Reply to Observer in Malaysia Today pt 2

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 :

1. A piece that covers
2. 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.

. Read more!

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

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)

Read more!