Is the mufti council still relevant today? [Archive]

misled_youth

23-08-2004, 05:08 PM

Remember when Perak mufti council said that 'sure heboh', American Idol, Akademi Fantasia, Audition etc was haram?

Now, they are whipping Suhakam for their suggestion of punishing 'wife-raping'.

For context, read story attached below.

UMNO calls PAS taliban's, but I think the mufti council is just as bad. Maybe this is a BN way to out-islamise PAS. but do they need to? BN won convincingly last election.

I think this is a dangerous trend, as we are seeing more conservative leaders, out to impose their moral and religious standards onto people who honestly, don't give two fucks.

---

Scholars slam Suhakam proposal

ISLAMIC leaders and scholars criticised the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) for suggesting that husbands who forced their wives to have sex with them be charged with rape, Mingguan Malaysia reported.

Religious intellectuals described the suggestion as going against Islam and could ruin the marriage institution.

Perak mufti Datuk Seri Dr Harussani Zakaria was quoted as saying that the act of a husband forcing his wife to have sex with him cannot be construed as rape and a wrongdoing in Islam.

He said Suhakam was influenced by western ideology that lobbied for extra rights for women.

?In Islam, the sexual relations between husband and wife are governed by certain rules and limitations. For example, a husband is not allowed to demand sex while his wife is menstruating.

?A husband has the right to be intimate with his wife and the wife must obey. If the wife refuses, the rule of nusyus (recalcitrant) can be applied and the husband will no longer be responsible to provide for his wife,? he said.

He was responding to Suhakam chairman Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman?s call for punishment for ?wife-raping? husbands under the Penal Code by treating such cases as sexual violence and marital abuse.

Syariah Lawyers Association deputy president Zainal Rijal Abu Bakar told the daily that existing legislation was sufficient in tackling the issue.

?To introduce the term ?rape? in a marriage contradicts Syariah law because one of the objectives of marriage is to legitimise sex between a couple,? he said.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2004/8/23/nation/8729929&sec=nation
________
Vaporizer Volcano (http://volcanovaporizer.net/)

PJKru

23-08-2004, 08:50 PM

This is a very controversial topic misled_youth. One thing i know is that if my wife refused to have sex with me for a long period, i would just divorce her. But thats in the early stages of marraige. When you get older sex doesnt matter so it shouldnt matter. I wouldnt force my wife to have sex with me though.

phantom

23-08-2004, 10:39 PM

He said Suhakam was influenced by western ideology that lobbied for extra rights for women.

when i read this yesterday at utusan,i almost threw my keyboard.how ridicolous was that statement?

why is it some ppl still have this attitude, " darn america,darn western world" when after all it is america and western world system that they emulate most of the time.

i think when a man forced his wife to have sex with him,it is still rape.ask any feminist here,they will agree with you.

a marriage is not a platform for you to satisfy ur animalistic lust.it should be more than than.if a man doesnt pay the alimony,it takes years for women to wrestle for it in mahkamah syariah.and who give a shit about these women and single mothers?

as much as i respect the muftis,the muslim schlolars,i also found their statements as totally bias towards women.

to answer the question,i think the mufti council is still relevent but they must be fair and square in giving treament towards the women and the non-malay muslims.

and yeas,they must and must punish any man who forced his wife to have sex with him.

el_empty

23-08-2004, 11:30 PM

kevinkhoo1986

24-08-2004, 12:39 AM

Totally a nonsense and irrational statement from the mufti. What's wrong in adopting westerm system if it is fair? A man should not forced his wife to have sex with him. They are too islamic and conservative.

gatecrasher

24-08-2004, 01:44 AM

?A husband has the right to be intimate with his wife and the wife must obey. If the wife refuses, the rule of nusyus (recalcitrant) can be applied and the husband will no longer be responsible to provide for his wife,? he said.
is that just his interpretation or is it actually stated somewhere?
hmm... has anything been said about a wife demanding sex when her husband doesn't want it? :wink:

?To introduce the term ?rape? in a marriage contradicts Syariah law because one of the objectives of marriage is to legitimise sex between a couple,? he said.
oh... if a guy rapes his gf it's rape. but if they're married it's ok.
where's the difference? just a piece of paper. perhaps this should be added to a list of synonyms:
marriage certificate = rape license
SO... (this is hypothetical, ok?) if you wanna rape ur gf, marry her and she's all yours.

misled_youth

24-08-2004, 02:04 AM

One thing i know is that if my wife refused to have sex with me for a long period, i would just divorce her.

dude with all due respect, pj, if your wife refuses to do so with you, there's probably a reason why. you should talk it out with her instead of divorce.

el_empty....... YOU MADE MY DAY!!!

No offence PJKru.... but this is the FUNNIEST damn statement I've heard in a while!
________
Ocean View Condos Prathumnak (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

ElansarGelmir

24-08-2004, 05:32 AM

One thing i know is that if my wife refused to have sex with me for a long period, i would just divorce her.

dude with all due respect, pj, if your wife refuses to do so with you, there's probably a reason why. you should talk it out with her instead of divorce.

should i speculate some reasons??? Got one running through my mind... [smirk!]

Well, even though they are married, i believe the wife still has her freedom to say no, yamate, whatsoever to anything which she doesn't want to. marrying!=possessing. i believe these women should stand up for their rights...

PJKru

24-08-2004, 06:37 PM

i would talk it over with her at first but if it went a year for no good reason then that is too long.

misled_youth

24-08-2004, 07:06 PM

i would talk it over with her at first but if it went a year for no good reason then that is too long.

Let's play with the possibilities:

What if, your wife dun want to have sex with you, because of you, and she divorces you before you could divorce her because you not fulfilling her.

Possible right?

*DELETED BY MISLED YOUTH DUE TO SENSITIVITY*
________
Vaporizer Wiki (http://vaporizerwiki.com)

gatecrasher

24-08-2004, 09:49 PM

i would talk it over with her at first but if it went a year for no good reason then that is too long.

Let's play with the possibilities:

What if, your wife dun want to have sex with you, because of you, and she divorces you before you could divorce her because you not fulfilling her.

Possible right?
in fact, come to think of it, that seems more likely than her refusing to have sex for a year!

Get three lah! Fulfil the quota!
the quota is four! :twisted:

el_empty

25-08-2004, 04:14 AM

this is going wayyyy off topic...

masterof_none

25-08-2004, 04:22 AM

[
Besides, if you are Malay, and your wife dun want to comply, get another one lah, heck! Get three lah! Fulfil the quota!

Do I hear threesomes? Do I hear foursomes? Do I hear Quinsomes?

Hallejuliah!
Don't attack any religion. if you have any opinion, express it. If you're hear just to inflame fire to any religion, beware. Belief is belief. If you want to have threesome go ahead.

I've heard lots of complaints about Muslims in Malaysia harassing other religions. I hear that because the minorities are non-Muslims.

But if you're here to inflame other Muslims, the same conclusion can be arrived : human make mistakes, not religion.

no matter who you're , Muslims or non-muslims, if you're the majority, there will be a tendency to harass others.

Then the purpose of ReCom would be non-sense if that's the case.
We don't setup forums like this to set fire to any religion.
Respect others just like you expect others to respect you.

misled_youth

25-08-2004, 12:57 PM

masterof_none

25-08-2004, 01:33 PM

Besides... do you know how many wives Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had?

What are you trying to prove?

Thirdshifter

25-08-2004, 01:39 PM

[
*DELETED TO PROTECT RECOM HARMONY*
Don't attack any religion. if you have any opinion, express it. If you're hear just to inflame fire to any religion, beware. Belief is belief. If you want to have threesome go ahead.

I had no intention of attacking any religion. I'm merely stating the obvious (that muslims can have more than one wife) and also trying to be humorous.

I was however, attacking PJKru for his comments (albiet inappropietely). Sorry bro. I know you very sporting wan...

Besides... do you know how many wives Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had?

He had, if my memory serves me right; 13!.yes! He had married 13 times. Elizabeth tailor is cathing up :D and had 9 diverces. His last marriage to the adolscent Aishah is still a contraversy untill today. Regardless of all that, that is something that we should all leave to be debated in another topic at another time.

Right now we're talking about the Mufti of perak who obviously made a very big mistake by ok'ing rape after marriage.

I think the mufti should've consulted few other mufti's before blantanly making a dumb statement which is being used by suhakam as the "voice" of all mufti's.

And to quute the article you posted and had higlighted yourself "?To introduce the term ?rape? in a marriage contradicts Syariah law because one of the objectives of marriage is to legitimise sex between a couple"

I have to agree with the mufti because he was talking on a syaria law standpoint.

I rather have a mufti who follows the law rather then those who makes them up as they go.

misled_youth

25-08-2004, 01:43 PM

I have to agree with the mufti because he was talking on a syaria law standpoint.

I rather have a mufti who follows the law rather then those who makes them up as they go.

I pity the mufti's wife.
________
Paxil Class Action Lawsuit (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/paxil/)

jiinjoo

25-08-2004, 02:55 PM

Has there been any follow up? Did any other mufti said anything at all or they just couldn't be bothered?

Back to the topic, what's the purpose of the mufti council? Who are they under? Do they report directly to the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong, who I last remember has the authority to make final decisions pertaining to Islam in Malaysia?

And about the rape - no one actually defined rape. Dictionaries say that rape is unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent. And no where is rape correlated to marriage. Did the mufti use another word (presumably a Malay word) that has a different connotation maybe?

phantom

25-08-2004, 11:10 PM

jinjoo wrote:

Did the mufti use another word (presumably a Malay word) that has a different connotation maybe?

yes they did,they said,rape is not the word to be used when a husband forced his wife to have sex with him.he suggested the word, "domestic violence".

well,terms might make this heinous act less evil.but then again,domestic violence too is an evil act under our law.so perhaps,justice is served,and muftis are being pleased.

whatever it is,it is the time for equal treament for women in malaysia without them being told , " owh you cannot be a leader becoz you have 9 nafsu and 1 akal".

Thirdshifter

25-08-2004, 11:38 PM

somebody deleted my previous post. Accidently or not let me just re-write it

I pity all Muslims that are obliged to sharia as well. A doctrine that is clearly unfair and a doctrine that has in many occasions showed its bias against Females.

What the perak mufti did was just reminding us, that we need to start making changes to things we find to be irrelevant and unfair. For that, i suggest the Sharia's authority be limited to only Mariages, and divorce in Malaysia. All other disputes such as Domestic violence, Child custody, and inheritance should be shifted to a non-Sharia court.

To be fair, Muslims who do not wish to be judged according to one's religion should also be allowed to do so.

If freedom of practicing one's religion,which was guaranteed in the Malaysian constitution is violated, I wonder how many more violation are we willing to accept.

If religion, which was and still is the biggest excuse to start a war, -from the times of the crusaders to Osama bin Ladin- Arent we playing with fire here?

I strongly advocate the total separation of religion/race/tradition from the goverment in Malaysia. The wrtten and un-written law. All must go. Not all muslims needs a Moral police going around catching couple's holding hands, Having sex or even Gang bangs. Every Malaysian have The right to do all of those, Muslims included. Also, Every fines collected from those silly "tangkap basah" is a direct violation of the constitution. I wonder how many malaysian actually realize this.

The mufti too needs to go because they are the group of people who tries and had beed sucessful dictating and promoting Islam in Malaysia using all of Goverment sources they could. That again is another violation. My words to the Mufti's. Go back to the sekolah pondok. If thats not your thing start your own school and faundations and raise money yourself for yours and Muslims activities. After all, the Hindu, the Budhist, the Christians in Malaysia can do it..

Relevant or not is not the issue. It is how seriously we should take the mufti's words. Does Mufti truly represent the Opinions and Views of Many Malaysian Muslims or they are just another off-shoot of Islamic fundamentalism?
Oh by the way, Islam Hadhari http://nac01.kinetichost.net/~recom/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=1319&sid=88c307f6efc59e575f7b6809ed56ee27 is another thing which is probably an idea or suggestion by the Mufti's which Badawi is taking very seriously.

phantom

25-08-2004, 11:58 PM

I pity all Muslims that are obliged to sharia as well. A doctrine that is clearly unfair and a doctrine that has in many occasions showed its bias against Females.

i think sharia' is perfect.women are well-treated there.eg: if someone accused a woman to have legal sex,he must bring 4 witnesses and if he fails to do so,he will be punish instead.

woman can of coz ask for divorce in islam.not only men you see.

the problem is with muslim men in m'sia and other muslim based nations or other eastern based nations.deep inside them,they are taught that men are superior compare to women.so why put the blame on the religion.

eg: in the old hindu society,a hindu woman who just lost her husband was asked to jump into the fire while her husband dead body was burning.as cruel and as stupid as it might sounds,most indian women felt obliged to do so as living as a widow was not acceptable but then,to the bygone society.

but as time flew by,as more and more women are allowed to speak their minds,women now deserve utmost respect.well,after all,india already has had a women PM while we in m'sia still never allow a woman to be a judge in our sharia court.

the same goes with the pakistani culture based bad treament towards women.

ANOTHER THING I WILL LIKE TO PINPOINT IS THIS:

SHARIA LAWYERS/JUDGES ARE DARN DARN DARN LAZY.

dont trust me,sit outside the court and see how they work.it took 3 years sometime to get an alimony!!real crap.they have no dedication to their job and the old boring sikap pemalas still haunt them.wonder how they sleep at night while others who deserve their doctrine are suffering.

yeas,you need time to collect facts in order for justice to be served,you need time to make a fair decision,you need time to do this and that,but for Heaven sake,you dont need 3-7 years for a case,do you?

well,i think sharia court should stay.except,those working they need to work and not sleep.

Thirdshifter

26-08-2004, 12:21 AM

I pity all Muslims that are obliged to sharia as well. A doctrine that is clearly unfair and a doctrine that has in many occasions showed its bias against Females.

i think sharia' is perfect.women are well-treated there.eg: if someone accused a woman to have legal sex,he must bring 4 witnesses and if he fails to do so,he will be punish instead.

woman can of coz ask for divorce in islam.not only men you see..

Sharia is not perfect. Far from it. Divorce by women is permitted by many other religion too. If your claim of the perfectness of Sharia is just based on that let me point you to the imperfections of it that you missed.

First of all. let clear up the confussion to many. Sharia is not a law picked out from the Koran. Matter of fact Sharia is not even a Law, It's a doctrine. It's doctrines are inspired by the Quran. None of its doctrine comes directly from the Quran. So keep that in mind.

Here's two of the silliest things sharia has said to be wrong in Muslims females.

1. Birth control pills are not allowed. Reason. From a hadith, Muhammad was quoted saying,
"Marry the child-bearing, loving woman for I shall outnumber the peoples by you on the Day of Resurrection."

2. According to sharia, Women should not wear jewelry during the mourning of her husband death. Not permisable. Some women even take of their watches too.

there's many more but you get my drift. Apart of being insipered by the Quran, Sharia is pretty much based on legal opinion (fatwa) made by mufti's

kucingbiru

26-08-2004, 07:14 AM

First of all. let clear up the confussion to many. Sharia is not a law picked out from the Koran. Matter of fact Sharia is not even a Law, It's a doctrine. It's doctrines are inspired by the Quran. None of its doctrine comes directly from the Quran. So keep that in mind.

hmm, i was tought that it is a law. if i'm not mistaken in pendidikan islam f4 or 5, bab "kufur". it says that when one (muslim) denies the obligations of syariah, it's a "kufur syari'e". damn i donno what's right what's wrong anymore. i have to figure it out. will somebody (Third and/or someone else) correct me?

phantom

26-08-2004, 11:45 AM

gee,sharia is law.

well,if you wanna play the english game,here it goes: they are 4 definations for law inside the mariam webster dictionary,one of them being:

a often capitalized : the revelation of the will of God set forth in the Old Testament b capitalized : the first part of the Jewish scriptures : PENTATEUCH, TORAH -- see BIBLE table

as much as i respect the western world and the man-made laws,i still think man made laws are worth questiong most of the time.the rich ppl could hire the bestest lawyers to exonarate them from any wrong-doing.

yeas,thanks to the CSI,we have had better ways to determine who deserved being punished and who doesnt.

but tell me what about usury?what about pre-marital sex? are they any punishment for them amid them creating a crazy society who never been satisfied by wealth and sex.though they break the family apart,they seem another acceptable acts by the man-made laws.

i view sharia,the laws as being perfect.not for the sake of being taught e'thing that comes from God as being perfect but becoz it is really a perfect law.

tell me a place in this world where ppl can leave their shop unattended and not being pilfered?

well,the holy land of mecca seems one of the only land in this world that might happen.

why?

becoz sharia really works.sharia is not punishment per se but rather a warning.it seems to fit this idiom too: to prevent is better than to cure.

about the law you have mentioned,pls quote the sources,becoz accepting e'thing without questions makes ppl dull.

plus,you have to know whether the source is from the Holy Quran or from hadis hassan which is the bestest sources around.

well,sharia is for me the perfect law.except it scares the muslim and the non-muslim alike.it likes the fear of the unknown where ppl based their judgement on what they are used too.

again,whatever it is,the ppl at the syaria court must prove the system really works.but these ppl r making others questioning the law instead.

Thirdshifter

26-08-2004, 12:01 PM

gee,sharia is law..

The sources,

1. Long version: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Books/Gibb/sharia.htm

2. Short version: http://i-cias.com/e.o/sharia.htm

misled_youth

26-08-2004, 05:17 PM

Suggestion: Limit discussion to the mufti's comment.

I am in no position to discuss syariah law. However, mufti's comment is definately no-no-a-go-go for perspective of a rationale human being who values basic human rights.

*KEEP RECOM FREE FROM CENSORSHIP*
________
Problems from zoloft (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/zoloft/)

retroque

26-08-2004, 07:14 PM

mr thirdshifter

you are walking on a very fine line here. at least that's how i see it. to discuss the mufti's comments and whether it's relevant or not in msia is still acceptable, at least to me.

but what you r doing is raising doubts about shariah law and criticizing it which i can interpreted as an abusive action against one's religion. do u see anyone here criticizing the way of Buddhism /Christianity Hindu??

what are you trying to prove? that shariah is full of flaws? than bring your facts and discuss it with the ulama then. majority of us here i believe doesn't posses that much of knowledge about shariah nor civil law to openly debate this issue properly.

sorry if i sound aggressive,　but as a muslim i'm offended.

misled_youth

26-08-2004, 11:06 PM

sorry if i sound aggresive,but as a muslim i'm offended.

Guess what! He's a muslim too!

Only thing is he's of the Dr Farish A Noor, Pn Zainah Anwar and Hisshammuddin Rais variety.

I wish I can hear Prof Chandra Muzzafar's take on the issue. For that matter, even Hadi Awang.
________
Live sex webshows (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

kevinkhoo1986

26-08-2004, 11:23 PM

__earth

26-08-2004, 11:28 PM

Weird..... how a person is going to find four witnesees to accused a women to have legal sex? That's mean find four person who have witnessed the women have sex on the spot? :?:

I'm not coming to the aid of the sharia but, its to discourage people from making false accusation.

parallelly, who is going to witness somebody committing a theft in the middle of the night? Not that I am saying having a sex is a crime though but finding four witnesses is not impossible.

Thirdshifter

26-08-2004, 11:40 PM

mr thirdshifter

what are you trying to prove? that shariah is full of flaws?

sorry if i sound aggressive,　but as a muslim i'm offended.

It's not my fault your offended i'm just pointing out the facts. If you havent noticed the relevancy yet, here it is again.

Mufti is a Muslim leader who is an interpreter or expounder of Islamic law (Sharia), capable of issuing fataawa.

Fatwa

However since there's no real Mufti-hood, elected Mufti or chosen Mufti (this is however going to happen in Islam hadhari), we are left with to many self-proclaimed Mufti that are issuing fatwa left and right.

Thirdshifter

27-08-2004, 04:28 AM

kucingbiru

27-08-2004, 06:33 AM

muftis aren't that powerful in malaysia, are they?

Thirdshifter

27-08-2004, 09:37 AM

muftis aren't that powerful in malaysia, are they?

As far as i know Mufti in Malaysia are the people who are the Authority of Muslims.

kucingbiru

27-08-2004, 12:19 PM

i dont think they are. at least not in malaysia i guess. the govt still can decide (if not directly&publicly) who's in the mufti council.

Thirdshifter

27-08-2004, 12:29 PM

digimushu

27-08-2004, 12:32 PM

mr thirdshifter
but what you r doing is raising doubts about shariah law and criticizing it which i can interpreted as an abusive action against one's religion. do u see anyone here criticizing the way of Buddhism /Christianity Hindu?? .

I think i will also criticize any religion if the leaders of the religion are making decisions and new laws that will directly affect me and my family.

So far in Malaysia it's only Mufti's that has the ability to do that. Monks and priest don't

Although I don't directly criticize the role of religion in the governance of a state, I do question its direct role. If you refer to the secularism thread, I did mention that the Bible seems biased against women as well.

Even though my family is Christian, I don't see why stuff from the bible has to be used in the governance of any country that has Christian roots

Thirdshifter

27-08-2004, 12:44 PM

Even though my family is Christian, I don't see why stuff from the bible has to be used in the governance of any country that has Christian roots

Well, just like you except i'm from a Muslim family. I don't see why stuff from the Koran has to be used in the governance of any country that has Islam roots. Even if its only for Muslims. To be fair, a system that allows people to be volutarily part of it would work best in Malaysia. If a Muslim decide to not go with the Sharia he should have that right to.

Many Muslim Malaysians that had chose not to be part of the Islam religion ( an apostate ) are still obliged to Sharia. In Malaysia a Muslim Apostate means.. your going to Rehab, repeat apostate = jail.

In my book, thats a violation of basic human rights. Also, it's unconstitutional.

phantom

27-08-2004, 02:23 PM

i dont think they are. at least not in malaysia i guess. the govt still can decide (if not directly&publicly) who's in the mufti council.

Ofcourse that is the case in Malaysia and the base of this thread. Mufti of Perak. I'm sure he was selected by the Perak stae goverment. He is a representetive of the Islamic Authority of Perak (jabatan agama perak)

well,muftis are educated ppl.they have qualifications to prove that.even if they were chosen by the gov,it should not be wrong.after all,are you sure these muftis are on the verge with the gov?

in malaysia,islam is still a way of life.it is not something that muslim take only when they are inside the mosque.islam is synchronized with their daily life.

but then again,it was and will be wrong when some ppl called themselves as ulamak,be there ulamak umno or pas when they dont act as one.

now i am start to hear the most ridiculous statement ever.if u think the gov is using the mufti council as their horse to achieve their means,then you are making one baseless judgment.

while the mufti councils think genting casinos/night clubs/liquor should go,the gov is not doing so and hence the gov is labeled as inflaming God by a segment of muslim denizen in m'sia.and there it goes,a portion of votes away from the gov.

well,KL being a sybarite community is after all,tumbling down morally and mentally.yeas,those state with pious leaders too might face them but when religion is put aside,life is a void.and will be one.

i believe religion and politics should work hand in hand.The Holy Koran is a set of words sent by God.I am pretty sure you realized that God is not dumb.

well,i can go long,but by now i am pretty sure, u get my point.

phantom

27-08-2004, 02:37 PM

mr 3rdshifter wrote:

It's not my fault your offended i'm just pointing out the facts.

facts?facts that you garner from ppl that dont even have the guts to say their qualifications,their well-beings in their sites.the sources you derived the so called facts belong to who?can you trust him/her?his/her qualifications?

after u read facts bashing about sharia,did u give urself a room to hear those bashing those bashers back?

u r not talking about facts.u r making conclusion after setting the hypothesis.

and mind me,u r barely making a judgement based on what you presume to know and understand.

qedx

27-08-2004, 10:19 PM

i would like to say that the mufti council is relevant but nobody listens to them, do they?

__earth

27-08-2004, 10:19 PM

i believe religion and politics should work hand in hand.The Holy Koran is a set of words sent by God.I am pretty sure you realized that God is not dumb.

human is not dumb too. plus, cmon, like 3rd said earlier, if you want to mix politics with religion, why must it only be Islam?

that's very unfair. hence, in the spirit of fairness, we need every religion to be included, including paganism and Jedi (yup, Jedi is a religion, weirdly). maybe even the church of satan. i sure islam promotes fairness as a moral.

and you are making assumption that everybody believes in God. if someone doesnt believe in God, I'm pretty sure one couldnt say God is dumb or otherwise simply because God doesnt exist in one's dictionary.

qedx

27-08-2004, 10:37 PM

Malay Muslims in Malaysia also seem to be unable to separate what is Muslim and what is Malay. Today there was this news about a mass wedding of mu'allaf couples done by the majlis agama islam melaka. The couples were dressed in Malay traditional costumes :/. kinda weird.

But back to muftis: wonder why suddenly these few months they got a bit too vocal. There was the SMS judi thing, and then the karnival sure heboh thing and now the rape thing.

misled_youth

27-08-2004, 11:22 PM

But back to muftis: wonder why suddenly these few months they got a bit too vocal. There was the SMS judi thing, and then the karnival sure heboh thing and now the rape thing.

These people want to impose their moral standards on people like us (wow! what a cooincidence! We have such MODS in ReCom as well!).

To them, religion is not a personal thing, but something that they can dictate and manipulate, just because they graduated from some Sekolah Pondok.

Stick it to the man ya'll!
________
Vickie live (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/Vickie)

gohweihan

28-08-2004, 12:29 AM

But back to muftis: wonder why suddenly these few months they got a bit too vocal. There was the SMS judi thing, and then the karnival sure heboh thing and now the rape thing.

These people want to impose their moral standards on people like us (wow! what a cooincidence! We have such MODS in ReCom as well!).

To them, religion is not a personal thing, but something that they can dictate and manipulate, just because they graduated from some Sekolah Pondok.

Stick it to the man ya'll!

Yeah, they shoot the arrow, then draw the target. First, they come up with ideas against what they don't like, then use religion to back them up.

tmnt007

28-08-2004, 01:12 AM

indeed, a lot of conflicts in history did take religion as an excuse to start, which is sad, evil and irresponsible. because human being r not perfect, selfish n arrogant in nature, craze for control over society made these ppl take for granted of the teachings of religion and misused the teachings for their own advantage.

anyway, all i want everyone to know is that, the essence of having religion is to promote PEACE, LOVE, RESPECT, MERCIFUL and HARMONY to every living thing in the imperfect world we live in. religion can't be evil, but the person who teaches it can become evil. a simple analogy is that of a wood. the wood is not evil and it doesn't kill people as it lays on the grounds of the forest. it is the person who holds the wood up and if s/he uses the wood to smash on another person's head hard enough to kill, it will be s/he to be blamed, not the wood.

i think, if a religious man of religion 'A' says to me that, "if you believe in 'A', you should kill someone who has done wrong, because that someone has go against 'A's teaching", i would think, this is not right at all. Knowing that killing is already the biggest sin of all and it violates the nature of human beings, this religious man is wrong and must have misinterpreted what was taught by 'A'.

I believe, teachings of religion is not easy to grasp. It is so pure and perfect that, no single imperfect human being can understand everything of the teachings of religion. But, everyone can understand a certain piece of the teachings fully. so, if all r able to come together as one, all of us will understand the full meaning of the teachings. Hence I think, if someone says s/he has fully understand the teachings of something so pure and holy, i would be careful of him/her before i REALLY believe him/her. Unless the judgement day arrives, whichever religion u r in believes in this, NO ONE can say which religion is right and wrong. we can only have to learn to stay as one people in the world. I believe, the Divine One that we believe in, will be merciful on those who never believed in Him/Her, and will give those another chance to join Him/Her.

Live in peace everyone. :) Take care.

digimushu

28-08-2004, 02:46 AM

el_empty

28-08-2004, 03:02 AM

well you can see how things get messed up when you mix religion and government together. things get worse when a religion has its own set of laws. it's the year 2004 and we have 200 or so countries to look. simple eyeballing tells us that secular countries are usually more successful as a state than those that practise religious governance.

el_empty

28-08-2004, 03:13 AM

Anyways, about the marital rape thingy, some points for us to consider:

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Wednesday/Letters/20040825083502/Article/indexb_html

seems like a coin always has 2 sides huh?
:D

"... of a wife from her husband does not relieve her of the marital obligation to submit sexually to her husband..."

another neo conservative... is this guy for real?

retroque

28-08-2004, 04:30 AM

Hehe..relax phantom?cool down.,sorry mods..accidentally double post ...will not happen again.

im not the most pious among my people n I am no mufti .but I did try reading and asking around.please do tell if there are any mistakes so that I can do some more studying.i fear that I may have misunderstood some part.afterall,I am still learning :D

...back to the topic rape in marriage refer to

http://www.islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=2965

an excerption of the article(if u don?t feel like clicking on the link)

? As for "marital rape", Islam teaches both husband and wife the understanding of having to minimize the times when they are reluctant to respond to their spouses' sexual demand. Unless there are really serious reasons concerning, for example, health or mental difficulties, they should not refuse such a demand.

This is not because any side is a "property" of the other or because Islam approves what is called marital rape・ On the contrary, this is because Islam prohibits adultery and marital infidelity.

This, in fact, is prohibited for both parties. Therefore, Islam urges both parties to be always welcoming to meet the other party?s sexual demands and needs. Both parties are also obliged to make sure that this affair has ended with full satisfaction for ones・partner.?

some replying

It's not my fault your offended i'm just pointing out the facts.

It doesn't matter whose fault is it.My message is please have some respect when commenting on religions.your comments such as

Sharia is not perfect.

I pity all Muslims that are obliged to sharia as well. A doctrine that is clearly unfair and a doctrine that has in many occasions showed its bias against Females.

is pretty offensive and can spark anger from the muslim community.

though i'm not against the freedom to discuss and debate, when it concerns matters of sensitivity such as religion, careful precautions and ethics have to be upheld. facts needed to be read thoroughly. state your sources, references, which page of what book u've read to help us and urself to understand your points. failing in doing so might be regarded as an irresponsible argument it would be more appropriate if you state how far u have read about shariah.the whole thing or just 1 chapter of it?which scholar did u consult ?.

Here's two of the silliest things sharia has said to be wrong in Muslims females.

1. Birth control pills are not allowed. Reason. From a hadith, Muhammad was quoted saying,
"Marry the child-bearing, loving woman for I shall outnumber the peoples by you on the Day of Resurrection."

again,state your sources/ref please.and state also preferebably the narrators for the hadith. birth control, is allowed in islam.

Birth control is, however, forbidden or undesirable when it is resorted to as a permanent measure to prevent conception altogether; likewise, it is forbidden if resorted to for fear of poverty

http://www.islam-online.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=100981

taking birth control pills is allowable if the medical doctor tells her that it is safe for her and that there wont be any side effects, then it is ok.

http://www.islamonline.net/livefatwa/english/Browse.asp?hGuestID=44VXv6

2. According to sharia, Women should not wear jewelry during the mourning of her husband death. Not permisable. Some women even take of their watches too.

which source?

I haven't heard about women taking off their watches.but jewelry are not worn to observe iddah,the waiting period after the death of a husband.

http://www.islam-online.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=83230

The sources,

1. Long version: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Books/Gibb/sharia.htm .

aah..your source is already biased .

However since there's no real Mufti-hood, elected Mufti or chosen Mufti (this is however going to happen in Islam hadhari), we are left with to many self-proclaimed Mufti that are issuing fatwa left and right..

I think i will also criticize any religion if the leaders of the religion are making decisions and new laws that will directly affect me and my family.

hmmn...mufti of perak was elected by the government itself.which self-proclaimed mufti are talking about?how about the Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan or Majlis Mufti-Mufti Malaysia?

the authority to pass laws is still whithin the hands of the parliament.in fact regardless to whatever the mufti says,suhakam's proposal can still be be passed as a law through if the parliament decides to.

http://utusan.com.my/utusan/archive.asp?y=2004&dt=0804&pub=utusan_malaysia&sec=dalam%5Fnegeri&pg=dn_07.htm&arc=hive

I don't see why stuff from the Koran has to be used in the governance of any country that has Islam roots. Even if its only for Muslims. To be fair, a system that allows people to be volutarily part of it would work best in Malaysia. If a Muslim decide to not go with the Sharia he should have that right to.

When a person is a citizen of a country, that person must whether he likes it or not abide by the country?s laws and rules and regulations. if one finds that the interpretation of the rules are false and need to be review again,then he/she should study properly and bring his case to the authority through the proper procedure.or makes discussion among the people　who are able to make changes.
if one decides against it, then he/she should leave the country or change citizenship. but any country would consider this as betrayal to the nation.

There is a concept in islam called syumulliyah which means (sort of) ?complete?.thus meaning ?islam is complete? You see ,islam is not just about rituals but has it?s own economy,social and political system.but you wont find all of this being implemented today. To enter islam ,is to become ?a citizen? of islam,where by right you need to accept the ?whole? of it. it?s not appropriate to accept the social system of islam while at the same time refusing to acknowledge the economics system of islam.

I wonder if other religion also have similarity in having systems like this?anyone care to share?dont forget to give your reference please.

Notes;ref on syumulliyah
?20 usul? by hassan al-banna
?what is the meaning of being a muslim/madha ya?in intima?I Lil-Islam? by fathi yakan

My conclusion(finally?)

A mufti is a human being, he makes mistakes and not all of his decisions are correct. But to criticize him without thorough study and reading is disrespect for the mufti?s position and role.

He has the right(and responsibility) and deserves to give a full and proper explanation to the public.

Although he has the authority to state how an issue favors in islam,I doubt it?ll have much effect on the non-muslim community.A mufti who also clearly misuse his position is also subject to removal which I will leave to the majlis mufti.

Have some more respect towards the sensitivity of a religion,whatever it maybe.

I wish to continue no more.this is my last post in this thread.forgive me for my weakness.good day to all..

phantom

28-08-2004, 05:20 AM

earth wrote:

human is not dumb too. plus, cmon, like 3rd said earlier, if you want to mix politics with religion, why must it only be Islam?

yeas,human is not dumb.BUT PARADOXICALLY ENOUGH THEY CAN CHOOSE TO BE DUMB.

well,usury is allowed amid sucking the blood of the poor and widening the gap between the poor and rich.While citibank CEO is being paid USD 800 million per year,those in debt with Citibank is working day and night to pay more money than they owe.how is the man-made law reacting?

tell me,is this fair?apart from pinpointing that inflation rises the payment,one has to wonder why when you borrow USD 10 000,u have to pay USD 15 000 even when inflation still the same?

i believe usury must go.

the same goes with adultery.in islam,it is wrong regardless where and with whom u did it.

how the man-made laws react?well,prostitution is wrong.but when hollywood stars have sex on screen and being paid for that,it is not prostitution but instead art.

where is the fairness in this?

man-made laws are keep changing,one has to question who keep making these changes?those on the upper level who unfortunately need support and money for their political campaigns r making these changes.and who are paying for these campaigns?

well,in usa ,the rich still can lobby for their benefits.even if it does bring harm to the society.

now tell me,how fair is the set of law u wish will run our society?our nation?

islam never discriminate the non-muslims.and malaysia having muslim as the majority to some extend has the right to mix islam during the decision making.as long as the non-muslims right are being protected without them being called infidel and other craps,it is never wrong to have islam as the guidance.

Islam and the non-muslims have work hand-to-hand very very very well.as u glanced through the history books,u realized while The holy Land of Jerusalem was under the Muslim control,the non-muslims were fully welcomed.

Islam in Spain too had work well with the non-muslims in Spain.

and that is why islam sounds fine.

el-empty wrote:

well you can see how things get messed up when you mix religion and government together. things get worse when a religion has its own set of laws. it's the year 2004 and we have 200 or so countries to look. simple eyeballing tells us that secular countries are usually more successful as a state than those that practise religious governance.

it wont get mess up if the writer is willing to open his brain.

yeas,it is year 2004 and how civilized are we?how fair is our current system ?
why then are poverty,hunger and pain?

so while u open ur eyes widely to the success of the secular nations,you failed to realized that hey,i just saw a homeless dude sleeping on the road at the 42nd street and gosh,here i am at the greatest city in the entire face of earth. (new york is the world's capital,and even there ppl are suffering..how come?)

there was one moment in a muslim history during some caliph,there was not even a single mortal who need help from the zakat.it's doable in islam while it is mere utopia in the secular system.

how come?

__earth

28-08-2004, 07:08 AM

Phantom, you didn't answer the question. Why must it be just Islam? Why should we shove off all other religious laws in favor of just Islam? Are all other religions inferior to Islam that only Islam deserve to be included into governance? Is that fair?

I quote myself:
cmon, like 3rd said earlier, if you want to mix politics with religion, why must it only be Islam?

In any case, we are talking about the separation of politics and religion, not about the separation economic system and religion. Secularism does not have any meaning when it comes to economics.

As far as secularism concerns, Islamic economics can be practiced along with secularism. Secularism does not prevent any system, capitalism, green, islamic, communism or whatever else out there from being practiced.

If you have problem with modern financial model, then by all mean, use whatever you feel confortable with. The principle of secularism does not care which economic system you choose.

This is probably why, when Islamic banking was introduced in Malaysia, nobody raised a voice.

Plus, like you have said earlier, adultery is wrong in Islam, which is true. I myself, as a Muslim, think it is wrong but the world consists of 6 billions people. Roughly 4 billions are non-Muslims. If 4 billions people think adultery is okay, then it's their belief. The Muslims have no right to prevent the non-Muslims to not commit adultery. In other words, the Muslims have no right to impose their moral on others.

And here is where secularism works. It prevents some people to impose some arbitrary moral on others. If you want to impose some moral on yourself, that is fine. But if you try to impose on other, like you are arguing for right now, that is simply not right.

so while u open ur eyes widely to the success of the secular nations,you failed to realized that hey,i just saw a homeless dude sleeping on the road at the 42nd street and gosh,here i am at the greatest city in the entire face of earth. (new york is the world's capital,and even there ppl are suffering..how come?)

is there no homeless man in Mecca? where is saudi arabia with its strict Islamic law right now? Being an American's lap dog is hardly an achievement.

there was one moment in a muslim history during some caliph,there was not even a single mortal who need help from the zakat.it's doable in islam while it is mere utopia in the secular system.

Where did you read that? Islamic textbook published by the Msian govt? if im not mistaken, I've once also read that somebody claimed that there was no crime committed in some caliphate era.

It was a mere exaggeration. Cmon, somebody once said the Incan cities were paved with gold too. Somebody once said the ziggurats in Mesopotamia reached were taller than any mountain.

it wont get mess up if the writer is willing to open his brain.

usually, its the conservative that needs to open up his mind, not the liberal. A liberal usually has already have his mind opened up.

qedx

28-08-2004, 08:26 AM

hmm how about the liberal who is unable to accept the conservative's way of thinking? isn't that closed-minded too?

Thirdshifter

28-08-2004, 11:08 AM

is pretty offensive and can spark anger from the muslim community.
facts needed to be read thoroughly. state your sources, references, which page of what book u've read to help us and urself to understand your points. failing in doing so might be regarded as an irresponsible argument it would be more appropriate if you state how far u have read about shariah.the whole thing or just 1 chapter of it?which scholar did u consult ?.

Sharia, Mufti and fatwa are all interconnected. Maybe i wasn't clear or you didn't read my few suggestion in this thread which i already mentioned my stand about Sharia and why it isn't fair.

My fisrt reason to claim this is, Muslims that do not wish to be part of Islam (an apostate) do not have the right to. That is it's first and biggest Flaw. Agreed? My references is your source (might be biased though :) ) http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=38268

again,state your sources/ref please.and state also preferebably the narrators for the hadith. birth control, is allowed in islam.

Here's the link where i quoted it from http://www.fatwa-online.com/fataawa/marriage/sexualrelations/sre002/9991018_40.htm

Before you post it is allowed under certain circumtances, let me just quote the part i find to be unfair

"But if the women is taking them just so she will be free of responsibility or to be able to work or to live a comfortable life and other similar reasons why women take such pills these days, for these reasons it is not allowed to take birth control pills."

I haven't heard about women taking off their watches.but jewelry are not worn to observe [i]iddah,the waiting period after the death of a husband.

http://www.islam-online.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=83230
I didn't say they have to, but some had gone as far as taking their watches of, out of fear of Sinning.

aah..your source is already biased .
Well, I provided two links from a non-Islamic Site to be sure i won't be biased. Well here's my 3rd reference http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Shari'a. All 3 pretty much talks about the samething. Maybe you could share your reference cencerning sharia and then i might have a different opinion.

hmmn...mufti of perak was elected by the government itself.which self-proclaimed mufti are talking about?how about the Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan or Majlis Mufti-Mufti Malaysia?

I humbly apologize for my ignorant statement about Mufti not being selected. In few post after that i did already acknowledge this. To quote myself " Mufti of Perak. I'm sure he was selected by the Perak stae goverment. He is a representetive of the Islamic Authority of Perak (jabatan agama perak)"

the authority to pass laws is still whithin the hands of the parliament.in fact regardless to whatever the mufti says

So it is fine by you to have a lunatic representing the opinions of your religion? Also since the parliament has passed so many unfair laws i feel they infact are listening to the Mufti's.

When a person is a citizen of a country, that person must whether he likes it or not abide by the country?s laws and rules and regulations. if one finds that the interpretation of the rules are false and need to be review again,then he/she should study properly and bring his case to the authority through the proper procedure.or makes discussion among the people　who are able to make changes.
if one decides against it, then he/she should leave the country or change citizenship. but any country would consider this as betrayal to the nation.

What a sweeping statement. I guess we should all forget about getting equal rights for the non-bumis. Just leave the country folks. If your lucky enough to study abroad don't come back. The worrst is you'll be a betrayer of the county who is treating you as a second class citizen.

There is a concept in islam called syumulliyah which means (sort of) ?complete?.thus meaning ?islam is complete? You see ,islam is not just about rituals but has it?s own economy,social and political system.but you wont find all of this being implemented today. To enter islam ,is to become ?a citizen? of islam,where by right you need to accept the ?whole? of it. it?s not appropriate to accept the social system of islam while at the same time refusing to acknowledge the economics system of islam.

There might be a real good reason why this hasn't been implemented. It has never worked? To idealistic? Not everyone in this world share's the same faith? Not everyone thinks alike? That is why i keep suggesting Secular. It might not be the most perfect system but by far the most practical and fair to all when it comes to religion.

A mufti is a human being, he makes mistakes and not all of his decisions are correct. But to criticize him without thorough study and reading is disrespect for the mufti?s position and role.

Like the old saying goes, Live and learn. You don't live long enough to read all history books. To quote myself again " I think the(perak's) mufti should've consulted few other mufti's before blatanly making a dumb statement which is being used by suhakam as the "voice" of all mufti's.

Although he has the authority to state how an issue favors in islam,I doubt it?ll have much effect on the non-muslim community.

I, as a Muslim and a Malaysian does not think he should have the right or the authority about how i practice my religion (Islam). Well ofcourse by saying something like that, I might be considered an apostate by to many Mufti's and if the link from islamonline.com is truly unbiased and correct I'm a dead man. :D

Have some more respect towards the sensitivity of a religion,whatever it maybe.

I acknowledge the sensitivity of this discussion and i tried my best to word my opinion as mild as possible. Please accept my sincere apology for my ignorance statements of and for my opinions that might not agree with yours.

qedx

28-08-2004, 12:54 PM

Thirdshifter

28-08-2004, 01:17 PM

the opinions of that particular mufti is just that: his opinion. no one is obligated to follow it. of course, if asked to present the proofs of his fatwa, he could probably put up a stronger case. if you have a different opinion, present your proofs from quran and hadith, and then well, you're basically set. we are not even obligated to follow the opinions of imam shafie and the the gang, provided we can provide a strong documented support for our position.

Before you post it is allowed under certain circumtances, let me just quote the part i find to be unfair

"But if the women is taking them just so she will be free of responsibility or to be able to work or to live a comfortable life and other similar reasons why women take such pills these days, [it should be understood that] for these reasons it is not allowed to take birth control pills."
hmmm. why do you find this unfair?

Let just change unfair to bias against women. Whats wrong with women who does not want to have kids? If Islam teaches tolarence, doesn't this contradict itself?

I find it unfair because the fatwa is clearly biased towards women making a choice on her own whether to have or not to have babies.

The problem is, Mufti are the representitive of Islam in Malaysia. Anything that comes out of from them is going to be taken as the words of all Muslims in Malaysia.

qedx

28-08-2004, 01:48 PM

If you read at the top of that page, it says "Ruling concerning birth control" and since it says that birth control is a no-no, that means contraceptives for men like condoms are also forbidden. so it doesn't discriminate against women, though the wording of the text could be better :/

the thing about children is that they are seen as a blessing from god (dont ask me why, i have 5 younger sibs, annoying all. though i suppose i can bum cash from them later when they're older heh). and as such, the act of refusing children can be seen as a refusal of god's blessing, which is bad. there is of course another way to not have children: don't have sex. If you want to have sex, well... that's a bit of a problem. You can?t have your cake and eat it too :P

Thirdshifter

28-08-2004, 07:51 PM

Well, guys doesn't have to worry about 9 month of pregnancy etc. Also we can just learn to "control" and do the emergency break technique :D.

I think we're getting a little off topic qedx, but you have a great point. Maybe we will continue this in a different topic.

Back to Mufti and their role in Malaysia

Continue...

el_empty

28-08-2004, 09:40 PM

so while u open ur eyes widely to the success of the secular nations,you failed to realized that hey,i just saw a homeless dude sleeping on the road at the 42nd street and gosh,here i am at the greatest city in the entire face of earth. (new york is the world's capital,and even there ppl are suffering..how come?)

you did? cool! i work on 40th st. right by bryant park :D think about what you've just said. _earth has already provided a good reply so i'll just skip.

While citibank CEO is being paid USD 800 million per year,those in debt with Citibank is working day and night to pay more money than they owe... apart from pinpointing that inflation rises the payment,one has to wonder why when you borrow USD 10 000,u have to pay USD 15 000 even when inflation still the same?

phantom c'mon your examples are rather biased and unfair don't you think?

debt is another world of an issue that we can spend years discussing. but the short of the long is that if the debtee must learn to earn more than he spends right? and then inflation, which is another issue, is quite inevitable don't you think? prices increase as demand grows, as people get richer, no? and finally, the 800mil is just a securities and exchange comission issue, not the laws of economics.

budakkerek

28-08-2004, 11:30 PM

Well, guys doesn't have to worry about 9 month of pregnancy etc. Also we can just learn to "control" and do the emergency break technique :D.

stimes, being emergencies, it might not work :lol: :lol:

phantom

29-08-2004, 01:24 AM

earth wrote:

Phantom, you didn't answer the question. Why must it be just Islam? Why should we shove off all other religious laws in favor of just Islam? Are all other religions inferior to Islam that only Islam deserve to be included into governance? Is that fair?

i did read ur question properly and i did answer them.

i quote myself again like u did:

islam never discriminate the non-muslims.and malaysia having muslim as the majority to some extend has the right to mix islam during the decision making.as long as the non-muslims right are being protected without them being called infidel and other craps,it is never wrong to have islam as the guidance.

Islam and the non-muslims have work hand-to-hand very very very well.as u glanced through the history books,u realized while The holy Land of Jerusalem was under the Muslim control,the non-muslims were fully welcomed.

Islam in Spain too had work well with the non-muslims in Spain.

and that is why islam sounds fine.

and nope i didn't read that from here like u said:

Where did you read that? Islamic textbook published by the Msian govt? if im not mistaken, I've once also read that somebody claimed that there was no crime committed in some caliphate era.

i read that here in USA,inside the world history book.

earth wrote:

In any case, we are talking about the separation of politics and religion, not about the separation economic system and religion. Secularism does not have any meaning when it comes to economics.

As far as secularism concerns, Islamic economics can be practiced along with secularism. Secularism does not prevent any system, capitalism, green, islamic, communism or whatever else out there from being practiced.

If you have problem with modern financial model, then by all mean, use whatever you feel confortable with. The principle of secularism does not care which economic system you choose.

This is probably why, when Islamic banking was introduced in Malaysia, nobody raised a voice.

Plus, like you have said earlier, adultery is wrong in Islam, which is true. I myself, as a Muslim, think it is wrong but the world consists of 6 billions people. Roughly 4 billions are non-Muslims. If 4 billions people think adultery is okay, then it's their belief. The Muslims have no right to prevent the non-Muslims to not commit adultery. In other words, the Muslims have no right to impose their moral on others.

And here is where secularism works. It prevents some people to impose some arbitrary moral on others. If you want to impose some moral on yourself, that is fine. But if you try to impose on other, like you are arguing for right now, that is simply not right.

while you said,muslims have not right of imposing their teachings on the non-muslims,have you ever wonder that secularisme is imposing its set of rules instead towards other ppl's religions,be there islam or not.why then,the system you are into is imposing its "arbitrary moral" on the ppl who believe in God.then why is then acceptable?

while it is fine to say, "adultery is wrong morally"..it is never fine when we say," the adultery is wrong becoz God forbid you from doing so".now tell me,while our society is being harm,where is the man-made law to protect it?

you havent answer the most important questions that i brought forward:

the same goes with adultery.in islam,it is wrong regardless where and with whom u did it.

how the man-made laws react?well,prostitution is wrong.but when hollywood stars have sex on screen and being paid for that,it is not prostitution but instead art.

where is the fairness in this?

man-made laws are keep changing,one has to question who keep making these changes?those on the upper level who unfortunately need support and money for their political campaigns r making these changes.and who are paying for these campaigns?

well,in usa ,the rich still can lobby for their benefits.even if it does bring harm to the society.

now tell me,how fair is the set of law u wish will run our society?our nation?

where will you put the reference of what is wrong and what is not?from the voice of the so-called leaders?the majority?

phantom

29-08-2004, 01:32 AM

i dont think my examples as biased.and i dont think it is the sharia mistakes that saudi arabia is someone's dog.why dont u put the blame on the al-saud family instead for that?

well,as much as i want fair treament to women and better,happier world,i feel that human laws,be there secularisme or not,is not driving us there.

i believe religion should be the guidance and i am suggesting islam becoz islam is the main religion in m'sia and i am pretty sure it is fair and square.

while the non-muslims might argue,my religion is important too,i have to keep them assure that islam is not umno or pas or bn or keadilan or dap.

it is set of rules that work well with any era and time.

ElansarGelmir

01-09-2004, 12:20 PM

while you said,muslims have not right of imposing their teachings on the non-muslims,have you ever wonder that secularisme is imposing its set of rules instead towards other ppl's religions,be there islam or not.why then,the system you are into is imposing its "arbitrary moral" on the ppl who believe in God.then why is then acceptable?

I believe it's better to have a man-made rules (secularism, if that's what u call it) to be imposed on a society with many different religions than simply imposing ONE religion's set of rules and laws to others with different religions... come to think of it, the man-made rules are made prolly to bring the rules and beliefs of most religions together and constructed in a way that suits everyone best so that neither the ppl of one belief in the society receive less equal treatment than the others (something which happens in Malaysia because some people think their religion is more superior than others, now wouldn't you view that as self-centered and indifferent of others' needs?)

aah..your source is already biased .

I'm tickled... tell me, which source is neutral and not biased? I bet your sources are also biased as well, but towards Islam while Third's on a 180 degree.... come on, everyone knows that one's personal justifications (which will then be published as masterpieces) are greatly influenced by lots of factors which will lead to one direction, and be it that direction is right or wrong, it will still be bias. After all, merely stating a religion is perfect is being bias as well.

Simultaneously, Islam urges the Muslim woman that - however busy she may be - she should leave whatever is keeping her busy, if her husband asks her. Here, if the woman refuses to submit to her husband's desire, for no serious reason, she would be exposed to God's displeasure. Thus, Islam directs both parties and not men only to observe this rule.

that's intimidating (mentally forcing)...

digimushu

01-09-2004, 11:01 PM

back to the issue on marital rape...has anyone ever considered protection for men if they are raped?

just a thought...

taufiq

02-09-2004, 03:00 AM

back to discussion about mufti...
I think the government should sit down and discuss the matter at a round table, not just over the press.
Mufti is an important position in Islam and thus his (or their) opinion deserves serious attention by the government.

I disagree with a statement i read on a newspaper,
that the mufti should first consult better educated people
before making a statement, because they ARE the better educated people in Islamic rules and other matter related to the religion.

Not to blame the government, but they just have to remember not to politicize everything. In fact everyone of us should not.. life is not just about politic...

phantom

02-09-2004, 05:45 AM

Not to blame the government, but they just have to remember not to politicize everything. In fact everyone of us should not.. life is not just about politic...

well,so u think the gov is doing this just for the sake of fishing the votes lah?

well,suhakam came out with this thing 1st.and then the muftis backleashed it.where is da gov's role here?and what were their comment that you have heard?

about ur last sentence...ironically it is,when islam is used to justified certain ppl political insanities,then life is somehow is a politic.

when certain ppl think they deserve pinpointing that these and that ppl are heading to hell and would be punished severely by God while they themselves are heading to the right and nobel path,then life seems another political melodrama where there is antagonist and protagonist.

__earth

02-09-2004, 06:02 AM

Dear Phantom,

One fact you need to know. Not everybody in this world or in Malaysia is Muslim and that is why you can't impose Islamic law on everybody. Muslim makes up a majority of around 50%. The other 50% is non-Muslim. If you want Islam to be the law of the land with disregard of others, I don't think a lot of people, save people who think like you, will support such arrangement.

while you said,muslims have not right of imposing their teachings on the non-muslims,have you ever wonder that secularisme is imposing its set of rules instead towards other ppl's religions,be there islam or not.why then,the system you are into is imposing its "arbitrary moral" on the ppl who believe in God.then why is then acceptable?

Concerning this, of course secular laws impose a set of rules. All laws are about regulations, a set of parameters to ensure civilized conducts within the society. Secularism only asserts the separation between the church from the state. It separates moral from the state.

while it is fine to say, "adultery is wrong morally"..it is never fine when we say," the adultery is wrong becoz God forbid you from doing so".

huh? anyway, whether adultery is wrong or not, that's some individual opinion, not something assert by secularism. again, secularism does not impose any moral unlike religion. Secularism allows you to believe in some moral as long as you does not impose it on others. Remember, moral differs from person to person. Not all people share your moral. To impose your moral on others that do not share your moral is wrong.

now tell me,while our society is being harm,where is the man-made law to protect it?

Just look around you. In fact, it is protecting you right now; part of the US constitution protects you

And lastly, concerning fairness. I admit some of the human made law is not perfect but like you said, the law is everchanging. That everchanging nature what makes it better as time passes by. A flexiable law is better than a static one.

And tell me, what is so fair about the set of static laws you are arguing for when the people that do not share your belief are being made second-class citizens?

kucingbiru

02-09-2004, 07:51 AM

It separates moral from the state.

hmm, sometimes that's not true.

qedx

02-09-2004, 08:39 AM

__earth

02-09-2004, 09:17 AM

And tell me, what is so fair about the set of static laws you are arguing for when the people that do not share your belief are being made second-class citizens?

how are they made second class citizens?

A few:
1) different tax regime for different belief
2) different laws for different people
3) laws usually favors the Muslim as been shown in the apostacy and the child care case.

It separates moral from the state.

hmm, sometimes that's not true.

theorectically, it is true. if you are referring to the banning of the veil in France, that is not the spirit of secularism. That is simply due to Islamophobia. Even the UK and the US have criticized France for such ruling.

In a true secularism, the Govt has no right to dictate its citizens moral or belief or clothing.

ElansarGelmir

02-09-2004, 09:49 AM

And tell me, what is so fair about the set of static laws you are arguing for when the people that do not share your belief are being made second-class citizens?

how are they made second class citizens?

OMG! I can't believe you ask that! well, adam smith is true, perhaps... you will moan for the lost of your last finger more than for the lost of thousands of lives in China (something like that...). in other words, you won't feel the lost or inequality or any bereavement unless you feel it. I'm glad there are ppl like Third here who emphatizes us.

qedx

02-09-2004, 10:08 AM

A few:
1) different tax regime for different belief
2) different laws for different people
3) laws usually favors the Muslim as been shown in the apostacy and the child care case.

1) I assume you are talking about the jizyah and zakat? In ancient times the jizyah is levied from non-muslim communities living under muslim governance. The rate is not set and it is usually determined by how aggressive they were in waging war against Muslims. For non believers who did not wage war, the rate is possibly equal to that of zakat ie. 2.5% of income. as for why jizyah must be paid, well, one can also ask why must taxes be paid? it is basically to indicate that you are willing to spend your property and life to protect the country.

2) In my view this is more troublesome for Muslims as Muslim laws are generally more severe. Non Muslims however, have the choice to be judged according to Common Law or their religion, Muslim law are not applicable to non-Muslims though if they want to they can. Muslims do not have this choice.

3) a. Ai apostasy! Islam provides for freedom of worship for followers of every other religion except for itself. Non-muslims are free to worship their god(s) and to change from one religion to another, but once one becomes a Muslim, you are Muslim for life. In religion, to paraphrase Yoda, "do, there is no try." Ai, the trials and tribulations of being a Muslim. In short once you become a Muslim you waive the right to follow any other religion. Think about it this way, when you convert to Islam you basically swear that there is no other God but Allah and that Muhammad is His messenger. To change your mind at a later time, wouldn't that equal perjury?

b. I am not so sure about child care. If I am not mistaken, the child goes with the mother if under a certain age and goes with whoever is Islam if over that age. and if the father is the non-Muslim one, he doesnt have to pay child care. (BTW, why is it in divorces the men have to pay nafkah/alimony? And this is not only in Islam. I never heard of women complaining about having to pay alimony to their ex husbands). btw from my POV it is more burdening for the muslim since he/she will have to support the child as well as him/herself.

hmm i cant quite see where non-muslims are made into 2nd class citizens. if anything, muslim laws put more burdens on Muslims that does secular laws.

OMG! I can't believe you ask that! well, adam smith is true, perhaps... you will moan for the lost of your last finger more than for the lost of thousands of lives in China (something like that...). in other words, you won't feel the lost or inequality or any bereavement unless you feel it. I'm glad there are ppl like Third here who emphatizes us.

hmm when does Malaysia practice Islamic law? Perhaps you are confusing Islamic law with the Bumi/non-Bumi thing. By no stretch of the imagination is Malaysian law Islamic. And only by extreme semantics is Malaysia considered an Islamic country.

digimushu

02-09-2004, 10:16 AM

How relevant is the mufti council? Can I also ask how relevant is the Pope?

http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp[/url]]In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church?s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use artificial birth control?contraception?to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

And how many Catholics follow this? Many I'm sure, but there are also many who don't and many that sometimes do and sometimes don't. Does that mean that the Pope is irrelevant? How do we measure relevancy(is this even a word?)??

Hrmm good question. But, isnt religion supposed to be something that will hold us up to our actions in the afterlife? do we need a governing body that are formed by humans to decide what we cant, can do? For anyone who has watched Stigmata, the message in the movie is 'The church of God lies within you, not in temples of stones and wood'. Remember, religion is a contract between you and your God, and to me, best test of faith is to be able to live life according to your religion with no one telling you how it should be done.

When we talk about faith, does it mean that it is Ok for some one to go to church on the weekends and screw with everyone's life else on the weekdays? I have seen many of that sort of thing happen throughout my life, and to me, that is Hypocrisy.

Anyways, when i die, i hope that hell freezes over, cause if not, i'm gonna be pretty screwed..hehehe

gatecrasher

02-09-2004, 04:23 PM

How relevant is the mufti council? Can I also ask how relevant is the Pope?

http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp[/url]]In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church?s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use artificial birth control?contraception?to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

And how many Catholics follow this? Many I'm sure, but there are also many who don't and many that sometimes do and sometimes don't. Does that mean that the Pope is irrelevant? How do we measure relevancy(is this even a word?)? Are Sultans still relevant today? How about the ISA? PAS? BN? Racial politics? btw, dont answer the last 5 questions, that'll make the thread divert even more from the topic :P.

what's your point?
anyway, it's worth noting that the pope has no direct influence on any govt (none that i know of or can conceive of; well, maybe there are a few) besides the vatican's (of course), whereas muftis exert theirs through the jabatan-jabatan agama islam, which are govt agencies.

Anyways, when i die, i hope that hell freezes over, cause if not, i'm gonna be pretty screwed..hehehe
haha me too!

qedx

02-09-2004, 05:29 PM

what is the relevance of having direct influence on a government in this discussion? i brought up the pope as an example of a religious authority giving out a ruling based on the laws of his religion, which is basically what the mufti council is.

that the mufti himself is an idiot, can't be helped. there is probably a need for better selection process for muftihood. the institution however, is imo although needed, it needs to be changed. under the current system, each state has its own mufti council, in addition to the national one and sometimes the fatwas passed by the national council is not reiterated by the state councils because the national council has no power. for example, the national council has decided that smoking is haram, but at the state level this has not been ratified (why they even bother meeting i don't know). but if we abolish the state level councils and their respective jabatan agama, we are trespassing the jurisdiction of sultan/raja's. and that's an even touchier subject.

gatecrasher

05-09-2004, 12:45 AM

you seemed to be defending the mufti council's authority by making the point that their relevance isn't an issue, and then demonstrating it with the example of the pope. that's the best guess i could make, and i'm very unsure about it, which is why i asked what your point was.

and in case i guessed correctly, i added the next remark, the one you're questioning:
what is the relevance of having direct influence on a government in this discussion? i brought up the pope as an example of a religious authority giving out a ruling based on the laws of his religion, which is basically what the mufti council is.
to which my reply is: of course it's relevant. the pope cannot (and for that matter, probably doesn't want to) police his followers lives' directly because he has no direct influence on governments, but the mufti council can. the (misplaced) power of the mufti council to affect malaysian muslims' lives through involvement in govt is very much relevant to this discussion.

ElansarGelmir

05-09-2004, 11:56 AM

OMG! I can't believe you ask that! well, adam smith is true, perhaps... you will moan for the lost of your last finger more than for the lost of thousands of lives in China (something like that...). in other words, you won't feel the lost or inequality or any bereavement unless you feel it. I'm glad there are ppl like Third here who emphatizes us.

hmm when does Malaysia practice Islamic law? Perhaps you are confusing Islamic law with the Bumi/non-Bumi thing. By no stretch of the imagination is Malaysian law Islamic. And only by extreme semantics is Malaysia considered an Islamic country.

Why do non-Muslim children in some schools are banned from bringing non-halal food to school (so much for vision school, where's the freedom to eat in the school then?) when other students are allowed to bring meat to school, and wouldn't that offend the vegetarians as well? how about students who can't eat beef? are they going to ban beef from being sold in the school as well?

I agree with you, Malaysia is NOT an Islamic country, but because our PM says it is, so it has become an Islamic country. you see, there's an obscure line distinguishing Islamic law and the federal law in Malaysia... Sometimes, in some cases, Islam will tend to influence the cases which involves non-Muslims, and then the poor non-Muslim will have to appeal and appeal (i don't really think that's a pleasant idea) and then finally only they decided to apply the federal law instead...

look... i know Islam is a great religion, and I do respect them. in fact, it's not only a religion (as most of you guys have claimed), but a system which integrates into your lives as well... however, i don't see why they should impose their beliefs on non-believers? and i don't like the way it works in Malaysia and in some countries as well... if being tolerant in Malaysia means a one way thingy where other religions have to give priority to a certain religion, then it sucks dude! that's not the way it should be. you don't tell the non-muslim what is right and what is wrong according to your believes, less you use a more universal (universal in the context that it integrates all believes, not the kind of syumul thing you have) set of rules to do that. That's why i'm not really happy with the Islamizing thingy in Malaysia. in fact, i'll be deeply ashamed of my own religion and other religions if they are that inconsiderate as well... The genocide of Christopher Columbus debases Christianity, I'm willing to admit. Thus, it's best to leave people to decide what's good and what's bad for them instead of imposing your laws on them (such as giving samans to couples who shows their moderate affection in public, making ppl from other religion to wear some uncomfortable clothes because some religion believe it's right to do so)...

qedx

05-09-2004, 05:50 PM

Why do non-Muslim children in some schools are banned from bringing non-halal food to school (so much for vision school, where's the freedom to eat in the school then?)
Really? I'm unaware of that. Personally, I see no problem with it as long as they don't make a mess.

There really is not much problem with non-halal meats such as beef from cows that were not slaughtered properly. Pigs and dogs however are classified as dirty - dirtier than faeces even. To clean things (or body parts) that touched pigs or dogs (when wet or damp) Muslims need to wash it 7 times (once with water mixed with soil and 6 times with normal water). As you can see this is very tedious, and as such most Muslims here in Malaysia don't want to deal with it at all.

Touching pigs and dogs however is NOT haram. It is just not clean and you'll just have to wash up later. And if the pig or dog in question and the toucher is dry, you don't even have to wash up. But Muslims in general have this intense "Ewww!" reaction when faced with pigs. I really don't know how it came about, probably through some misinterpretation of the rule. I am trying to desensitize my family to pigs mostly through anime (Mononoke-hime is amazing, you can't count the number of pigs in there :twisted:, these pigs however are a bit disgusting heh). Interesting to note however that dogs do not invoke this "Ewww!"reaction (they get the "Run for your life!" reaction from me if they are big enough, though :P).

But this and your other examples are not brought about by the mufti council. Isn't the saman for holding hands thing a Majlis Perbandaran saman? Things like this are usually brought about by people in adminstrative positions trying to impress their higher ups. Have anyone noticed that when people becomes an administrator, be it a principal at high school or a head of a government center, they tend to do stupid things to impress their higher ups. It doesn't matter how smart these people were, once they become an admin, they become stupid.

the (misplaced) power of the mufti council to affect malaysian muslims' lives through involvement in govt is very much relevant to this discussion.
how exactly is it relevant? The mufti council and any of the states' JAI/MAI have next to no power to enforce their rulings/policies, and most of the mufti council rulings are not legally punishable even in Syariah courts. For example birth control, even though forbidden, you won't get arrested if you buy a condom. They mostly exercise their power through their influence on Muslims and even then their rulings are not written in stone. As I have written before, if you have a different opinion and you have a strong supporting evidence for it you are free to follow your own opinion. Of course, there are also some Muslims that ignore the rulings altogether and basically live in sin.