The actual problem we (our society) face is to differentiate a religion from the practices of the religion, e.g. as could be seen in the once ‘heated’ argument on polygamy.

The Socratic method only works when talking about philosphy or the sciences. It does not work with religion. Religion is about faith not about anything that can be argued about

There are marked differences among all religions; and this is what causes friction - the lack of understanding of other people's religion.

Maybe when we have learnt to agree to disagree in an amicable manner, perhaps then we are ready?

Here's an analogy: We may have a theory abt something which may make sense to us - but when a more learned person shows us that our theory is wrong with the relevant proof, we should accept that we are wrong.

I think it isn't WRONG for us to talk abt religion i.e. Islam in the public domain as Zainah suggests. It's just that we have to acknowledge there are other people [true ulamas, as opposed to political ulamas] who know more because they have studied it at greater lengths, and when they clarify matters to us, we have to accept the more learned one's opinion.

Much depends on why you'd want to discuss religion in public.

(1) If you want to learn more about any religion in particular, get a few good books, digest it, and consult an expert; there is absolutely NO justification for having a discussion with a layman in public if this is your intention. You can't enhance your undertsanding any further with the latter.

(2) If you hope to force your belief onto another person, don't.

We know for a fact that extremities in religion create conflict. It is also a fact that religion has done more than its share of damages in the history of mankind. We should accept that much.

Having discussion with little knowledge in hand is almost just as detrimental (cf. hudud and polygamy).

As such, I can see no urgent need to conduct a public discourse in religion.

Well, everyone can discuss about a disease and how this doctor treat this and that, but how accurate can a layman's view on a paricular disease and its prevention be in comparison to a doctor's experience and medical acumen?

The point is, there is nothing in Islam (and I think in other religions too) that prevent people discussing about their faith, but the lay people should always seek the advice of those in the know and follow that advice.

If in a worldly affair like medicine people needs to follow the advice of those who has the tools (likened to Arabic language, and coincidentally it is actually known as ilm' alat) and some sort of approval to practice (i.e. ijazah/degree/certificate), why can't people follow the same line wrt a more important matter like religion?

Agreed. However, following through with the doctor analogy, when one is seeking treatment, one does question the doctor exhaustively, as it is one's right, by virtue of the fact that the doctor is treating one's body.

Perhaps the same thing is true when it comes to state-regulated religious matters, where if the state is going to impose its morality on its citizens, the citizens should have a right to question the basis on which it is impose.

If one must have credentials to talk about religion, one must have credentials to talk about economics, politics, psychology, sociology and anything under the sun basically. Why the exclusiveness?

Don't know anything about how dams work? Don't you dare talk about the Bakun project, huh?

What good is the enlightened view of the experts when the man in the street practices their own brand? That's the real pain isn't it?

Why censor ourselves? One speaks of what one wants to talk about. If you find no audience or reciprocity, one cannot continue speaking on alone. Forgive me if I do happen to ask you about the significance of the Buraq, but if you don't want to have a two-way communication, we won't. Don't stop people from asking.

The doctor analogy can be pretty funny. That's our problem nowadays. We take the expert's word for it. We don't want to understand the etiology or how the disease works, we just want his/her expert opinion. Those who are skeptical seeks second or third opinions. Those who are really in for a fight go and learn about the disease themselves.

So much for taking another person's words at face value.

I am not saying that we should ignore the mullahs, the ulamas and the pastors and the venerable fathers. Chances are, they can outscripture you anyday. However, like doctors, they sometimes do not stretch beyond the cocoon of their academic elite. This is not an uncommon symptom. Many a expert are detached from reality more often than not, thinking that the text is a representation of the ground they walk on.

If that's true, many things would never have happened. Thinking beyond conventionality means you take what you know and what you see and try to reconciliate the differences. Aye, the Quran said there is no compulsion in Islam. It also never prescribed the stoning treatment for murtads or adulterers. So where does the robust tendency for stoning come from?

If we do not actively seek interpretations that goes with our times, we leave others to do it for us. Until then, lets pay our deeyats in camel equivalents.

Dear chez,
I've said before that everyone is not prohibited to investigate and learn something on just about any 'diseases'. But ask yourself: do you dare to treat yourself after doing thousands of readings only and only?

However, if there is something that you really think is wrong with the doctor, fight him with all evident at hand. If he is wrong, he is wrong, no matter whether he is your consultant or your professor; he may not be so up to date and so enlightened as you are.

Anyway, are you suggesting we should abolish all institution of authority? At the moment your line of fire seems to be directed to a certain quarter only.

Only this question nnydd, what did the ulamas and ustazs do other then to read and read and read?

Is the title a conformity system in itself for recognition? (Whoops, that's two questions. :))

In any case, that's what we hope to do with interaction on various topics which interest us. Exchanging evidence, arguments and points. I think that's very positive and engaging, don't you think so?

Do we have an institution of authority of clergy for interpretating Islam? Since when that is final? Are we going down the path of what the Church has done to Christianity?

I am actually directing my thoughts to why people like to limit themselves when it comes to what is suitable conversation and what's not. Communication is a two-way street. If you don't want to talk about something, you can always choose not to. If you think it might offend someone by talking about vegetarian food, you will not raise that topic with the man, but that doesn't mean vegetarian issue is off limits.

We should encourage people to discourse on issues with civility - forwarding and exchanging ideas, thoughts, experiences and even conjectural opinions - not only for scrutiny or fault-finding, but also understanding.

If a person decides that a topic is best left to certain experts, then he/she is surrenderring the ability to make an informed judgement pertaining to it. It might not be very important, these judgements. But come the time to make decisions, these are important factors to consider.

A society based on reason works only if the people participates in the reasoning. Similarly, democracy is not about voting someone in to make decisions on your behalf, but making decisions that best reflect your collective interests. How will we know what is in our interest and what is not unless we learn more about it?

chez1978 (btw, give yourself a name ;)) - good points all.

Analogies (Bakun dam and the medical doctor) are useful to help articulate the problem space, but it is by no means a description of the actual issue in hand.

Personally, in any other topic of interest, I’d give a big resounding yes to public discourse.

However, in my opinion, religion is a different matter altogether. I could be wrong, as I do not have a basis for this assertion, but simply through intuition and observation.

In an ideal world, all things can be settled by means of a civilised discussion. But the lingering problems that we see today remain that of an inter-religious nature. Ireland (within a single religion itself!) and Palestine-Israel for starters.

In science, yes, we can and should continue to probe for answers. Rest assured, you won’t ‘step on anybody’s foot’ (excuse the punt, Najah). But in religion, a debate somewhat tends to end up a bit ‘sensitive’ to many.

I may have been misinterpreted in my previous comment, but what I meant was to withhold uninformed stabs at having a religious discourse. Now, if we have two people who have done their homework (need not be ulamas and ustazs) then I suppose it’s fine. Caveat: it will turn into a more heated debate then one of a scientific nature, that’s for sure – simply because the heart takes over from the head sometimes…

I think all this leads to nowhere. The reason being we are not mature enough to handle cross-religion forums like this. I mean, take a look at the comments. Commenters are from different religions, yet it sounds like only 2 are involved. What we read here is whether we should discuss it or not? Well, don't you realise it? It's already started!

No doubt, you guys have a strong command on the language, but there is really nothing to debate about whether we should discuss it or not. Religion is something internal. Misinterpretation of some religious teachings is best left for their own respective religious institution and experts to handle.

Unless if you guys want to discuss topics like "Is it wise to mix politics with religion?" or "Is a government based on a religion a good idea for Malaysia?", lets not dwell deeper into something unimportant like whether we should discuss religion or not.

Like it or not, discussions on religion are already around, with some party wanting to make this country a religious state and more.

I suggest we discuss something constructive. Meaning something that is for the Malaysian citizen as whole, not for some small section of it.

The way I see it, we are in the making of a big mess if our bosses keep on mixing personal and narrow religious opinions into the governance of this small country of ours. We can learn this from some countries who is screwing big time.

Yes, we DO have a right to talk about religion. We should discuss matters pertaining to the interest of all the Rakyat. Issues that affect daily life of all our citizen should be constructively discussed.

And no, we DO NOT have the right to talk about religion. We should never question other people's belief and faith or the accountability of their religious experts' guidance.

Dear Darren,

We only have the right to talk about religion when it affects us. Is that what you are essentially saying?

So, unless you are a muslim, you cannot question the reliability of some obscure hadith or fatwas? I cannot ask a Christian if he can explain why the various denominations emerge in the world of Christiandom? We shouldn't understand a religion but keep taking it at face value, especially the myths being paraded around us? Whether you like it or not Darren, that approach to religious topics only reinforces misconceptions of a religion, especially Islam. So far, Islam is being demonized because it has been the scapegoat for ignorant masses who thinks that the religion advocates violence. If the ummah manages to revitalize itself, do you not reap the benefit of a better world? If the ummah stands up to the extremist factions and release themselves from the shackles of monopolistic interpretations of the Quran and Hadith, isn't it beneficial to you too?

The Pope once said that the only bridge between believers and non-believers is reason. Religion is not something internal. Faith is. Religion touches all aspects of our lives like culture, unless you pretend it does't.

Hi Chez1978,

To answer your questions..

Yes, unless I am a muslim, I should not question the reliability of the hadith and fatwas. Unless I am a Christian, I should not opine on the various denominations in Christianity. Of course there is no harm asking for the sake of knowledge and curiousity, but 2 things have to be clarified here. First, I have no rights to question their beliefs. Second, I should not try to advocate my belief is somewhat superior than theirs or how they should handle their religion.

I am not sure what kind of better world you claimed I shall reap after the ummah revitalization. Yes I will reap a better world, if the revitalization brings about a more peaceful and harmonious world where people of various religions, ethnicities, cultures and traditions can live together. However, this revitalization is not for me to participate or comment on. It is the right of the muslim community itself to see this the way they deemed fit. Similarly it is not my right to intervene into the problems faced by the Christians on their various denominations. Their experts know it best and it is their right and freedom to evaluate the whole situation.

Of course, reason is the bridge between believers and non-believers. But by questioning these reasons on why someone should believes and has faith in his religion which is different than ours, we are merely creating conflict that leads to nowhere. Why does a Muslim believe he has to pray 5 times a day? Why does a Christian need to attend Sunday services? Why do some Chinese burn papers and joss sticks? The answer is simple. It's because they believe, and we have no right to question it. These reasons are not for other people to question. Religion is all about faith. They are both internal. If religion is being treated as something external, we will see why some people are trying to impose their religious laws on people of different faiths. If they believe their people should be subjected to their religious laws, by all means they have the right to do so. However, when they feel other people should be governed the same way too, they are imposing their belief onto others. This affects other people's lives and this SHOULD be discussed.

Yes, I couldn't agree more when you say religion touches all aspects of our lives. That is why we see Muslims cannot eat foods deemed not halal, Indians carry the kavadees on Thaipussam, etc. These practices do not in any way harm or cause unrest in the community or country. Neither do they affect the freedom of others to choose the way they want to live their lives. In fact this contributes to the multi-cultural identity of our beloved small country and should be encouraged. But when religious elements are injected into the governance of a multi-racial country such as ours, lives of all the people are at stake. Most importantly, some might find it uneasy being subjected to laws according to a belief not of their own. Or they don't understand why they are not allowed to carry some traditions, celebrations or rituals that do not in any way harm other people. See the conflict here? This SHOULD be discussed.

I feel sad too if you think Islam is being viewed as a religion of violence and extremes. I think this is very wrong as I have Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Indian and Punjabi friends who are able to accept that we are different in terms of our beliefs and traditions. Most importantly, they never question my faith and cultures or shy away just because I believe in a different God. We can live together peacefully. Similarly, I never comment on their practice of praying 5 times a day and not being able to enjoy some good foods together with me. I strongly hold on to the principle of freedom on choice of religion. This I believe is the so called better world I want to reap.

I understand your ideas clearly. I know there is a growing concern that Islam is being often associated with terrorism and unrest. I choose not to be in the same group. I do not need to study your religion in depth to see why Islam is a religion of peace and harmony. I do not need to discuss it at length or find out that those violence I read in the news are merely consequences of some extremist misinterpreting the Quran and Hadith. If the muslim community think these people are misled and is going about it the wrong way, I leave it to muslims to stand out and critize these acts. Similarly I don't question why there are so many branches of Christianity or why their kids are so morally corrupted. As long as we can live together peacefully and we respect each other's differences, I shall keep my dangerous opinions to myself.

To sum it, all I'm saying is lets not dwell into the teachings and workings of a particular religion. To me, my principle is "all Gods/religions are good Gods/religions" as long as it promotes respect, tolerance and brings about peace into our lives. "Good" in the sense of being internal to oneself. We have our own religion because we believe it's "good". It's internal. Your definition might be different, so keep it that way, and lets not interfere with others' beliefs.

If I am a Christian and we have our Church Laws to govern our lives, can I propose that Malaysia should do away with the current jurisdical system and embrace Christianity Laws? Or lets say we establish a Buddist Action Party to contest in elections. If we win, the people in the constituency shall all wear monk robes to prevent rape crimes. How about that? We can't. This is not the way. Because we are multi-racial. We have different religions and races trying to coexist peacefully. This is the way I see it. This is my opinion and this I think is worth to discuss.

Where can we end up if we are merely composing some wonderful literatures and quotings to tell others how our religion works and why this is "the" way to go? We don't need this in our country now. The more important issue is how can we deal with religions to promote racial harmony in this multi-racial country of ours? Forget about the war in Iraq. Put aside the conflict in Middle East. They are too big and far for us to handle. Lets mind our own business at home first.

Once we can ensure the people can continue to live harmoniously despite the religious and cultural differences, we can then start to work together to steer this country to greater heights.

So judging from current issues and the news we read everyday, do you think we are working on the right direction?

Religion is something very personal and internal and is a basic need of man. What I accept, not just tolerate, is that mankind over the ages have had a need for religion in order to understand the reason for its existence. I also accept that there is GOD and like all things associated with mankind, there is no one single way/path/religion to reach and be with GOD. Therefore I accept that there are many paths and many ways and many religions.
Mankind comes into conflict when some of its members start insisting that their path, their way and their religion is the only ONE. They then cannot accept what others are doing or believing and they will then either try to win the others over, utilising ways, peaceful or otherwise. These we have seen happening all throughout the history of mankind.
Coming back to the original question : Do We Have a Right to Talk About Religion? The answer obviously is YES. But then another question crops up : What is the purpose of having this right to talk about religion(s)? Maybe the 'sole' purpose is to understand the many religions of mankind and as a result to reduce mankind's conflicts.

Dear Chez1978,

If what you meant by a secular state is a government that is ruling without the influence of any particular religion, the answer is “No”. Malaysia is not a secular state and our policitians are planning to take it even further. Secularity by principle should take into account the fact that some communities (however small their number is) are from different religion or faith and have different cultures so unique that they define their identity. The views and opinions of these minorities should not be ignored, as they form part of this country too.

Why do I say that? First is by declaring Malaysia an Islamic state. I believe I don’t have to explain why. Remember those people run around sticking papers with wordings “No to 929!”? They are not some jobless people with nothing better to do, or some anti-Islam fanatics brainwashed by DAP. These are the commoners like you and me who doesn’t fall into the group Muslims. Well, probably some of our Muslims friends agree with me on this; that Malaysia should not be declared an Islamic state. Yes, some of our Muslim countrymen disagree to the Syariah Laws, but how many of them actually took the effort to think from the perspective of a non-Muslim citizen and how they will feel when their country declares itself an Islamic state? Isn’t this is a form of insensitivity towards communities of other religions? I’ve never been to any of the DAP talks. I never took part in the “No to 929” campaign. All it took was a friend to tell me what 929 means. I immediately see the point of their struggle. Just as much as a Muslim hope to see this country being an Islamic state, there are some of us who just wish to see Malaysia remains a secular state.

Yes, it’s very amusing to see the whole debate between Dr Mahathir’s and PAS’s definition of an Islamic state. But the main issue here should be “Is it wise to declare this an Islamic state in the first place?”. The 929 campaign failed to make its voice heard, but that does not mean we can ignore the opinions from people from other faiths. But no, we skipped that, assuming nobody from the ‘other’ side would have enough guts to stand up against it. Now that the election is coming, UMNO has to win back the hearts of the Malays. PAS has successfully planted the “dream” of seeing this country being a truly Islamic state into the mind of almost every Muslim. Now all it has to do is to manipulate the Malays into thinking UMNO is not Islamic enough for Malaysian. UMNO (or rather Dr M) is now pretty much undecided as to continue to pursue a true Islamic state and lose the support from other BN components or risk it all by claiming this an Islamic state ‘tailored’ for all Malaysians and see how the Muslims react to this. See how UMNO has screwed up by condoning the idea of an Islamic state in the first place? How unwise it is to associate religion with politics. The saddest thing is the idea of an Islamic state is now being pursued by mostly all the Muslims in this country. So literally, it’s a fight among Muslims. Well sure this is the main focus of the strategy because Muslims is the majority here. So what about the others? Are we not Malaysians too? Do we have a say in whether we want to live in an Islamic state?

It is not stated in our constitution that Malaysia is an Islamic state. We are not asking to change anything or introduce a Buddhism state, or a Vatican-like government. We just want Malaysia to be just like what our founding fathers envisioned it to be. A truly democratic state where the people have the freedom to choose their religion and the kind of government they want to have. So what’s the fuss about championing the title “Islamic state”? It’s because some of our people here, having the “Look Middle East” policy, wants to marry Islam with government and see Islamic teachings being extended to every facets of a common Malaysian’s life. I am not saying Islam is in any way inferior as compared to other religions when it comes to running a country. But it is not suitable here because we are multi racial. Furthermore, religion is a sensitive issue. There is really no explanation as to why a person has faith in it. Once he is convinced he has found the right faith (or by default being born into it) he can die holding on to it. This is very very dangerous. This is what PAS is banking their struggle on. This is their most powerful weapon. So powerful that it can trigger a person to the extend of blowing himself up or driving a plane into a building.

I am not trying to mar Islam’s image even further by relating these incidents to our discussion here. I just want to illustrate how dangerous is the idea of mixing religion (which is very vulnerable to misinterpretations) with politics. I am sure it is universally accepted that a good religion should never kill for whatever reason it may be.

And thus I see we share a common ground here – that we all must keep Malaysia a secular state.

Another interesting point you raised is the analogy of a school principal. In fact, it is not even an analogy. This in fact is a growing concern among the non-muslim parents that their children are being subjected to racial / religious bias in school. I was educated in national schools filled with elements of religious and racial discriminations. There was this case where an Indian student in my former school given a slap on the face by my discipline teacher for talking to a Muslim female student in an empty classroom during recess period. The reason being is a boy and a girl should not sit together when there is nobody around. UTM has imposed a ban on the wearing of shorts in campus even among the male students. I was stared at with disgust as I walked around the campus wearing shorts when I went for a camp there on invitation from a friend. Girls are forbidden to ride on a bike with guys. Now, we even catch couples holding hands in public. These are all result of the people in our government who are trying to impose their religious views onto people of other races/religions. So where are the so-called professional ethics? What will the product of such a system looks like? Are we producing young generations that are more religious/racial-tolerance, understanding, unite and harmony?

School and university are good examples. We can already see this happening now. We are already feeling the effects now. I’m sure the enforcement officers and their boss who went around catching couple holding hands are the product of such a system. Maybe they were taught since young that it is haram to hold a girl’s hand if she is not your wife. Yes, it’s absolutely their right to adhere to this law if their religion says so. But now, they are imposing it onto people from other religions.

When you suggest we must dialogue with various religious groups so we can understand their challenges and struggles, my little brain ran some simple checks on the possibilities or how should we go about it. Given a situation where the university board decides that it is “haram” for a girl to ride on a bike with a guy. This strictly comes from the religious point of view of some very religious people. The Chinese and Indians say there is nothing wrong with that. Or take the case where some non-muslim students enrolled into some Maktab Perguruan. They were being told that it is a MUST to wear tudung in campus. This is a true experience related to me by a friend who reluctantly walked out of the Maktab because of this issue. The non-muslim community thinks it’s absolutely ridiculous to force the tudung rulings on non-muslims. How can such dialogues solve these issues? We (non-muslims) totally understand the fact that Muslims need to cover their ‘aurat’, and never question about it. We don’t feel disgusted when seeing a Muslim girl with tudung. So what should I say when the Muslims says we are not respecting them when we do not adhere to their tudung ruling? I still don’t see where such dialogues can lead us to. I believe the key answer to all these is NOT to permit any religious opinions into any institutions that involve people from all races. These including the civil service, universities, schools, local councils and government as a whole. Everybody is governed by a common set of laws agreed by all races and religions, or should I say Malaysians. Wearing tudung or not, it’s up to them.

Ok. What if I truly understand why a Muslim needs to wear the tudung. But my daughter is not a Muslim. She should wear tudung too? And when she goes out for a date with her boyfriend, they hold hands. What should I say if one day I have to fork out RM300 for that? Can understanding the teachings of Islam help solve this small problem of mine?

Dear Wai,

Are we living in a secular state or are we not? This is the issue behind this debacle. The islamization of the country is starting to take a turn in the legal dimension. The response of the public and the opposition to Mahathir's declaration that Malaysia is an Islamic state, the former largely being ignorant while the latter split into an outrage (for two very different reasons) is most amusing to behold. While PAS says that Mahathir is lying because they see no Islamic fundamentalism being applied, DAP is calling the old man senile for our constitution states that Malaysia is a secular state.

This is the crux of the debate eventually in the
secular - non-secular debate. Should laws be made to govern moral behaviour? Should morality laws be made? A simple glance in Malaysiakini and you will see that not all muslims in this country agree to the syariah laws, particularly the ability of state Jabatan Agama Islam to prosecute on a legal basis.

What we need to see is local muslims realize how much value there is in secularism in protecting their religious freedom, and ours, from tyranny of random fatwas by the clergy or any authority who decides to use religion as a tool for oppression.

We all must keep Malaysia a secular state. All of us, muslims, buddhists, christians, hindus, animistic believers, wiccans, freethinkers, humanists, because of a very simple reason - THE STATE SHOULD NOT BE, BY DEFAULT, DISCRIMINATORY ON A FAITH BASIS.

The same concept applies in many other situations.
Which is more important? If you are a principal in a school, what is your highest order of rationalization? Your duties as a principal and an educator comes first, everything else is in second place. You should think in terms of the academic benefits you're securing for your pupils and care for your teachers to help them to perform better, NOT extending your worldviews as a muslim, a woman, a mother or a wife.

We call that professional ethics.

The politics in our country is pretty bizarre, then again, which country's isn't. In any case, our muslim brethrens will have to decide if they want theology or democracy because the two just don't mix very well together. Already, the syariah law is in place. The whole Islamic State controversy is most important to the future direction of this young and already Not-So-Secular State. Recent events have demonstrated that the competition to see Who-Wants-to-be-More-Islamic between PAS and UMNO is beginning to yield results.

The question is, what happened to the secularists?

It does help BN a lot when PAS loudly declares that the Prime Minister of their Islamic State must be a muslim. This is great. It means that our Constitution is worth less than the paper it is written on, not that the devaluation hasn't been going on for quite some time now.

Perhaps you think it is polite not to ask a muslim
about their religion. I have a lot of respect for
that. However, asking muslims about their religion is not questioning their faith. I must clear some misconceptions about myself because a few readers think that I am a muslim. I am not. I am, for want of a better denomination, is a non-religious freethinker. However, I think we must dialogue with muslims or any religious groups so that we can understand their struggles and challenges. That way, we are not reacting to religion per se, but trying to differentiate between the individuals of the same denomination.

Talking about a religion is not questioning the faith of its believers. I have absolutely no interest in recruiting new members for any denomination. The common platform we have on the Islamic state issue is whether we want to see our muslim brethrens be subjected to religious laws made to regulate their faith (or the appearance of it). A key outrage I feel is the instances where the JAIS highhandedly arrested Malay participants of a beauty pageant. It was then I
realized we are wrong to just stand aside while all this transpires.

For starters, I am not supportive of the
objectification of the female body via such contests. I find them a tad silly. However, I am not about to let my disdain for beauty contests stand in the way of its organization, much less the voluntary participation of the contestants. You see, a person's faith is personal, and by allowing the government to regulate something like that is dangerous. It is bad enough certain mahzabs in this country is being systematically silenced, but the syariah law of the different states only serve to cast religious interpretation and dynamism into stone. What we are clearly seeing is the rise of a clergy-like body that monopolizes religious interpretations, administration and prosecution. Evidently, bad muslims in this country have to face legal repercussions, but other religions don't.

I am not about to fall into the poor insinuation that muslims in Malaysia do not condemn the terrorists. Chances are, many non-muslims also smile in glee to see the giant being pinpricked. Anti-american wave was stoked with the sympathy for 911, but that soon went away with Bush's great diplomacy. Now the world is back on the course of rage against the American government.

As long as we keep an isolationist mentality,
preferring to stay away from affairs thinking that
whatever happening to the Malay community will not
affect the rest, we are allowing ourselves to be
surprised and caught clueless of national affairs.
Same goes to international affairs. The global nature of the terrorist network (IJ) is proof that we cannot pretend we can stay away. This country revolves around UMNO politics, and if the people can't be bothered about THEIR predicament, we can only pray whatever is going on will not affect us.

I am a keen advocator of the separation between the state and religious authorities. The most important principle is NOT to give any religion the legal claws to enforce their dogma through law.

We must NOT try to understand Islam by reading books, by attending lectures or classes, or even by being a child of an ulama'. Through debates? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Rasulullah SAW said sumthin' like "debates will kill the heart"? Through talks? What... a'la Oprah? Whoah...

C'monnn... Islam is not about logic. There is no logic in performing prayers. There is no logic in angels, in heaven... heck, we even have trouble to name two Rukun Imans that we can see for ourselves... kitab and that's it...

Those dudes and dudettes from the era of Musa, Ibrahim, etc. they could see a man walking out of a bonfire as big as a hill unscathed, the sea divided into two to form a path. Us? We cannot even see our Prophet SAW!

Blind faith, correct, but that's what makes us special. That's what makes us, the ummah of the last Prophet SAW, different from the ummah of Musa, Ibrahim, etc. That's what makes us "khairu ummah".

The only way that will enable us to U-N-D-E-R-S-T-A-N-D Islam is through the sacrifices that we made for Allah swt. And I'm not talking about waiting at a certain bus stop with a bagful of plastic explosives, but to spend time, money and effort, all in the name of Allah swt. LiLlahi Taala.

To know and to understand are two different things.

Gone are the days of those Sahabahs radiAllahuanhum (the companions of Prophet Muhammad SAW, what are you doing mumbling S-A-W? Repeat! SallAllahu alaihi wasallam!), where Abu Bakar r.a., one of the richest dudes around at that time, sacrificed all his belongings until what's left for him was only a cloth made from sack. And Allah swt ordered all the angels to wear cloth made from sack, as a sign of respect.

Gone are the days where Bilal bin Rabah r.a. readied himself to be tortured day and night just to preserve his iman.

And yeah, gone are the days where the ladies just literally 'freeze' when they heard God's command to 'tutup aurat', not wanting to take even a step further. They asked their children to go home and fetch clothes to cover their aurat.

Stupid? Fanatic? Well, typical answer from Westernized 'Muslim' I guess. But I imagine those Sahabahs r.a. calling us 'munafiqs' (nauzubillah...). Why? Well, we don't go to mosques to pray, we're happy to do it alone, etc, etc.

Of course, it is almost impossible to achieve that level of iman nowadays. We don't have that kind of surroundings, that kind of environment these days. But, is there any particular reason why we cannot harbour an ambition?

Of course being a Muslim is difficult, all that prayers and stuffs. But hey, eternal pleasure in heaven does not come 'cheap' ya know... (rational enough?) all this talk about Islam is easy, Islam is simple, they are all rubbish created by shallow-minded ulama's who 'perasan' that they are attracting people to the 'beauty of Islam' when they are actually lying.

And about Sisters In Islam, well to be perfectly honest, I think they are rubbish (oh, okay, remind me of not 'menjatuhkan keaiban saudara seagama' again...).

What is with this need to 'menghalalkan yang haram' and to 'mengharamkan yang halal'?

What is with this craving to 'menuntut hak'? When are we going to learn to 'menunaikan hak'?

These web sites will change the course of your life for good.

www.free-minds.org
www.mostmerciful.com
www.progressivemuslims.org

Rasulullah S.A.W telah bersabda, " Hari kiamat itu mempunyai tanda, bermulanya dengan tidak laris jualan di pasar, sedikit sahaja hujan dan begitu juga dengan tumbuh-tumbuhan. Ghibah menjadi-jadi di merata-rata, memakan riba, banyaknya anak-anak zina, orang kaya diagung-agungkan, orang-orang fasik akan bersuara lantang di masjid, para ahli mungkar lebih banyak menonjol dari ahli haq"

Berkata Ali bin Abi Talib, Akan datag di suatu masa di mana Islam itu hanya akan tinggal namanya sahaja, agama hanya bentuk sahaja, Al-Qur'an hanya dijadikan bacaan sahaja, mereka mendirikan masjid, sedangkan masjid itu sunyi dari zikir menyebut Asma Allah. Orang-orang yang paling buruk pada zaman itu ialah para ulama, dari mereka akan timbul fitnah dan fitnah itu akan kembali kepada mereka juga. Dan kesemua yang tersebut adalah tanda-tanda hari kiamat."

Sabda Rasulullah S.A.W, "Apabila harta orang kafir yang dihalalkan tanpa perang yang dijadikan pembahagian bergilir, amanat dijadikan seperti harta rampasan, zakat dijadikan seperti pinjaman, belajar lain daripada agama, orang lelaki taat kepada isterinya, menderhakai ibunya, lebih rapat dengan teman dan menjauhkan ayahnya, suara-suara lantang dalam masjid, pemimpin kaum dipilih dari orang yang fasik, oarng dimuliakan kerana ditakuti akan tindakan jahat dan aniayanya dan bukan kerana takutkan Allah, maka kesemua itu adalah tanda-tanda kiamata."

Oh...but there always people who use religion to trample the rights of others....

The rights of other Muslims especially

i just want to know about the food that Malaysia's in thier religion does not take.