Comments from Abdul Rahman Talib ( aka Rahman Celcom ) to my ‘What next? Outlaw Hadharites? Rehab centres, perhaps?’ post, from his 5th comment ( 14th June at 4.56pm ) on turned almost entirely on the issue of dealing with the apostates, although my post had nothing to do with this thorny issue.
In pressing home his point that apostates are to be put to death, Rahman backed his contention on just one verse from the Holy Qur’an : Surah 2 verse 54.
Many of you may not be aware, but both Rahman and I have had exchanges on this issue through letters to Malaysiakini in 2005.
For those of you who may be inclined to view those exchanges, I link below the series of letters in that exchange sequentially below.
1. My letter dated 9/9/2005
2. Rahman’s letter dated 15/9/2005
3. My letter dated 20/9/2005
4. Rahman’s letter dated 26/9/2005
Surah 2 verse 54 : ‘ And when Moses said unto his people: O my people! Ye have wronged yourselves by your choosing of the calf (for worship) so turn in penitence to your Creator, and kill yourselves. That will be best for you with your Creator and He will relent toward you. Lo! He is the Relenting, the Merciful’.
Rahman’s foundation for the death penalty for apostates is ‘kill yourselves’ in this verse.
Let me reproduce here his rationale as expounded in his last letter above, which is similar to the stance he has adopted in his several comments.
‘In verse 02:54, Moses passed a sentence of death upon an entire tribe of Israelites for committing idolatry. The sentence is ordained by God. That particular order remains until today since there are no other verses in the Quran abrogating it.
The order for the Israelites to take their own lives in 02:54 – their punishment for committing apostasy – is an irrefutable fact. It destroys all those who claim that the Quran contains no verse that points to punishment for apostasy.
Also, since the Israelites number is large, it is more practical for the tribe to take their own lives rather than be executed. It is still a death penalty nonetheless. The only difference is that in our time, apostates are executed while in Moses time, they were to kill themselves.
What remains, from the time of Moses until today, is the fact that apostates must be punished by death. This fact hasn’t changed no matter how many try to deny it.’
In a comment on 15/6/2008 at 12.18pm to the same post, Walski69 responded to Rahman. I excerpt below the relevant part.
‘…taking 2:54 – 2:57 in toto, what is being conveyed here is the concept of repentence and elimination of one’s ego, and that idol worship harms not God, but the souls of the idol worshippers themselves. It does NOT promote the killing of apostates, as you have suggested’
Walski69 is not alone with this viewpoint.
Muhammad Assad, in his translation, translates fa-qtulu anfusa-kum to read ‘mortify yourselves’ rather than kill yourselves. in his commentary to Surah 2 verse 54 he offers the following :
‘Lit ., “kill yourselves “ or , according to some commentator, “kill one another” . This literal interpretation (probably based on the Biblical account in Exodus xxxii,26-28 ) is not, however, convincing in view of the immediately preceding call to repentance and the subsequent statement that this repentance was accepted by God. I incline, therefore, to the interpretation given by “Abd al-Jabbar (quoted by Razi in his commentary on this verse) to the effect that the expression “kill yourselves “is used here in a metaphorical sense (majazan), i.e., “mortify yourselves”.’
Maulana Muhammad Ali, in his translation, renders fa-qtulu anfusa-kum to read as ‘kill your passions’.
His commentary on this verse :
‘According to the bible, the children of Levi were commanded to slay the others, and three thousand men were killed on that day. On the basis of this bible story, the words fa-qtulu anfusa-kum occurring here have been translated as meaning kill your people. The context does not allow this interpretation. In the first place, the words are preceded by an order or to repent and it could not be followed by an order to kill. Secondly, the words that follow are, so he turned to you mercifully, and an order to kill three thousand people could not be called a merciful dealing. Thirdly, it has already been made clear in v. 52 that God pardoned them for the offence of taking the calf for a god: then he pardoned you after that so that you might give thanks. They could not be asked to give thanks for being killed. The order to kill is inconsistent with the statement that they were pardoned. Fourthly, when the same incident is narrated elsewhere, there is a clear statement that they were granted a pardon and there is no mention of killing: “then they took the calf for a god, after clear the signs had come to them, but we pardoned this “(4:153). Fifthly, according to the Qur’an even samiri, the leader of calf-worship, was not killed and was dismissed simply with the order: “Begone! Surely for thee in this life it would be to say, touch me not” (20:97). Hence the holy Qur’an rejects the bible story of the Israelites being killed as a punishment for calf-worship. They were pardoned and were told simply to repent, and God accepted their repentance as clearly stated here. Therefore anfusa-kum does not mean here your people, but your desires or your passions, for the words nafs, of which anfus is the plural, means not only self or soul but also intention, desire or passion. In fact, it was an order not to kill but to mortify, and this is the only interpretation which can be given to these words consistent with the clear mention of God’s pardoning them and turning to them mercifully. I may add that no prophet or religion has ever thought that a man can be killed for the worship of an object other than God’
Interestingly, in his comments, Rahman had reproduced the translation of Surah 2 verse 54 by Abdullah Yusof Ali, which does translate fa-qtulu anfusa-kum as ‘slay yourselves’.
However, it is unfortunate that Rahman did not think it necessary to share with us Yusof Ali’s commentary on this verse. I reproduce this below
‘Moses’s speech may be construed literally. as translated, in which case it reproduces Exod. xxxii 27-28 but in a much softened form, Old Testament says : “God in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay ever man his brother. And every man his companion, and every neighbour… and there fell of the people that day 3,000 men.” A more spiritualized version would be that the order for slaying was given by way of trial, but was withdrawn, for God turned to them in forgiveness. A still more spiritualized way of construing it would be to take “anfusakum “ as meaning “soul” not “selves” Then the sense of Moses’s speech ( abbreviated ) would be : “By the worship of calf you have wronged your own souls ; repent : mortify (=slay) your souls now : it will be better in the sight of God.”
I can almost hear Rahman screaming that we must give effect to a literal reading of Surah 2 verse 54.
Well, would Rahman also then give effect to a literal reading of the following, please?
‘Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.’ – Surah 2 verse 256
‘If it had been thy Lord’s will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe?’ – Surah 10 verse 99
‘Do not make excuses; you have denied indeed after you had believed; if We pardon a party of you, We will chastise (another) party because they are guilty. The hypocritical men and the hypocritical women are all alike; they enjoin evil and forbid good and withhold their hands; they have forsaken Allah, so He has forsaken them; surely the hypocrites are the transgressors. Allah has promised the hypocritical men and the hypocritical women and the unbelievers the fire of hell to abide therein; it is enough for them; and Allah has cursed them and they shall have lasting punishment.’ -Surah 9 verses 66-68.
Also, could Rahman reconcile his obsession with killing the apostates against the following command of God?
‘Tell those who believe to forgive those who hope not for the days of Allah; in order that He may requite folk what they used to earn.’ – Surah 45 verse 14
Finally, perhaps Rahman would care to share with us why, when so many verses heavily point to God dealing with apostates to the exclusion of all others, he would choose to read one verse as an imperative to kill?
Do you not find comfort in the verses that I now refer to?
Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib
June 20, 2008
Dear All,
I wrote a rebuttal to this article at http://www.malaysiawaves.com/2008/06/harris-ibrahim-barking-up-wrong-tree.html
Feel free to peruse.
TQ
Helen Ang
June 20, 2008
WHY ‘LIBERAL’ IS A DIRTY WORD
_____________________________
http://www.malaysiawaves.com/2008/06/haris-ibrahim-probably-will-have-to.html
In the Responses thread in his blog, Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib aka Tulang Besi commented on June 17, 9:03pm,
humanbeing says:
“There is nothing wrong with worshipping anything if it is positive and as long as one knows its limitations.”
MY REPLY: Here’s where you’re wrong. Islam is not a mere worship or faith.
It is a complete way of life. So your argument above doesn’t apply to Islam.
It’s good that you use the ape [and] monkey example.
As far as I know, animals don’t really care what religion they profess, [kinda] like the liberals.
____________________________________________________
Helen had to laugh out loud reading the above.
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar
June 20, 2008
Haris,
thanks for having taken the time to write this.
As an aside, I was re-reading William Dalrymple’s “In Xanadu” in which he recounts his travels from the Holy Sepulcher across Asia. In the part he deals with Iran, he writes:
“Iran was proving far more complex than we had expected. A religious revolution in the twentieth century was a unique experience, resulting in the first theocracy since the fall of the Dalai Lama in Tibet. Yet this revolution took place not in a poor banana republic, but in the richest and most sophisticated country in Asia. A group of clerics was trying to graft a mediaeval system of government and a premediaeval way of thinking on a prosperous modern economy and a large and highly educated middle class.”
It seems to me that the Islamic administration of many of the states of this country, with perhaps the exception of Perlis in some ways, considers its function in a vacuum – administer a literalist, narrow and restrictive version of Islamic without full regard to the context in which the law is to be administered. By context, I do not only mean the Federal Constitution but also refer to development – spiritual, emotional, material. As has been observed by some, the driving principle of Islam – righteousness with a view to enjoining social justice – have been lost in the seeming obsessive need for bureaucrats to deal with the form of the religion.
In one of her (unbanned) books, Karen Armstrong observes that it could be said that the so-called Muslim world is at odds with the so-called Western-world only for the fact that while both are clearly steered by a desire for perfection, the Muslim world’s standard of perfection is that set during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet.
A desire for perfection has therefore led some Muslims to emulate rather than to innovate. These Muslims reject modernity, albeit to varying degrees, on the basis that this would require a contextualising of syariah that is not permissible. You, Farish, Zainnah and I have been accused of such contextualising.
Those who condemn however overlook the fact that contextualising does not require the rejection of the truth of the Quran and in fact allows for a fulfillment of the Quranic vision. Your post manifestly illustrates this. And though some might ask what gives your vision more authority than theirs, the same question may be asked in return.
As to which vision is more correct, this is within the sole domain of the Creator. The doubt that this creates in our hearts can only be addressed by ensuring that we do right by our fellow human beings, to create the space for each and every one of us to be the unique creations that we are. Addressing this doubt through the imposition of regulatory frameworks cannot be the solution; regulation is not a prerequisite to faith.
Malik Imtiaz
teohjitkhiam
June 20, 2008
JAMBUISM 4 ALL!
I of course, would accept those who profess the faiths of DURIANISM and COCONUTISM. Because, sooner or later, one of those is gonna fall straight down on the heads of those so-called faithfuls…
Bigjoe
June 20, 2008
I don’t give one hoot whether the holy book says about killing apostasy or not. You don’t kill over religion, philosophy or idea. Hell, I rather you kill over property, over sex, any day before I think killing over religion makes any sense.
Bigjoe.
I’d rather they just don’t kill
Revert
June 20, 2008
saya rasa ini juga sesuai ditontoni semua disini.
Alhadee : If any Muslims or non Muslims is reading this, please and please I beg all of you. When anyone, I mean anyone tells you that non Muslims should shut up when Islam is being discussed, ask this; “On what basis? Did the Prophet taught you that?”.
I cannot find any Hadiths and neither any verse in the Quran that says non Muslim must shut up when Islam is being discussed.
Isn’t what the Prophet did in Mecca for 13 years reflects otherwise?
Isn’t Islam was presented to the people of Mecca in an open manner? Isn’t Islam was debated between the lords of the Mecca and the Prophet? Isn’t Islam was rebuked and criticized openly in Mecca?
saudara alhadee
Pertama, ada 4 golongan kuffar yang dari nya 2 mencari kebenaran dalam Islam. Tetapi kedua-dua golongan ini mempunyai NIAT yang berbeza:
1. Golongan pertama berniat ikhlas merungkai apa maksud kehidupan, kedudukan individu dalam alam semesta ini, apakah hubungan insan dengan Khaliqnya, apakah tujuan kejadian dsbnya.Kebiasaannya, golongan ini ARIF tentang KITAB kepercayaan mereka dan sedar akan wujudnya unsur-unsur monotheisma dalam kitab tersebut yang sayangnya tidak dimanifestasikan dalam AMAL.Sehubungan dengan itu, mereka mendampingi Islam kerana menyedari akan prinsip monotheisma yang didukungnya. Pendekkata, golongan ini menghormati Kitab serta amalan Islam dan menghampiri Addeen dengan niat yang ikhlas dan inshaalh dikurniakan hidayah dengan rahmatnya untuk memeluk Islam.
2. Golongan kedua terdiri golongan yang rata-rata berpegang teguh kepada kepercayaan dan amalan nenek moyang mereka. Niat golongan ini, yang terbit dari paradigma relativistik yang meresapi diri mereka, adalah untuk berhujah bahawa semua kepercayaan itu adalah sama dengan Addeen yakni Islam. Bagi golongan ini, pangiktarafan kesamarataan ini adalah matlamat mereka. Bagi tujuan ini mereka akan menterbalikkan maksud zahir ayat/surah dalam Kitab AlQuran serta berhujah bahawa intipati mesej yang terkandung mengiakan weltanschung kesamarataan yang didokong. Inilah golongan yang bacul menghadapi kenyataan.Dalam konstruk realiti dunia ciptaan, mereka menganggap Islam tidak perlu kerana segala bentuk pegangan mereka juga menjurus kepada logos/tuhan (perhatikan saya tidak gunakkan kalimah Allah SWT). Jadi apa bentuk kejahilan yang dipegang sekarang adalah betul kerana ia menjurus kepada arah yang serupa. Secara mudah pemikiran mereka adalah : “aku selamat kerana kepercayaan aku sama aje dengan Islam. Buat apa memeluk islam, menyusahkan aje kerana terpaksa menurut segala firman Allah .. aduh! terpaksa buang apa saja amalan yang digemari nafsu jahat serta tidak boleh berfikiran bebas,hidup bebas dsbnya”.Lagipun Islam itu kolot dan tidak sesuai dengan zaman ini Cukuplah.. aku dapat kek dan boleh makannnya!! cukuplah aku buat baik didunia aku selamat!
Niat sebenar golongan ini terserlah dalam usaha mereka menakwil atau menggunakan ayat-ayat Al-Quran tertentu dengan cara mencantas atau berhujah tanpa sandaran yang kukuh. Walhal Al Quran itu harus dibaca dan difahami secara holistik dan total bukannnya secara kerat-kerat. Sehubungan ini:
a) adakah anda membaca karya Usman Awang, A Samad Said, Tagore, Mishima, Pirandello, Brecht maupun D,H Lawrence dan lain-lain (ya! saya sedang perturunkan nama2 ini untuk tunjuk pandai!) secara kerat-kerat untuk mendalami mesej dan tema yang ingin disampaikan?
Niat kelompok ini di sokong oleh segelintir umat Islam yang beria-ia hendak menunjukkan sikap keterbukaan, liberal, moden dan intelektual supaya diterima sebagi rasional dan sophisticated. Maka pelawaan golongan kuffar untuk menakwil intipati Al-Quran disahut girang dan berbondong-bondonglah golongan ‘liberal’ Islam mengupas kitabullah untuk mencari ayat-ayat bagi “membantu” menegakkan prinsip kesamarataan itu sekaligus mengesahkan gaya hidup dan pemikiran liberal-sekular sebagai konstruk yang valid meskipun intipatinya digarap 100% dari paradigma Barat.
bayangkanlah secara logikal kalau benarlah ada kesamarataan, maka ranaplah alam semesta ini dengan perang besar diantara segala Tuhan/Tokong/dewa yang disembah, masing-masing berjuang untuk menetapkkanturfnya. Tambahan pula, akan tonggang terbaliklah alam semesta dengan pelbagai bentuk susunan fizik, kimia dan biologis alam yang berbeda sesuai dengan citarasa tuhan/tokong/ dewa berkenaan. Bukankah akal yang sihat menafikkan wujudnya kepelbagaian agama dan menunujuk kepada satu tuhan yakni Allah SWT.Jika kebenaran ini diterima, bukankah Allah SWT telah menetapkan ISLAM sebagai Deennya dari azali lagi.
3. Golongan ketiga terdiri dari dari penganut kepercayaan lain yang memusuhi Islam secara nyata dari segi amal kata dan tindakan. Berbeza dengan golongan kedua, golongan ini adalah golongan tegar dengan kepercayaan masing-masing dan telah menutup pintu hati mereka kepada Addeen.Bagi mereka, hanya kepercayaan mereka adalah benar. Kekadang golongan liberal melabelkan penganut Islam sejati sebagai sama aje dengan golongan ini. Ini adalah pendustaan besar kerana Islam bertunjangkan kepada keseragaman (consistency) dalam prinsip, amal dan world view dimana tidak wujud percanggahan diantara ketiga-tiga aspek tadi yang semuanya berpaksikan pada tuhan yang satu :Allah SWT.
Sebaliknya, kepercayaan golongan kuffar yang tegar ini mengandungi pelbagai percanggahan diantara prinsip serta amalan. contohnya kitab menetapkan monotheima sebagai asas tetapi amal melibatkan pemujaan berbentuk polytheist atau idolatry .
4. Golongan ini terdiri dari mereka yang tidak mempercayai kewujudan Khaliq sama sekali kerana tidak ada bukti empirikal untuk mengiakan konsep ketuhanan.Disebabkan pendekatan epistemologi mereka berpaksikan kepada penafian Khaliq maka weltanschung mereka bersandarkan teori-teori sains khususnya evolusi yang kini mula dipersoalkan dengan perkembangan dalam kajian genome dan penemuan-penemuan arkeologi serta penakrifan semula kerangka teori Big Bang. Pendekkata, dengan penafian ini, golongan-golongan ini terpaksa mencipta konstruk- konstruk politiko-ekonomi baru bersandarkan ‘nabi-nabi’ mereka seperti Marx, Adam Smith, dll. Ideologi menjadi ‘tuhan” mereka dengan konstruk dunia yang didasari oleh prinsip-prinsip ideologi berkenaan samada dalam bidang politik, ekonomi dan sosial.Tambahan pula, mereka memperolok-olokkan mereka yang ada pegangan kerohanian dan mengagungkan cipataan sains.
Walaupun perbicangan diatas mengelompokkan manusia ke dalam 4 golongan diatas, perlu diingat bahawa lazimnya 2, 3 dan 4 kekadang bertidih dari aspek dokongan politik, kefahaman dan cara hidup.
contoh 1 : ahli no 2 memusuhi Islam tetapi tidak menzahirkan permusuhan sepertimana no 3
contoh 2; golongan 2, 3 dan 4 bernaung di bawah payung sekularisma serta menggunakan pendekatan liberal bagi merelaikan sebarang percanggahan antara fahaman masing-masing
walaupun apa paradigma. golongan 2, 3 dan 4 tidak boleh diberi kepercayaan kerana bagi mereka penafian kebenaran Islam adalah andasar perjuangan mereka sama seperti Abu Jahal dan kuncu-kuncunya pada zaman Rasulullah SAW. Jadi berwaspadalah terutamanya dengan golongan ini kerana kesemua ciri-ciri mereka ada tercatat didalam kitabullah buat pedoman muslimin semua.
Dengan ini saya mengundurkan diri dari blog ini.
wassalam
a concerned voter
June 20, 2008
Dear Brother Haris,when I was small, I came across a little story book that told us how the Buddha taught us to value and treasure every life,regardless that of humans or animals.Even the life of an insignificant little ant is as precious as that of a king!That is why Buddhism encourages the practice of releasing lives-birds,fishes and all!It sends a chill down my spine to hear of people like Rahman Celcom calling for the deaths of people just because they don’t submit to a faith.It is safer to be ants than apostates.This is pure madness!!
a concerned voter,
Ants, too, would not be safe from RC.
If they apostasise, RC will decree that they all commit harakiri
malayamuda
June 20, 2008
the problem is everyone thinks he is a Ulama and is qualified to pass judgement against others.
but the fact is everyone has weaknesses, so one should try to improve oneself first before trying to teach others
Farida
June 20, 2008
Ah Revert,
From one posting to the next! And I thought you had bid us all adieu.
Methinks from your writing that you were that particular lecturer in the English Department of U.M. who …….and ….. and …… – perhaps with an S to your name.
Behind every person possessed of so much vitriol is a story of bitter experiences, betrayal or even failure.
It comes through in your writing, whether you will admit it or not – the hunger for acceptance, the anger that is but a shadow of the real thing – pain.
You are not among enemies or strangers. Just think about this: A stranger is a friend waiting to happen.
No, don’t bring on the vitriol. Bring on the real you, if you dare come out of the shadows, BROTHER.
alhadee
June 20, 2008
Note to Haris: There is something wrong with the connection, so if I send duplicate postings please do delete either one.
There are 2 main issues here;
(1) Differences in Translations
Abdul Rahman translate ‘fa’tulu an fusakum’ as ‘ kill yourself’ and he rejects other translations. In his blog http://www.malaysiawaves.com/2008/06/harris-ibrahim-barking-up-wrong-tree.html , he bluntly and overconfidently said ‘..Certain Muslim scholars commit a mistake in interpreting 02:54 because they’re motivated to present the story as different from the Bible’s account…’
Haris’s translate it differently, quoting Yusuf Ali’s commentaries, Muhamamad Asad’s translation of the verse, and Maulana Mohamad Ali’s explanation on the verse.
My comment; I would be more inclined to look at the whole story, just like what Maulana Muhammad Ali does. Maulana Muhammad Ali’s contention is this; if the calf worshipper are doomed for death for what they did, why are there other verses in contradiction to this?
For example, Samiri, the one who initiate calf worshipping is asked to go, or banished instead of being killed (20:97). The followers are killed while the leader is asked to simply go? Does not make any sense.
In Abdul Rahman’s blog, I don’t see any rebuttal to this. Instead he said ‘..I could go on and on about MMA’s argument, but suffice to say, his entire mistake is assuming that there is only one order in 02:54 rather than 2…’
(2) Punishment for the present apostates
I wrote about this in different postings https://harismibrahim.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/what-next-out-law-the-hadharites-rehab-centres-perhaps/ . We have to answer whether a present day apostate should be punished or not.
I wrote;
‘..In conclusion; we have Saidina Musa talking to his people, and whatever follows from there is ONLY for HIS people. It does not include me, you or anyone else in present time…’
In (2:54), Saidina Musa begin with ‘ya Qaumihi’, literal translation ‘o my people’ at the beginning of the verse. When it comes to disputed ayat ‘fa-qtulu anfusa-kum’, in whichever translation it still refers to the people of Musa.
So how does this verse become the basis of punishment for the present apostate? I hope Abdul Rahman can highlight us on this.
Assume that Abdul Rahman’s translation is correct, there are verses of the Quran which is about a later event; during the time of the Prophet that says otherwise.
For example (18:29)
Translation from Yusuf Ali
‘Say, “The truth is from your Lord”: Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it): for the wrong-doers We have prepared a Fire whose (smoke and flames), like the walls and roof of a tent, will hem them in: if they implore relief they will be granted water like melted brass, that will scald their faces, how dreadful the drink! How uncomfortable a couch to recline on! ‘
‘..Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject..’ proceed with what will become of the wrong doers in the hereafter.
In comparison with (2:54) where the verse is on Saidina Musa talking to his people and his people only, verse (18:29) is continuous ‘ fa man sya a’ fal yu’ minun wa man sya a’ fal ya’ fur..’. Continuous in the sense it is timeless and still valid to present day.
The same goes to (26:21-22)
Translation from Yusuf Ali
‘Therefore do thou give admonition, for thou art one to admonish.’ (21)
‘Thou art not one to manage (men’s) affairs.’ (22)
In Pickthal’ translation
‘Remind them, for thou art but a remembrancer,’ (21)
‘Thou art not at all a warder over them. ‘ (22)
The ayat (22), it begins with ‘las ta a’laihim..’, ‘.for you are not..’ is also not bound to specific time and it infers that it is not the job for anyone to determine what one’s faith is.
This verse is in parallel with (28:56).
‘It is true thou wilt not be able to guide every one, whom thou lovest; but Allah guides those whom He will and He knows best those who receive guidance.’
(YusufAli)
Although the background of the verse is different, the message is the same; the Iman (faith) or hidayah belongs to God alone and only he can bestow it upon anyone he chooses.
With that; we should asked how could we, enforce the faith or ‘iman’ on anyone?
farida
June 20, 2008
YOUR QUOTE , HARIS:” Rahman’s letter dated 26/9/2005
Surah 2 verse 54 : ‘ And when Moses said unto his people: O my people! Ye have wronged yourselves by your choosing of the calf (for worship) so turn in penitence to your Creator, and kill yourselves. That will be best for you with your Creator and He will relent toward you. Lo! He is the Relenting, the Merciful’.
Rahman’s foundation for the death penalty for apostates is ‘kill yourselves’ in this verse.”
MY COMMENT: Read these words again: “…kill yourselves. That will be best for you with your Creator and He will relent toward you”
In other words, you kill yourselves, not others kill you, if we accept the kill interpretation. And also, if you kill yourselves, and you are dead, then is it that deadness that makes God relent? When God pardons or relents, it is to allow you to arise from that stumble and go on and try to walk the right path once again. Deadness serves no purpose.
A. Murali
June 20, 2008
I have questions for En. Rahman.
Did En Rahman read the Quran, apply his intellect and rational self and conclude that it was the word of God or did he decide that the Quran was the word of God before he read it?
If he took the former course did he not think it irrational and cruel that a person (once Muslim or not) should be put to death because he adopts a faith different from that prescribed by the Quran? Would this not have led him to reject the Quran as being the word of God.
If he took the latter course then pray tell us why we should accept the interpretations of an irrational man over that offered by Haris.
alhadee
June 20, 2008
saudara revert,
Terima kasih atas jawapan kepada posting saya tersebut.
Mengenai golongan2 ‘kuffar’ yang berbeza itu, tidak banyak yang saya dapat perkatakan disini cuma sedikit sahaja komen saya berdasarkan ilmu saya yang terlalu sedikit itu yang mungkin tidak sama taraf dengan ilmu saudara revert.
(1) saya ingin katakan bahawa saya tidak dapat untuk mengetahui apa yang di dalam hati manusia. Jadi amat sukar bagi saya yang berilmu sedikit ini untuk membeza2kan golongan yang dikatakan di atas.
Apa yang saya tahu, berdasarkan kepada ilmu saya yang sedikit ini ialah berkenaan kehidupan Saidina Umar sebelum beliau memeluk agama Islam.
Sebelum memeluk agama Islam, beliau bersikap amat keras terhadap penganut Islam. Kekerasan secara fizikal itu adalah lumrah bagi Saidina Umar sehingga terbawa2 ke masa beliau telah memeluk agama Islam. Sikap ini bukan sahaja kepada penganut Islam sahaja malah kepada adik nya sendiri sehinggakan dia sanggup memukul adik nya sendiri kerana membaca ayat-ayat Al-Quran.
Dimanakah kita hendak letakkan Saidina Umar? Berdasarkan kepada penerangan saudara, golongan ke 3 adalah paling sesuai. Saudara katakan mengenai golongan yang ke 3; ‘golongan ini adalah golongan tegar dengan kepercayaan masing-masing dan telah menutup pintu hati mereka kepada Addeen.’
Jadi, apakah yang terjadi kepada Saidina Umar? Saya menjadi keliru di sini. Saya membaca sirah Nabi, saya rasa tidak keliru dan nampak jelas. Tetapi bila membaca kenyataan-2 dan pendapat-2 ulama, ustaz dan juga saudara revert, saya menjadi begitu keliru. Mungkin ilmu saya tidak setaraf dengan saudara revert.
(2) Jika saudara revert membaca posting2 saudari Helen Ang yang juga menjadi asas kepada jawapan posting saya kepada beliau, kita akan temukan perkara-perkara tersebut.
Saudari Helen mengatakan ‘If I were living in Sweden, I would have little desire to comment about how Islam is practiced.’ dan juga ‘I would not care to comment on other faiths because I’m not confronted with a Christian state, Hindu law, Bahai banking, Sikh hospital and swimming pool only for Buddhists’ use.’
Saya memahami saudari Helen Ang sebagaimana begini; dia tidak mempersoalkan tentang bagaimana ajaran Islam itu tetapi hanya jika ajaran itu tidak mengenai beliau. ‘Lakum din nukum waliy ad din’ saudara revert.
Dimanakah kita hendak letakkan saudari Helen Ang saudara revert?
Bukan sahaja Saudari Helen Ang berfikiran begini, saya yang Islam juga berfikiran sedemikian. Apakah saya takut dengan ajaran agama saya sendiri? Jawab nya adalah tidak. Yang saya takutkan adalah ajaran yang mengikut tafsiran sesetengan golongan sahaja yang memekik kepada saya bahawa tafsiran mereka itu adalah yang betul dan yang lain semua nya salah. Dan sudahlah amat sukar untuk mempersoalkan tafsiran mereka ini kerana amat sedikit ruang diberikan dan banyak label akan dilemparkan kepada saya, tafsiran ini akan dipaksa kan keatas saya dan juga saudari Helen.
Sewaktu Nabi di Madina, sebelum baginda membuat perjanjian yang kemudiannya digelar sebegai pelembagaan Madinah, baginda telah memanggil wakil2 kaum-kaum yang bukan Islam untuk berbincang dan berunding. Setelah persetujuan bersama dicapai barulah negara ‘Islam’ itu dapat dibentuk.
Jika Nabi berbuat demikian, yakni berbincang dan persetujuan bersama dengan kaum-kaum yang bukan Islam, termasuklah kaum Yahudi itu, kenapakah kita menidakkan hak orang bukan Islam untuk membincangkan sesuatu yang akan berkenaan dengan mereka yakni negara Islam?
Apa yang dibuat sekarang yakni memberitahu orang bukan Islam untuk menutup mulut, tidak boleh membincangkan mengenai Islam, dan mesti bersetuju dalam apa jua tindakan yang diambil yang melibatkan negara, dalam pengamatan saya adalah bertentangan dengan apa yang telah di ajar oleh Nabi sewaktu di Madinah.
Apa yang dilakukan oleh mahaguru dan yang sewaktu dengan nya adalah satu bentuk bidaah yang nyata. Itu pendapat saya.
saudara revert,
Kesimpulannya adalah begini, saya tidak percaya kepada tindakan menutup mulut, saya tidak percaya kepada ISA, saya tidak percaya kepada Akta Hasutan. Dan samalah juga, saya tidak percaya kepada ISA versi Melayu-Islam dan saya tidak percaya kepada Akta Hasutan versi Melayu-Islam.
Kalau kemaruk sangat dengan negara Islam, buatlah seperti Nabi buat. Bentangkan Islam di depan untuk diperbincang dan diperdebatkan. Nabi dapat buat kaum Yahudi yang lebih bijak dan paling kuat membangkang setuju dengan kepimpinan beliau. Tengoklah saudara revert dapat ker tak dapat. Tapi dari posting2 saudara dan juga posting2 balas, saya dapati saudara revert bukan sahaja sukar difahami tetapi ditolak terus oleh sebilangan besar yang membuat posting disini.
Salam dari saya.
barry
June 20, 2008
So, the question is: Is Islamic Malaysia ready to accept that Muslim apostates are allowed to live, and live freely? For example, in Indonesia, the churches are filled with ex-Muslims, and Indonesian Christians are by and large accepted as ‘normal people’. Here in Malaysia, we have a Muslim convert reverting to her original religion (of Buddhism/Taoism) having declared that she never really believed and embraced the Islam faith, and we have hardlined/hardcore Muslims debating whether or not she should be allowed to live or at least ‘rehabilitated’ which includes imprisonment.
What I find amusing about this whole discussion, is that it is based on the original Torah text about how God was dealing with the Jews when they had fallen away and started to worship the golden calf. From my own understanding, God was particulary harsh on the Jews whom He had just rescued from the pharoah, having performed so many miraculous signs and wonders – these people once again proved to be stiff-necked and deserved to be killed. In today’s context, we live by faith in a God we have not seen (at least in the form of great miracles); it is by far different than what the early Jewish nation had experienced first-hand. Let God be the ultimate judge, for those who choose to disbelieve, having believed.
barry,
You said : …these people once again proved to be stiff-necked and deserved to be killed.
My reply : Sorry, we part ways on this one. No-one, in my view, deserves to be killed for a change of faith.
You said : In today’s context, we live by faith in a God we have not seen (at least in the form of great miracles)…
My reply : Again, not with you on this. Suppose it would depend on what would constitute a miracle
barry
June 20, 2008
We don’t necessary have to disagree on this matter, Haris, for I was merely trying to justify why God would be angry enough to kill the Jews who had just witnessed such powerful miracles only to turn away the next instant. That would be my interpretation of what I read in the book of Exodus, ie, the fury of God against His chosen people for that period and context of that time. Personally, I cannot reconcile a God who created in us the freedom of mind to believe Him or not, only to destroy us for not choosing to embrace Him as our Creator. God or Allah, would much rather that we come to Him in belief from out of our own freewill. In the same manner, He will not resort to kill people who choose to disbelieve.
My definition of miracle is something out of the ordinary, which requires divine intervention. In the case of the Jews during the days of Moses, the miracles God performed to prove to pharoah that He is the true God.
Salam/Peace/Ping-an/Shalom.
barry,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Cliched as it may sound, I witness the miracle of life everyday. And in that miracle, I see His Person.
Salam/Peace/Ping-an/Shalom.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 20, 2008
Alhadee says:
“For example, Samiri, the one who initiate calf worshipping is asked to go, or banished instead of being killed (20:97). The followers are killed while the leader is asked to simply go? Does not make any sense.”
MY REPLY: I didn’t comment on this point because I wanted to keep the article short.
THe truth is, the Moses told Samiri to leave before the “death penalty” was sent down. Therefore, the death penalty applies to Samiri as well.
Here we can actually estadblished the time line, actually.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 20, 2008
Alhadee says:
“My comment; I would be more inclined to look at the whole story, just like what Maulana Muhammad Ali does. Maulana Muhammad Ali’s contention is this; if the calf worshipper are doomed for death for what they did, why are there other verses in contradiction to this?”
MY REPLY: I think Alhadee does not understand MMA’s entire statement. Furthermore, ALhadee missed my main point, that is the source of the mistake is MMA’s misundestanding of 02:54.
THat is, he assumes there is only ONE order. When clearly there is two.
He ASSUMED and hence denied what is clearly stated.
I know Al HAdee hates my explanation, but thus far Alhadee has failed to provide any credible argument.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 20, 2008
Alhadee needs to answer this question:
” If we can change the meaning of “kill” in 02:54, why cant we change the meaning of 05:28, which in turn will deny Cane from committing murder on Abel and instead make Cane a good man, instead?
Remember, when we change the meaning of a verse, we risk changing other verses as well.
﴿لَئِن بَسَطتَ إِلَىَّ يَدَكَ لِتَقْتُلَنِى مَآ أَنَاْ بِبَاسِطٍ يَدِىَ إِلَيْكَ لاًّقْتُلَكَ إِنِّى أَخَافُ اللَّهَ رَبَّ الْعَـلَمِينَ ﴾
(“If you do stretch your hand against me to kill me, I shall never stretch my hand against you to kill you, for I fear Allah; the Lord of all that exists.”) (05:28)
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 20, 2008
Malik Imtiaz SarwAR says:
“It seems to me that the Islamic administration of many of the states of this country, with perhaps the exception of Perlis in some ways, considers its function in a vacuum – administer a literalist, narrow and restrictive version of Islamic without full regard to the context in which the law is to be administered. ”
MY REPLY: I think this is pretty far fetched coming from someone who have nothing but contempt for the Shariah system.
In fact, to date, no one has brought any credible information on our Shariah system. What we have is mere emtpy unsubstantiated attacks on Shariah court like the one above without any evidence.
Plus, empty words like “working in a vacumm” is something i really do not appreciate since in truth, such statement is not true.
What’s clear, the Shariah court in Malaysia has gone through process of improvement which has skipped the attention of the likes of Malik Imtiaz Sarwar
a concerned voter
June 20, 2008
Dear Brother Haris,I think the capital punishment or death sentence is only justified for very very serious crimes against humanity like murdering,raping small and helpless children and women and of course drug trafficking which will bring alot of pain and miseries to young people and destroy their families.Yes,I support such harsh punishment for murderers,rapists and drug peddlers.Other than these,no situations warrants a death sentence,least of all in the context of religion.If God is indeed the most merciful and compassionate,surely He would not allow anyone to die because that person does not accept Him anymore.So,having these so called “learned scholars” to interprete apostacy as deserving a death sentence is doing a great disservice to the very religion they professed.This is unacceptable in modern times.It is too barbaric and very disgusting.I hope these “death sentence for apostates” advocates will not whack me up for saying so.I am only speaking from my heart without any malice intended.
a concerned voter,
Like you, I too once thought that the death penalty was appropriate for some of the terrible crimes that you have described above.
However, I have to confess that I am unable now to support the death penalty for even these crimes.
When you analyse capital punishment, it is nothing more than state sanctioned violence.
There has to be another solution.
a concerned voter
June 20, 2008
Good,in that case I hope lawmakers will finally come up with solutions that can put hardcore and repetitive criminals far away from society so that our women and children will feel safe again.And the youths will not rot away doing drugs.But so far,not much solutions in sight.So,not much choice left either,other than imposing this dreadful penalty.Trusting the Goverment we are having now,I think it will take ages and ages for it to come out with a good solution,agreed Haris?
a concerned voter,
All the more reason, then. for a change in government as soon as possible, to one that might be sensitive to these issues.
barry
June 20, 2008
Haris,
I worry about our country, with people like RC who are fully convinced that apostates must be put to death. He has convinced himself that ‘true Islam’ teaches such actions take place. What is worst is that he will have no other views but except to follow his, and those who share his, doesn’t matter what is prevalent in today’s context. Islam, to RC, leaves no room for other interpretation, whether contemporary or otherwise.
barry,
I’m convinced that RC is the exception amongst the Malays.
laylowmoe
June 20, 2008
I believe it was Helen Ang who said, in essence, that non-Muslims must get involved in Muslim theological discussions, because it directly concerns them in this country and in our current political climate. Re: entry titled “Holy smoke! Mahaguru-ing the dogmatism of revertism”.
I disagree.
I’m not a Muslim. Religion-wise, I’m not much of anything. I profess to being an agnostic. I believe the Constitution upholds my right to hold to my (non)beliefs.
Helen is right in that the outcome of Muslim theological debate concerns me. However, while the *outcome* concerns me, the *substance* does not.
I do not need to debate Quranic scripture – nor do I even need to *understand* it – to state that the death penalty for apostasy is wrong, stupid and evil. To me, that is self-evident. Whether or not the Quran says it is irrelevant.
Killing someone for professing a different faith than your own is wrong, stupid and evil. Nothing written in no holy book will ever dispute that. Frankly, Quranic verses are *irrelevant* to the issue.
And this is why I will oppose, to my dying breath, any effort to establish an Islamic state in Malaysia. It is all too easy to say that, since the law is Islamic law, non-Muslims can have no say in it. This would mean non-Muslim lawyers would be made redundant. As well as non-Muslim judges. And non-Muslim MPs. And any non-Muslim representatives of the people.
If PAS wants to convince me of their concept of an Islamic state (and I’m enough of a Pakatan Rakyat fanboy to give them that much benefit of the doubt), they need to tell me that non-Muslims have every right to debate Islamic law. Anything less is wrong, stupid and evil.
walski69
June 20, 2008
I bid everyone Peace…
As much as I have refrained myself from adding to this discussion (as interesting as it is), I have come to this conclusion about Abdul Rahman Celcom, that I feel obliged to state:
He definitely has some set ideas coming into the discussion, that no matter what, and no matter whom opines to the contrary, apostates must be killed. Period. To the extent that he appears to be, at times, clutching at straws. Take, for example, what he had written (towards the end) of his blog post (http://www.malaysiawaves.com/2008/06/harris-ibrahim-barking-up-wrong-tree.html – emphasis mine):
“… It says clearly that the incident in 02:56-57 occured BEFORE 02:54. Or the very least, there is no timeline given.”
Now, if there is no timeline given, how can anyone logically conclude which event came first? Going by said logic, the events in 2:54 could very well have occured before 2:56-57.
Unless, of course, you start with the conclusion you have already arrived at, then force-fit your justifications after the fact.
It is just not possible to reason with Abdul Rahman (dan mereka2 yang sewaktu dengannya), simply because the dogma he holds is too deeply entrenched.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 20, 2008
Malik Imtiaz says:
“It seems to me that the Islamic administration of many of the states of this country, with perhaps the exception of Perlis in some ways, considers its function in a vacuum – administer a literalist, narrow and restrictive version of Islamic without full regard to the context in which the law is to be administered.”
MY REPLY: I guess the recent Siti Fatimah Tan case blows this particular theory apart.
No it’s actually testimony that such claim as above is nothing more than a conjecture
abdul rahman abdul talib,
And I guess that’s why you’re not a lawyer
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 20, 2008
walski69 says:
“Now, if there is no timeline given, how can anyone logically conclude which event came first? Going by said logic, the events in 2:54 could very well have occured before 2:56-57.”
MY REPLY: WHy then the 02:56-57 incident is mentioned first in 04:153:
“The people of the Book ask thee to cause a book to descend to them from heaven: Indeed they asked Moses for an even greater (miracle), for they said: “Show us God in public,” but they were dazed for their presumption, with thunder and lightnin g. Yet they worshipped the calf even after clear signs had come to them; even so we forgave them; and gave Moses manifest proofs of authority.”
I think based on 04:153, the 02:56-57 incident occured before 02:54.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 20, 2008
Haris says:
“abdul rahman abdul talib,
And I guess that’s why you’re not a lawyer”
MY REPLY: Yeah, i only deal with facts, not conjectures.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 20, 2008
Haris says:Sorry, we part ways on this one. No-one, in my view, deserves to be killed for a change of faith.
MY REPLY: I guess this is where your differ from Prophet Musa AS in 02:54
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 20, 2008
Alhadee says:
“So how does this verse become the basis of punishment for the present apostate? I hope Abdul Rahman can highlight us on this.”
MY REPLY: The basis for punishment for apostates is the Quran and Sunnah. SInce Sunnah is also a form of Revelations from Allah SWT.
Revert
June 20, 2008
dear harris
i honestly dont intend to comment on anything of the above nor entertain the likes of AlHadee who is infinitesimally too smart to understand my postings from Mahaguruing the dogmatism of revertism as well from up here. After all, i am nothing but a pest in his patch of sublime ideas, a worm gnawing away at his roots of rational thoughts,an ant crawling up his trunk of tolerance, a caterpillar chewing away at his leaves of reason, a bee sucking nectar from his store of ideas and a bird pecking at his fruits of intellect.ah..just shoo me away, alhadee or get the farm hand to delete my pesky droppings of vitroil for he is always at your beck and call…ever ready to dump me into the sloughs of injustice :). U know who i mean, dont you?
this is more directed to you, Harris. You said this in reply to my post timestamped 6.27am
Deleting past posts? Sorry, I don’t do that.
you really believe that? i imagined that you were above equivocating but i guess that something ingrained in your DNA is finally showing up. after all, you deleted two posts already
a) the one directed to TJ
b0 the ‘encore’ comment i wrote on this post a short while after i put the riposte to Alhadee.
Your rationale to (b) is immaterial. Hey lawyer and phantom lawmaker.. you are afraid that phantasm of thought might unleash the genie of truth. why not put it up and let it be judged on its merits. my dare is clearly “insinuating” to all and sundry that i am man enough to accept the rejection of my views and the opprobrium of the masses that crowd the venerated halls of the fools’ parliament.. or are you deluded into delirium by your mastery over every idea emanating from every nook and cranny
now, are you man enough or have the gumption to re-post that comment or have your ….er..balls shrunk into nether regions of oblivion just like the post that vanished into the ether of cyberspace? fear not! blogmaster for your kingdom’s safety is close at hand. For once you banish the thoughts that trouble into the embrace of the cold and frosty night, it is truly your puny little kingdom of blue skies and red roses.
nay,delete if you must, for thou donst understand the arrows of reason nor can thy brain deign ideas so alien that shake and quiver your very soul. Though unseemly murthered my dear post of fact, tear not for thy soul will haunt these nether regions till kingdom come! .
Ah..faridah
i dont know who are your talking about and the drivel you spout is nothing short of amazing. Anyway, dont brother me for i dont want to sister you either.
As for the shadows.. ah.. faridah…. they are but the shades of hope that veil the desolate thoughts nay the parched heart of a soul longing for the waters of Kausar .
Glory be to those reveling under the light of applause, the breeze of rapture, the sun of tolerance and the moon of reason. For thou’s triumph is nothing but a celebration of kindred spirits haunting the bowels of the abysss. Fear not,ah .. faridah… for thou art not desolate in the party of evil. Hark, thine enemy is at the gates…..
adieu my dear adieu! as i traipse into the dark and stormy night.
inna ilahi wa inna ilahi rajiun… from Allah we come to Him we return.
Revert,
Given your most impressive command of the English language, surely you of all people would appreciate the difference between ‘not approved’ and ‘deleted after approval and posting’.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 20, 2008
Haris,
What you’re doing is changing the meaning of the Quran. The issues i raised are:
a. If we change 02:54, what’s to stop us from changing other verses in the quran, i.e the Cane and Abel verses?
b. The 3 sources you quote doesn’t support your claim because they are weak. I pointed out the weaknesses clearly and to date no one can prove that I am wrong.
c. As it is now, we need an iron clad verse from the Quran that says “No” the Bani Israel did not kill themselves. Maulana Muhammad Ali didn’t bring any verses such as that.
d. Your motivation for changing the meaning of the verses is to support your secular humanist agenda while MMA and Yusuf Ali’s motivation is to differentiate between Bible and Quran. None are value free and relies on changing the meaning of the Quran.
e. on MMA, all the verses he quoted doesn’t support his contention. Therefore, his interpretation is rejected since he is changing the meaning of the Quran.
f. It actually proves that scholars can make mistakes too in their analysis. Haris just choose the mistaken opinions of the Islamic scholars simply because it fits your political ideology.
g. Am still waiting for anything factual or substantive to deny my article. I openly declare that the scholars Haris quoted is mistaken and i provided evidence.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 20, 2008
A quotation from Wilkipedia on Yusuf Ali’s commentaries in his translation of the Quran:
“Modern editions of his work remain in print, but with modifications such as “God” altered to “Allah” and with controversial modifications of the opinions that Ali expressed in footnotes and of short historical articles that were included with the original text. For instance, Ali’s liberal views on credit and interest do not appear in some editions, as they are considered to run contrary to some schools of Islamic economic thought. Wikisource is using a “modern edition” with the name of Allah for God.”
It shows that many of Yusuf Ali’s interpretation cannot be taken as cast in stone. It’s merely his interpretation and it can be right or wrong.
But, i will go for his TRANSLATION rather than his INTERPERTATION and take more than one.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 20, 2008
farida says:
“In other words, you kill yourselves, not others kill you, if we accept the kill interpretation. And also, if you kill yourselves, and you are dead, then is it that deadness that makes God relent? When God pardons or relents, it is to allow you to arise from that stumble and go on and try to walk the right path once again. Deadness serves no purpose.”
MY REPLY: Well Farida, there is life after death in the Quran and it’s called Yaumul Qiyamah.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 20, 2008
Malik Imtiaz says:
“A desire for perfection has therefore led some Muslims to emulate rather than to innovate. These Muslims reject modernity, albeit to varying degrees, on the basis that this would require a contextualising of syariah that is not permissible. You, Farish, Zainnah and I have been accused of such contextualising.”
MY REPLY: No, Malik, we reject the ideology, not modernity. We do not want secular liberalism to influence the practice of Islam especially when secular liberalism is itself not free of faults and weaknesses.
Malik Imtiaz is confused between the concept of “modernity” and “ideological realignment”. Islam adapts itself to modern world very well, but Islam does not align itself just to ensure itself to be “politically correct”. I feel that Islam shouldn’t bother itself just to be seen as being politically correct because it is a wasteful and divisive move in doing so.
For instance, Islam does not need to support the move of the Feminists in USA in the 90’s suing laundries in America for charging differently for clothes of men and women. I do not think ISlam should support such move just because they were spearheaded by feminists.
And such accusation is malicous if u ask me because in ISlam we have such a thing as Ijtihad.
THe only difference is that what motivates Ijtihad is based on real needs, not mere realignment to certain ideology.
I take for instance the permission to throw jumrah before duhr issue. For 1400 years, the throwing of jumrah is done after duhr, but since the number of pilgrims during hajj has grown in the millions causing problems like tramped and resulted in injuries and death.
So, an ijtihad was made, and the now pilgrims are allowed to throw jumrah before duhr. No scholars throughout the Islamic world has expressed their disagreement with this ijtihad despite it being a very weak opinion.
Why? Becuase there is a pressing and real need. Therefore laws of ISlam can be changed.
But to change the apostasy laws simply bcause a bunch of secular liberalists who calls themselves human rights activists thinks that it should. I think we will simply need more justification for such demand.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 21, 2008
An excerpt from Tafseer Ibnu Katseer:
“An-Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim recorded Ibn `Abbas saying, “Allah told the Children of Israel that their repentance would be to slay by the sword every person they meet, be he father or son. They should not care whom they kill. Those were guilty whom Musa and Harun were not aware of their guilt, they admitted their sin and did as they were ordered. So Allah forgave both the killer and the one killed.” This is part of the Hadith about the trials that we will mention in Surat Ta Ha, (20) Allah willing.
Ibn Jarir narrated that Ibn `Abbas said, “Musa said to his people,
﴿فَتُوبُواْ إِلَى بَارِئِكُمْ فَاقْتُلُواْ أَنفُسَكُمْ ذَلِكُمْ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ عِندَ بَارِئِكُمْ فَتَابَ عَلَيْكُمْ إِنَّهُ هُوَ التَّوَّابُ الرَّحِيمُ﴾
(“So turn in repentance to your Creator and kill each other (the innocent kill the wrongdoers among you), that will be better for you with your Creator.” Then He accepted your repentance. Truly, He is the One Who accepts repentance, the Most Merciful.)
Allah ordered Musa to command his people to kill each other. He ordered those who worshipped the calf to sit down and those who did not worship the calf to stand holding knives in their hands. When they started killing them, a great darkness suddenly overcame them. After the darkness lifted, they had killed seventy thousand of them. Those who were killed among them were forgiven, and those who remained alive were also forgiven.””
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 21, 2008
Maulana Muhammad Ali happens to be a Ahmadiyya. Ahmadiyya is a deviated sect from Islam. Taking Quran interpretation from a deviated sect is not very credible, actually Haris. I think it was not deliberate that you didn’t mention this fact in your article, Haris.
What can u expect from a sect that consider their founder to be a Prophet of Allah SWT after Saidina Muhammad SAW, eh Harris.
For one the Ahmadiyya was formed by the British to help weaken the Islamic resistance in India.
SInce joining Ahmadiyya is another form of “apostasy”, naturally, Maulana (sic) Muhammad Ali will find excuses against it.
Also,no wonder the likes of you and Farish Nor are so uptight when Ahmadiyya is attacked. Ahmadiyya provides Haris and his gang a breathing space.
Check it out: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maulana_Muhammad_Ali.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 21, 2008
Lets analyze Haris’s source:
a. Leopold Weiss ==> Factually wrong
b. Yusuf Ali ==> Vague
c. M Muhd Ali ==> Deviated
So, i think there’s not much u can hope for, Haris.
BeingHuman
June 21, 2008
I’m convinced that RC is the exception amongst the Malays.
———-
From his blog, RC looks more like a Chinese-Muslim than Malay.
RC, can you confirm.
alhadee
June 21, 2008
Abdul Rahman,
I must say that I agree with walski69, first you said ‘or the very least, there is not timeline given’ and now you are saying ‘Here we can actually estadblished the time line, actually’
Even your statement ‘Moses told Samiri to leave before the “death penalty” was sent down. Therefore, the death penalty applies to Samiri as well. does not hold water.
From your own explanation, there are few possibilities which none of it makes sense;
1. Saidina Musa’s, as a prophet, his actions does not conform to God’s wishes. In other words, he ‘ pandai-pandai sendiri’‘ when he ordered Samiri to go when God wanted to order the people to commit suicide.
2. Either that, or we have God who can’t make up his mind to the very last minute. Where is the ‘all-knowing’ attribute of his?
3. Or better still, Saidina Musa is conspiring with Samiri. He told Samiri to go and save himself because he is going to order the common people to commit suicide.
4. Just a thought, when Samiri is begone, and the order to commit suicide came, how did he convey it to Samiri? SMSed him?
From what you written here, I am more inclined than ever to believe in Maulana Muhamad Ali’s translation;
First, Musa banished Samiri the leader so he cannot influence the people furthermore. How could he, if he is no longer among them?
Second, after Samiri is begone, Musa ordered the people to repent and they did
Third, God announce that he accepted the repetance (4:153)
As for (5:28), what’s that got to do with (2:54)?
I have said this before; ‘..My comment; I would be more inclined to look at the whole story, just like what Maulana Muhammad Ali does…’
Keywords; the whole story
And you have not answer my point no (2) in the last postings. Assume that you are right, how does this verse which refers to the people of Musa ONLY, become the basis of punishment for the present apostate?
Musa said ‘ya qaumihi’ or ‘o my people’. It is not ‘ya ai yuhalazi na am’manu’ or ‘o ye who believe’. Definitely whatever translation it is, it only refers to the people of Musa.
I look forward for an amazing, pluck out of the air, explanations from you.
alhadee
June 21, 2008
Abdul Rahman,
MY REPLY: The basis for punishment for apostates is the Quran and Sunnah. SInce Sunnah is also a form of Revelations from Allah SWT.
=============
Then where is the basis in the Quran?
alhadee
June 21, 2008
revert,
‘..entertain the likes of AlHadee who is infinitesimally too smart to understand my postings from Mahaguruing the dogmatism of revertism as well from up here. After all, i am nothing but a pest in his patch of sublime ideas, a worm gnawing away at his roots of rational thoughts,an ant crawling up his trunk of tolerance, a caterpillar chewing away at his leaves of reason, a bee sucking nectar from his store of ideas and a bird pecking at his fruits of intellect.ah..just shoo me away, alhadee or get the farm hand to delete my pesky droppings of vitroil for he is always at your beck and call…’
This is like reading a bad English novel.
temenggong
June 21, 2008
Instead of ‘kill’ or ‘slay’, substitute in the words ‘confront (your conscience) yourselves’, or ‘exterminate those (wrong choice thoughts in penitence) yourself’ makes sense.
Killing is the antithesis of the principle of life, to procreate and perpetuate life and pass on the genes to the next generation, then atropy. Killing is an antithesis of *axiomatic truths*.
Many of the muslim commentators are not properly versed in the principles of logic; deductive and inductive reasoning, self evident postulates and axiomatic truths. Not to mention etymology. But their arguments may be good enough for the village Mak Cik and young hotheads.
Revert
June 21, 2008
Oh Master Alhadee, you just confirmed my esteemed reverence for your supreme intellect. the fruit of Perfection….Fie on me! for what am I but a mere squirrel suckling on the Nuts of Your Wisdom. For indeed your are the Tree of Truth and me an interloper of depravity. Here is a paean to master Alhadee from my insignificant self:
O Mighty Slayer of untruth,desist not in your quest to uphold the Lord’s message,
O Intrepid Hunter of Liars, fear not the spears of calumny for you art the beholder of the Hidden.
O Fearless Conqueror of Doublespeak, unsheath your sword of truth to behead the purveyors of evil,
O Defender of Free Speech , thrust your lance of reason into the hearts of the totalitarian,
O Mighty Protector of the weak, release your intellectual fart on the face of the simpleton,(for he will be truly blest)
O Wise Judge of Men and the beyond, apply thine justice to banish Inequality,
O king of Wisdom, remove the veils of the Great Mystery for thou art truly blest to unravel the Inscrutable,
O Prince of Fairplay, trod on the slimy views of the minority,
O Vizier of Assumption, unhinge the doors of fact for thou art indeed the chosen one
O Venerable Master of Mysticism, unclothe the Mysteries of Life for thou are armed with Infinite Wisdom
O master; 2 questions is all i seek your wise counsel off. For where else can the answers be found than from the spittle of your intellect. Here goes:
a. If i am a minority of one here, what does that make of Noh (as), Ibrahim (as, musa (as) et al ; All overwhelming minorities indeed!
No, Hadee dont accuse me of megalomania or equate me with them in stature (for i never said that + i can already visualise that taking off already (in the runways of your mind that is..oh forgive me master if i possess a germ of your powers)
b. what about out there, in the real world of sunshine and moonshine far removed from the Kingdom of Fools Parliament sited in the Universe/Galaxy of Virtual Reality, are you in the majority?
No Master..do not be furious at my impudence for I am just an ant of circumstance seeking illuminance for the Uneluciditable :
Tapi dari posting2 saudara dan juga posting2 balas, saya dapati saudara revert bukan sahaja sukar difahami tetapi ditolak terus oleh sebilangan besar yang membuat posting disini.
a morsel of Your thought that is pregnant with cryptic meaning
only that O master of Virtous for i promise not to ever besmirch your revered sanctity and thanking you Master for your Benevolent condescension.
PS: My novel got thrown into the rubbish bin, O master you were indeed right.(sob) woe me….once a farmer always a farmer….(pass the tissue, my dear buffalo)
harris,
answer the questions i put forth in a simple manner for i am too thick to comprehend the slingshots of equivocation:
Given your most impressive command of the English language, surely you of all people would appreciate the difference between ‘not approved’ and ‘deleted after approval and posting’.
care to explain that gobblydegook and dont patronise me, mr lawyer.
Passing Comment: after umpteen posts and numerous referencing, the buffons up above are still not even a millimetre closer to a consensus. see.. what i told you, this is what happens when the doors of interpretation are thrown wide open and the Scripture of Allah the Almighty is subject to falliable scrutiny (wink…wink)
Revert
June 21, 2008
sorry
to harris
add this to that query to you in my previous post
how do you reconcile these two replies of yours:
a)Given your most impressive command of the English language, surely you of all people would appreciate the difference between ‘not approved’ and (especially this part)‘deleted after approval and posting’.
and this
b)Deleting past posts? Sorry, I don’t do that.
Make it plain please for I am weak in interpretations.
Revert,
Simple.
You complained of comments sent in by you that were not approved and posted by me ( aka never seen the light of day in this blog ).
Then you asked me to delete comments you had sent in and that I had approved and posted up ( aka had seen the light of day in this blog ).
‘not approved’ is a reference to the first category.
deleted after approval and posting’ refers to the second category.
I am constantly not approving but I never delete after approval and posting.
I cannot make it plainer than this.
malayamuda
June 21, 2008
every Muslim in this blog is Ulama wannabe !!
Thats why we get so many interpretations of the Quran. Can we please leave this to the learned please before u guys confuse every Muslim ?
In an office we can only have one boss….can u imagine want will happen if everyone gives intructions ?
Kiosk !
malayamuda,
I try to understand to, well, understand. Not to give instructions.
And why should there be any difficulty with the many interpretations, if no one is try to force their interpretation down the throat of others?
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 21, 2008
Alhadee says:
“From what you written here, I am more inclined than ever to believe in Maulana Muhamad Ali’s translation;
First, Musa banished Samiri the leader so he cannot influence the people furthermore. How could he, if he is no longer among them?
Second, after Samiri is begone, Musa ordered the people to repent and they did
Third, God announce that he accepted the repetance (4:153)”
MY REPLY: Maulana Muhammad Ali is a Qadyani, an Ahmadiyya leader. He is not even a Muslim.
You take interpretation from a deviated sect in Islam? They cannot even prove their claim that their founder is Prophet of Allah SWT
And MMA interpretation is flimsy, flawed and not to mention deviated.
For one, MMA simply dismiss the fact there are 2 orders in 02:54 and instead he says there can be only one.
In other words, he changes the meaning of the Quran in 02:54.
Is this the type of interpretation you prefer, Al Hadee? Deviated and changing the meaning of the Quran?
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 21, 2008
Alhadee says:
“1. Saidina Musa’s, as a prophet, his actions does not conform to God’s wishes. In other words, he ‘ pandai-pandai sendiri’‘ when he ordered Samiri to go when God wanted to order the people to commit suicide.
2. Either that, or we have God who can’t make up his mind to the very last minute. Where is the ‘all-knowing’ attribute of his?
3. Or better still, Saidina Musa is conspiring with Samiri. He told Samiri to go and save himself because he is going to order the common people to commit suicide.”
MY REPLY: Or the other more logical explanation is that Allah SWT has prescribed an initial punishment for Samiri, then Allah SWT prescribed a punihsment for the entire race?
or another logical explanation would be Samiri gets a different punihsment than the Bani Israel??
Your biasness is clouding your objectivity.
Al Hadee says:
“Third, God announce that he accepted the repetance (4:153)”
MY REPLY: Alhadee. Read 02:54 properly. Bani Israel is asked to a. Repent b. Kill themselves.
That means for action b., God has announced that their repentence is granted.
04:153 doesn’t say anything about a. being vacated? Does it.
Simply put, in 04:153 only one action against 2 orders in 02:54? How can that be?
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 21, 2008
Upon discovery of new facts about this article, i wrote a pt 2 of my rebuttal
http://www.malaysiawaves.com/2008/06/haris-ibrahims-barking-up-wrong-tree-pt.html
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 21, 2008
Alhadee asks:
“And you have not answer my point no (2) in the last postings. Assume that you are right, how does this verse which refers to the people of Musa ONLY, become the basis of punishment for the present apostate?
Musa said ‘ya qaumihi’ or ‘o my people’. It is not ‘ya ai yuhalazi na am’manu’ or ‘o ye who believe’. Definitely whatever translation it is, it only refers to the people of Musa.”
MY REPLY: BEcause it is in the Quran. Whatever is said in the Quran is to be applied until the end of days.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 21, 2008
temenggong Says:
June 21, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Instead of ‘kill’ or ’slay’, substitute in the words ‘confront (your conscience) yourselves’, or ‘exterminate those (wrong choice thoughts in penitence) yourself’ makes sense.
Killing is the antithesis of the principle of life, to procreate and perpetuate life and pass on the genes to the next generation, then atropy. Killing is an antithesis of *axiomatic truths*.
MY REPLY: But that will mean that you have changed the meaning of the Quran, the word of God.
You’re saying God doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Helen Ang
June 21, 2008
Dear Revert,
Please accept my apology for framing the headline of my post didactically ‘Mahaguru-ing the dogmatism of revertism’.
I’d meant to put one or two arguments into the battlefield of ideas. I never meant to interfere with how an individual privately holds his religion nor put you under such spotlight as things turned out.
Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib and another blogger recently dedicated a post to me in their blogs. I’ve chosen to ignore what they wrote and it doesn’t grieve me. However, from the exchanges in PP, I’m afraid that it might not have been pleasant for you the past few days.
As I’ve said, I understood Mat Rempit’s contention and I initially thought I understood where you were coming from, though it’s a different direction from MR’s. I was just hoping you would allow us the space and buffer for our differing views just as I’ve tried to see yours.
I hope you’ll let the water flow under the bridge, and be at peace. Again I’m sorry if I’ve caused you any personal pain from pushing the agenda.
Helen
Revert
June 21, 2008
Alhadee: Just a thought, when Samiri is begone, and the order to commit suicide came, how did he convey it to Samiri? SMSed him?
just a slice of the type of things people write and get posted. When the likes of this can see permanent cyberlight, i wonder what is it in mine that is bothering u. I give u the benefit of doubt, maybe you will put the last 2 of my comments or maybe not. If its the latter, i can just conclude this:
a) you were literally caught with your pants down and so was Alhadee with my queries and so the easy way out (after the both of you colluded) – delete the posts
b) you are no different than the MSM that u heap ridicule about elsewhere. At least with them, we are not surprised anymore.
i am not issuing threats mr lawyer, just a piece of advise that you might as well call off the whole sham – that this blog is free…blah-blah-blah….
after all, i got a copy of those posts and can put them up elsewhere. Just that your credibility is about to be shot to pieces and dont give the crap, “you took them down for moderation”!
Why not ban me? solves the problem.. or are you afraid of the repercussions? at the end of your tether? well.. it was you who boxed yourself into a corner.
Farida
June 22, 2008
Revert, you just proved my point about vitriol.
Remember William Blake’s ‘A Poison Tree’?
Revert
June 22, 2008
Ah…Farida….the Nada of all nadas
a literature buff..no less…. and probably student of that venerable auld institution.. University Malaya.
Here is an ode to you
thy lips are as lucious as the Grapes of Wrath
thy pen wielded to Kill the Mocking Bird
thy patience liketh Waiting for Godot
thy sense of justice beyond Persuasion
thou art prepared to Stoop to Conquer
thou art indeed Mother Courage
thy certainty unlike Six Characters in Search of an Author
alas thy mind…. the Anthills of the Savannah!!
penned under the influence of the herbal remedy an extract from the humble Pandanus Vitriolia
oh farida…..a mere farmer(and a part-time butcher during aidil adha)am I. who am I to challenge you, for thou are indeed the temple of wisdom.
How perverse of me to cleave thine meat of reason, to chop away thine sinews of logic, to slice away thine fat of intellect, to cut into thine muscles of cogency
fie..fie..revert. woe upon me.. didnt i put a qualifier:
I give u the benefit of doubt, maybe you will put the last 2 of my comments or maybe not. If its the latter, i can just conclude this:
oh …for i had indeed partook from the poisoned chalice the dregs of the ‘Poisoned Tree”
for if indeed you could forgive me my dear farida,we can be more than bradda and sista :)ha, ha, ha indeed
Helen,
after 8 days of soul searching, thou have indeed repenth from thine assumption. didnt someone wise once intimate about “ass + u + me”.
you see…i am one who doesnt hold grudges and your apologies are accepted without much ado. I sure need those waters now for my parched field.
only do in retrospect,i note that MR and I are pervesely in agreement on one thing although there is a slight nuance… work that out, Helen of Troy.
Harris,
your explanation still does not answer the basic question:
what was wrong with the second deleted post (the one with the comments in bahasa). why are some potentially incendiary posts are allowed while others deleted?
temenggong
June 22, 2008
abdul rahman abdul talib Says:
“But that will mean that you have changed the meaning of the Quran, the word of God. You’re saying God doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”
The non scholar makes these assumptions; that the quran is the infallible word of god, it was taken down and written ‘faithfully’ by the rasul, who was impeccably ‘appointed’ by god, that there has been no loss in this transmission process, that Uthman compiled all of the manuscripts which copies were ‘supposedly’ genuine ‘in his opinion’, and that these were interpreted and translated correctly in their context by Yusufali, etc.
The above is a ‘belief system’ based on faith and not fact. [As there are no facts to the contrary, I would rather think, and it is more accurate to say, that the quran we have now is by Uthman, in much the same way bible we have today is by Paul. But this is a separate issue.]
It has been explained that killing and slaying is inconsistent with the ‘principle of life’, and defeats the purpose of life set forth by the creator. There is only atrophy and entropy and no deaths in the natural world! Why kill when god creates life? This is an axiomatic truth that needs no further investigation.
So there is no point in considering the words ‘kill’ or ‘slay’ in that verse and it has to be rejected as irrational and inconsistent with self evident axiomatic truths. Which then leaves us to consider the correct interpretation.
The purpose of the sura is to get the wrongdoers to repent. That purpose is not assumed but stated clearly in the verse. What is the point of repenting if one is to get killed in the process. And are we to assume that the quran orders suicide and self genocide? Would such an order be consistent with the inherent ‘urge for life’ in all living things?
By reduction and elimination it can only mean ‘slay off the wrong choice’, or ‘exterminate our wrongful path’, by ourselves. Meaning, each one should reflect, re-examine himself and his conscience and make that self-correction.
As one can see whatever that passes as religions today, including islam, is far from the principles of logic and does not pass the rationality test.
Helen Ang
June 22, 2008
Revert,
[To borrow from the legendary Nat]
Indefatigable, that’s what you are
Indefatigable though near or far
You’re implacable in insisting
On verses 3:7 and 3:19 visiting
Never before has someone been more
Indefatigable, in every way
And forever more, that’s how you’ll stay
That’s why, Revert, it’s incredible
That someone so intractable
Thinks that I am indefatigable too
(I’m not lah)
REVERT: “only do in retrospect, I note that MR and I are perversely in agreement on one thing although there is a slight nuance”.
HELEN: I hold the redoubtable MR in high esteem, so therefore ‘perverse’ is an inappropriate word for you to use. Three men in a boat, who will tip the other into the moat? (Good luck to all, wink)
Revert
June 22, 2008
REVERT: “only do in retrospect, I note that MR and I are perversely in agreement on one thing although there is a slight nuance”.
Mat Rempit: Simple…. That the more than dozen statements that I cited above just serves to highlight how easy it is for the Quran to be misrepresented one way or another. Even on an issue as seemingly straightforward as what the Quran says about Christian’s, the Quran is still susceptible to being quoted out of context.
baca dan faham2lah apa maksud saya. kalau tak faham, tanya guru bahasa inggeris.. jangan melatah..ya
bye..bye
Helen Ang
June 23, 2008
Saudara Revert,
Terimalah dengan ikhlas, ok? – ianya dedikasi lagu, bukannya bermaksud nak melatah. Yang senikata ‘Indefatigable’ Nat King Cole tu, cuba nyanyi beriramakan judul ‘Unforgettable’.
Percayalah, dari detik permulaan lagi, saya faham dah akan intipati terkandung dalam teguran saudara berdua. Apa yang mu sampaikan saya memang tak anggap ‘perverse’. Hanya niat hati dan kaedah dipakai, sepertimana yang Revert sendiri akur, ada ‘slight nuance’, bukan gitu?
If you’re indefatigable as I’ve intimated, please do sojourn a while longer in this blog. After all, you keep saying I need the services of an English teacher, deficient as my understanding of the language is.
How do you propose that Haris [can] make his virtual kingdom more concretely brick and mortar, if you’d care to share? Your input is welcome.
Peace be with you.