Allah is not the problem. Mankind is.

FMT LETTER: From Lembu Susu, via e-mail

I wish to share my thoughts to laypersons and have intentionally omitted quoting scriptures from both the Quran and the Bible, so as to make it easy reading for both divide.

1 The word ‘Allah’ is meant only for Muslims and for all who hold the view that there is only one God, according to the PAS Majlis Syura. This view resonates well with the majority of Muslims in Malaysia. The non-Muslims and the Christians must understand that the reason PAS does not allow the word ‘Allah’ in the Bible translation was because of theological reason.

Christians hold the view that God is a Trinity; that is, the belief in a Triune God (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Though the Christians maintained that they believe in One God, but the concept of Trinity was unacceptable in Islam. Hence, if the Christians were to use the word ‘Allah’ for their God, then, it will not represent correctly the ‘Allah’ of the Muslim God.

2 The Christians, on the other hand, have a problem if they use the word ‘Allah’ without qualification. The problem is that the ‘Allah’ of the Bible is not the same as the ‘Allah’ of the Quran. For example, the Christians believe the Bible teaches monogamous marriages, but in the Quran, polygamy is allowed, albeit with certain conditions.

Moreover, in the Quran, jihad also involves wiping out infidels, which is not advocate at all in the New Testament of the Bible. Hence, when the Christians use the word ‘Allah’ for God, they have to clarify, that though the word ‘Allah’ is the same word being used for ‘God’ by both the Christians and the Muslims, yet, the ‘Allah’ revealed in the Bible is different from the ‘Allah’ in the Quran.

3 The bottom line is this: ‘Allah’ is just a word to denote ‘God’. It is how you will fill that word with meaning. This is where the teachings in the Quran and in the Bible gives meaning to the word  ‘Allah’ by each religion.

4 But if we were to look it in another angle, actually, Allah is greater than any human words can express. Allah cannot be confined to a word. The word is only necessary to help man connect to Him, but He is greater than a word. In fact, there is no word that is sufficient to address Him. He is beyond words. He cannot be reduced to just a word, ‘Allah’. He is greater than any words mankind can call Him.

5 So, on ‘Allah’s side, there is no issue for the Muslims and there is no issue for the Christians. He will never be confused by the Christians or by the Muslims.

6 As for Muslims and Christians, there were also no confusion with the word ‘Allah’, as the years has proven. It is how you fill the meaning of the word ‘Allah’ with. The teachings from the Quran and the Bible will give understanding and meaning to that word, by each one’s religion accordingly.

7 Every person will believe his or her religion is the correct and right one. Malaysia has existed in harmony all these years because of the mutual respect shown towards another’s religion and faith.

8 In each religion, it is only normal for their religion to tell them that theirs is the only and correct religion. Others are not. In fact, they are false. This is alright, because the constitution allow freedom of religion. But what a person believes must only be confined to himself or herself. They are not to extend what they believe onto others. If that is done, it will cause war.

9 Though Islam is the religion of the Federation, the Constitution allows freedom of religion. Hence, to stretch one’s believe and impose it on others infringes on the rights of a citizen.

10 The non-Muslims cannot impose on Muslims their beliefs, neither can the Muslims beliefs be imposed onto non-Muslims. Instead, there must be mutual respect for one another’s beliefs.

11 No one can tell another religion what word they can use and what word they cannot use. If this is allowed, it will breakdown the peace and harmony that was built and cherished all these the years. It will be the same as telling them, ‘you cannot practice your own religion, because your religion violates my religious beliefs’, and we all know that it is common for almost every religion, if adhered to fully, will violate against another. If this happens, then, there will be provocation and war.

So, in conclusion, may the one in authority not use their authority to impose one’s beliefs onto another, just because this is what they believe in. Instead, the call for restrain and respect for one another’s faith and belief should be paramount and upheld. Let the Muslims respect the non-Muslims’ faith and beliefs, and vice-versa, the non-Muslims respect the Muslims’ faith and beliefs.

If ‘Allah’ is consider a sacred word to the Muslims, then, keep in within the context of own religion. Don’t impose it on another, who may not share the same beliefs. The Christians have no intention to hurt or to confuse the Muslims. They are only asking for their right to practice their own religion, using a word that has been there and used all these years

From : Free Malaysia Today

Harussani has gone loco

Written by  Mariam Mokhtar, Malaysia Chronicle

The Perak Mufti Harussani Zakarai’s freedom to ban just about everything in our lives is perhaps one of the reasons why the Malay youth of today is rebellious, uncontrollable and undisciplined.

If the Malay/Muslim is not allowed an avenue to relax, to enjoy or be creative, and to have a bit of a laugh, he will grow up at worst, to be a miserable old grouch, possibly like Harussani or at best, he will end up non compos mentis.

How on earth are Muslims going to live normally, if they are expected to be swathed in cotton wool throughout his life because the likes of Harussani think the Muslim is so weak and his soul so tormented, that he will be easily influenced by the devil or by the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Harussani and the Perak Fatwa Committee, have decided that the poco-poco dance is haram for Muslims. According to him, the dance has elements of Christianity and soul worshipping.

The Perak Menteri besar, Zambry Abdul Kadir, has agreed with the Mufti and said that all quarters should respect him and not create any dispute on the matter.

Is that it? Will no one explain how the poco-poco is considered soul worshipping? Is Zambry afraid of confronting Harussani over this matter?

A dance today, what then tomorrow? The ridiculous ban on yoga a few years ago already damaged Malaysia’s reputation.

Harussani is the same man who forbade us from going to our non-Muslims friends homes for their festival days. So much for Prime minister Najib Abdul Razak’s 1Malaysia interaction.

Harussani is the same man who almost caused a near rebellion when he said that the Manchester United football jerseys should be shunned: “Yes, of course in Islam we don’t allow people to wear this sort of thing. Devils are our enemies. Why would you put their picture on you and wear it? You are only promoting the devil.”

He also said that besides the Red Devils, football shirts of Brazil, Barcelona, Portugal, Norway and Serbia were deemed unacceptable because they had images of the cross or had alcohol brands on them.

As expected, Malaysian supporters of ‘Manchester United’, expressed their anger, on the fan’s websites.

If banning the jerseys is what Harussani and his kill-joy clerics strongly believe in, they might as well ban football.

Football, in Malaysia, has almost a religious following with whole families taking a lively interest in the sport. Even the PM went overboard and declared a holiday when Malaysia won a minor game against Indonesia.

If we can’t dance then what about the DVD’s that promote dancing. They will have to go too. What about the music that accompanies the dance?

Why does the austere Harussani, our politicians and a few lawyers, trip over themselves to see who can make Malaysia the world’s worst joke? Why not just place Muslims in straitjackets?

Malaysia does not need people like Harussani. He is neither the voice of reason nor of moderation.

He causes communities to mistrust each other. He almost caused a lynch mob to assemble at the Silibin church in Ipoh, when he allegedly spread a rumour that Malays were going to be baptized there.

Although many Muslims disagree with Harussani, several liberal Muslims/Malays are too afraid or reluctant to damp out the opposing voices of conservatism. These conservatives play on the Malays’ fears by claiming that by doing certain things, they are doomed in the afterlife.

Harussani does not believe in having information made freely available. He certainly does not like educated Muslims who demand answers based on reason.

Most Muslims believe that religion is not just about punishment, but about education. Unlike Harussani, moderates don’t accept having blind allegiance and acceptance of the faith.

The conservatives like Harussani claim to be defenders of Malays and Islam. They dissuade others from expressing opinions that they don’t want to talk about. They feel slighted at any reference to Malays or Islam. They use the police as a tool and various senior politicians as their minders. These conservatives have managed to silence the non-Malays and any Malay who voices disapproval.

Harussani once described former Perlis mufti Asri Zainul Abidin as a “strange person” who had become “arrogant” after Asri completed his advanced studies in Islam.

Harussani condemned Asri’s need to educate people by saying: “How long do you want to educate a person? The country and this world will be a safer place if we have Islamic laws. When I was in Saudi Arabia I felt very safe.”

Perhaps Harussani could do us all a favour and live in Saudi Arabia. He would be safe, and we would be sane.

Source : Malaysia Chronicle

Nazri, who is the “small boy” in the PM’s Department?

A glance at Nazri’s track record (out of which a few examples have been give above) shows a trail of evidence that Nazri is nothing but a loudmouth, loose cannon and a lowdown Umnoputra in Parliament! He is laughable!  

Martin Jalleh 

Who is small the boy in the Prime Minister’s Department who treats and turns parliament into his personal playground where he proudly leaves a trail of his political pooh behind?

Who is the small boy who tries to act tough, talks big and throws his weight around and wants everybody to think that he is the PM and that he knows everything?

Who is the small boy who childishly threatens and taunts those who stand up to him, and refuse to tolerate his temper, tantrums and theatrics?

Who is the small boy who cannot take criticisms and goes into a fit or a foul frolic or flaunts his foolishness according to his whim and fancy?

Who is the small boy who said he would advise the Cabinet to replace the then ACA Investigations Director with whom he had a war of words with!

Who is the small boy who told Parliament that former Lord President Salleh Abas and other senior judges involved in the judicial crisis 20 years ago were not “sacked”?

Who is the small boy who shouted in parliament like some street bully “racist and “bloody racist” at DAP MP M Kula Segaran – 41 times in a space of five to 10 minutes?

Who is the small boy, who, without any sense and sensitivity, told wheelchair-bound Karpal Singh in parliament: “You are just jealous because I am standing!”?

Who is the small boy whom a then member to the ruling coalition in Sabah told to “shut up” because of his “ignorance” of the social, security and economic problems in the state?

Who is the small boy whose colleague Bernard Dompok said was taking a “cheap shot” when he responded to Dompok’s resignation as chairman of the Parliamentary Select Committee?

Who is the small boy who said that two MPs who had made sexist remarks following MP Fong Po Kuan’s observations of leaks in the Parliament building should not apologise to Fong?

Who is that small boy who said “ Singapore is not a real country” (and whose inference of larger countries being more prone to corruption was absolutely wrong)?

Who is that small boy who called Lim Kit Siang (LKS) “Stupid, stupid, stupid…!” countless of times during a debate and got off scot free  with his “stupid” salvoes grinning like a school bully?

Who is the small boy who looked so “stupid” when LKS produced a taped transcript of the then CJ  advocating the abolition of Common Law, and on whose behalf the small boy had denied?

Who is the small boy who was speechless when Karpal Singh revealed the name of a Federal Court judge who had not written judgments in as many as 35 cases?

Who is the small boy who when explaining why he had issued a denial on behalf of the then CJ in connection with the Lingam video scandal, had very proudly declared: “I am his Minister”?

Who is the small boy who said that whistleblowers in the Lingam Tape scandal could be protected under a tabled Witness Protection Bill and later admitted there was no such bill?

Minister in the PM’s Department Nazri Abd Aziz has labelled Perak State Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar a “boy speaker”. He says the Speaker “does not know what he is doing. He is not fit to be given such a heavy responsibility.”

Alas, who has been acting like a boy? Of course, the small boy in the PM’s department! A glance at Nazri’s track record (out of which a few examples have been give above) shows a trail of evidence that Nazri is nothing but a loudmouth, loose cannon and a lowdown Umnoputra in Parliament! He is  laughable!

As a Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department and the de facto law minister Nazri Abd Aziz is blind to the truth, biased, beholden to the Umno-dominated Government and begs and bends backwards to do its bidding. The boy Minister bulls, boasts, barks and brays, brazenly blunders, goes berserk and bullies…

In sharp contrast is Speaker V. Sivakumar – a man who has displayed such exemplary boldness and bravery. He has refused to be bribed, bought over or bullied and is ready to face the possible consequences in standing up to the powers-that-be.

Nazri has said that “the whole episode in Perak is a comedy”. It is the people of Perak who will have the last laugh!

Nazri has also called the fiasco in Perak a “mockery”. Was he referring to the jaundiced judgments delivered by the judicial commissioner who has chosen to remain cloistered enough in his chambers so as not to notice a clear “conflict of interest” in the matter?

Does Islam Need To Be Defended?

Those who, stand either individually or in clumps, and claim that they are defending Islam do not trust in Allah and thereby blaspheme. Let us consider some of the more relevant and obvious repercussions of accepting Allah as the "The Originator of the heavens and the earth!" (Surah 6:101) which is basically this Universe, and the many billion other universes out there, all that space, and clutter in between. We, in truth, don't even make up an atom of a grain of sand in the entire scheme of things. And those are just His creations - so, in truth, we will never be able to even comprehend Allah. Whoever claims they do, makes false claims to godhood. 

Let us consider this starting point: that we are unfathomably small in His entire design. We die out just like all other living things on this earth. Our lifespan is short - a maximum of just over one hundred - with an average of about late 60s these days. We, as Homo Sapiens, only arrived on the scene relatively recently i.e. about 400,000 years ago, and our recorded history only stretches back to about 32,000 years ago with those cave paintings in Chauvet Cave of Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc Cave, in southern France. The earth is estimated by scientists to be approximately between 4.5 - 6 billion years old. So that's how we are even compared to the earth. Nothing much. And the universe? Scientists currently estimate it to be about 13.7 billion years old. So temporally our Homo Sapien race existence compared to the universe - our significance is 0.0000029197080. Now you then divide that by all the many people, animals, etc. and you come through and we realize how insignificant any of us are in the entire scheme of the universe. Even if you had the biological abilities, you just didn't the time.

When seen in this light, that Allah was long before us and shall be for ever, so what does it matter if some of his most insignificant creations on one of His billions, if not trillions, of galaxies and planet, does not believe in Him or infringes His injunctions? What does it matter that there are these non-believers who speak ill of Him? The truth is that no one can harm Allah or his religion because we are in His realm. What is more, going by scripture, we are all answerable to him on Judgment Day, so why should we have to answer to someone lesser whilst we are alive? A comparative analogy of the relationship between Allah and mankind/His Universe would be as a computer programmer to his program. Whatever program a programmer programs into his computer can never harm him (assuming it is your usual standard desktop PC and not some robotic killer machine whose sole purpose is to annihilate any living thing) - he can manipulate it, change it, do virtually anything to it but the computer or its programs or the product of its program can never, ever harm the programmer. So when there is no threat, there cannot be a defence.

And Allah is Eternal and Creator of All - what possible threat can there be to the Supreme Being of the Universe? If even Satan himself cannot bring about such an event (because he will get his butt kicked in the End), then what more the mere sons of Adam? And what do these ants think they can do in Allah's defence? That some of his sons thinks that Allah is in need of protection is to betray what they really think of themselves and Allah. The first is that they think too highly of himself and his worth to Allah and the Universe and secondly, they think too lowly of Allah and his Creations. They do not say this explicitly, but there is no need to because actions have always spoken louder than words.

If Allah does not need defenders, neither then does Islam. So what is this Defence of Islam really about then?

It's the same thing that has happened over the centuries where religion is concerned: frustrated, unthinking, unlearned, morally and ethically corrupt human beings who want to achieve some control in their livese and that of others, and do so by piggybacking on a religion to establish a high moral position and to burn with righteous anger with supposed authority from God with which he can then carry out his psychosis. This Defence of Islam strategy is an attempt to play up their victimhood (defence presupposes an attack) to try and attract sympathy from concerned or related parties. But then in banding together and claiming defence they then allow themselves the possibility of a pre-attack strike (that is a 'defence' too which America used as a justification in attacking Iraq. Anybody notice the similarity in modus operandi between Muslim fundamentalists and USA foreign policy towards hostile countries?). Ultimately, the strategy is geared towards confrontation, violence and non-resolution. 

The truth of the matter is that the Defence of Islam was, is and never will be about Allah. It is about flawed human beings. It is about the corrupt, hypocritical human beings who seek not to worship Allah in humility but to try reach His exalted status by inflating further their massive ego; and then in failing so miserably and ending up ultimately becoming a disgrace both to Allah, Islam and human beings in general. Just because someone professes to be Muslim does not necessarily mean they practise Islam (i.e. submission) and just because one is practising Islam does not necessarily mean they are actually practising Islam. In either case, those questions are for Allah to decide, not us. If there's one thing I am certain of it is this - there is no human being in existence that can equal Allah's ability in deciding whether someone is a Muslim or not (and consequentially - a good enough one for that matter). One would have thought a Muslim would be very wary of assuming such a responsibility. That some are ready to do so with such casualness and vindictiveness provokes me to think they do not take their faith seriously in the ways that are important and meaningful for their own personal self-development (which must be distinguished from self-enrichment) and that of others.