SALAM AIDIL FITRI

I wish all of you a "Selamat Aidil Fitri" and "happy holidays".


Dalam kita merayakan aidil fitri dengan jamuan rumah terbuka dan sebagainya, ramai di Negara kita serta di merata dunia yang hidup dan tidur di kawasan terbuka kerana miskin.

Dalam kita sibuk untuk memastikan anak-anak kita dapat baju raya yang cantik, baru dan berkualiti, ramai kanak-kanak di dunia yang tidak berbaju. Saya percaya dalam saat ini pun ada ramai kanak-kanak yang sengsara serta tidak tahu di mana mereka berada ekoran sindiket syaitan penculikan kanak-kanak.

Dalam kita memikirkan lauk apa, hidangan apa yang akan kita sajikan kepada keluarga kita, ramai di dunia ini yang tidak tahu bila mereka akan berkesempatan makan.

Dalam kita sibuk berceramah dan memberi nasihat yang tidak perlu oleh tokoh-tokoh yang mempertokohkan diri atau dipertokohkan oleh masyarakat yang lemah jiwa, ramai manusia menanti bantuan praktikal yang membolehkan mereka meringkan keperitan kehidupan.

Dalam kita berhari raya dan tokoh agama sibuk berbincang samada kongsi raya itu “mencabar akidah” atau “melanggar agama”, ramai manusia daif di merata dunia lebih memerlukan pengorbanan harta tokoh-tokoh agama ini untuk menikmati sedikit sesuap makanan.

Dalam kita berhar raya, janganlah kita lupa diri sehingga kita terpaksa di peringati dengan berkesan oleh Maha Pencipta.

Salam hidup.

Believe in ALL Gods , Just in case????

This is a cool video for the weekend. I found it rather interesting and amusing. This guy is so paranoid about entering heaven, he is not taking any chances - he believes is ALL - just in case! Enjoy

Mufti Perlis: ISA tidak diperlukan untuk bela ajaran Islam

Oleh: ZIEMAN

Mufti Perlis, Dr Asri Zainul Abidin hari ini menegur tindakan kerajaan menggunakan Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA) dalam isu agama dan mengheret pengendali laman web Malaysia Today, Raja Petra Kamarudin dan Ahli Parlimen DAP Seputeh, Teresa Kok yang masih ditahan di bawah peruntukan akta itu.

Ketika ditemui di Damansara Kim sebentar tadi, Dr Asri berkata, Islam dibina dari hujah dan dasar yang jelas, dan Islam juga tidak memerlukan ISA untuk membela ajarannya.

“Jadi tidak ada alasan untuk menahan orang dengan tidak memberi peluang membela diri. Ini adalah satu tindakan yang salah. Sekiranya orang itu mempunyai kesalahan dari segi hukum agama, buktikan dari segi dalil-dalil agama.

“Cara kita tangkap orang guna ISA atas kesalahan agama tidak akan menghilangkan salahfaham terhadap Islam. Seharusnya diperjelaskan dulu apa kesalahan itu. Kalau misalnya orang itu menghina Islam atau menyeleweng, buktikan dulu berdasarkan Quran dan hadis.

“Perlu diperdengarkan pertuduhan itu kepada orang yang dituduh itu. Mungkin juga, ia hanya satu salah faham. Yang penting perdengarkan dulu hujahnya,” kata Mufti yang terkenal dengan kelantangannya mengeluarkan idea yang berani dan telus itu.

Kata Dr Asri lagi, “Islam bukan agama yang bacul. Perbuatan ISA kerana kesalahan agama seolah-olah menggambarkan orang Islam tidak mampu berhujah, terus tangkap orang. Mereka akan kata mereka benar kerana kita takut berhujah dengan dia.”

Beliau juga turut mengingatkan betapa bahayanya tindakan ISA.

“Sekiranya ada aliran-aliran tertentu dalam kerajaan yang tidak setuju dengan pendapat satu aliran yang lain, adakah ruang ISA juga akan digunakan? Pernah berlaku dalam kerajaan Abbasiyah yang berpegang pada aliran Muktazilah ketika itu. Dia menghukum orang daripada aliran lain termasuk Imam-imam besar seperti Imam Ahmad juga turut dihukum.

“Kalau di zaman ini, mereka yang kendalikan agama itu dari aliran lain maka mereka yang dari aliran lain itu akan dihukum tanpa memberi peluang membela diri. Ini juga tidak sejajar dengan konsep keadilan dalam Islam,” kata Dr Asri lagi.

BookIntro2: Speaking In God’s Name.

This is a brilliant book. Brilliant. When I first read the book, I was simply mesmerized with the mental ability of Prof Khaled to express his thoughts with such clarity and accuracy. Whether you are agree or disagree with his views, you will be compelled to admit that his arguments are sound and worth serious thinking. Obviously tremendous amount of thinking and research has gone into writing this book. I also admire his scholastic courage and honesty.

This challenging book reviews the ethical foundations of the Islamic legal system, suggesting that an authoritarian reading of scripture has often had grave consequences for parts of Muslim society. Khaled argues that divinely ordained law is frequently misinterpreted by Muslim authorities at the expense of certain groups especially women. Ebrahim Moosa of Duke University correctly describes this book as “a bold and courageous engagement of authoritarian interpretations of Muslim teachings. Not only does the author confront these teachings, but he also advocates alternative interpretations”.

Those who are interested in examining the foundations and thinking behind interpretative rules and the basis thereof will find this book immensely enlightening. A must read book for anyone who wants to talk on Islam.

Khaled Abou El Fadi studied Islamic Law in Egypt and Kuwait and has degrees from Pennsylvania, Yale and Princeton. He has served on a variety of committees for Human Rights and has published several books and articles.

I have not come across any local Islamic scholar whose mental ability comes close to that of Khaled’s – unless there is one hiding somewhere. It is just sad that most of our local scholars are merely juristic (“fiqhi”) and even that, at a repetitious and taqlid level. I strongly suspect it is because the culture of knowledge and inquiry is suppressed in our country.

The powers that be are content to make averages or below averages of Malaysians.

The Delusions of Collective Consensus.

There are just too many things in our mind that are delusional, that even before we start to think, we have to “clean our mind out first”. Just too many things. Lets try to consider one today - the idea of consensus.

I feel that today, “consensus” is one of those words that have received unchecked respect. Probably because it has served well some groups over the years for some ‘practical purposes’, it has come on to ten top ten list of “values to market”. What is consensus anyway?

We understand consensus to mean agreement. But please go further. It means an agreement among the members of a group or community where some of them retain the discretion in decision-making and follow-up action. So, consensus does not just mean agreement. It includes a follow-up action to ensure that the agreement is not breached.

AT the outset itself please understand that consensus has nothing to do with logic or rationality or common sense though sometimes they may coincide. From example, we may form a chatting club called “Nut crackers” and reach a consensus that only males aged between 35 and 50 from Penang can become members. We also reach a consensus that each member will greet the other with the gibberish “Ajija!”. If anyone ask us why, we just reply because we are Nut cracker members. Consensus requires no rational reason.

Consensus must be artificially created otherwise the desired conduct will not exist. Example, members must agree to call each other Ajija!” otherwise that conduct will not exist. On the other hand, we do not need to reach a consensus that the Sun is hot or that the gravity exists. Our consensus or lack thereof does not affect the conduct of the sun and gravity. Knowledge and not consensus that makes us aware of the truth.

What are delusions? It is a word that incorporates “deception”, “fancifulness” and “false”. If something is delusional, we mean it is false and deceptive. A delusional person thinks something is true when actually he has been deceived into thinking so. It is false. In simple language, we become delusional when we are misled into thinking that false is true. In psychiatry, the definition is necessarily more precise and implies that the belief is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process)

With this, let’s consider some thoughts.

Truth does not require consensus for it to be true. Those who deny the truth are either fools or ignorant. I think it is easy to understand so far because I have used easy examples. Let us try something more “complex”.

Let us consider another kind of truth – killing terminates life. It is a truism and you do not need a consensus to verify it. If you do not want to terminate a life, you do not kill. If you kill a human being, that means you want to terminate his life. If you kill an animal, you want to kill its life. These are logical conclusions that follow.

Now you go to war. You kill human beings. If we say you do that because you want to terminate the lives of those whom you kill, you will most probably object and say: “That is not the objective”. Or worse, you may say: “That is the consequence of war or collateral damage” or you may say “they are enemies”. These justifications that meander from the truth are a result of consensus. You have reached a consensus that those whom you kill are not human beings but enemies. Consensus has made us become delusional.

Now you go deer hunting or boar hunting. You kill animals. You do so because you reach a consensus that you are hunting and not killing. The agreed concept of “sports” becomes dominant in your mind and the death of the animals disappears from your consciousness. Consensus has made us become delusional.

There are resources in the world and there are living species that require sufficient amounts of these resources to live. No clean water, we die. Food, clothing, shelter, health are essential for human survival. The opposite of survival is extinction or death. This is the truth. If we deny or allow the denial of these resources to fellow human beings, we allow their extinction or their death. This is true.

But consensus comes in the way of this truth. Consensus makes us delusional.

By consensus, we agree that the theory of “survival of the fittest” shall apply. We agree that persons can own property and once owned the owners can do what they like with it. We also agree that resources can be owned by those who have the means to own them. We agree that “human wants are unlimited and the means to satisfy these wants are limited”. Our delusional mind has equalized the concept of “wants” with “greed” without realizing it.

Hence, you have persons owning a 1000 sq feet bathroom while many others sleep in the open air. Hence you have persons who have food stock up for the next 20 lifetimes while some others cannot find food for 20 days. But we have reached a consensus that it is okay. We even have agreed terms for it “hard core poverty”, “third world countries”, “income differentials”, etc. Once ‘termed’, it becomes an “issue”, no longer real. Once ‘termed’, we become delusional and hence indifferent to the deprivation suffered by other species, including human beings.

Truth does not require a majority vote for it to be a truth. It simply exists. You deny it at your own peril. Falsity requires a majority vote because without consensus, it will not come into being. This is what the Quran says:

“If you obey the majority of those on this earth, they will lead you far from the Way of Allah. They follow nothing but their imaginations and they do nothing but lie” (surah 6 verse 116).


I have always been wary of collective consensus because I have discovered that it is often untrue. A few persons will collectively agree and decree that is the “accepted value or mode of thinking” to be adopted and large sections of the society unthinkingly adhere to this consensus. Due to the fact that most of these consensuses are false, they only increase further the problems experienced by human beings and the world.

Collective consensus, in my humble view leads to mass delusional behavior. It is like a disease which only gets worse and worse because it is left untreated. This is what the Quran says:

“In their hearts there is a disease and this disease does Allah increase in them, and for them is a painful tormenting because they are false (to themselves). And when it is said to them: ‘Do not do evil on earth’, they say ‘We are but the reformers’. Of a surety they are the ones who do evil, but they realize it not” (surah 2 verses 10 to 12)

So, look out for collectives consensuses masquerading as the truth.

BookIntro1: Translation of the QURAN

Translations from one language to another are by nature a challenging task. Nevertheless, such tasks need to be undertaken if knowledge is to be shared.

One such task was undertaken by a Penangite, the Mufti of Penang, Mr Ghulam Sarwar. He concluded the translation of the Quran while he was in London and published it in 1928. This month, Yayasan Restu launched the reprint of this translation for the first time in Malaysia. It comes in a handy, beautifully designed book form.

Thus far I have gone through about more than 30 translations – both English and Malay – and I will easily vote for this translation as the best. The English is simple, without losing the true meaning, and the sentences are well phrased. For anyone interested in understanding the Quran, I would recommend this piece of translation.

It is available at Selangor Islamic Arts Garden Complex, No. 2A, Persiaran Damai, Seksyen 16, Shah Alam (telephone no: 03-55119001/2/3). This complex, as I understand it welcomes both Muslims and Non-Muslims as it is also a research center.

With so much talk about “the process of Islamisation” going on, reading this translation is the first step to evaluate the process.

The idea of Sin – Part Two

Outside of a religion, the concept of “sin” is meaningless. Since there are diverse religions on earth, there are diverse understanding of what constitutes sin. Essentially, they can be taken as a “particular wrong” in a particular religion.

In the “Abrahimic religions” of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the ideas of sin varies.
Judaism regards the violation of the divine commandments to be a sin. Judaism teaches that sin is an act, and not a state of being. Humankind was not created with an inclination to do evil, but has that inclination "from his youth"(Genesis 8:21). People do have the ability to master this inclination (Genesis 4:7) and choose good over evil (conscience)(Psalm 37:27).[5] Judaism uses the term "sin" to include violations of Jewish law that are not necessarily a lapse in morality. The generic Hebrew word for any kind of sin is avera (literally: transgression). Based on verses in the Hebrew Bible, Judaism describes three levels of sin. There are three categories of a person who commits an avera. The first one is someone who does an avera intentionally, or "B'mezid." This is the most serious category. The second is one who did an avera by accident. This is called "B'shogeg," and while the person is still responsible for their action it is considered less serious. The third category is someone who is a "Tinok Shenishba", which is a person who was raised in an environment that was assimilated or non-Jewish, and is not aware of the proper Jewish laws, or halacha. This person is not held accountable for his or her actions.

In Christianity, there is some difference in the understanding of sin between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants. Roman Catholic doctrine distinguishes between personal sin and original sin. Personal sins are either mortal or venial.

Mortal sins are sins of grave (serious) matter, where the sinner is fully aware that the act (or omission) is both a sin and a grave matter, and performs the act (or omission) with deliberately and consciously. The act of committing a mortal sin cuts off the sinner from God's grace; it is in itself a rejection of God. If left un-reconciled, mortal sins result in eternal punishment in Hell.

Venial sins are sins which do not meet the conditions for mortal sins. The act of committing a venial sin does not cut off the sinner from God's grace, as the sinner has not rejected God. However, venial sins do injure the relationship between the sinner and God, and as such, must be reconciled to God, either through the sacrament of reconciliation or receiving the Eucharist.

Original sin -- Most denominations of Christianity interpret the Garden of Eden account in Genesis in terms of the fall of man. Adam and Eve's disobedience was the first sin man ever committed, and their original sin (or the effects of the sin) is passed on to their descendants (or has become a part of their environment).

Many Protestants teach that, due to original sin, humanity has lost any and all capacity to move towards reconciliation with God (Romans 3:23;6:23; Ephesians 2:1-3); in fact, this inborn sin turns humans away from God and towards themselves and their own desires (Isaiah 53:6a). Thus, humans may be brought back into a relationship with God only by way of God's rescuing the sinner from his/her hopeless condition (Galatians 5:17-21; Ephesians 2:4-10) through Jesus's ransom sacrifice (Romans 5:6-8; Colossians 2:13-15). Salvation is sola fide (by faith alone); sola gratia (by grace alone); and is begun and completed by God alone through Jesus (Ephesians 2:8,9).

This is in contrast to the Catholic teaching that while sin has tarnished the original goodness of humanity prior to the Fall, it has not entirely extinguished that goodness, or at least the potential for goodness, allowing humans to reach towards God to share in the Redemption which Jesus Christ won for them. Some non-Catholic or Orthodox groups hold similar views.

Buddhism does not recognize the idea behind sin because in Buddhism, instead, there is a "Cause-Effect Theory", known as Karma, or action. In general, Buddhism illustrates intentions as the cause of Karma, either good, bad, or neutral. Furthermore, most thoughts in any being's mind can be negative.

Vipaka, the result of your Karma, may create low quality living, hardships, destruction and all means of disharmony in life and it may also create healthy living, easiness, and harmony in life. Good deeds produce good results while bad deeds produce bad results. Karma and Vipaka are your own action and result.

Pañcasīla (Pāli) is the fundamental code of Buddhist ethics, willingly undertaken by lay followers of Gautama Buddha. It is a basic understanding of the Noble Eightfold Path, which is a Buddhist teaching on ways to stop suffering.
In Hinduism, the term sin (pāpa in Sanskrit) is often used to describe actions that create negative karma by violating moral and ethical codes this differs from other religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the sense that sin is against the will of God. In fact, it is often described in the scriptures that chanting the name of Hari or Narayana or Shiva is the one of the ways to atone for sins, prevent rebirth and attain moksha.

(Of course, the above views stand to be corrected.)

NEXT: The idea of Sin: -Part 3: Islam.