportunity to invalidate the traditions of Islam, which culminated in the work of Joseph Schacht, mentioned earlier. However, this position has practically been reversed in recent times, with the advent of academic honesty on the part of Western scholars. Professor John Esposito of Georgetown University has made the following counter-criticism of Schacht's traditional position:

Accepting Schacht's conclusion regarding the many traditions he did examine does not warrant its automatic extension to all the traditions. To consider all Prophetic traditions apocryphal until proven otherwise is to reverse the burden of proof. Moreover, even where differences of opinion exist regarding the authenticity of the chain of narrators, they need not detract from the authenticity of a tradition's content and common acceptance of the importance of tradition literature as a record of the early history and development of Islamic belief and practice.^[16]

The position of Esposito perhaps reflects the growing attitude among Western educational institutions that entertain any study of Islam and its traditions. This is simply evidenced by the fact that Professor Esposito has become one of the reigning authorities on Islam in the West, whose textbooks are considered university standards for courses on Islam.

Considering the missionaries' abuse of hadiths to denigrate the Prophet^(P) of Islam, it would be too generous to assume that Vargo, Shorrosh, Geisler and Abdul Saleeb "misunderstood" the nature of the collection of Imam al-Bukhari. As for the Rand Corporation's report, their "objectivity" lies in the unverified use of source material. An honest misunderstanding entails at least some understanding of the issue, which doesn't even seem to be their case. Perhaps the Christian missionaries might consider beginning a genuine study of the science of hadith before they embarrasses themselves further.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Abu Hudhayfah for providing us necessary help and allowing us to use his material.

And Allah knows best!

References

[1] Dr. A. A. Shorrosh, Islam Revealed: A Christian Arab's View Of Islam, 1988, Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville, p. 22.

[2] N. L. Geisler & A. Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent In The Light Of The Cross, 1993, Baker Books: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 165.

[3] "Muhammad, Alleged Miracles Of", in N. L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia Of Christian Apologetics, 2002, Baker Books: Grand Rapids (MI), p. 512.

[4] A. A. Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith With A Muslim, 1980, Bethany House Publications: Minneapolis, p. 45.

[5] J. Ankerberg & J. Weldon, Fast Facts On Islam, 2001, Harvest House Publishers: Eugene (OR), pp. 50-51.

[6] C. Benard, "Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies", 2003, Rand Corporation, p. 67.

[7] Muhammad Ajaj al-Khatib, Al-Mukhtasar al-Wajiz fi `Ulum al-Hadith, 1991, Mu'assasat al-Risalah, p. 135.

[8] Abi Bakr Ahmad Ibn `Ali al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Tarikh Baghdad Aw Madinah as-Salam, 1931 (1349 AH), Volume II, Maktabat al-Khanji, Cairo & Al-Maktabah al-`Arabiyyah, Baghdad and Matba'at as-S'adah near the State Department, Cairo, pp. 8-9.

[9] M. M. al-Azami, Studies In Early Hadith Literature, 1992, American Trust Publications: Indianapolis (USA), pp. 305-306.

[10] ibid., p. 306.

[11] N. Abbott, Studies In Arabic Literary Papyri, Volume II [Qur'anic Commentary & Tradition], 1967, University Of Chicago Press: Chicago (USA), p. 2.

[12] ibid., p. 72.

[13] Al-Imam Muhyee ad-Din Abi Zakariyya Yahya bin Sharaf al-Nawawi, Sahih Muslim Bi Sharh al-Imam al-Nawawi, Volume I, 1994/1414, Dar al-Khair, p. 1.

[14] A hadith is known as maqlub (changed, reversed) when its isnad is grafted to a different text or vice versa, or if a reporter happens to reverse the order of a sentence in the text.

[15] S. Hasan, An Introduction To The Science Of Hadith, 1995, Darussalam Publishers: Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) available online, quote taken from here.

[16] J. Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path, 1998, Oxford University Press, p. 81.

Q&A with Anti Hadeeth

2008-11-12T05:52:00.001-08:00

Here are a few common questions raised by Anti Hadeeth and the answers for our good reference. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Question 1

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.

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 2

Why muslims are divided?

2.1 Madzhab

2.2 Syiah – Sunnah

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.

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

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.

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”

b. 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]

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.

c. 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?

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.

d. 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).

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

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.

f.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.

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

g. 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!

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 interesting

h. According to Hanbel 6/136, 192,213, the prophet "Never urinated in a standing position." However Bukhari in his "authentic" book of Hadith says that the prophet indeed urinated in a standing position. (Bukhari 4/60-64)

I will have to get back to you on this cause I’ve never met this contradiction of the hadeeth yet.

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".

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.htm

Suffice 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

Revealed: UK's first official sharia courts

2008-09-15T01:40:00.000-07:00

The article is taken from Times Online. Despite many cynics and nay sayers, the plan is still proceeding.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

From The Sunday Times

September 14, 2008 Abul Taher

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network's headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Siddiqi said: "We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are."

The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future "seems unavoidable" in Britain.

In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.

In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.

It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of "smaller" criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. "All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases," said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a "parallel legal system" based on sharia for some British Muslims.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: "If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so."

Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: "I think it's appalling. I don't think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state."

There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.

Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.

Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones."

Additional reporting: Helen Brooks

Zaharuddin Rahman Response to Raja Petra's Article on Tudung

2008-09-09T18:24:00.000-07:00

Debat Tudung Wanita : Jawapan Kepada Artikel Raja Petra (Malaysia today) The Great Tudung Debate : A Respond to Raja Petra's Article Zaharuddin Abd RahmanThis writing is a response to Raja Petra Kamaruddin about muslim women's aurat in his popular blog (Malaysia today). Source

RAJA PETRA WROTE :In the article there was a sentence stating: "Apparently, the tudung was 'decreed' for only the Prophet's wives and not for all women..." So I've have looked into the Quran and found some things.

"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful." Surah Al-Ahzab (33), verse 59. Comment : Firstly, see the words 'so that they may be recognised and not annoyed'. This means at least the face must be visible. It is wrong to say that other women at that time (non Muslim Arabs, Jews, Christians) did not wear the tudung. The truth is that the Jewish and Christian women wore far more conservative tudung than the Muslim women.

Covering the body is also required of men and women in the desert. It has nothing to do with any religion. So when the verse says 'so that they may be recognised' it actually means the women should not cover their face or head in such a way that the people cannot differentiate them from other Christian and Jewish women who also wear tudung and veils. This means there is no such thing as a tudung to cover your head and face.

The verse 33:59 says the following in Arabic:

Ya ayyuhan nabi : O you prophet

qul li-azwajika wabanaatika : tell your wives, your daughters

wa nisaa i mu'mineena : and the believing women

yudneena : to lengthen

Alayhinna : over them

min jalabeebihinna : from their garments/cloaks.

There is absolutely NO mention of head or hair or face in this verse. There is no reference to tudung. The reference is to lengthen your garments over your body. This means women must dress decently.

UZAR'S COMMENT

Unfortunately, you have misinterpret the verse and understanding it out of its context, i assumed that's because you are not examining the whole structure of the verse, besides i think you did not posses adequate knowledges to do so, or maybe you are also very busy with your sumpah declaration and malaysian politic issues.

In reality, as a servant of Allah SWT and the follower of Rasulullah SAW, we are taught to always come back to Al-Quran and Al-Hadith to obtain assurance about the permissibility of a matter. Regarding this, Allah SWT said:-

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُل لِّأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاء الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِن جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى أَن يُعْرَفْنَ فَلَا يُؤْذَيْنَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَّحِيمًا

"O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies. That will be better, that they should be known (as a free respectable MUSLIM women) so as not to be molested. "(Al-Ahzab: 59)

It is agreed unanimously by ulama that every verse that is revealed to our prophet Muhammad s.a.w is also intended to Muslim except defined otherwise by our Prophet either in his hadis or by other quranic verses. For example: our prophet has more than four wives at a time, it is called "Khususiyat anbiya" which we are not allowed to follow due to Allah's will and many other logical reasons.

Therefore, in this case, covering aurat including head, hair, neck and chest is strongly commanded not only for prophet's wives but also to all muslim women. It is not just an Arab's custom due to the sandy desert, but it is indeed a religious commandment. It is also very obvious stated in the above verse where it is mentioned :

وَنِسَاء الْمُؤْمِنِينَ

Meaning : "the women of the believers"

Therefore whoever claims they are muslim, they are obliged to uphold and stick to the decree in the verse.

Jilbab is a dress (of similar width to ‘baju kurung') worn by women to cover their bodies. Syeikh Dr Yusof Al-Qaradawi explained that when some women during the Jahiliah period left their houses, they loved to display some parts of their beauty such as the chest, neck and hair until they were being harassed by those wicked men who like to commit zina.

Then, the verse above is revealed to command Muslim women to EXTEND (and not only) their jilbab so that the parts that could lead to fitnah will be covered. In this way, they would be identified as women who are protected (‘afifah) and a true MUSLIM WOMEN. As a consequence, they would not be molested.

The above verse elucidates that covering the aurat is an emblem of a Muslim. Allah SWT also said:

وَمَن يُعَظِّمْ شَعَائِرَ اللَّهِ فَإِنَّهَا مِن تَقْوَى الْقُلُوبِ

"And anyone who honours the symbols set up by God [shall know that] verily, these [symbols derive their value] from the God-consciousness in the [believers'] hearts " ( Al-Haj : 32 )

Therefore, the main reason (‘illah) for the above ruling is to prevent Muslim women from being molested by wicked men. Attires that display women's beauty or women walking and talking in a seducing manner could arouse a man's sexual desire. Such behavior is an indirect invitation to the male for teasing and molestation. (Adapted from kitab Al-Halal wal Haram fil Islam with slight modification)

It's also WRONG to say that "so that they may be recognised and not annoyed' mean face must be visible in order to be recognized.

Firstly : Is it acceptable to say that we can only recognised a women by looking at her face? Of course not, we can easily recognized them by many other ways, either by listening to her voice or many other things besides her face.

Secondly : Most of the Jahiliyyah womens are not wearing tudung at all and some of them wearing improper veils.( Refer Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 3/285). It is also stated clearly in the hadith narrated by Abu Hurairah, Rasulullah s.a.w. said:

"Two are the types of the denizens of Hell whom I did not see: (1) people having flogs like the tails of the ox with them and they would be beating people (unjust rulers); (2) the women who would be dressed but appear to be naked, who would be inclined (to evil) and make others incline towards it. Their heads would be like the humps of the bukht camel inclined to one side. They will not enter Paradise and they would not smell its odour whereas its odour would be smelt from such and such distance" (Narrated by Muslim, Sohih).

The JAHILIYYAH womens are said to wear attire but is still naked because they do have cloth on their body but it does not cover the aurat because it is transparent and exposes their skin; like the wearing of many women today. (Al-Halal Wal Haram Fil Islam, Dr Yusof Al-Qaradawi)

‘Bukhtun' in the hadith is a type of camel that has a big hump. Women's hair looks like the hump of a camel when it is pulled and tangled over their head. This shows that Jahiliyyah womens are not covering their head and hair. As for Christian and jews womens who you said wore tudung also at the time of prophet Muhammad s.a.w, you have to provide evidences on that. Besides, do you sure how Christian women exact attire in Mekkah and medina at that time?, Jewish people are too small to take into account and yet we don't know what are their tudung types. The most important, whatever types of thier tudung, we msulim has our own tudung with certain standards and conditions and it is a religious commandment.

Although the hadith was revealed thousand years ago, the Prophet s.a.w. was able to warn us of what would happen now. Today there are various saloons that set hair for women with million types of fashion and sadly men are the hair setter at most of these saloons.

RAJA PETRA WROTE :

2) "And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed." Surah An-Nur (24), verse 31.

Raja Petra Comment : Again there is no mention of head (ru'usa) in this verse or face (wujuh/wajh). Please note the words 'draw their veils over the bosoms'. The arabic is as follows:

walyadribna : and strike / cover

bi khumurihinna : with their outer garments

Ala : over / upon

juyoobihinna : their bosoms / breasts

Women are told to cover their chests/bosoms/breasts. That is all. This tallies with the earlier verse 33:59 above where the women are told to lengthen their clothes/garments. There is absolutely no mention of head (ru'usa), face (wujuh) or hair.

UZAR'S COMMENT FOR NUMBER 1 & 2 :

Raja Pete, it is very obvious that you are not analyzing the verse properly. Your simplistic interpretation is incorrect again, Almighty Allah has said :-

وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَى جُيُوبِهِنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ

Meaning : And tell the believing women to lower their veil and to be mindful of their chastity, and not to display their charms [in public] beyond what may [decently] be apparent thereof..

So you look Pete, why are you only focusing on some words of the verse and didn't give proper attention to the others. You have translated ‘Al-Khumur' wrongly, as that because of your harfiah (word by word)translation and harfiah understanding also, that kind of translation cannot help you in understanding the word correctly. The "al-Khumur" word will provide you the answer on your own created question and false assumption which you said : "There is absolutely NO mention of head or hair".

The true meaning of khumur (veil) is anything that is used to cover the head. Meanwhile ‘juyub' (the plural form of jaibun) is the curvature of the breast that is not covered with cloth. Therefore every woman must cover not only their head but also their chest including their neck and ears and all other parts that may lure a male.

In order to understand Quranic text correctly, he/she must comprehend and find the exact usage of terminologies and words in Arabic language. A person should also know how a term or word is being used in the Arabic community because Quran is using Arabic language. Therefore it is good to have knowledge on conservative Arab's (especially at the time of prophet s.a.w) way of life before he/she can get the true intended meaning; For this reason, we must refer to the tafseer book by great Muslim scholars to avoid ourselves from false impression.

That's also why it's better for those who wish to learn Islam in depth to pay a visit to Arabic countries in order to get some feels and get used to the usage of certain word by contemporary Arabs, it can give you some more clue in order to understand Arabic language in the Quran.

When Allah swt said "Khumurihinna" , so we must know, in a standard Arabic language what does it mean by "khumur", so the answer is veil which cover their head, hair, ear etc and then, when a person said "khumur" in front of knowledgable arab person, what he will understand?. Of course, it s a veil also. This fact has been told by many great classic Muslim scholar like Imam At-Tabarii ( died 301 H) in his famous tafseer book Jami al-Bayan and also Imam Ibn Katheer . (Tafsir At-Tabari, 18/120 ; Tafsir AL-Quran Al-'Azim, 3/285))

Besides the khumur which is a veil which covers the women head, and juyub which covers womens' neck, breast and chest, the verse also stress on :-

وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ

Meaning : that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof"..

Do you understand what ‘beauty and ornaments' means in this verse?

According to Syeikh Dr Yusof Al-Qaradawi, the adornment mentioned in the above verse refers to anything that is worn to beautify oneself; either natural beauty like face, hair and body; or manmade beautification like dress, embellishment, make-up and others.

In the above verse, Allah commanded women to conceal the adornment without any exemption. However, the exemption was "what is apparent". The scholars therefore have differences in opinion about the meaning and extent of "what is apparent" but all of them agreed unanimously that hair and head are included.

That is due to the following hadith :-

Saidatina Aisyah r.a narrated that her sister Asma' binti Abu Bakar entered the house of the Prophet s.a.w wearing attire made of transparent material that showed her skin. The Prophet s.a.w turned away from her and said:

"Hai Asma'! Verily when a woman has achieved puberty, she should not reveal her body except for this and this - showing the face and the palms (hands)." (Narrated by Abu Daud)

Although there is a discussion about narrators of this hadith, it is strengthen by many other hadith that allows revealing of the face and the palms if it does not bring any harm (fitnah). (Al-Halal Wal Haram Fil Islam)

This hadis also supporting the fact that women head and hair are ‘aurat and must be covered by muslim womens, only the face and palm or hand can be seen by the public.

Yes, there is discussion on what is the meaning of "what is apparent" which ALLOWED TO BE SEEN but it is not about hair, neck and head. Ibnu Abbas r.a, one of the great companions of the Prophet (s.a.w.) interpreted "what is apparent" is eyeliner and ring. Anas Bin Malik r.a is also of the same opinion.

Therefore, the body parts where the eyeliner and the ring are worn (i.e. the face and the palms) would also be considered as apparent. This also the opinon of the Tabien like Said bin Jubair, 'Atha', Auza'i and others.

However, Ummul Mukminin Aisyah r.a, Qatadah and a few others considered bracelet as something apparent. Therefore, the wrist (place of wearing a bracelet) is also considered as apparent if it does not cause any harm (fitnah). Regarding the limit from the wrist to the elbow, it is still under discussion among the scholars; therefore it is better to cover parts between the wrist and the elbow.

RAJA PETRA SAID

3) In order to interpret the Quran, we have to go to people who have knowledge about it. In what circumstance the verse was revealed, etc. But not just any scholar who says that they know.

Comment : We DO NOT interpret the Quran. May I suggest something much simpler? Why not we just read it? If we look at the Quran in its arabic and then look at the translated words just a little carefully, we will understand it. You DONT EVEN have to know Arabic. For example the arabic word for HEAD (kepala) is NEVER mentioned in any of the verses quoted above. Neither are the arabic words for face and hair. So how do the translators include head, face and hair? Someone must explain this.

UZAR'S COMMENT

I have responded to this false statement and it's no longer concern us.

Do you think that Allah will only use ru'asa to express head and sya'run as hair?.. no you are wrong Mr Pete, for example Allah s.w.t forbids us from saying ‘Ah' to our parents. So it is permissible to say ‘uh' and bull shit to your parent only because it is not mentioned in the Quran?.

When Allah forbids ‘ah' so its include all thing that has similar effect and covering not only bad words but also bad behaviour and actions towrd your parent. It is called in Usul Fiqh as Qiyas al-Awla or also can be considered as ‘umum al-lafz will carry all meaning under it.

So, women's head and hair falls under the words "al-khumur"in the verse. As simple as that.

As for the last part of Raja Petra's article, some of the hadith has been misquoted so i don't need to respond.

‘DON'T JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER' MYTH

I always come across with this expression and I believe you are the same. The following are the words of those women who do not cover their aurat who always claim to posess pure and kind hearts although they are wearing indecent outfits which reveal their aurat.

"Even women who put on hijaab commit crime nowadays, indulging in adultery, free-mixing and a lot more" A woman share her thought.

"In fact, we too are well-behaved, we do not bother others, we do not backbite and we stay away from bad things" The woman added.

Is it a sound argument? Is it true that the external appearance does not matter in Islam? Some of them are even one step ahead in their arguments that they reason with the meaning of an authentic hadith of the Prophet, which is:

"Verily Allah does not look at your physical being, your outer appearance nor your wealth, but He looks at your heart and your deeds" (Narrated by Muslim).

I feel sorry and dishearten looking at those who when arguing, easily throw out hadith in supporting their whims; indeed, they only utilize Islam in the matter that bring benefits to them.

An employee was caught playing game during working hours by his employer while he has yet to prepare the document requested by him. The employer thus said, "How are you going to excel in your carreer if this is your attitude towards work."

The employee responded, "You may see me outwardly as playing games but my heart is sincere and I performed my duty excellently."

Do you think that the employer believe in what his employee had said? Does Allah consider one's heart as pure and good through disobeying His commandments?

Indeed, something is only regarded as pure and good by measuring it with the scale of Allah and His Rasul, and not merely with the scale of our minds. If we refer to the scale of Islam, the Prophet SAW had said which means:

"Beware, in the body there is a piece of flesh; if it is sound, the whole body is sound and if it is corrupt the whole body is corrupt, and hearken it is the heart" (Narrated by Muslim)

Based on this hadith, Islamic scale necessitates that the purity of one's heart is apparent in its first stage, which is one's actions. It means that when one's actions always transgress against the commandments prescribed in Islam, it signifies the filth of one's heart. On the other hand, if the external actions submit to the commandment of Islam, thus it should be considered as good in the first stage, which is the external scale of lay people. Nevertheless, the second stage, which is whether one's intention is for seeking Allah's pleasure or for things such as showing off, we should leave the judgment only to Allah.

Therefore, we can judge a book by its cover in certain cases, such as in the case when the fundamentals of Islam are being transgressed; the cover is consequently reflecting what is inside the heart of a person.

Judging based on that which is apparent, does go along with the hadith:

إنما أنا بشر , وإنكم تختصمون إلىّ , ولعلّ بعضكم أن يكون ألحن بحجته من بعض , فأقضي بنحو ما أسمع , فمن قضيت له من حق أخيه شيئاَ فلا يأخذه , فإنما أقطع له قطعة من النار

Which means: "Verily I am only a human being, and you always presented arguments for me to solve. It may be that some of you are better in presenting argument than others. Therefore, I give out rulings based on what I have heard only. He, for whom I have made a ruling that violates the rights of the other party (due to the lack of skill of the person in presenting argument), does not take it. For verily, it will be for him a slice from the slices of hellfire" (Narrated by Abu Dawood, At-Tirmidzi and others; Refer Naylul Awtar, 8/632, no 3920).

This hadith clearly shows that a judge in Islam will give a ruling based on the information and the evident proofs presented to him. Similarly, in the case of covering aurat, if one reveals the aurat, it is a sign of transgression against Allah's commands. Thus, how would it be possible for this kind of heart to be perceived as a sound heart in Islam?

Women should realize that when the aurat is not covered properly, every single man who looks at it will be held accountable for every single gaze. The woman, on the other hand, is not going to be held accountable for that one sin merely; rather she will be held accountable for all the gazes from men that fell on her aurat. Just imagine how sinful she is for revealing the aurat only in one day. This is based on the Prophet's word:

من سن في الإسلام سنة سيئة فعليه وزرها ووزر من عمل بها من غير أن ينقص شيئاً

Which means: "Whosoever initiates a wrongdoing, upon him are a sin and the sin of every single person who does it without his sin being reduced even a little..." (Narrated by Ahmad and others-Authentic)

Included in the meaning of intiating is that someone intiates the revealing of her aurat in that day causing the man who looks at her to be held accountable. In fact, the woman herself is sinful for every single eye that sets on her aurat. Would this type of heart be considered as pure? After mountains of sins had rusted it?

Verily Allah is All Just and the Most Merciful. Rush towards Allah's love and mercy by obeying Him. For those who are hardhearted, no words can be shared except; be certain that Allah is true, His Rasul is true, and Paradise and Hellfire are true. If believe in them, why are the actions speak otherwise?

Thanks for you time.

Regards,.

Reply to Observer in Malaysia Today pt 2

2008-09-09T07:20:00.001-07:00

Continuation of my reply to the article "Replying ANTI ANTI Hadeeth ".

This Observer dude is also trying to confuse the Arabic behind the verse An-Nur 31. Observer says:

“You say that the 'khumur' is a cloth used to cover the head. Then you say that this same cloth must be pulled over the chest. If the women are required to do this, then along the way there is someting called their 'face' which is located between the head and the chest.”

The way I see it, human face IS located between their heads and chest. What are u ranting about here, Observer?

Observer is trying to change the meaning of the Quran as well. He says:

“Since you talk about grammar and arabic language, the subject of this statement is covering over the breasts (ala juyubihinna) or 'tutup dada'. Dont twist the grammar ok.”

Noticed that he wants to deny COMPLETELY the fact that An Nur:31 INSTRUCTS the covering of “Juyub”(cleavages) with “Khumur/Khimar” (head cover). After trying to cloud and confuse the explanation by going ring around the rosy, Observer finally comes to this conclusion. And how does he do it? He denies the part “Walyadrib bikhumur” in An Nur:31

Observer depicts the trait of a classic loser. When cornered, change the rule of the game. In short, the man is as confused as a monkey in a library.

And the explanation provided by Quinary is much more elegant and steeped in intellectual tradition. Observe:

“My response :
This depends largely on what is the interpretation of the word khumur. I am not sure whether this friend of Raja Petra speaks Arabic (which I am quite sure this anonymous friend of his has no arabic knowledge), but one thing not highlighted is the fact that khumur (the plural word of khimar) means something to cover, and what was normally referred to as head cover (tudung). The classical arabic dictionary, aqrib al-mawarid defines khimar as :
"all such pieces of cloth which are used to cover the head. It is a piece of cloth which is used by a woman to cover her head."

Imam Abu'l-Fida ibn Kathir said: "Khumur is the plural of khimar which means something that covers, and is what is used to cover the head. This is what is known among the people as a khimar."

So linguistically, khimar does not only mean something to cover, it is commonly used at that time to refer to head cover (tudung). So now we can see that khimar can be used as :

A piece that covers
Something specifically used to cover the head / head cover / tudung”

Observer also demonstrate his confusion about Al Hadeeth. He asks:

“Secondly you are accusing people of being anti hadeeth. Can you please explain exactly what you mean by 'anti hadeeth' ? Which hadeeth are you talking about? Do you have a complete collection of all the hadeeth? Is there such a thing as a complete collection of hadeeth in the first place? Please be honest. My friends at IKIM are still resolving that the hadeeth collections of Abu Dawud and Ibn Majah are incomplete. Tell me how can anyone reject something that is incomplete?”

Anyone and their uncle knows the meaning of Al Hadeeth and Anti Hadeeth. Go back to Sekolah Rendah Agama and learn the meaning. You must’ve missed that part way back when you were in Sekolah Agama.

As for IKIM collection of Abu Dawud and Ibnu Majah, it’s really weird as the collection has been confirmed a long time ago and there is hardly any issue. Maybe the IKIM people are not really competent OR Observer just don’t understand what the IKIM people are doing. I would bet on the latter.

Next, Observer asks about the meaning of “Jumhur Ulama”. He says;

“About khimar you say "Jumhur ulama' picked the second definition as the correct one." What do you mean by jumhur ulama? Please tell us EXACTLY (I really mean EXACTLY) how many ulama were involved in deciding on this particular jumhur. What were their names? Who classified them as ulama? What were the names (EXACTLY) of the people who classified these ulama as ulama? ont simply say 'Jumhur ulama' to mislead the people. Give us the EXACT details of the ulama as well as their jumhur”.

The reason why Observer ask stupid question like this is because he doesn’t know what Jumhur Ulama is but he’s already rejecting it.

The simple explanation is “jumhur” means “majority” or “most”. In other words, in a specific issue, scholars or ulama will comment on the issue or problem and majority of them supports a specific outcome.

It’s been in existence for a long time. And we refer to the books or opinions expressed orally. It’s not a big problem at all except for ignoramus like Observer.

An Observer that is not so Observant: A Reply to Article in MalaysiaToday (pt 1)

2008-09-09T06:43:00.000-07:00

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. “

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 :

“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 Oxford name Patricia Crone. Observer says that Patrica claims there is not proof of existence of Prophet Mohd Saw because there is no coin showing the Prophet’s name. Also, she claims that the people of Kufah prays in the Western direction. Observer also claim that Patricia Crone referred to books written by

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.[11]

[11] N. Abbott, Studies In Arabic Literary Papyri, Volume II [Qur'anic Commentary & Tradition], 1967, University Of Chicago Press: Chicago (USA), p. 2.

[/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)

Answer on MTODAY Article on Tudung from Quinary

2008-09-08T19:26:00.000-07:00

This is an article written by Quinary. It is a good rebutal to Raja Petra's article in MToday about wearing tudung in Islam.I read the news in The Star yesterday of some Muslim bodies including JAKIM which lodged a police report against Malaysia Today's editor, Raja Petra for allegedly insulting the Malays, Muslim and Islam. I was hoping that they were referring to a real insult done by Raja Petra, but much to my disappointment, the articles which are said to insult these Muslim bodies are the articles with title I promise to be a good, non-hypocritical Muslim and Not all arabs are descendants of the Prophet. If these two articles insulted these Muslim bodies, then I have nothing to say than this : you guys are being unnecessarily sensitive Malay Muslims.

That makes me think of whether those who lodged the police report really went through the articles, at least to read it entirely, or they just look at the title and jumped to the conclusion, or they actually do not understand English? Which one of the above factors is true then? In my opinion, those two articles referred to initially didn't tickle me even a bit. I think JAKIM should find something better to do than to lodge a police report on those two articles.

Today, however, Raja Petra published another article on head cover (tudung), The Great Tudung Debate. This one does attract my attention, though I must say that it is nowhere near to being an insult to me. I am not insulted at all, as this sort of view has been around for some times, especially by those anti-hadith clan or quranist. But as a head-covering-muslim-woman, I do believe I should put some respond in my blog over what I understand it to be. I do want to stress though, that I am not at all trying to belittle any of the non-head-covering women, as I do believe that this is something personal that does not affect our aqidah, and I do respect and accept the differences in opinion. The below respond is to present another side of the view, just so some people will not take this matter lightly.

I do believe though, that Raja Petra has touched this tudung issue at a very wrong place. This should be settled at ummah level first before opening it like that for public scrutiny. Among the statement published in The Great Tudung Debate article (which was said to be written by Raja Petra's anonymous friend) is this comment on An-Nur 31:

Again there is no mention of head (ru'usa) in this verse or face (wujuh/wajh). Please note the words 'draw their veils over the bosoms'. The arabic is as follows:
walyadribna : and strike / cover
bi khumurihinna : with their outer garments
Ala : over / upon
juyoobihinna : their bosoms / breasts
Women are told to cover their chests/bosoms/breasts. That is all. This tallies with the earlier verse 33:59 above where the women are told to lengthen their clothes/garments. There is absolutely no mention of head (ru'usa), face (wujuh) or hair.

My response :
This depends largely on what is the interpretation of the word khumur. I am not sure whether this friend of Raja Petra speaks Arabic (which I am quite sure this anonymous friend of his has no arabic knowledge), but one thing not highlighted is the fact that khumur (the plural word of khimar) means something to cover, and what was normally referred to as head cover (tudung). The classical arabic dictionary, aqrib al-mawarid defines khimar as :
"all such pieces of cloth which are used to cover the head. It is a piece of cloth which is used by a woman to cover her head."

Imam Abu'l-Fida ibn Kathir said: "Khumur is the plural of khimar which means something that covers, and is what is used to cover the head. This is what is known among the people as a khimar."

So linguistically, khimar does not only mean something to cover, it is commonly used at that time to refer to head cover (tudung). So now we can see that khimar can be used as :

A piece that covers
Something specifically used to cover the head / head cover / tudung

While I recognise and respect the fact that Raja Petra's friend choose to pick the first definition of khimar, we should go a step further in trying to find whether the Qur'an is referring to the first or the second definition. Common linguistic factor should be taken into consideration, at the time when the verse was sent down. Jumhur ulama' picked the second definition as the correct one.

When the verse An-Nur 31 was revealed, the term used : walyadribna bikhumurihinna
See how it was designed : bi-khumuri-hinna : with their khumur
The khumur was designed to be ma'rifah, not nakirah. Looking at it closely, this khumur is already there on the women's body. Before this verse was sent down, where is it that the khumur was used? Are we saying that the women of Arabia at that time march around topless that God asked them to now put on their shirt to cover their breast?

No, they didn't march around topless. They wore their khimar on their head. This is not suprising, that's the tradition at that time. In fact, we know that the Christians used that as well, as they are required to do so in the Bible via Corinthian 11. The difference is that :

Imam Abu Abdullah Qurtubi said: "Women in those days used to cover their heads with the khimar, throwing its ends upon their backs. This left the neck and the upper part of the chest bare, along with the ears, in the manner of the Christians. Then Allah commanded them to cover those parts with the khimar."

The practice to wear khimar to cover hair is already there within the society, but now this verse commanded that it is extended to be used to cover breast to make it more meaningful in the modesty business. Why such a hassle to ask the women to cover breast once again using another piece? Then ask a woman to stand wearing a baju kurung, and another using baju kurung with tudung to cover their breast. See the difference.

That is if we want to rely solely on Qur'an. There are other hadith explaining this as well (though some might just refuse to accept it) .

The article further quote this statement :
We DO NOT interpret the Quran. May I suggest something much simpler? Why not we just read it? If we look at the Quran in its arabic and then look at the translated words just a little carefully, we will understand it. You DONT EVEN have to know Arabic. For example the arabic word for HEAD (kepala) is NEVER mentioned in any of the verses quoted above. Neither are the arabic words for face and hair. So how do the translators include head, face and hair? Someone must explain this.

My Response :
I beg to differ. There are times when we don't even have to mention something specifically in order to refer to something. If I ask my husband to wear an underwear, that means I want him to cover his private part, no? Should I then have to specifically say this "Darling, please use this underwear to cover your penis (pardon me for the word)" instead? If I just say "Darling, please wear this underwear", would he then use the underwear to cover his feet or head instead? Do I need to mention the private parts when I ask him to wear it, when underwear is already known to be used as something to cover the private parts?

This is where the knowledge in Arabic is important in interpreting things. When we understand khimar to be something covering our hair, whether or not it mentions head and hair, it does not matter anymore. Do not take lightly of the importance of Arabic language in explaining the Qur'an. Those who don't speak arabic might not realise the efficiency of arabic language that even its grammar is vital in interpreting it correctly. Remember how did some people failed to realise that arabic grammatical aspect of the verse in Hud : 114 is important, that they wrongly came to the conclusion that there should only be 3 prayers in a day?

And for those who left their comments on that article in Malaysia Today accusing Muslim women with head-cover as oppressed or that sort, please learn to respect other people's belief. I wrote something on this quite some times ago in Muslim Women Dress Code and Oppression.

Hadeeth Must Be Understood in the Correct Context

2008-08-21T11:23:00.001-07:00

Hadeeth is looked upon negatively because of the ignorance of certain detractors when they read it.

We see so many instances of anti-hadeeth exponents spreading their writings claiming their so-call total submission to the Quran. They came up with numerous argument arguing against Al Hadeeth of the Prophet.

In this article, I will attempt to show why such misunderstanding occurs. In one word, the main reason for such confusion is ignorance. Specifically, ignorance in the the Arabic language.

One will notice that the Modus Operandi of every Anti Hadeeth is to take the literal translations of the Hadeeth and then make commentaries on them. All of their criticism against Al Hadeeth is solely based upon the literal translation of the hadeeth.

The trouble with this method is that the Arabic language doesn’t exist only in the literal form. The Arabic language also exist in the figurative form called majaz.

By taking a hadeeth in from it’s literal meaning is not doing the hadeeth justice since not all the hadeeth is spoken to refer to it’s literal meaning.

For example, the hadeeth that True Muslim likes to quote:

‘Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 232: Narrated Abu Huraira: “Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established till the buttocks of the women of the tribe of Daus move while going round Dhi-al-Khalasa." Dhi-al-Khalasa was the idol of the Daus tribe which they used to worship in the Pre Islamic Period of ignorance. ‘

Another example TM quotes:

Allah’s Apostle said, “The woman is like a rib; if you try to straighten her, she will break. So if you want to get benefit from her, do so while she still has some crookedness.” - Volume 7, Book 62, Number 114

The word “while she still has some crookedness some crookedness” here actually refers to a deal with a women using methods of somewhere between hard and soft. In other words, the Prophets says that in dealing with women one should not be too hard or too soft. Those who understands Arabic don’t find this hadeeth weird.

Because TM is dumb when it comes to Arabic language, he fail to see that the phrase “the buttocks of women….move…” refers to “dancing around the Dhi-Al-Khalasa”. In making fun of this hadeeth, he makes a complete fool of himself.

And you will see this pattern throughout the entire anti hadeeth literature. And u will also see TM’s brand of ignorance throughout their hadeeth criticism.

Unfortunately for anti hadeeth Majaz also exist in the Quran. For instance in 02:187

[2:187 ……, and eat and drink, until the white thread appear to you distinct from its black thread…….

By Anti Hadeeth methodology timing for fasting during Ramadhan is determine by visual differentiation between a white thread and a black thread. But how can this be?. Everyone knows that if we put a black and white thread in a dark room, we can never tell the difference between the two. Furthermore, one’s eyes is able to tell the difference between them whether it’s night or day.

The real meaning of white thread is dawn and black thread is dusk. The words “black thread” and “white thread” are figurative and cannot be taken literarily. This is an example of “ majaz” in the Quran.

Another example is 59:21-22

21. Had We sent down this Qur'an on a mountain, verily, thou wouldst have seen it humble itself and cleave asunder for fear of Allah. Such are the similitudes which We propound to men, that they may reflect.

22. Allah is He, than Whom there is no other god;- Who knows (all things) both secret and open; He, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

Taking the literal translation of the verses above would force us to believe that mountains have the same faculties and abilities as humans. But, logic tells us that this is ludicrous.

To adopt the anti hadeeth’es methodology would render the Quran as ludicorous.

The verse above demonstrates to us another type of Majaz of the “similitude” type. It is used to signify the heavy responsibility of the Quran upon human beings.

Bear in mind there exist many types of Majaz in the Arabic language and the Quran uses them all.

One will noticed that each time the anti hadeeth methodology is applied, it carries similar implication upon the Quran.

OTHER FACTORS IN UNDERSTANDING THE HADEETH PROPERLY

Among factors to be considered when interpreting the hadeeth are as follows:

v Context : The context of a hadeeth must be considered. Sometimes a hadeeth may sound strange when taking out of context but when it is put into it’s context it makes perfect sense. For example the hadeeth:

“……meats become bad because of the Jews…” (Bukhari).

The context of the hadeeth was uttered during the “Khandak” war. After the Musyrikeen had withdrawn from the Madinah lines, the Prophet was ordered to deal with the Jewish for treason. As the order was to be executed immediately, the army of the Prophet had to march all day until the reach the Citadels where the Jews lived. As a result, meats that was prepared for celebration of victory became bad after being exposed for a long time. Thus, such words was uttered signifiying the Prophet’s frustration in the Medinan’s Jews’es treachery.

v Aborogation : Certain decrees were made by the Prophet as a temporary measures which in turn the Prophet SAW had repealed. In short, aborogation. Examples such as the prohibition of writing down of the hadeeth of the Prophet, the prohibition of women from visiting the grave and many more.

v Timing : Certain hadeeth is spoken in the time of peace and certain hadeeth are spoken in the time of war. If understood within the correct timing, they provide a clear picture.

v Arabic Local Slang (Ammeyyah): The Prophet SAW uses figurative, metaphorics in his hadeeth which is prevalent among the people of his time. For instance the hadeeth:

” The Hadith mentions that "fever" is from the "heat of hell" [Hadith 621,622, page 417, vol 7].

The truth is, it is common among Arabs at that time to use the “heat of hell” as
comparison to high fevers.

v Expression of Miracles of the Prophet: Example, the drinking of camel urine, the separation of the moon into two parts and many more.

v Timing : The timing of a hadeeth has to be understood properly as well. For instance the hadeeth

IGNORANCE IS THE MAIN FACTOR BEHIND ANTI HADEETH IDEOLOGY

I have stated this once and I will state this again. Ignorance is the main reason why anti hadeeth thrives. They are completely ignorant of the Arabic language and choose to interpret Islam while being void of knowledge.

The same people are referred to by the Quran by these verses:

The other push-factor towards this ideology is total fanaticism towards western secular liberal paradigm. These people are afraid to call themselves Muslims and feel ashamed of Islam.

They, then, uses the Anti Hadeeth ideology to misinterpret the Quran to fit it into the western secular mold.

CONFUSION INTRODUCED BY ANTI HADEETH IDEOLOGY

The version I sent to Raja Petra contained tables and cannot be published on the blog, this particular part of the article was not presented properly.

1) Confusion No. 1: Punishment For theft and fornication as stated in the Quran (05:38 and 05:02)
Anti Hadeeth Way: Punishment can be carried out without due process because the Quran does not prescribe due process resulting in chaos and absolute anarchy in the society.
The Truth: The way punishment is carried out as stated in 05:38 and 05:02 is shown by the Prophet SAW. In the hadeeth, due process was clearly demonstrated to us.

2) Confusion No. 2: Inheritance to children who had murdered their parents (04:11 states on inheritance)
Anti Hadeeth way: The murdering children are allowed to receive their inheritance. Hurrah for the Menendez brothers.
The Truth: There is a hadeeth stating exceptions to children who murder their parents.

3) Confusion No. 3: Consuming the carcass of dead animals (The Quran prescribe to it’s followers that animals which are to be consumed must be properly slaughtered - 05:03)
Anti Hadeeth Way: It will cover all types of animals including sea animals. In short, the next time the Anti Hadeeth open their can of sardines, they will have to ensure that the sardines are slaughtered properly.
The Truth: There is a hadeeth making -exceptions to sea-living animals i.e. fish, squid

4) Confusion No. 4: In 05:38, there is no mention of minimum limits for a thief to be qualified for amputation
Anti Hadeeth Way: Even if a man steal a clove of garlic, he will be amputated.
The Truth: There is a hadeeth stating that only is the value of loot is more than ¼ of a deenar will a thief have his hands amputated.

5) Confusion No. 5: The Quran states many times about Az Zakah
Anti Hadeeth Way: There is simply no methodology at all for the anti hadeeth to follow.
The truth: The methods are clearly mentioned in the sunnah, ijma and qiyas.

6) Confusion No. 6: Various ibadah clearly mentioned in the Quran, i.e fasting, solat, al hajj, jihad, sadaqah, inheritance, marriage, divorce, commerce etc
Anti Hadeeth Way: AN ABSOLUTE MESS. There is absolutely no methodology shown in the Quran, so the anti hadeeth will be practicing such ibadah at best by guessing.
The Truth: The method to carry out all the ibadah above is as shown to us by the Prophet as recorded in the Al Hadeeth.

I’m sorry for the rather late response to True Muslim ( TM) ridiculous rant on Hadeeth but allow me to highlight some of his grave mistakes. We should start by highlighting TM’s inherent weaknesses in his understanding of the Quran:

In spite of his reference to 17 occurances of the word Hadeeth in the Quran, he has failed to show that any of them refers to the Al Hadeeth of the Prophet SAW.
He has failed to disapprove the existence of death penalty in the Quran. His reference to Sigmund Freud in interpreting 02:54 is not only laughable but also the biggest joke to date
He has failed to provide us methodology on how he interprets the Quran since he rejects the “Arabic Grammar” altogether as being human-made. Any linguist can tell u that grammar is derived and never made by anyone.
He fail to bring proof of Imam Bukhari declaring other than the 7000 hadeeth in his As Sahih as being unauthentic. To me that makes TM a blatant liar.
Since he claims that Hadeeth comes from the Bible, then he also must answer, based on his parallel, why Al Quran is also not from the Bible based on the prohibition of pig example. To date he has been clueless.
Al Kitab and Al Hikmah is not the same as Al Hikmah when it is spoken alone. This proves the existence of a second form of Revelation which TM has failed to deny until now.

and many more. What is weird is that despite his inability to provide decent explanation to his own inconsistency, he goes on to write about other topics.

THE ISSUE OF AUTHENTICITY OF SAHIH BUKHARI

TM’s entire case is based on the booklet found at http://www.central-mosque.com/biographies/asqalani2.htm which is a secondary source. His entire case cannot be considered credible at all since he didn’t really refer to the original text. That explains why in his article no reference is made to his source at all.

So, what he’s trying to debunk is merely what somebody else says about the Sahih Bukhari and not the book itself.

TM quotes this reference from Al Fath Al Bari:

“For Bukhari’s text has not come down to us in a single uniform version, but exists in several ‘narrations’ (riwayat), of which the version handed down by al-Kushaymani (d.389) on the authority of Bukhari’s pupil al-Firabri is the one most frequently accepted by the ulema”. (see “Ibn Hajar Asqalani and his Commentary Fath al-Bari”)

And he makes this ridiculous claim:

“What they have are bits and pieces of information that have been sorted and put together over a period of almost 600 years. And to them this has become 'the most authentic book after the book of Allah'.”

Here we see TM making a mountain out of a mole-hill for nothing. The truth is:

All of the transcripts can be traced back to Imam Bukhari.

Some of the transcript are incomplete compared to others.
They serve as cross check to one another.

I fail to see why this is a problem. What is means is that Al Sahih was recorded over a number of versions of manuscripts. But, each manuscript is authentically traced back to Al Bukhari’s pupils.

This happens because Imam Bukhari’s pupil did not

Based on this, he makes his ridiculous claim that Sahih Bukhari exists in bits and pieces

His other rants in trying to show As Sahih Bukhari is not written by Al Imam Al Bukhari is a big joke by anyone’s standard. Suffice to say that manuscripts dating back to the time of Imam Bukhari exists in the hundreds all over the world.

What TM deliberately tries to confuse himself with is the fact that Sahih Bukhari is also recorded by thousands of Imam Bukhari’s students. In turn each students will provide their own commentaries. The differences in versions is due differences in the commentaries of Bukhari’s students and not in the contents.

Imam Bukhari left the task to record his As Sahih to his students and the fact that the manuscripts are all the same in terms of content proves there is no discepencies. The identities of the students are also verified to be Bukhari’s and the authenticity of the manuscript can be cross checked with other versions.

TM made another statement that reflects his ignorance:

WHY ANTI HADEETH ARE ABLE TO CONVINCE CERTAIN QUARTERS INTO ACCEPTING THEIR LIES

The real reason why Anti Hadeeth carries any credibility is that all of those who subscribe to their beliefs is ignorance.

The main area of ignorance is of course the Arabic language.

The Modus Operandi of every Anti Hadeeth is to take the translation of the Hadeeth and then make commentaries on them. The commentaries are based upon the literal translation of a hadeeth.

The trouble with this method is that the Arabic language doesn’t exist only in the literal form. The Arabic language also exist in the figurative form called majaz.

By taking a hadeeth in from it’s literal meaning is not doing the hadeeth justice since not all the hadeeth is spoken to refer to it’s literal meaning.

For example, the hadeeth that TM likes to quote:

And you will see this pattern throughout the entire anti hadeeth literature.

Here we also see the hypocrisy of the Anti Hadeeth seeing that Majaz also exist in the Quran. For instance in 02:187

[2:187 ……, and eat and drink, until the white thread appear to you distinct from its black thread…….

The real meaning of white thread is dawn and black thread is duck. The words “black thread” and “white thread” are figurative and cannot be taken literarily. This is an example of “ majaz” in the Quran.

Another example is 59:21-22

22. Allah is He, than Whom there is no other god;- Who knows (all things) both secret and open; He, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

Taking the literal translation would force us to believe that mountains have the same faculties and abilities as humans. But, logic tells us that this is ludicrous.

The verse above demonstrates to us another type of Majaz called similitude to explain the heavy responsibility of the Quran upon human being.

Bear in mind there exist many types of Majaz in the Arabic language and the Quran uses them all.

In short, should we apply the same methodology used by Anti Hadeeth on the Quran, we will render the Quran ridiculous.

Clearing Some Misguided Understanding Of Al Hadeeth An Nabawiy

2008-08-21T06:09:00.000-07:00

So much have been floated in the net about Al HAdeeth An Nabawiy, and this is a small attempt to refute some of the hadeeth misunderstood by certain irresponsible quaters.Here is the beginning of my post.

Apparently, the Anti Hadeeth is in bed with some American Evengelical Christians in defaming the good name of Al Hadeeth. The Anti Hadeeth sect apparently speak in the same tone with their “Jerry Fallwell”’s counterpart when commenting on a number of hadeeth.

Here, I wish to list down some of the accusations and try to provide the true explanation of the hadeeth.

1.0 How do you explain Bukhari vol. IV, no. 543 where it states that Adam was 60 cubits tall?

EXPLANATION: The more complete wording in al-Bukhari and Muslim adds "in the heaven" (fi al-Sama'), i.e. in an other-worldly context. Similarly, when the Prophet saw Ibrahim (AS) in the heaven he said he was so tall that he could hardly see his head as narrated from Samura ibn Jundub in Sahih al-Bukhari.

2.0 Satan lives in the nose over night. He can be flushed out if you snort water up and then out the nose. (Bukhari vol. IV, no. 516; Muslim vol. I, no. 462) How big is Satan? Is he in everyone's nose? Is he omnipresent?

EXPLANATION : That's right. There are satans up our noses. But only in the noses of “smucks” who makes an issue out of this hadeeth. “Devil” is another way of representing danger or "dirtiness". The "devil" by itself is considered as “unclean” in Islam, so in this context of the hadeeth, it is used in place of smudge or dirt. The trouble with Anti hadeeth and their Evengelical counterparts is that they take the Hadeeth from it’s translation.

3.0 Muhammad forbade the game of chess! (Muslim vol. IV, no. 5612)

EXPLANATION : No he didn't. Read the hadeeth properly next time and stop reading it from it's translation

4.0 Muslims have one intestine while non-Muslims have seven! (Muslim vol. III, no. 5113-5115)

EXPLANATION : Another way of explaining 05:03 in the Quran. It shows that a Muslim is limited in terms of the things he can eat and drink as opposed to non muslims. This is another example of Majaz. Taking it in it's literal form is either stupid or very stupid.

5.0 Fevers are from the fire of hell and can be cooled by water.(Bukhari vol. IV, nos. 483,486)

EXPLANATION : I've explained this before, it's a common saying among Arabs at that time that when one has a high fever, one is having a heat from hell. Another idiotic understanding of the hadeeth taken literally from it’s translation.

6.0 If you lift up your eyes towards heaven while praying, your eyes will be snatched out!

EXPLANATION : Another example of “Majaz”. Anyone taking the hadeeth literarily is either blind or should blind himself like Kassim Selamat, for his/her eyes is useless.

Ampunkan mak Kassim

7.0 We should drink camel urine as a medicine

EXPLANATION : We should? The hadeeth doesn't say that it applies to all? Anyways, it's another form of the Prophet's miracle

8.0 A She-Monkey gets stoned / condemned, for 'adultery??! (Islam recognises human moral laws for the animal kingdom!!!). Narrated Amru bin Maimun: "During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it - the she monkey had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them."

EXPLANATION : Secular-Liberalists feels very offended by this hadeeth because they have to accept the fact that their value system is lower than that of monkeys. Even monkeys regard adultery as a crime punishable by death. They, on the other hands, view it as tolerable or acceptable. Kindda like pigs.

9.0 Muhammad was a dog hater. He thought that angels could not enter a house if a dog was there and that black dogs were devils. Thus he ordered dogs to be killed and forbid the selling of dogs. Why were only black dogs supposedl;y possessed by shaitans/devils in Islam?

EXPLANATION : The term "black dog" is another way of expressing "fierce looking dogs". And the word "devil" is used to mean "extreme danger". As much as we know that a devil is dangerous, we should also regard a "fierce dog" as dangerous. Nowadays, dogs that has been caught biting onto a human will be put to death summararily. The practice is common until today.

10.0 People turn into rats, pigs and monkeys. (Bukhari vol. IV, nos. 524, 627; Muslim vol. IV, no. 7135). Abraham's father was turned into an animal (Bukhari vol. IV, no.569)

EXPLANATION : The Quran says that Jews were turned into apes, 02:65. So, what is so unusual about these Al Hadeeth? God can change anyone into anything and there are many verses in the Quran about it. For example, the example of Moses staff turning into snakes.

As Sunnah Is Revelations From God

2008-08-13T03:54:00.000-07:00

This is a letter i wrote published in Malaysiakini.

Dear Editor,

In reply to Umran Kadir’s letter,” Hadith not divine revelations”, allow me to express these points:

As Sunnah is Revelations from God on the authority of God himself. He states clearly it in the Quran clearly in verses such as 16:44, 02:153,62:02 and many more. To say otherwise is to deny the Quran and God Himself.
Umran claims that the hadeeth was only collected 300 years after the demise of the Prophet. This is utterly untrue. In his book entitle “ Studies of Early Hadeeth Literature” , M. Mustafa Al Azami cites abundance evidence of records of hadeeth records that dates back even before the demise of the Prophet.
Umran’s claim that scholars differs from each other on the status of a hadeeth is also an exaggeration. The difference of opinion among scholars is never on the content of a hadeeth but rather on the authenticity of the chain of transmission of a certain hadeeth. For a particular hadeeth, there exists more than one chain of transmission that connects the narrator to the Prophet over the course of several generations. A particular hadeeth may have one unauthentic chain but it is still acceptable as there is other authentic chain available.
Over the course of history there exist numerous attempts by enemies of Islam to usurp the religion by introducing numerous fabricated al Hadeeth. The scholars of Islam, via a systematic and time and mean tested methodology, strive to stop these attempts at falsifying the religion. Among such attempts is by 19^th century orientalists such as I Goldzeiher and others that tries to question the existence of written records of Al Hadeeth before the time of Al Bukhari and Muslims.
The chain of transmission that brought us the hadeeth also brought to us the Al Quran. To reject the hadeeth is another step towards rejecting the Quran.
On 02:54, the phrase used is < ….fatubuillahi faq tuluhu….> which clearly means “ …therefore make repent to the lord and therefore kill yourselves…”. The phrase is what is known in the Arabic language as “Feel Amr” or simply an order and it indicates resoluteness and firmness. The wordings in 02:55 and 02:56 are too soft to negate the firmness of the order stated in 02:54. Therefore, in spite of all attempt by Umran, 02:55-56 does not abrogate the order given in 02:54 by Moses on the apostates
02:54 also teaches us that apostasy is a crime and those committing it will have to b punished. Just like those who commit treason, they too have to be punished.

ABDUL RAHMAN ABDUL TALIB

cabearth4@yahoo.ca

Article 11 Movement is About Secular Liberalism, Period

2008-06-28T16:42:00.000-07:00

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.

Hadeeth on Flies

2008-06-27T09:49:00.000-07:00

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

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

2008-06-26T05:59:00.000-07:00

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.

The Lina Joy Case -- An 'Easy' Version

2008-06-25T18:10:00.001-07:00

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.

Official Stand On Position of Ahmadiyya/Qadyani

2008-06-25T17:50:00.000-07:00

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. }

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

2008-06-19T13:29:00.000-07:00

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.

Problems With Anti Hadeeth Methods When Interpreting The Quran

2008-06-14T04:26:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2008-06-01T02:13:00.001-07:00

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.

The Myth Of Arab Influence In Islam

2008-05-28T03:33:00.000-07:00

We have read time and time again in this forum the word Arabism mentioned and linked to Islam and Islamists. Those responsible for mentioning it keep repeating this line over and over again. Yet, rarely do we see any form of evidence or even credible opinions from respected researchers to support such thesis.
Historically, such accusation is not new. Back in the late 1800’s orientalists like Goldzeiher and J Satch had tried to forward such theories. But, unfortunately, their attempt failed miserably due to the fact, they lack any evidence for such claim.
I’ve also decided to accept MarinaMeir’s advice and refrain from my “he is an idiot” course. Suffice to say that my coming postings will prove detractors of Islam to be just that. This posting is about those who repeatedly float the nauseating beliefs that Islam is derived from Arabism
GO AHEAD AND REJECT THE QURAN, THEN
Now it seems the accusation has re-appeared. Sadly, it is being uttered by those who claim to profess faith in Islam. They do not realize what they’re doing contradicts their own faith.
One notable reason for this is the fact that the Quran is sent down by God in the ARABIC LANGUAGE. The Quran itself testifies to this in at least 10 verses. To quote one:
12:02. We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an, in order that ye may learn wisdom.
Clearly, those who are not comfortable with influence of Arabs in Islam should opt to discard the Quran altogether. This is due to the fact that the Quran itself UNEQUIVOCALLY state that it is in the Arabic language. Moreover, it’s stated 10 times, at least, in the Quran.
The correct understanding of the Quran must be made from its original language standpoint, not from it’s translation. Otherwise, the gist of its meaning will be lost.
POSSIBLE REASONS FOR SUCH ACCUSATIONS
Farouk and his likes decides to adopt this outrageous accusations for reasons that still evades most of us. To date, we have seen no evident whatsoever.
One possible theory is that Islamists adopts a clear methodology when interpreting the Quran. A methodology that is steeped into the Arabic language discipline. In other words, when the Quran is understood in it’s original language, it results in beliefs and teachings that contradicts the prevalent secular liberal reality.
For instance, the acceptance of Al Hadeeth An Nabawi is a product of clear understanding of the Quran from an Arabic language standpoint. In other words, when the Quran is understood in it’s original language, it makes acceptance of Al Hadeeth An Nabawi as automatic.
Muslim modernists do not want to accept hadeeth. Such refusal is motivated by a myriad of reasons, which I will expose later in my later postings. On the other hand, they must extract their justification from the Quran itself to gain legitimacy (on their ideas).
The best way of doing so is by reinterpreting the Quran from its translations rather from it’s original text and language.
And to cover their tracks, they harp on issues like Arabism creeping into Islam, making funny and defective terms like pace-ism, calling true muslims as kufr and rejector of the Quran.
These are, in truth, strategies adopted by “modernist muslims” to cover their own deficiencies in understanding the Quran: understanding the Quran NOT IN THE QURAN’s LANGUAGE.
In truth, the rejection of Islamists view of things is simply because of the Islamist’s insistence of understanding the Quran in the way the Quran has prescribed. And not the way the liberal secularists have expected Muslims to understand their religion, a’la agnostics.
We can also safely conclude that M Bakri Musa, Farouk Peru and the rest represent the agnostic elements in the muslim world.
SHIP OF OXYMORONS
From a cultural standpoint, it is highly difficult to swallow such theory as well. This is because Islam was severely resisted by the Arabs when it first came to them.
The main reason behind such resistance is the fact that Arab culture and norms at the time was in sharp contrast to Islam. The Islamic teachings brought by the Prophet pbuh contradicts most of what the Arabs had believed in for so long.
For instance, the Arabs were steeped in:
a. Gambling
b. Intoxication
c. Fornication
d. Usury
e. Adultery
f. Prostitution
g. Murder
h. Infanticide (now they call it abortion but it’s basically the same thing)
i. Idol worshipping
j. Illiteracy
k. Corruption
l. Practice in meaningless wars
m. Homosexuality
and many more.
When Islam came, Islam came and changed all this. Islam went through difficulties in changing the Arab ways like above, but eventually Islam prevailed.
In actual fact, Arabism is closer to the Liberal West rather than Islam. That explains Syed Qutb’s view on creeping westernization into Islam. He views them as “Jahilliya” and with Muslims accepting westernization, they are actually going back to ways of the “Jahilliya”.
It’s not true that Islam is influenced by Arab cultures and norms. But, the truth is actually the reverse. Arabs were changed and adopted Islam as their dominant culture. The Arabs were transformed beyond recognition from their former self making their former Jahilliyya self vanished and what is prevalent in them is Islam.
That is, until they started to adopt Westernization.
Therefore, to claim that Islam is influenced by Arabism is an OXYMORON, by definition. Those responsible for such accusation deserves the named as “morons”
SILLY TERMS AND NAMES MADE OUT OF NOTHING.
We know the likes of Farouk came out with terms such as “pace-ism” which only make himself look like a fool for doing so. Personally, I think sit sounds more like a broken medical apparatus. My wife thinks that it sounds more like a disease.
One will see that the likes of Farouk, M Bakri Musa and the rest fail to provide any evidence to support their claim or their terminology. They float such term with hope that the mass will accept them without question.
But, now I hope readers will not adopt their ways for you will only book yourself for a permanent cruise on the ship of oxymorons.
REPLY TO FAROUK’S LATEST RANTINGS
I shall quote a number of his statement but not all. I believe the article above is enough to destroy his whole reason for existence considering he is bent on cleaning Islam from fictitious elements or Arabism, to which until today he hasn’t been able to provide any evidence for.
Also, please remember that in spite of what Farouk says about the previous Caliphates, Muslims have fared better in the worst of the Caliphates as compared to the present. That is living under secular leaders ruling nation states created by the West in line with their Neo Colonialism policies.
No matter what Farouk says, this is something Farouk can never disapprove.
Quote #1
“I forgot you are Rahman al-Muadheen as well, the guy who reads the Quran in shreds. 24/55 ends by saying ‘waman kafara baAAda thalika faola-ika humu alfasiqoona’.
+++++++++++++++
My Reply: So are u saying that the failure of Prophet Nuh to convice his people is because he went back to being a “Fasiqeen”? Is that why? Can we say the same about Prophet Ibrahim, Ismail, Ishaq, Yaacub, Yusuf, Ayub etc?
Anyways, the phrase above is not even close to a timeline. Anyone who reads it will tell u that it’s far from being a timeline, it’s just an indicator.
Quote #2:
Rahman:
Also, maybe Farouk would like to curse Prophet Isa (Jesus) AS for “failing” in his duties since Isa AS didn’t get any “inheritance of power” from God? Is Isa AS also not adhering to the teachings of Allah? IS that why he didn’t get any inheritance of power from Allah SWT?
Me:
I don’t know where you got that information but Isaa and his people achieved victory over their enemies. See 61/14 please. Maybe now you’ll stop calling other people ‘idiots’.
++++++++++++++
My Reply: Tell me what part of 04:157 do you not understand? How do u explain Jesus being raised up to Allah as equal to “inheriting power” in 22:54??
Also, tell me what part of 61:06 do you not understand?. What part of “qalu haza sihrun mubeen” in 61:06 didn’t u understand, Farouk. ( 61:06 : ….they say ( the Bani Israel , the people of Isa) this is evident sorcery!"
Farouk took 61:14 but he didn’t take 61:06. And he calls me “taking the Quran in shreds”.
Farouk takes the Quran in pieces. Therefore, your’re a bona fide “mukassar”?
And he has a very bad mouth too, calling people what he is completely guilty of.
++++++++++++++++++
Quote # 3: Good question. If you analyse the developments which went on during Umayyad and Abbasid periods, you will find that the national and academic developments happened in a certain period. This was the period where the rationalism of the Mutazilah held sway over the empire.
++++++++++++++
Then, u do admit that the pre-islam arab has no similarities to the Chaliphates political and administration structure? At last you’re admitting your past mistakes. That’s a good progress.
And u say Muktazilah held sway? Can u show me when and where did this happened? When was the last time the Abbasid or the Ummayid or the Ottoman has ever been a Muktazili?
Or do u have any evidence to show that the Muktazili is behind all of the greatness of the Islamic empire? Because I am hard pressed to find any.
The Muktazili, historically, broke into so many divisions and groups. This is a historical fact. In short, their belief structure was so fragile and unfounded, that they were unable to maintain unity within their ideology. The muktazili were calling each other’s faction as heretics and “unbelievers”.
How can a weak and decadent belief structure like the Muktazili be able to generate strength and greatness when they are rotten to the core?
As usual, no proof but mere empty rhetoric much like your pace-ism terminology.
Quote #4: Again, it existed in NAME ONLY. Just like ‘the Muslim ummah’ is an ummah in NAME ONLY. There are plenty of people named ‘Salih’ in Malaysia. Are they saliheen, Rahman? I hope your answer is ‘no’.
++++++++++++++

In name? How do u explain the real life government which existence has been confirmed by NUMEROUS sources? What are u trying to do, denying something that has actually existed?.
Farouk you are trying to deny the existence of an entity that has touched the lives of MILLION of people. It’s your word against the MILLION OF PEOPLE.
I think you’re the first individual that has actually dare to come out with such ridiculous claim. No wonder you’re a minority.
In any village, idiots are always a minority.
+++++++++++++++++
Quote #5 : What a great judiciary it must have been that gave the fatwa to Yazid not to attack Hussain at Karbala, huh?
++++++++++++++++++
My Reply: I thought the order was given by Yazid? The army is under the control of the King not the Judiciary?. Err do you know what a Judiciary mean, Farouk?.
Recent non-shia sources unearthed have shown that Yazid did not give the order, instead it was the Shia of Kuffah who is responsible for the death of Saidina Hussin.
Most of the story of Saidina Hussin incident is taken from At Tabari which rely most on a Shia source. His Shia source did not even witness the incident and reported based on what they received from other Shia sources.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Quote #6 : These systems which Rahman mentioned only expressed themselves at certain times in the Islamic empire. Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz’s period was one of them, Harun al-Rashid was another. At other times, it was as good as Pak Lah’s administration. Absolute power.
++++++++++++++++++++

Really, that’s news to me because the judiciary institution existed all the way until the “Tanzeemat” of the Ottoman which is in the mid-1800s.
I think Farouk is again taking crap information from sources only he himself knows. Everybody knows that courts under the Chaliphate existed and operated all over the empire throughout the course of the empire.
Farouk will be hard pressed to provide evidence Caliphates do not have a fully functional independent judiciary.
Quote #7:
Civil war? Ah yes, so whats the penalty for intentionally killing believers, Rahman? Have a look at 4/93 and you can see for yourself where these ‘civil war’ people will be going.

How many people died in the battle of the camel rahman? This oh-so-perfect Islamic empire of yours, in its EARLIEST days, 30, 000 people were killed and the umm al-mumineen was sentenced to house arrest by the caliph himself. Come on laaa, stop all this fakery. You need to rely on Arab perfection has brought you to this.
++++++++++++++++++++
Again Farouk gets his source from the Shia. And please Farouk, I’ve pointed out your mistakes in understanding Islam SO MANY TIMES.
Please don’t let do it again with 04:93. You should go back and correct your understanding on 02:02 which u have fouled up big time.
I mean you can’t even tell the difference between “Al Kitab” and “Kitab”, how do u expect me to believe that you will be correct on 04:93.
And it was a civil war which led to the toppling of a Caliphate which has lost his qualification based on the fatwa of scholars of the time.
Read Al Mawardi, “Al Ahkam Al Sultan”.
I think I’ll stop here for now. Enough point above to show how weak Farouk’s argument is. Enough evidence above to prove my earlier thesis that Farouk and his likes are “idiots”.
Anyways, dah malam and I am tired cause satu hari melayan orang datang ke rumah. Al maklumlah, kita Ahlus Sunnah boleh merayakan Aidil Fitri sebab kita terima Al Hadeeth An Nabawi.
For Anti Hadeeth to celebrate Aidil Fitri, it will be an act of hypocrisy.
Wassalam
RAHMAN CELCOM

Why Shariah: An Article Refuting Those Who Doubt The Shariah

2008-05-24T04:42:00.000-07:00

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

WHY SHARIAH by Noah Feldman

Last month, Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, gave a nuanced, scholarly lecture in London about whether the British legal system should allow non-Christian courts to decide certain matters of family law. Britain has no constitutional separation of church and state. The archbishop noted that “the law of the Church of England is the law of the land” there; indeed, ecclesiastical courts that once handled marriage and divorce are still integrated into the British legal system, deciding matters of church property and doctrine. His tentative suggestion was that, subject to the agreement of all parties and the strict requirement of protecting equal rights for women, it might be a good idea to consider allowing Islamic and Orthodox Jewish courts to handle marriage and divorce.

Then all hell broke loose. From politicians across the spectrum to senior church figures and the ubiquitous British tabloids came calls for the leader of the world’s second largest Christian denomination to issue a retraction or even resign. Williams has spent the last couple of years trying to hold together the global Anglican Communion in the face of continuing controversies about ordaining gay priests and recognizing same-sex marriages. Yet little in that contentious battle subjected him to the kind of outcry that his reference to religious courts unleashed. Needless to say, the outrage was not occasioned by Williams’s mention of Orthodox Jewish law. For the purposes of public discussion, it was the word “Shariah” that was radioactive.

In some sense, the outrage about according a degree of official status to Shariah in a Western country should come as no surprise. No legal system has ever had worse press. To many, the word “Shariah” conjures horrors of hands cut off, adulterers stoned and women oppressed. By contrast, who today remembers that the much-loved English common law called for execution as punishment for hundreds of crimes, including theft of any object worth five shillings or more? How many know that until the 18th century, the laws of most European countries authorized torture as an official component of the criminal-justice system? As for sexism, the common law long denied married women any property rights or indeed legal personality apart from their husbands. When the British applied their law to Muslims in place of Shariah, as they did in some colonies, the result was to strip married women of the property that Islamic law had always granted them — hardly progress toward equality of the sexes.

In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation. Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act. The extremes of our own legal system — like life sentences for relatively minor drug crimes, in some cases — are routinely ignored. We neglect to mention the recent vintage of our tentative improvements in family law. It sometimes seems as if we need Shariah as Westerners have long needed Islam: as a canvas on which to project our ideas of the horrible, and as a foil to make us look good.

In the Muslim world, on the other hand, the reputation of Shariah has undergone an extraordinary revival in recent years. A century ago, forward-looking Muslims thought of Shariah as outdated, in need of reform or maybe abandonment. Today, 66 percent of Egyptians, 60 percent of Pakistanis and 54 percent of Jordanians say that Shariah should be the only source of legislation in their countries. Islamist political parties, like those associated with the transnational Muslim Brotherhood, make the adoption of Shariah the most prominent plank in their political platforms. And the message resonates. Wherever Islamists have been allowed to run for office in Arabic-speaking countries, they have tended to win almost as many seats as the governments have let them contest. The Islamist movement in its various incarnations — from moderate to radical — is easily the fastest growing and most vital in the Muslim world; the return to Shariah is its calling card.

How is it that what so many Westerners see as the most unappealing and premodern aspect of Islam is, to many Muslims, the vibrant, attractive core of a global movement of Islamic revival? The explanation surely must go beyond the oversimplified assumption that Muslims want to use Shariah to reverse feminism and control women — especially since large numbers of women support the Islamists in general and the ideal of Shariah in particular.

Is Shariah the Rule of Law?

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

In fact, “Shariah” is not the word traditionally used in Arabic to refer to the processes of Islamic legal reasoning or the rulings produced through it: that word is fiqh, meaning something like Islamic jurisprudence. The word “Shariah” connotes a connection to the divine, a set of unchanging beliefs and principles that order life in accordance with God’s will. Westerners typically imagine that Shariah advocates simply want to use the Koran as their legal code. But the reality is much more complicated. Islamist politicians tend to be very vague about exactly what it would mean for Shariah to be the source for the law of the land — and with good reason, because just adopting such a principle would not determine how the legal system would actually operate.

Shariah is best understood as a kind of higher law, albeit one that includes some specific, worldly commands. All Muslims would agree, for example, that it prohibits lending money at interest — though not investments in which risks and returns are shared; and the ban on Muslims drinking alcohol is an example of an unequivocal ritual prohibition, even for liberal interpreters of the faith. Some rules associated with Shariah are undoubtedly old-fashioned and harsh. Men and women are treated unequally, for example, by making it hard for women to initiate divorce without forfeiting alimony. The prohibition on sodomy, though historically often unenforced, makes recognition of same-sex relationships difficult to contemplate. But Shariah also prohibits bribery or special favors in court. It demands equal treatment for rich and poor. It condemns the vigilante-style honor killings that still occur in some Middle Eastern countries. And it protects everyone’s property — including women’s — from being taken from them. Unlike in Iran, where wearing a head scarf is legally mandated and enforced by special religious police, the Islamist view in most other Muslim countries is that the head scarf is one way of implementing the religious duty to dress modestly — a desirable social norm, not an enforceable legal rule. And mandating capital punishment for apostasy is not on the agenda of most elected Islamists. For many Muslims today, living in corrupt autocracies, the call for Shariah is not a call for sexism, obscurantism or savage punishment but for an Islamic version of what the West considers its most prized principle of political justice: the rule of law.

The Sway of the Scholars

To understand Shariah’s deep appeal, we need to ask a crucial question that is rarely addressed in the West: What, in fact, is the system of Islamic law? In his lifetime, the Prophet Muhammad was both the religious and the political leader of the community of Muslim believers. His revelation, the Koran, contained some laws, pertaining especially to ritual matters and inheritance; but it was not primarily a legal book and did not include a lengthy legal code of the kind that can be found in parts of the Hebrew Bible. When the first generation of believers needed guidance on a subject that was not addressed by revelation, they went directly to Muhammad. He either answered of his own accord or, if he was unsure, awaited divine guidance in the form of a new revelation.

With the death of Muhammad, divine revelation to the Muslim community stopped. The role of the political-religious leader passed to a series of caliphs (Arabic for “substitute”) who stood in the prophet’s stead. That left the caliph in a tricky position when it came to resolving difficult legal matters. The caliph possessed Muhammad’s authority but not his access to revelation. It also left the community in something of a bind. If the Koran did not speak clearly to a particular question, how was the law to be determined?

The answer that developed over the first couple of centuries of Islam was that the Koran could be supplemented by reference to the prophet’s life — his sunna, his path. (The word “sunna” is the source of the designation Sunni — one who follows the prophet’s path.) His actions and words were captured in an oral tradition, beginning presumably with a person who witnessed the action or statement firsthand. Accurate reports had to be distinguished from false ones. But of course even a trustworthy report on a particular situation could not directly resolve most new legal problems that arose later. To address such problems, it was necessary to reason by analogy from one situation to another. There was also the possibility that a communal consensus existed on what to do under particular circumstances, and that, too, was thought to have substantial weight.

This fourfold combination — the Koran, the path of the prophet as captured in the collections of reports, analogical reasoning and consensus — amounted to a basis for a legal system. But who would be able to say how these four factors fit together? Indeed, who had the authority to say that these factors and not others formed the sources of the law? The first four caliphs, who knew the prophet personally, might have been able to make this claim for themselves. But after them, the caliphs were faced with a growing group of specialists who asserted that they, collectively, could ascertain the law from the available sources. This self-appointed group came to be known as the scholars — and over the course of a few generations, they got the caliphs to acknowledge them as the guardians of the law. By interpreting a law that originated with God, they gained control over the legal system as it actually existed. That made them, and not the caliphs, into “the heirs of the prophets.”

Among the Sunnis, this model took effect very early and persisted until modern times. For the Shiites, who believe that the succession of power followed the prophet’s lineage, the prophet had several successors who claimed extraordinary divine authority. Once they were gone, however, the Shiite scholars came to occupy a role not unlike that of their Sunni counterparts.

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

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

The upshot is that the system of Islamic law as it came to exist allowed a great deal of leeway. That is why today’s advocates of Shariah as the source of law are not actually recommending the adoption of a comprehensive legal code derived from or dictated by Shariah — because nothing so comprehensive has ever existed in Islamic history. To the Islamist politicians who advocate it or for the public that supports it, Shariah generally means something else. It means establishing a legal system in which God’s law sets the ground rules, authorizing and validating everyday laws passed by an elected legislature. In other words, for them, Shariah is expected to function as something like a modern constitution.

The Rights of Humans and the Rights of God

So in contemporary Islamic politics, the call for Shariah does not only or primarily mean mandating the veiling of women or the use of corporal punishment — it has an essential constitutional dimension as well. But what is the particular appeal of placing Shariah above ordinary law?

The answer lies in a little-remarked feature of traditional Islamic government: that a state under Shariah was, for more than a thousand years, subject to a version of the rule of law. And as a rule-of-law government, the traditional Islamic state had an advantage that has been lost in the dictatorships and autocratic monarchies that have governed so much of the Muslim world for the last century. Islamic government was legitimate, in the dual sense that it generally respected the individual legal rights of its subjects and was seen by them as doing so. These individual legal rights, known as “the rights of humans” (in contrast to “the rights of God” to such things as ritual obedience), included basic entitlements to life, property and legal process — the protections from arbitrary government oppression sought by people all over the world for centuries.

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

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

Once in office, rulers faced the inevitable threat of invasion or a palace coup. The caliph would need the scholars to declare a religious obligation to protect the state in a defensive jihad. Having the scholars on his side in times of crisis was a tremendous asset for the ruler who could be said to follow the law. Even if the ruler was not law-abiding, the scholars still did not spontaneously declare a sitting caliph disqualified. This would have been foolish, especially in view of the fact that the scholars had no armies at their disposal and the sitting caliph did. But their silence could easily be interpreted as an invitation for a challenger to step forward and be validated.

The scholars’ insistence that the ruler obey Shariah was motivated largely by their belief that it was God’s will. But it was God’s will as they interpreted it. As a confident, self-defined elite that controlled and administered the law according to well-settled rules, the scholars were agents of stability and predictability — crucial in societies where the transition from one ruler to the next could be disorderly and even violent. And by controlling the law, the scholars could limit the ability of the executive to expropriate the property of private citizens. This, in turn, induced the executive to rely on lawful taxation to raise revenues, which itself forced the rulers to be responsive to their subjects’ concerns. The scholars and their law were thus absolutely essential to the tremendous success that Islamic society enjoyed from its inception into the 19th century. Without Shariah, there would have been no Haroun al-Rashid in Baghdad, no golden age of Muslim Spain, no reign of Suleiman the Magnificent in Istanbul.

For generations, Western students of the traditional Islamic constitution have assumed that the scholars could offer no meaningful check on the ruler. As one historian has recently put it, although Shariah functioned as a constitution, “the constitution was not enforceable,” because neither scholars nor subjects could “compel their ruler to observe the law in the exercise of government.” But almost no constitution anywhere in the world enables judges or nongovernmental actors to “compel” the obedience of an executive who controls the means of force. The Supreme Court of the United States has no army behind it. Institutions that lack the power of the sword must use more subtle means to constrain executives. Like the American constitutional balance of powers, the traditional Islamic balance was maintained by words and ideas, and not just by forcible compulsion.

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

From Shariah to Despotism

But if Shariah is popular among many Muslims in large part because of its historical association with the rule of law, can it actually do the same work today? Here there is reason for caution and skepticism. The problem is that the traditional Islamic constitution rested on a balance of powers between a ruler subject to law and a class of scholars who interpreted and administered that law. The governments of most contemporary majority-Muslim states, however, have lost these features. Rulers govern as if they were above the law, not subject to it, and the scholars who once wielded so much influence are much reduced in status. If they have judicial posts at all, it is usually as judges in the family-law courts.

In only two important instances do scholars today exercise real power, and in both cases we can see a deviation from their traditional role. The first is Iran, where Ayatollah Khomeini, himself a distinguished scholar, assumed executive power and became supreme leader after the 1979 revolution. The result of this configuration, unique in the history of the Islamic world, is that the scholarly ruler had no counterbalance and so became as unjust as any secular ruler with no check on his authority. The other is Saudi Arabia, where the scholars retain a certain degree of power. The unfortunate outcome is that they can slow any government initiative for reform, however minor, but cannot do much to keep the government responsive to its citizens. The oil-rich state does not need to obtain tax revenues from its citizens to operate — and thus has little reason to keep their interests in mind.

How the scholars lost their exalted status as keepers of the law is a complex story, but it can be summed up in the adage that partial reforms are sometimes worse than none at all. In the early 19th century, the Ottoman empire responded to military setbacks with an internal reform movement. The most important reform was the attempt to codify Shariah. This Westernizing process, foreign to the Islamic legal tradition, sought to transform Shariah from a body of doctrines and principles to be discovered by the human efforts of the scholars into a set of rules that could be looked up in a book.

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

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

But that was not to be. Less than a year after the legislature first met, Sultan Abdulhamid II suspended its operation — and for good measure, he suspended the constitution the following year. Yet the sultan did not restore the scholars to the position they once occupied. With the scholars out of the way and no legislature to replace them, the sultan found himself in the position of near-absolute ruler. This arrangement set the pattern for government in the Muslim world after the Ottoman empire fell. Law became a tool of the ruler, not an authority over him. What followed, perhaps unsurprisingly, was dictatorship and other forms of executive dominance — the state of affairs confronted by the Islamists who seek to restore Shariah.

A Democratic Shariah?

The Islamists today, partly out of realism, partly because they are rarely scholars themselves, seem to have little interest in restoring the scholars to their old role as the constitutional balance to the executive. The Islamist movement, like other modern ideologies, seeks to capture the existing state and then transform society through the tools of modern government. Its vision for bringing Shariah to bear therefore incorporates two common features of modern government: the legislature and the constitution.

The mainstream Sunni Islamist position, found, for example, in the electoral platforms of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Justice and Development Party in Morocco, is that an elected legislature should draft and pass laws that are consistent with the spirit of Islamic law. On questions where Islamic law does not provide clear direction, the democratically chosen legislature is supposed to use its discretion to adopt laws infused by Islamic values.

The result is a profound change in the theoretical structure underlying Islamic law: Shariah is democratized in that its care is given to a popularly elected legislature. In Iraq, for example, where the constitution declares Shariah to be “the source of law,” it is in principle up to the National Assembly to pass laws that reflect its spirit.

In case the assembly gets it wrong, however, the Islamists often recommend the judicial review of legislative actions to guarantee that they do not violate Islamic law or values. What is sometimes called a “repugnancy clause,” mandating that a judicial body overturn laws repugnant to Islam, has made its way into several recent constitutions that seek to reconcile Islam and democracy. It may be found, for example, in the Afghan Constitution of 2004 and the Iraqi Constitution of 2005. (I had a small role advising the Iraqi drafters.) Islamic judicial review transforms the highest judicial body of the state into a guarantor of conformity with Islamic law. The high court can then use this power to push for a conservative vision of Islamic law, as in Afghanistan, or for a more moderate version, as in Pakistan.

Islamic judicial review puts the court in a position resembling the one that scholars once occupied. Like the scholars, the judges of the reviewing court present their actions as interpretations of Islamic law. But of course the judges engaged in Islamic judicial review are not the scholars but ordinary judges (as in Iraq) or a mix of judges and scholars (as in Afghanistan). In contrast to the traditional arrangement, the judges’ authority comes not from Shariah itself but from a written constitution that gives them the power of judicial review.

The modern incarnation of Shariah is nostalgic in its invocation of the rule of law but forward-looking in how it seeks to bring this result about. What the Islamists generally do not acknowledge, though, is that such institutions on their own cannot deliver the rule of law. The executive authority also has to develop a commitment to obeying legal and constitutional judgments. That will take real-world incentives, not just a warm feeling for the values associated with Shariah.

How that happens — how an executive administration accustomed to overweening power can be given incentives to subordinate itself to the rule of law — is one of the great mysteries of constitutional development worldwide. Total revolution has an extremely bad track record in recent decades, at least in majority-Muslim states. The revolution that replaced the shah in Iran created an oppressively top-heavy constitutional structure. And the equally revolutionary dreams some entertained for Iraq — dreams of a liberal secular state or of a functioning Islamic democracy — still seem far from fruition.

Gradual change therefore increasingly looks like the best of some bad options. And most of today’s political Islamists — the ones running for office in Morocco or Jordan or Egypt and even Iraq — are gradualists. They wish to adapt existing political institutions by infusing them with Islamic values and some modicum of Islamic law. Of course, such parties are also generally hostile to the United States, at least where we have worked against their interests. (Iraq is an obvious exception — many Shiite Islamists there are our close allies.) But this is a separate question from whether they can become a force for promoting the rule of law. It is possible to imagine the electoral success of Islamist parties putting pressure on executives to satisfy the demand for law-based government embodied in Koranic law. This might bring about a transformation of the judiciary, in which judges would come to think of themselves as agents of the law rather than as agents of the state.

Something of the sort may slowly be happening in Turkey. The Islamists there are much more liberal than anywhere else in the Muslim world; they do not even advocate the adoption of Shariah (a position that would get their government closed down by the staunchly secular military). Yet their central focus is the rule of law and the expansion of basic rights against the Turkish tradition of state-centered secularism. The courts are under increasing pressure to go along with that vision.

Can Shariah provide the necessary resources for such a rethinking of the judicial role? In its essence, Shariah aspires to be a law that applies equally to every human, great or small, ruler or ruled. No one is above it, and everyone at all times is bound by it. But the history of Shariah also shows that the ideals of the rule of law cannot be implemented in a vacuum. For that, a state needs actually effective institutions, which must be reinforced by regular practice and by the recognition of actors within the system that they have more to gain by remaining faithful to its dictates than by deviating from them.

The odds of success in the endeavor to deliver the rule of law are never high. Nothing is harder than creating new institutions with the capacity to balance executive dominance — except perhaps avoiding the temptation to overreach once in power. In Iran, the Islamists have discredited their faith among many ordinary people, and a similar process may be under way in Iraq. Still, with all its risks and dangers, the Islamists’ aspiration to renew old ideas of the rule of law while coming to terms with contemporary circumstances is bold and noble — and may represent a path to just and legitimate government in much of the Muslim world.

Anti Hadeeth Must Renounce Prophet Musa AS for Punishing Apostates

2008-05-24T04:20:00.000-07:00

SInce Saidina Musa AS ordered the killings of apostates of his time, i dare the Anti Hadeeth sect to RENOUNCE Saidina Musa openly.

Anti Hadeeth MUST call him (Saidina Musa) names and call him anti Quran for punishing apostates as he did below:

02:54

YUSUFALI: And remember Moses said to his people: "O my people! Ye have indeed wronged yourselves by your worship of the calf: So turn (in repentance) to your Maker, and slay yourselves (the wrong-doers); that will be better for you in the sight of your Maker." Then He turned towards you (in forgiveness): For He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: And when Moses said unto his people: O my people! Ye have wronged yourselves by your choosing of the calf (for worship) so turn in penitence to your Creator, and kill (the guilty) yourselves. That will be best for you with your Creator and He will relent toward you. Lo! He is the Relenting, the Merciful.
SHAKIR: And when Musa said to his people: O my people! you have surely been unjust to yourselves by taking the calf (for a god), therefore turn to your Creator (penitently), so kill your people, that is best for you with your Creator: so He turned to you (mercifully), for surely He is the Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.

I challange Anti Hadeeth sect around the world to renounce Saidina Musa AS for his actions mentioned in 02:54.

And here is the rest of it.