I know of at least two very senior Sessions Court judges who have declined appointment as judges of the High Courts.
Both are men and both profess Islam.
The common reason given by both : drug trafficking offences under section 39B, Dangerous Drugs Act, 1952, which carries the mandatory death sentence, are tried in the High Court.
Section 39B(2) of the Act reads : Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall be punished on conviction with death.
‘shall be punished on conviction with death’ simply means the judge has no discretion in meting out the punishment.
There is no ambiguity in the language in the statute.
There is only one sentence available upon conviction.
Death.
One judge said he was troubled that there was no provision in Islam for the death penalty for drug trafficking. He said he might not be so troubled with the death sentence provided for murder under the Penal Code given that, as he understood it, this was permissible in Islam. Even so, he would have been more comfortable if it was not mandatory, but reserved for the worst instances of murder, as even Islam allowed for its remission in given circumstances.
The other judge said he just could not bring himself to pass the sentence of death over another person. He said that he simply would not be able to live with himself after.
What I want to observe here is the mindset of two men who were reluctant to accept an advancement in their judicial careers solely because they were not prepared to be put in a situation where the clear, unambiguous letter of the law required them to pass the sentence of death over convicted drug traffickers and murderers.
__________________________
Rahman Celcom insists that apostates from Islam must be put to death.
He says this is God’s law.
God’s law, so he contends, made up by the Holy Qur’an and the the sunnah ( practices ) of the prophet.
As he has not gone into the sunnah to support his position in our recent discussions, I too will not.
From the Holy Qur’an, he hangs his entire contention on one verse : Surah 2 verse 54.
This translation is from Abdullah Yusof Ali, minus the words in brackets and the contentious words in the Arabic text and its translation in red. Rahman had quoted this in one of his comments.
And remember Moses said to his people: “O my people! Ye have indeed wronged yourselves by your worship of the calf: So turn to your Maker, and slay yourselves ( fa-qtulu anfusa-kum ); that will be better for you in the sight of your Maker.” Then He turned towards you; For He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
I ask you to first note the unmistakable difference between ‘shall be punished on conviction with death” of section 39B(2) and ‘slay yourselves’ of Surah 2 verse 54.
In my view, the former, read in the context of the entirety of the section, is an imperative to a judicial authority to impose the sentence of death. This is what persuaded two judicial officers to decline a promotion.
The latter could, arguably, be read as a directive to commit suicide or to kill each other. However, in my view, there is nothing in the verse that would permit an interpretation that ‘slay yourselves’ could be read, like section 39B(2), as an imperative to someone in authority to impose the sentence of death.
Yet Rahman Celcom insists that it does.
This is the second point that I would ask you to note here.
Two Muslim judges want to avoid a law that unmistakably orders the passing of the death sentence. Why? Passing the death sentence troubles them.
Rahman Celcom, on the hand, insists that a verse that might, at best, be read as a directive to commit suicide or to kill each other, in fact sanctions some authority to pass the sentence of death.
In my ‘Judge ye the tree by its fruit’ post, I had asked Rahman Celcom to 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
My understanding of this verse is that those who believe should forgive those who do not believe, or more simply, the unbelievers of Islam.
And an apostate, in my view, comes within the category of such unbelievers.
This verse, as I understand it, allows no room for any punishment to be inflicted by a believer on an unbeliever of Islam, including an apostate, for God commands us to forgive them.
I would imagine that for a great many Muslims who may suffer a similar anxiety as the two Sessions Court judges with the death penalty, my understanding of this verse might prove to be a source of welcome relief. Check it by all means, but surely for one who finds the thought of taking the life of another quite dreadful, this verse might offer comfort.
Not so Rahman Celcom.
He replied, not by way of a comment to the post, but in a posting in his own blog.
This is what he said :
I struggle to find what this verse has anything to do with apostasy? The term “hope not for the days of Allah” could mean Muslims who are not prepared for the Day of Judgement.
Note that even as Rahman Celcom is prepared to read this verse as applying to Muslims who are not prepared for the day of judgment, he will not open his mind to the possibility that it would apply equally to all category of unbelievers of Islam.
Why is this man determined to pass a sentence of death by a convoluted reading of a verse that does not command a death sentence?
I think I found my answer in Rahman Celcom’s response to a commentary by Abdullah Yusof Ali to Surah 2 verse 54 that I had alluded to in the ‘Judge the tree’ post. I reproduce Yusof Ali’s commentary below, the relevant portion highlighted in red.
“Moses 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 : “Go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every 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.”
Rahman Celcom responded to this, not by way of a comment here, but in a post in another blog of his. This is what he says.
Haris quoted Yusuf Ali’s comment in his footnote. What Haris needs to ask is why has Yusuf Ali translated the part as ‘killing’ if he thinks that the verse actually carries another meaning. Plus, Yusuf Ali offers no justification for what he termed as “spiritualized way of understanding verse 02:54” since there is no such thing as that at all. If we want to understand the Quran in a spiritualized way, why do we need translation at all?
For Rahman Celcom, there is no spiritualized understanding of the Holy Qur’an.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 21, 2008
Dear Haris Ibrahim,
Dear Rahman Celcom,
You said : I never said that apostates are to be executed based on this verse solely?
Reply : Check your comments and see if you proffered any other verse in support.
You said : Your attempt to paint me as someone simplistic is pathetic. And all I can say is that you’re failing miserably.
Reply : I have not tried to paint you in any shade. you have been doing a marvelous job on your own
DId I? But, i always contended that this verse proves that Moses applied the death penalty to those who apostized themselves.
Thus negating your earlier contention that we shouldn’t resist the Hadharites because we should allow ideas to flourish in Islam.
I used this verse to show that your argument contradicts the decree made by Moses, thus will force you to renounce Moses.
You said : Then you tried to deny that Moses actually issued a death penalty by trying to change the meaning of 02:54
Reply : Some read the Qur’an with love, and some do not. Differences in understanding are bound to occur when what is sought from the reading differ so radically
Then I responded by saying that your sources are flawed especially Maulana Mohd Ali who is a leader of the deviated Ahmadiyya sect.
You said : Then out of nowhere, you’re trying to divert the issue by arguing that 02:54 is not a clear decree for death penalty to apostates.
Please stop this fabled diversion attempts on me. It will not work. The entire discussion is about flow of ideas in Islam and what is the limit.
It is not a discussion of death penalty for apostasy and what is the basis for it.
Reply : Check your comments on the ‘Hadharites’ post. You opened the issue of apostates
We can open another track discussion on why death penalty should be applied for apostate from an Islamic perspective, namely Usul Fiqh.
But just to ease you into the subject, feel free to check these urls:
a. http://www.zaharuddin.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=145&Itemid=101
b.http://www.zaharuddin.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=92
And this link is even more interesting because it contains explanation of verse 02:256 which you quoted, Haris.
The conclusion to the death penalty is not a simplistic conclusion and it has been debated for thousands of years.
It’s not reference to 02:54 alone but to so many other verses and sunnah.
You said : Also, please remember that Sunnah is Revelations from Allah SWT.
Reply : I do not share your view
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 21, 2008
A question for Haris Ibrahim and hs friends from Zaharuddin
Satu persoalan logik bodoh juga patut dilontarkan kepada mereka ini: Apakah Allah s.w.t. hanya berhak menurunkan wahyu kepada Nabi s.a.w. dalam bentuk hadis apabila sesuatu perintah itu menepati logik dan rasional manusia sahaja? Jika ianya tidak logik atau rasional kepada manusia, maka Allah s.w.t. tidak berhak menurunkannya? Sedangkan kita diberitahu oleh Allah s.w.t. sendiri bahawa Nabi s.a.w. itu tidak bercakap berdasarkan hawa nafsu, sebaliknya semua ucapan, perbuatan dan tingkah lakunya adalah berdasarkan wahyu daripada Allah s.w.t. (Lihat Surah al-Najm: 3)
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 21, 2008
Rahman Celcom responded to this, not by way of a comment here, but in a post in another blog of his. This is what he says.
Haris quoted Yusuf Ali’s comment in his footnote. What Haris needs to ask is why has Yusuf Ali translated the part as ‘killing’ if he thinks that the verse actually carries another meaning. Plus, Yusuf Ali offers no justification for what he termed as “spiritualized way of understanding verse 02:54″ since there is no such thing as that at all. If we want to understand the Quran in a spiritualized way, why do we need translation at all?
For Rahman Celcom, there is no spiritualized understanding of the Holy Qur’an.
MY REPLY: That’s right. The way i know of understanding the Quran is the “factual way”.
Rahman Celcom,
You said : In other words, you understand the Quran in a way that doesn’t change the facts mentioned in the Quran.
Reply : Thank you. So the fact that Moses said ‘slay yourselves’ is narrated in Surah 2 verse 54. Now show us where in the same verse, it narrates the fact that the Israelites either went about committing suicide or went about killing each other? Fact, please, and not your conjecture.
Your spirits must then be tuned to the facts presented in the Quran. This is the definition of “Nafsul Mutmainnah” in 89:27.
What Haris is advocating is a free and open interpretation even if it means changing the meaning of the Quran.
You said : The justification he uses that it’s a spiritual way of doing it. The trouble is how do we separate between one’s “spirit” and one’s “desires”.
Reply : God says He is closer to me than my own jugular vein. He Knows. That’s good enough for me.
And changing the words of Allah is CONDDEMNED by Allah SWT himself in 02:78
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 21, 2008
HAris brought the examples of “two very senior Sessions Court judges who have declined appointment as judges of the High Courts.” because they are afraid of issuing death penalty for drug trafficking.
I do not feel that it is a good basis of denial. Just because we have judges who doesn’t have the stomach to pass sentence on a certain type of felony, doesn’t necessarily mean that the punishment is not correct.
It only mean that the two High Court judges probably have a weak heart, or a weak stomach. It could mean anything.
This jump of logic by Haris can deceive a lot of people. But, it might not work for me, God’s willing.
tomatoinc
June 21, 2008
haris,
i am not sure why are you wasting your time and effort with mr abdul rahman aka rahman celcom. there will always be some people with strong, albeit extreme views. let them be, as they will label any compromise any deviation and any liberal thoughts as secularism and non-conforming.
take care,
reader
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 21, 2008
Haris says:
“In my ‘Judge ye the tree by its fruit’ post, I had asked Rahman Celcom to 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
My understanding of this verse is that those who believe should forgive those who do not believe, or more simply, the unbelievers of Islam.
And an apostate, in my view, comes within the category of such unbelievers.
This verse, as I understand it, allows no room for any punishment to be inflicted by a believer on an unbeliever of Islam, including an apostate, for God commands us to forgive them.
I would imagine that for a great many Muslims who may suffer a similar anxiety as the two Sessions Court judges with the death penalty, my understanding of this verse might prove to be a source of welcome relief. Check it by all means, but surely for one who finds the thought of taking the life of another quite dreadful, this verse might offer comfort.
Not so Rahman Celcom.
He replied, not by way of a comment to the post, but in a posting in his own blog.
This is what he said :
I struggle to find what this verse has anything to do with apostasy? The term “hope not for the days of Allah” could mean Muslims who are not prepared for the Day of Judgement.
MY REPLY:I stand by my words, HAris. Prove to me that this verse covers apostates.
Note that even as Rahman Celcom is prep”
The Other View
June 21, 2008
These 2 Sessions Court judges have as much personal rights to decline the elevation in as much as there are others who would jump on board the first opportunity with such promotion. It’s a tough call. It’s essentially a personal decision. I’m leaving the religious aspect out of the equation at this present time.
village idiot
June 22, 2008
To take a man’s life for whatever sins he may have commited, leaves him no opportunity for repentance, and hopefully eventually to recognise God.
Not every man is as enlightened as the people who have contributed so knowledgebly and eloquently to this blog. Some men may take a life time to reach enlightenment.
Five times a day even the most pious muslim prays to The Most Benificent, The most Merciful and asks to be shown The Way. Why then do we deny thoes who have “lost” their way by imposing death before they have an opportunity to live out their God given lifespan?
BeingHuman
June 22, 2008
Haris said: For Rahman Celcom, there is no spiritualized understanding of the Holy Qur’an.
———————
Well presented post. I have expressed similar opinions and comments on RC in his blog.
It is appears that RC just do not have the neural programs to manifest empathy and a higer degree of conscience for other humans of different beliefs from his.
BeingHuman
June 22, 2008
tomatoinc Says:
June 21, 2008 at 10:50 pm
haris,
i am not sure why are you wasting your time and effort with mr abdul rahman aka rahman celcom.
——————————
IMO, such disagreements are not a waste of time as they had a potential to contribute to the good of humanity. Haris should continue to discuss such issues and like RPK, enable others a platform to express their views.
Note Popper’s;
War of Word better than War of Swords
I hold that orthodoxy is the death of knowledge, since the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement. Admittedly, disagreement may lead to strife, and even to violence. And this, I think, is very bad indeed, for I abhor violence.
Yet disagreement may also lead to discussion, to argument and to mutual criticism. And these, I think, are of paramount importance, I suggest that the greatest step towards a better and more peaceful world was taken when the war of swords was first supported, and later sometimes even replaced, by a war of words. This is why my topic is of some practical significance.
– Karl Popper, The Myth of the Framework
Perhaps if we have more war of words, it would reduce the war of swords.
a concerned voter
June 22, 2008
Dear Brother Haris,I am beginning to suspect people like Rahman Celcom,Mawardi,Revert and Zainol Abedeen(MH58)are all products from the same madrasah in Pakistan or Aghanistan,specialising in the field of extreme theology.Who knows they might even get their practical training by taking part in the bombing up of the Buddha of Bamiyan in Aghanistan.They might even enjoyed a scholarship courtesy of us the tax payers!
MD_Malaysian
June 22, 2008
Religious bigots exists, and Rahman Celcom is a prime example of one. These are people who think that they are right, and everyone else is wrong. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to argue logically with these guys; perhaps they have a neurological/psychiatric condition that does not allow them to empathise with others, so I suggest that you do not waste your time on them.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 22, 2008
Haris asks:
“Reply : Thank you. So the fact that Moses said ’slay yourselves’ is narrated in Surah 2 verse 54. Now show us where in the same verse, it narrates the fact that the Israelites either went about committing suicide or went about killing each other? Fact, please, and not your conjecture.”
MY REPLY: Err, is that relevant at all. Because right from your hadhrite postings, the real issue is Saidina Musa doesn’t tolerate ideas the way you want Muslims now to tolerate it, i.e. with regards to Hadhari or Ahmadiyya.
So, i wrote a piece asking you to renounce Saidina Musa AS for not being tolerant as shown in 02:54.
You then went to change 02:54 from the real meaning to an “intended” meaning.
And the rest is history.
As for punishment of apostasy, please show me where I said 02:54 is the basis for death penalty for apostasy?
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 22, 2008
HAris says:
“Reply : Some read the Qur’an with love, and some do not. Differences in understanding are bound to occur when what is sought from the reading differ so radically”
MY REPLY: You can read the Quran anyway you want. But, the issue now is now how you read the Quran.
The issue here is you’re changing the meaning of the Quran. Reading and changing are two very different concept.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 22, 2008
You said : Also, please remember that Sunnah is Revelations from Allah SWT.
Haris Says : I do not share your view
MY REPLY: Well Haris, I guess this is where the Quran differs from you.
Because in 62:02 clearly God says there are 2 Revelations revealed to the Prophet SAW.
Whether you share my view or not it’s irrelevant. What the Quran says is the one that’s relevant.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 22, 2008
tomatoinc Says:
June 21, 2008 at 10:50 pm
haris,
i am not sure why are you wasting your time and effort with mr abdul rahman aka rahman celcom. there will always be some people with strong, albeit extreme views. let them be, as they will label any compromise any deviation and any liberal thoughts as secularism and non-conforming.
MY REPLY: Why? Becuase it seems that my views are are supported by the Quran.
While Haris’s view contradicts the Quran. Subsequently Haris resorts to changing the meaning of the Quran.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 22, 2008
You said : The justification he uses that it’s a spiritual way of doing it. The trouble is how do we separate between one’s “spirit” and one’s “desires”.
Haris Reply : God says He is closer to me than my own jugular vein. He Knows. That’s good enough for me.
MY REPLY: Hmm, when u get your “ideas”, how can u tell if it’s from God or from Satan? Didn’t SAtan tell God that he will try to seduce people to Hellfire.
Since lying in the name of God is a clear sin and sure way of going to hell.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 22, 2008
Haris says: Reply : I have not tried to paint you in any shade. you have been doing a marvelous job on your own
My Reply: Yeah, so did u, especially when you quoted Ahmadiyya sources and not tell people about it.
It says a lot about the type of person you are Haris
su
June 22, 2008
After having read the dozens of comments after numerous posts on the interpreting of the Qu’ran, I have to say that it comes as a well-known fact that everyone reads and understands things in different ways, sometimes depending on the way they have been brought up, the things they have been thought, or even merely on the social background they exist in.
To me, there is only one way of reading Holy Scriptures, be it the Qu’ran, the Bible, or anything else. And that is to read with compassion. To understand with love.
To be adamant that the Qu’ran STATES that apostates were ordered to be killed, or to kill each other, is, to me, only going to further enrage the wars that are fought in the name of religion. Not too long ago, there was the “movie’ Fitna by that guy from Holland. I’m sure you know about it. For him, he was directly quoting and interpreting from the Qu’ran. To him, the Qu’ran STATES that non-believers should be killed and raped, and be punished.
I personally think it is outrageous that any religion would promote the killing of non-believers. To me, it was because that guy from Holland was adamant in wanting to find fault in Islam and in the Qu’ran. He read the Qu’ran WITHOUT compassion and love.
Why be bent on only ONE interpretation of the scripture, when other interpretations bring more light, and teach more compassion and understanding? I’m sure that even the Qu’ran mentions that the people of this world were divided into different societies, so as they could find different ways to reach God. (Not sure whether it is stated that way, but there should be some mention of diversity somewhere)
So then if God has intended for the people of the world to be different, surely then all people in the world should be treated with some compassion and understanding, at the very least?
If, in any case that I am wrong about the diversity thing, my other point would be that we are all God’s creation. Why go killing one another?
Bigjoe
June 22, 2008
I am all for the spiritual uplifting of each man as much as possible but frankly if people think a detailed and convoluted understanding of religious text is applicable to practicalities of life and ills of politics and social, they are bonkers and look for simple answers to very difficult problems.
Life is a mess, grow up, accept it and deal with it, stop looking for simple answers and we will do much better than any other way..
Paul Warren
June 22, 2008
Haris
Rahman Celcom is so full of himself he will not even recognise his Allah if his Allah was to walk up to him. After all God could be wearing Levi jeans with a guitar strapped across his back. So, I can only feel sorry for Mr Celcom.
However, I don’t know if anyone can put it anymore clearly than what you have in this post about who exactly has the right to dispense judgment and who executes them.
I wonder where it is that he finds in the Quran that he has been encumbered with seeking, judging and executing judgments for infractions of what he believes to be Quranic injunctions.
a concerned voter
June 22, 2008
Dear Brother Haris,after reading all your and Helen Ang’s postings and reader’s comments,I came to a simple conclusion-that religion is like a fire.All religions too,not just Islam.If you are careful with it,you will feel it’s warm and comfort.But,if you are careless, then surely you will get burned or get killed even.I think that is what Buddha means when he espoused the Middle Path,which means moderation in everything we do.Have a nice weekend Haris,and may God bless you and your family abundantly!
Ir. Kamaruzaman Bakri
June 22, 2008
The archaic position on Islam that is taken by Rahman Celcom and Revert is disappointing and is a step backwards for Islamic civilisation. What makes it sad is that these individuals are unyielding and are not willing to re-examine their views through this debate.
LJ
June 22, 2008
Aiyah Haris, I don’t care about this man. If you are Muslim either by birth (so sorry lah you born that way, How to help?) or by conversion (no sorry lah, you so stupid, for woman you convert (mainly anyway)). Islam nothing to do with me. If Islam say kill apostates, so be it lah. It is Islam and its nature, basis and core. How to help?
But if you try to impose Islam and its ways on me – a non-Muslim – then I care lah and I shall fight.
Otherwise Muslims & I, no problem. You mind your business and eat your food, and I mind my business and and eat my food.
OK?
LJ
Kok chee chiong
June 22, 2008
[b]So turn to your Maker, and slay yourselves ( fa-qtulu anfusa-kum ); that will be better for you in the sight of your Maker.[/b]
I don’t quite understand why there is this call for killing apostates based on this phrase. The phrase is quite clear. “Turn to your Maker; and slay yourselves” so that your Maker can look upon you more favourably. The “slay yourselves” here basically means the slaying of your old self. The “self” in many languages and cultures mean exactly that – the personality that each of us wear.
If “slay yourself” and God will look favourably upon you does not mean that then why the injunction to “slay yourself” ?
It is scary to read how biblical verses are twisted to support a sick mind.
Farouk
June 22, 2008
Rahman Celcom’s reading of the Quran is simply as follows : He tears up the Quran as he likes and proposes a meaning which cannot verified due to that tearing up. The problem is, the Quran speaks negatively against those who do this (15/91)
Take faqtuloo anfusikum from 2/54. RC contends that it means the believing ones are to kill the apostates yet due to his tearing up of the Quran, he fails to note:
1. The Quran doesnt use the phrase ‘badhukum li badh’ (some of you towards the others) even though it uses it elsewhere.
2. The Quran commands injury in kind of to injury inflicted (2/194)
3. The Quran omits the word ‘nafs’ when talking about physical conflicts (like qaatilookum in 2/190) yet uses it in 2/54. The word ‘nafs’ shows ‘soul’ like in 2/284. Unless Rahman thinks ‘in tubdoo maa fee ANFUSIKUM aw tukhfuhu’ in 2/284 means God will expose our vital organs.
RC will not stop at nothing to defend the falsehood taught by his masters, including reading the Quran as a torn up text.
Yun
June 22, 2008
Peace be upon all of us,
I kinda understand what Haris is trying to point, but some crime are punishable by death. Upon seeing the danger of a crime, i.e drug trafficking to the stability of the nation, society, future of our children etc, death sentence should be taken to ensure people wont do it again. Or if they are stubborn enough to do so, they should taste the medicine. Im not getting this, are you saying drug trafficking is similar like some other crime?is it not a treason/betrayal to our society we are building (i am building a illegal-drug free society, what kind of society are you building)?Are you ok with drug trafficking?Enlighten me with your reasons.Please.
Altho they are human as same as us, but being you who want to uphold justice, i would find that the reason drug trafficking is not punishable by death is a little bit absurd. Sure you can give them chance, but how many?until your children are caught up with drug itself then you want to blame the drug associates (drug seller(illegal ones), drug trafficker, drug maker(for illegal reason))?
Where’s the justice to normal people who deserve a peaceful society without illegal uses of drugs. Can your sense of justice give us that?These drug traffickers are endangering our society at large.If you want to uphold justice for all mankind, please consider the ‘normal’ us who loath at the very sight of drug illegal usage. We want our justice as well dear Haris. Please consider us into your equation of justice.
Yun,
Peace be to you, too.
I, too, used to justify the death penalty as you have in your comment.
However, if we say that life is precious and for that reason condemn murder as a heinous crime, I cannot see how taking the life of the murderer is any less heinous.
Sure, it is clothed with seeming sanctity by an order of a court, but when the life of the murderer become any the less precious?
And what lesson do we teach our young?
If we perceive a person as dangerous to society, by an objective and open examination of the evidence against such an individual, then incarcerate him humanely.
Nanda
June 22, 2008
abdul rahman abdul talib Says:
June 21, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Abdul Rahman’s reply: That’s right. The way i know of understanding the Quran is the “factual way”.
In other words, you understand the Quran in a way that doesn’t change the facts mentioned in the Quran
abdul rahman abdul talib Says:
June 22, 2008 at 6:50 am
Haris asks:
“Reply : Thank you. So the fact that Moses said ’slay yourselves’ is narrated in Surah 2 verse 54. Now show us where in the same verse, it narrates the fact that the Israelites either went about committing suicide or went about killing each other? Fact, please, and not your conjecture.”
Abd Rahman’s REPLY: Err, is that relevant at all. Because right from your hadhrite postings, the real issue is Saidina Musa doesn’t tolerate ideas the way you want Muslims now to tolerate it, i.e. with regards to Hadhari or Ahmadiyya.
Nanda says: It is relevant because, refer below:
In ‘What next? Outlaw the Hadharites? Rehab centre, perhaps? post:
Abdul Rahman Says:
June 14, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Haris asks:
“So, they all sat in open fields, committed harakiri in carrying out the death penalty on themselves?”
Abdul Rahman’s REPLY: Errr, yes. Doesn’t take a genuis to figure that one out, does it??
Nanda asks: How does this particular figuring out and “understanding Quran in a factual way” work hand in hand? Was it mentioned in the Quran that they sat down and committed Harakiri? Not that I can recall of.
So for this instance its ok to figure it out but not for some other instances?
If so, then against what benchmark does one decide which to figure out and which must be ‘understood in a factual way’?
abdul rahman abdul talib Says:
June 22, 2008 at 6:59 am
Haris Reply : God says He is closer to me than my own jugular vein. He Knows. That’s good enough for me.
Abdul Rahman’s REPLY: Hmm, when u get your “ideas”, how can u tell if it’s from God or from Satan? Didn’t SAtan tell God that he will try to seduce people to Hellfire.
Nanda asks: Can’t this be redirected to anyone, myself, Jambuist Z, and yourself included Mr Abdul Rahman? What makes you think that your understanding is flawless? And what makes you think that anybody, me, you, Haris, the Jambuist Z, anybody at all have the right to judge another’s understanding? Isn’t that right reserved only to God? We try to understand and pray that we are blessed with the correct guidance and do not err but can we actually say that another has erred?
5:105 – O you who believe, on you rests the (responsibility) for your own selves. If you follow the right path, those who have gone astray will not be able to do you harm. To God have all of you to return and He will tell you what you were doing.
So, till the end, individuals strive to follow the right path and in the end when we do return to God, then and only then shall we know if indeed we were following the right path. Up to that time we strive and pray for guidance. Even implying that the other person may be guided by Satan is not anybody save God’s call to make. This call is God’s. Not anyone else’s to make.
abdul rahman abdul talib Says:
June 22, 2008 at 6:50 am:
As for punishment of apostasy, please show me where I said 02:54 is the basis for death penalty for apostasy?
Nanda says: I’ll try to
In the ‘What next? Outlaw the Hadharites? Rehab centre, perhaps?
Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib Says:
June 15, 2008 at 1:48 am
Haris says:
“So He turned and forgave the corpses!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Abdul Rahman’s REPLY: Haris, you have reading problem or something?
The killing is PUNISHMENT. What has forgiving got to do with anything?
Apostasy punishment not created by man
http://malaysiakini.com/letters/40879
Abdul Rahman Talib | Sep 26, 05 12:24pm
Now for part two:
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
(Sorry I don’t know how to make the alphabets bold, so had to resort to what Ms Helen Ang did, and I think served the purpose: use capitals)
In the last paragraph,those were your words Mr Abdul Rahman. You can say its in the Quran, but I’m merely showing an instance in which you based 2:54 as a basis for putting apostates to death which you asked to show.
Also, in that comment above, you said ‘what has forgiving got to do with anything?’. Not meaning to sound naive but isn’t forgiving and seeking forgiveness has got everything to do with practically everything? Seeing that you are extremely well versed in the Scripture I’m sure you can find plenty verses that would also seem to be in agreement.
I’m also trying to understand this:
‘Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them nor guide them on the way’. – Surah 4 verse 137.
How does this verse support the punishment for apostacy is death? Because if we kill the apostate once he/she goes out of the faith, then how on earth can he/she return back to faith and then reject it again and return back to faith and increase in unbelief?
Which leads me to think, there’s no justification for us to kill a person who claims to apostate, because, who are we to judge that that person will not return back to the fold? (whatever fold that is)
Unless of course, we start to play a baseball like game, strike one, strike two, strike three. But I can’t recall definitive strikes being factually mentioned in Quran either.
Also this:
– ‘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
and
I’m not knowledgable in this but isn’t the notion of killing one who choses to leave the fold akin to questioning Lord’s will? For he/she will not have left the fold if it is not the Lord’s will in the first place? No? Who are we to decide on His behalf?
Dear God,
Today I give thanks that in Your Infinite Wisdom, You Saw great utility in creating Nanda.
For this, O Lord, I am most grateful
mob1900
June 22, 2008
I do read RC’s blog when there are some stuff worth reading, as for the topic of religion, I will just give it a miss.
Still kudos to Haris and RC’s attempt to ’embrace & engage’ each other as fellow bloggers should.
makenon
June 22, 2008
haris,
correct me if iam wrong.In 2:54, Mosses was trying to tell his followers off for being a fool and wworship
other then Allah , who is very forgiving if they repent.
RC,
ALL these verses are against the execution of appostles:
4:137
2:256
109:1-6
If you fail to understand that,my humble advice is please go hang youfself…………literally?!
anak perelih
June 22, 2008
the story of the 2 judges you wrote is a prove that Islamic law, if implemented according to ISLAM, the possibility of a person to be sentenced to death is very very remote due to its many requirements… eventhough it was stated the punishment for the offenses is death… including in Murtad cases…. Due to these requirements, many will fall under Takzir law.. not Hudud or qisas… and this Takzir punishment can be the 3-6-5 (3 years proson, 6 strokes, RM5k fine)law that we currently have in our shariah law…
This is a prove that criticisms against islamic law as a “taliban, mullah, oppressive, and other bad intentioned lebels” by “certain people” are BASELESS…. and it is just a pure ignorance….
Revert
June 22, 2008
To concerned voter:
Valley of Bamiyan : February 30 2004: ……………in the dark, desolate sands where the howling wind whipped up a song of despair, two silhouetted figures mounted on white steeds galloped into view. Under the canopy of stars they dismounted and stealthily approached two gargantuan sentinels, statuesque witnesses to the ebb and flow of time. Their immutable smiles mocking the folly of men ever so desirous to leave an abiding trace on the sands of time in an ancient land.
Lighting their wicker torches, the men thrust the flames onto their silent prey….Lo behold… two magnificent statues, each carved out of sheer granite, inscrutable smiles etched on their craggy faces…one serene as the halcyon gaze of the Madonna whilst the other….. the hideous smirk of a tortured gargoyle. The men stood still momentarily transfixed, their hearts vainly trying to decipher the import of the miens before them, the flickering flames slowly swallowing the dry wicker which rasped and sizzle in its dying throes, the embers scattering like stardust around the statues. In the reflected light from the marble statues, the older, burly and bearded character intoned a soulful baritone, “
Revert, Omasa say bring me the explosives….
Momentarily, farmer Revert froze.. before he stuttered…… err… master, I am indeed nervous.. pardon me master.. I was thinking about my scholarship,,,my studies in Quantum Physics at Kabul Univ…..
Silence!! , bellowed Omasa… you are having doubts, my trusted aide! Fie on you.. what devil possessed you!
Revert astounded by his master’s fury, quivered in fright as he gibbered…..er…er…er …no sir, I was just thinking what if we are caught….. can I see those beady eyes of my ………
Omasa suddenly guffawed : don’t worry……there will be houris …….
At that instant, without waiting for his master to finish mouthing the known unknown, Revert brightened up, his gloomy self congealing into the darkness as it slinkered away. His gnarled hands quickly untied the explosives and together in the dewy night, the men worked together as they set up the explosives and primed the detonator. Then, they remounted their steed and were about to gallop away when one of the horses suddenly lifted its tail. The ammoniac whiff of horse urine wafted up his nostrils as Revert waited for his steed to empty his bladders. Then, with a neigh, the horse stormed off, a cloud of dust cloaking those inscrutable smiles. 1500 metres away, the men galloped up a bluff and turned their steeds in the direction of the statues. The full moon beamed a sliver of light from behind a wispy cloud, its white greyish cloak hiding her shy face. Underneath the silvery shadows, there stood the statues etched against a granite peak, its walls rising majestically over the towering statues, the Almighty’s Art dwarfing man’s puny craetions!.
Then as if in cue, two booms simultaneously echoed through the valley floor, shuddering the earth as the horses reared in fright. A cloud of dust rose above the mountain base, thick as smog, it slowly dissipated as the stars blinked at one another in muted silence. The moon untangling herself completely from the trailing knots of greyish wisp,broke into a smile on the valley below………………….
Kabul Bazaar, February 31, 2004: the teeming crowd, the motley band of vendors, the veiled women, the screaming kids and the squawking chickens momentarily disoriented Revert as he sipped a thick broth of buttered goat’s milk after a meal of bread and dhall. As the vendor slapped fresh lumps of dough into odd shapes before placing them into earthen oven, someone remarked excitedly: “Switch on the radio, there is something important”
The radio crackled into life and groups of people crowded around it, anticipation and anxiety blended in equal measure casting a pall over their craggy, weather beaten features. Someone hushed the kids and the chicken froze in mid-action.. and in a moment where time seemed to stand still, everyone cocked their ears in wait…the low mellifluous tones of the female announcer came on air: “ the ancient Buddha statues of Bamiyan were today found, bombed to rubble…However authorities are perplexed as to why the vandals did not complete the job as the statues’ lower half of the body including their phalluses were still intact…………her voice trailed off into the cacophony of sounds as cries of Allahu Akbar cleaved the humid morning air….The two men exchanged bemused looks as a cock flapped its wing and majestically crowed its angst away…….
Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib
June 22, 2008
Nanda asks: How does this particular figuring out and “understanding Quran in a factual way” work hand in hand? Was it mentioned in the Quran that they sat down and committed Harakiri? Not that I can recall of.
MY REPLY: No but it was mentioned in the Sunnah of the Prophet. Refer to Tafseer Ibnu Katseer.
Basis: 16:44 the Prophet is to explain the Quran
62:02 the Sunnah is Revelation from God
Good question Nanda.
But, the fact that Bani Israel killed themselves is popular and even mentioned in the Old Testement. In other words, this incident is so widespread and popular everybody know about it.
Except to those who wishes to deny it.
Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib
June 22, 2008
Farouk says:
“Farouk Says:
June 22, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Rahman Celcom’s reading of the Quran is simply as follows : He tears up the Quran as he likes and proposes a meaning which cannot verified due to that tearing up”
MY REPLY: As opposed to your “Uncle Tom” method of changing the meaning of the meaning of the Quran.
As for tearing up the Quran, it’s very hypocritical to say that coming from someone who refuse to take 16:44 when discussing the “completeness” of the Quran.
Farouk, whatever you accuse others of doing, you do it 10 times worse. Your record is clear.
Refer to this link http://peru.name/?p=49, where Farouk Peru talks about the completeness of the Quran, but he deliberately did not take 16:44 into account.
Pot calling the kettle black.
Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib
June 22, 2008
Allow me to expose how shallow Farouk’s argument is:
Farouk says: Take faqtuloo anfusikum from 2/54. RC contends that it means the believing ones are to kill the apostates yet due to his tearing up of the Quran, he fails to note:
A. The Quran doesnt use the phrase ‘badhukum li badh’ (some of you towards the others) even though it uses it elsewhere.
MY REPLY: My question is, why does the Quran need to use the term? Can Farouk justify that or does Farouk knows more than God?
Farouk says: The Quran commands injury in kind of to injury inflicted (2/194)
MY REPLY: This is not about inflicting injury. This is about punishment for apostasy. The verse you quoted 02:194 is irrelevant.
FAROUK SAYS: The Quran omits the word ‘nafs’ when talking about physical conflicts (like qaatilookum in 2/190) yet uses it in 2/54. The word ‘nafs’ shows ’soul’ like in 2/284.
MY REPLY: That’s because in 02:190 the word “kill” here applies to different people. In 02:54, it applies to the Bani Israel’s themselves. Hence “Anfusakum”. In 02:190, the killing is to be done by the supporter of Islam against the transgresors. Therefore, the way it is uttered MUST BE DIFFERENT.
Farouk needs to read the verses first and learn more Arabic.
FAROUK SAYS: Unless Rahman thinks ‘in tubdoo maa fee ANFUSIKUM aw tukhfuhu’ in 2/284 means God will expose our vital organs.
MY REPLY:Maybe Farouk needs to take the ENTIRE VERSE, instead of taking parts of it.
Why? Because later in the verse, it says “fayaghfiru liman yashao wayuAAaththibu man yashao” which means “He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and punisheth whom He pleaseth”.
It is pretty stupid if we are to assume that Allah is to forgive “internal organs”. Also, since the word is “forgive” then it must be referring to “sins” which is a product of conduct and actions.
One’s internal organ is never considered a “sin” by Allah.
MY REPLY: That’s because both takes the same meaning.
Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib
June 22, 2008
Nanda,
Please read my statement carefully:
“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. ”
Never did I say that it is the sole basis for death penalty in Islam for apostates.
I only said the punishement for apostasy had existed since Moses and has not been aborogated. THe fact that there is no verses aborogating it is testement to that.
Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib
June 22, 2008
Nanda asks:Can’t this be redirected to anyone, myself, Jambuist Z, and yourself included Mr Abdul Rahman? What makes you think that your understanding is flawless?
MY REPLY: Isn’t that a good reason why we shouldn’t change the meaning of the Quran. I mean, the Quran is fixed. No matter how much temptation or confusion we undergo, the Quran will remain the same until the end of days.
And it’s especially more dangerous to change the meaning of the Quran based on hunches or feelings in your heart.
At that point, your guidance is no more the Quran, but your own beliefs, which cannot be verified anymore whether it’s from God or Satan.
What do u think, Nanda.
Nanda says: And what makes you think that anybody, me, you, Haris, the Jambuist Z, anybody at all have the right to judge another’s understanding? Isn’t that right reserved only to God? We try to understand and pray that we are blessed with the correct guidance and do not err but can we actually say that another has erred?
MY REPLY: Simple. Once you change the meaning of the Quran, you’re wrong.
That’s not difficult to understand now isn’t it.
Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib
June 22, 2008
a concerned voter Says:
June 22, 2008 at 1:53 am
Dear Brother Haris,I am beginning to suspect people like Rahman Celcom,Mawardi,Revert and Zainol Abedeen(MH58)are all products from the same madrasah in Pakistan or Aghanistan,specialising in the field of extreme theology.Who knows they might even get their practical training by taking part in the bombing up of the Buddha of Bamiyan in Aghanistan.They might even enjoyed a scholarship courtesy of us the tax payers!
MY REPLY: DIdn’t Haris refered to Maulana Muhammad Ali?
Isn’t Maulana Muhammad Ali from Pakistan?
I didn’t refer to anyone from Pakistan in my sources.
Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib
June 22, 2008
Ir. Kamaruzaman Bakri Says:
June 22, 2008 at 12:16 pm
The archaic position on Islam that is taken by Rahman Celcom and Revert is disappointing and is a step backwards for Islamic civilisation. What makes it sad is that these individuals are unyielding and are not willing to re-examine their views through this debate.
MY REPLY: Since apostasy is an archaic crime, the punishment must be archaic too.
Just like adultery. Civilized men and women should not commit adultery since people have been committing them for ages.
Just as the crime, the punishment is the same.
THe only thing archaic that I see here is the act of lowering the importance of religion in life.
Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib
June 22, 2008
Haris says:
“However, if we say that life is precious and for that reason condemn murder as a heinous crime, I cannot see how taking the life of the murderer is any less heinous.
Sure, it is clothed with seeming sanctity by an order of a court, but when the life of the murderer become any the less precious?”
MY REPLY: If life is precious why then murders are being committed.
To remind soceity that life is precious, then death penalty is important.
In sociology, it is seen as a tool to curb deviance.
Maybe Harris needs to study a little bit more of Sociology
Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib
June 22, 2008
Paul Warren Says:
June 22, 2008 at 11:14 am
Haris
Rahman Celcom is so full of himself he will not even recognise his Allah if his Allah was to walk up to him. After all God could be wearing Levi jeans with a guitar strapped across his back. So, I can only feel sorry for Mr Celcom.
However, I don’t know if anyone can put it anymore clearly than what you have in this post about who exactly has the right to dispense judgment and who executes them.
MY REPLY: Dear Paul Warren,
I think in your case, you’ll think that Satan is your God because Satan will come to you as claim himself to be God and you’ll believe it.
shar101
June 22, 2008
Don’t forget to thank Nanda’s parents as well, Haris.
Thanks Shar for the reminder.
Thank you, Nanda’s parents
walski69
June 22, 2008
There are a couple of lyric snippets from a song which I think is relevant to this long and drawn out discussion:
“If the real Jesus Christ were to stand up today
He’d be gunned down cold by the C.I.A.”
and
“… The world is on its elbows and knees
It’s forgotten the message, and worships the creeds”
Both are from the same song: “Armageddon Days are Here (Again)” by a group called the The.
There are two points of convergence surrounding the lyrical snippets, and the discussion going on here (IMHO):
1. Would the Prophet Muhammad recognize Islam as it is practiced today, if he were to somehow reappear? Or any of the great prophets, for that matter, recognize the religion of those who claim to be their followers?
2. For the most part, Muslims, Christians, etc., have put so damn much importance on the ritualistic aspects of religion, that the main underlying message has been forgotten, sometimes even despised.
Charity, love, mercy, forgiveness, compassion, inclusivity… all underlying precepts in the Quran – all reduced to being nothing more than characteristics of “liberal humanism“, which is despised with much vitriol.
Sad, really… come to think of it…
Revert
June 22, 2008
Ir. Kamaruzaman Bakri Says:
June 22, 2008 at 12:16 pm
The archaic position on Islam that is taken by Rahman Celcom and Revert is disappointing and is a step backwards for Islamic civilisation. What makes it sad is that these individuals are unyielding and are not willing to re-examine their views through this debate.
Reply: Accept this as given the Law of Thermodynamics:
A ~ B ^ B ~C → A ~ C : Zeroth law of thermodynamics
dU = δQ – δW : First law of thermodynamics
Note: for brevity, I am leaving out the, second and Third laws as well as Onsager’s Reciprocal Principle (postulated by Lar Onsager). no they are not lifted from Wikipedia, i know about them even though i am a farmer…
Q: you wouldn’t quibble over the above, would you? Now read on and let this be testament to all others who wish to do the Revert Twist
Tuan jurutera yang arif lagi bijaksana
Pacal hanya ingin utarakan perkara ini kepada tuan:
Sepanjang penghayatan tuan akan nukilan petani tua ini dalam blog ini, tuan akan memerhatikan satu keseragaman yang tetap dalm pendirian saya.
Biar siang berganti malam, hujan bersilih mentari, pasang menyusuri surut, mendung mengejar terang, angin menyapa tenang, saya tetap dengan pegangan saya berdasarkan ayat 7 surah 3 yang saya utarakan. Tidak ada kompromi dalam hal ini kerana itu Amaran Ilahi semata-mata. Jadi dengan tertutup rapat pintu penakwilan yang ketetapannya di tentukkan oleh ALLAH SWT apalagi yang hendak dihujah. Kalau pun beria-ia ingin merungkai misteri kitab, pastikan Locus Standi diri dulu berdasarkan kriteria yang ditetapkan Allah SWT (teliti Ayat 7 Surah 3). Gesaan yang mudah difahami kan?
Kalau saudara yang arif lagi bijaksana melayari bahtera minda saudara dilautan pandangan yang mengisi lanskap blog ini, tuan akan perhatikan bahawa saya tidak sekali-sekali melibatkan diri dalam polemik yang membadai pantai laman maya ini. Biar pepohon pandangan rapuh tumbang berguguran dipukul ribut fakta , saya memerahu diri ke pesisiran rendang nun jauh dan memerhatikan gelojak nafsu amarah yang mengorbankan seribu suatu kebenaran yang sedia tersirna dalam Kitab Ilahi.
Ada pelbagai roh-roh yang menyusuri laman ini saban hari. Ada yang berwajah manusia. Dan ada juga berwajah manusia tetapi berroh setan. Disebalik topeng seribu satu dusta, makhluk-makhluk Iblis ini hendak memutarkan ayat2 suci Kitabulllah yang jelas lagi gampang yang bisa di ketahui dari kanak-kanak mumayiz sehinggga yang tua nyanyuk 9 itupun golongan in masih diizinkan Ilahi).
Jadi apalagi hendak tuan bangkitkan sekiranya saya tidak mahu mengikut jejak langkah penyeru sesat kerana bukankah saya akan dipertanyakkan amal perbuatan dan pegangan saya diMasyar kelak. Bukankah hak saya mendambakan secebis Rahmat Ilahi dengan mengikut segala seruanNya sekadar yang terdaya. Bagaimanakah saya ingin menghirup kesejukan dan keheningan telaga Kausar jika saya membelakangkan arahan Rasul saya sendiri:
peganglah kepada tali Allah……….
Apa yang kolot/jumud pada cahaya mata hati, adalah sebaliknya pada kacamata saya kerana Nabi Allah pernah berpesan:
islam akan kembali dagang………..maka peganglah sekalipun bagaikan bara api….
sekiranya tuan hendak mengorak langkah ke filasuf dunia moden dan sofis silakan, saya tidak menghalang.. tapi jangan memaksa saya menerima tafsiran anda sekalian kerana anda sekalian bak penjual ubat jalanan…tidak bertauliah menjaja ubat tetapi mendabik dada mengatakkan sebaliknya.
akhir kalam, jangan diheret si petani ini kedalam kancah pertelagahan. saya ibarat seorang saudagar yang hanya singgah sementara di dunai yang fana ini dalam perjalanan kembali ke Khaliqnya. Cukuplah, ayat-ayat kebesaranNya berkumandang dari Kitab sucinya.Dan seribu satu tanda alam semesta yang menyentuh kalbu lagi menundukkan diri yang kerdil dan serba kekurangan tunduk tawadduk mengharapkan IhsanNya kerana apalah amal kita disisiNya. Tidakkah kalian ketahui yang ciuman kasturi syurga Firdausi hanyalah melalui rahmatNYA semata-mata!
Inna Ilahi Rajiun Wa inna Ilahi Rajiun: dari Allah kami datang, kepadaNya kami kembali
Nanda
June 23, 2008
Mr Abdul Rahman, thanks for replying on some of the comments.
Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib Says:
June 22, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Nanda,
Please read my statement carefully:
“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. ”
Never did I say that it is the sole basis for death penalty in Islam for apostates.
I only said the punishement for apostasy had existed since Moses and has not been aborogated. THe fact that there is no verses aborogating it is testement to that.
——————————————————–
Nanda says: I believe the contention here is ‘sole basis’. Since now we are getting into the technicalities:
Nanda replies: Mr Abdul Rahman, kindly read your own question carefully, reproduced below for convenience
abdul rahman abdul talib Says:
June 22, 2008 at 6:50 am
As for punishment of apostasy, please show me where I said 02:54 is the basis for death penalty for apostasy?
Nanda says: The burden of proof is to show where you said 2:54 is the basis for death penalty and NOT where you said 2:54 is the ONLY basis.
Your letter to MKini itself already shows that http://malaysiakini.com/letters/40879
You may have meant to write ‘sole basis’ but I wouldn’t and couldn’t know as I’m merely human. God would know. Similar to how only He could will a person to err and also to guide the person back to the righteous path. Which we would make it impossible if we kill the person first.
Nonetheless, in your letter to Mkini:
http://malaysiakini.com/letters/40429
Clearing the confusion on hadith
Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib | Sep 15, 05 1:45pm
In paragraph 4 you wrote:
I for one would like to accept his challenge and offer Quranic proof for the punishment of apostacy. One only have to refer to Al Baqarah verse 54 in which Moses decreed upon the calf worshippers to kill themselves for punishment of apostacy.
You provided only 2:54.
Your reasoning seem to solely depend on 2:54 and not other verses. Since now that you explicitly say that you did not say that 2:54 is the sole basis for death penalty for apostates, I trust you have other verses as well. Kindly let us know so that I can learn as well.
On reading the Quran factualy, in a response to your comments in ‘What next? Outlaw the Hadharites? Rehab centres, perhaps?’
alhadee Says:
June 19, 2008 at 3:04 am
Hello la brother. Let’s read the Quran again.
From Shakir, Sura Al-Baqarah verse 54
‘ And when Musa said to his people: O my people! you have surely been unjust to yourselves by taking the calf (for a god), therefore turn to your Creator (penitently), so kill your people, that is best for you with your Creator: so He turned to you (mercifully), for surely He is the Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.’
The Quran specifically said:
1. ‘.. Musa said to HIS people..’ Comment: Are anyone of us belong to Musa’s ummah? If you want to admit that you are Musa’s ummah, go ahead.
2. ‘O my people!’ Comment: There we have it, Saidina Musa talking to HIS people or his Ummah. Whatever command that follows are only for his people/ummah.
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.
——————————————————–
Nanda says: Mr Abdul Rahman, can you kindly reply to this as I believe alhadee can’t be more factual and literal in his reading/understanding of 2:54.
Also you said and I quote “I only said the punishement for apostasy had existed since Moses and has not been aborogated. THe fact that there is no verses aborogating it is testement to that.”
I believe alhadee’s comment also does not abrogate it but also establishes specific timeline and specific audience/recipient of the order.
In ‘What next? Outlaw the Hadharites? Rehab centres, perhaps?’post:
Abdul Rahman Says:
June 14, 2008 at 7:10 pm
The stronger opinion is that they “kill each other”. In other words, each one of them takes the live of the other.
Nanda says: What concerns me is the word ‘opinion’ in your statement. On one hand you claim that we have to read the Quran factualy and in entirety while on the other hand you also claim that some opinion can stand at the same platform as Quran. Of course you did not specifically mention that but you deemed it fit to be included in your comment to support the notion. Quran is guaranteed as guidance for mankind till the end of time. I believe we can agree on that. How does an opinion can also be construed as a guidance for mankind till end of time, when it is just that, opinion of men?
Also based on the above opinion of Bani Israel killing each other and your below comment defining ‘Anfusakum’ in ‘What next? Outlaw the Hadharites? Rehab centres, perhaps?’ post:
Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib Says:
June 15, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Abdul Rahman’s REPLY: Dear walski69, this is where you’re wrong. The word “Anfusakum” means “yourselves”. In other words, it refers to a body of people. Hence the term “Ya Qaumihi” at the start of 02:%4
Abdul Rahman’s REPLY: Yes it does. It means that apostates have to take their own lives, if one were to go by the Quran. However, since we have another source of Revelations, the Sunnah, we now know that the rule only applies under certain circumstances only.
Nanda says: They seem to be disobeying a direct order if that opinion is to be correct and the definition of Anfusakum is spot on. For when they were told to ‘slay yourselves’ they started to slay each other, hence even in attempting to repent they still transgressed. That’s what seems to be implicated if we combine the opinion and your translation of Anfusakum. Also, when in accordance to Sunnah, you said we know that the rule applies under certain circumstances only. Kindly let us know these circumstances and how are they similar to the circumstances now, (hopefully after you have answered alhadee’s comment)
——————————————————–
Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib Says:
June 22, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Nanda asks:Can’t this be redirected to anyone, myself, Jambuist Z, and yourself included Mr Abdul Rahman? What makes you think that your understanding is flawless?
Abdul Rahman’s REPLY: Isn’t that a good reason why we shouldn’t change the meaning of the Quran. I mean, the Quran is fixed. No matter how much temptation or confusion we undergo, the Quran will remain the same until the end of days.
And it’s especially more dangerous to change the meaning of the Quran based on hunches or feelings in your heart.
At that point, your guidance is no more the Quran, but your own beliefs, which cannot be verified anymore whether it’s from God or Satan.
What do u think, Nanda.
Nanda (in your comment)says: And what makes you think that anybody, me, you, Haris, the Jambuist Z, anybody at all have the right to judge another’s understanding? Isn’t that right reserved only to God? We try to understand and pray that we are blessed with the correct guidance and do not err but can we actually say that another has erred?
Abdul Rahman’s REPLY: Simple. Once you change the meaning of the Quran, you’re wrong.
That’s not difficult to understand now isn’t it.
——————————————————–
Nanda says: My contention is not with changing Quran. The Lord has decreed it to be a guidance for mankind to the end of time, that’s comfort enough for me. My contention is when a person questions and in turn implies that another person may be guided by Satan. From my understanding, this can only be determined/judged by God and God alone.
5:105 – O you who believe, on you rests the (responsibility) for your own selves. If you follow the right path, those who have gone astray will not be able to do you harm. To God have all of you to return and He will tell you what you were doing.
So if God tells me in the end that I have erred and He has willed me to be guided by Satan, then I’m doomed (which I pray all of us will be shown to the righteous path). I’m merely a servant and I have to submit to His will. But if a person now implies that I’m being guided by Satan, I cannot just accept it as a fact for if I did I would be ascribing compeers to Him. What I’m afraid is that in debating and trying to find the truth of the matter, some people have seen it fit to at certain instance of time, hopefully unknowingly, cross the boundary and make statements that is not rightfully theirs to make. Judging what’s in the heart of anyone is God’s prerogative. Not ours. Also, if a person has erred, it is not for us to judge the person for the Almighty may have grander scheme for willing that person to err. In conclusion, my concern is when men start to assume the role and rights belonging to God and deem it fit to impose their (men) will on others.
Mr Abdul Rahman, in the spirit of understanding the Quran factually, can you please kindly comment and share your understanding on several verses presented by a number of commentators in reply to 2:54 that you mentioned, 2:54 itself being one of them I think. While basing your reasoning on 2:54 and sunnah, I don’t think that you’ve addressed these concerns by fellow commentators trying to comprehend the truth.
2:256, 10:99, 4:137, being among those. I’m troubled that according to my factual reading/understanding, the death penalty notion seem to contradict at least these verses. Of course, I could be wrong.
alhadee
June 23, 2008
abdul rahman,
MY REPLY: BEcause it is in the Quran. Whatever is said in the Quran is to be applied until the end of days.
MY ANSWER:
Is that the best answer you could gave me?
I am going to repeat the question again;
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.”
Where does it says it applies to all time when whatever is ordered is explicitly stated for the people of Saidina Musa only?
Don’t beat around the bush.
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?
MY ANSWER:
Oh sure. God ordered Samiri to run away and then ordered the common people to kill themselves?
As expected, you are only good at plucking something out of thin air.
You take interpretation from a deviated sect in Islam?
MY ANSWER:
Ya ya. The ‘deviated’ Shiah also prescribe death for apostasy. Going by your logic, since Shiah are ‘deviated’ according to the Sunnis, means Sunnis can conclude that apostates should not be killed ?
Unlike you I evaluate something out of its merits, not sentiments.
And unlike you, Yusuf Ali does evaluate something out of its merits. Read his footnote again.
alhadee
June 23, 2008
revert,
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:
MY ANSWER:
Reading too much Shakespeare can do harm to you.
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)
MY ANSWER:
That would happen if you sob too much.
Revert
June 23, 2008
pembetulan
1. apa yang kolot/jumud pada cahaya mata hati tuan, adalah…….
2. tidak bertauliah menjaja ubat tetapi mendabik dada mengatakkan sebaliknya. Dan yang pasti, tuan dan ramai lagi pasti menjauhkan diri dari penjual ubat tersebut tetapi sayang, penyeru sesat didampingi jua.
Revert
June 23, 2008
where is the reply to Alhadee?? took it down pronto…eh?
oh come on harris, you equivocating humbug. you are worse that the scum i was aiming my last post at
(and dont give me the BS about the post being moderated..for i have noted upmteen times my post being moderated stii being up there!!!) Pronto.. you took down the one aimed atAlhadee while the likes of Paul Warren can talk about Allah in insulting tones
Rahman Celcom is so full of himself he will not even recognise his Allah if his Allah was to walk up to him. After all God could be wearing Levi jeans with a guitar strapped across his back. So, I can only feel sorry for Mr Celcom.
Not that the Almighty will lose anything but it is an insult nevertheless to Muslims.
You know what Harris, you are a lawyer prig who put up a discussion on Islam in the public domain so that people can poke fun and laughter at it but not at YOUR expense. The moment the jokes bite you back,you get edgy..ah…Your FRIENDs are protected and all else is fair game. Come out of your freaking hole (shit or arse or whatever hole) and address the issue at hand:
why are some posts allowed and the others banned.
you call this the people’s parliment, why not your “arsehole whorehouse”.. that would be better for you are nothing but a pimp peddling ideas that are better left unsaid in the bowels of your mind. hypocrite, be a man lah, now u will put this up eh.. to put me in a bad light. Better still shove it up your arse so you can constipate on it.
and stop the charade… and ban me.. i dare if you got a c… Go figure that out!
Revert,
You dared me to ban you.
People, say bye bye to Revert.
cruzeiro
June 23, 2008
Haris,
Sometimes it’s better to ignore those who’re unable to or fear to think with Reason and Logic.
They only think about the “reason & logic” of not using “reason & logic” to think when they practice their faith or read scriptures. Their ideas/ reasonings usually are very simplistic and literal.
More often, it simply caters to their pride/ego/arrogance/ignorance. Anything that doesn’t agree with these characteristics of theirs is usually deemed “evil”.
Their rhetoric appeals to the unthinking masses who find the idea of “thinking”, “tiresome” & a PIA.
To them, Reason & Logic aren’t gifts from God – they’re apparently Satanic!
That would explain their interpretation of not only the scriptures, but life itself.
They don’t use reason the way a thinking man does – hence “debates” with them are simply endless. They usually win arguments due to the “fatigue” of opponents who are faced with their “virtues”.
It is usually better to address their audience thru education, rather than debating with them endlessly.
============================
Sometimes, Love Just Ain’t Enough
http://cruzinthots.blogspot.com/2008/06/sometimes-love-just-aint-enough.html
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 23, 2008
Dear Alhadee,
Where does it say that the Quran is time bounded?
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 23, 2008
Alhadee says:
“Ya ya. The ‘deviated’ Shiah also prescribe death for apostasy. Going by your logic, since Shiah are ‘deviated’ according to the Sunnis, means Sunnis can conclude that apostates should not be killed ?
Unlike you I evaluate something out of its merits, not sentiments.
And unlike you, Yusuf Ali does evaluate something out of its merits. Read his footnote again.”
MY REPLY: The Old Testement says that pork is prohibited. Does it mean Old Testement is the same of Quran in terms of truth?
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 23, 2008
Nanda says:
“Nanda says: My contention is not with changing Quran. The Lord has decreed it to be a guidance for mankind to the end of time, that’s comfort enough for me. My contention is when a person questions and in turn implies that another person may be guided by Satan. From my understanding, this can only be determined/judged by God and God alone.”
MY REPLY: Which is why the best measure of truth is the quran. WIth the Quran we know what comes from Allah and what comes from Satan.
hence the name Al Furqan for the Quran.
But if we change the meaning of the Quran, how then can the Quran serve as Al Furqan?
Pisang Goreng Sedap Punya
June 23, 2008
Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib:
You are very wise. I have simple questions for you, hope you can help me out:
(1) Why is pork is prohibited by the Quran?
(2) Are people who eat pork physically, mentally or spiritually inferior to people who don’t eat pork?
(3) If one eats pork, does he have a lesser chance to go to heaven on that merit alone?
(4) Why pork but not other possibly dangerous/poisonous/unhealthy meats as well?
(5) If pork is prohibited by God, then why did God create pigs in the first place, and why did he enable man to eat pork?
a concerned voter
June 23, 2008
Good questions,dear Pisang Goreng Sedap Punya! With the answers from our’wise’RC,bak kut teh will taste even better!Go down very well with a bowl of hot rice on a rainy day!And since you are asking about pigs,why not ask about dogs too?I am curious why Muslims avoids dogs when everybody knows dogs are man’s best friend-loyal and intelligent and trust worthy too.I am sure other dog lovers will agreed with me here.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 23, 2008
Dear Pisang Goreng,
I dunno exactly why God forbids pork, but from science perspective, pork is the closest specimen to human being.
Easting pork would be like eating human flesh.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 23, 2008
Soemebody says:
“Rahman Celcom is so full of himself he will not even recognise his Allah if his Allah was to walk up to him. After all God could be wearing Levi jeans with a guitar strapped across his back. So, I can only feel sorry for Mr Celcom.”
MY REPLY:errrrr, i read the Quran and the Quran is God’s word. And I never attempt to change the word of Allah SWT.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 23, 2008
cruzero says:
“Anything that doesn’t agree with these characteristics of theirs is usually deemed “evil”.
Their rhetoric appeals to the unthinking masses who find the idea of “thinking”, “tiresome” & a PIA.
To them, Reason & Logic aren’t gifts from God – they’re apparently Satanic!”
MY REPLY:The way I see it Cruzeiro, you’re advocating usage of “reason and logic” over “facts”. In this arguement, I kept the discussion to facts and the attempt to change facts by certain quarters.
If reason and logic is enough, why then people have science? People use statistics, mathematics.
Why then people resort to discipline of knowledge and facts?
We don’t apply reason or logic to deny facts.
What Cruzeiro is advocating is like using reason and logic that the KLCC is not located in Jalan Ampang. That to me is not reason and logic at all. That’s absurd.
If u ask Alfred C Kinsey about having sex with children, he will say it’s not only based on reason and logic, it’s scientific.
a concerned voter
June 23, 2008
But from science perspective,pork is the closest specimen to human being-Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib.Really,I thought the closest specimens to human beings are the primates such as chimpanzee or orang utan.Science perspective?Which scientists and what experiments?Very vague,please be more specific.Not very convincing.And you also said that you dunno exactly why God forbids pork.You mean you dunno the actual reason behind this but just follows blindly?How about dogs-man’s best friend?Please enlight us on this too,Abdul Rahman,thank you.
Pisang Goreng Sedap Punya
June 23, 2008
With his reply to my series of questions (inspired by his reference to pork in one of his comments here) I rest my case on Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib’s thinking.
Too much debate with him would be a waste of our time.
HumanBeing
June 24, 2008
But from science perspective,pork is the closest specimen to human being-Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib. Really,I thought the closest specimens to human beings are the primates such as chimpanzee or orang utan.
————————–
Mos of us have been told that, the typical reasons why Islam forbid pork is due to health and hygiene factor. Pigs are always seen scavenging, foraging and eating rubbish/leftovers and they appear to be very dirty.
I don’t think this is a solid reason as other types of meat are also contribute to various diseases.
Thus if the interpretation of the Quran forbidding the consumption of pork is due it unhealty or unclean, then this concept is time-bound, i.e. the pigs’ dirty habits is a put off.
With modern pig farming techniques and genetic modifications, these reasons are not valid anymore relative to the present age.
Genetically wise, the primates are the closest to human beings.
However, from another perspective, it is said that pigs are “horizontal human beings” in terms of physiology and others.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jan/03/qanda.simonjeffery
Apparently with genetic modications, organ transplant from pigs to humans would be less problematic and lesser rejections.
I read somewhere (need verification) that pigs cries very human-like when they are killed. In addition farmed (not wild) pig skin is like human skin and look alike alive or when burned.
As it is, the best attitude is to respect and accomodate each other differences and preferences.
Helen Ang
June 24, 2008
If I may be permitted to say, my estimation of Abdul Rahman has gone up a few notches since he’s engaged PP even if we’re no closer to being persuaded by his views.
For one thing, he’s been sporting to answer the many diverse questions posed to him by the various commentators here & he’s consented to do this on Haris’ turf.
And he has been consistent & stuck his ground in his replies. He’s not been rude to anyone (as far as I’m aware) despite the robust volleying … tho’ some may nonetheless find his arguments contentious.
Abdul Rahman by making the effort has done well by the spirit of dialogue, IMHO.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 24, 2008
a concerned voter said:
“Really,I thought the closest specimens to human beings are the primates such as chimpanzee or orang utan.Science perspective?Which scientists and what experiments?Very vague,please be more specific.Not very convincing.And you also said that you dunno exactly why God forbids pork.You mean you dunno the actual reason behind this but just follows blindly?How about dogs-man’s best friend?Please enlight us on this too,Abdul Rahman,thank you.”
MY REPLY: No, the closest specimen to humans are pigs. That’s why people use pigs heart for transplant (actually part of pigs heart, the valve, as I was told).
And for vaccines, people use pig’s cell or something like that.
I dunno how monkeys share our biological make up though
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 24, 2008
Pisang goreng says;
”
(2) Are people who eat pork physically, mentally or spiritually inferior to people who don’t eat pork?
(3) If one eats pork, does he have a lesser chance to go to heaven on that merit alone?
(4) Why pork but not other possibly dangerous/poisonous/unhealthy meats as well?
(5) If pork is prohibited by God, then why did God create pigs in the first place, and why did he enable man to eat pork?”
MY REPLY: QUestion 2: I dunno, but from what i learn people who eat pork is closer to cannibals
QUestion 3: Maybe because people should not eat what God prohibit them from eating. Adam ate the forbidden fruit and he was rid off from Heaven. Then he repented and allowed back in.
Question 4: Lions are prohibited by God to be eaten too. So is leapords, cheetahs, aligators, lizards, rats, dogs in Islam.
Maybe God shouldn’t have created any types of animals that’s not edible.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 24, 2008
Kok chee chiong Says:
June 22, 2008 at 12:39 pm
[b]So turn to your Maker, and slay yourselves ( fa-qtulu anfusa-kum ); that will be better for you in the sight of your Maker.[/b]
I don’t quite understand why there is this call for killing apostates based on this phrase. The phrase is quite clear. “Turn to your Maker; and slay yourselves” so that your Maker can look upon you more favourably. The “slay yourselves” here basically means the slaying of your old self. The “self” in many languages and cultures mean exactly that – the personality that each of us wear.
MY REPLY: Dear kok,
The problem is the Quran is in Arabic, and in the Arabic language, the term “faqtulu anfusakum” indicates physical killings.
As for “getting rid of personality” the Arabic language have another way of addressing it.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 24, 2008
Nanda says:
“You provided only 2:54.
Your reasoning seem to solely depend on 2:54 and not other verses. Since now that you explicitly say that you did not say that 2:54 is the sole basis for death penalty for apostates, I trust you have other verses as well. Kindly let us know so that I can learn as well.”
MY REPLY: So you’re saying the order to kill themselves in 02:54 is not “punishment for apostasy”?.
I said, there is mention of punishment for apostasy in the Quran as stated in 02:54.
But, i didn’t say that 02:54 is the sole basis for death penalty for apostasy.
However, to say that the Quran doesn’t mention anything about death penalty to apostates is wrong as it is mentioned in 02:54
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 24, 2008
Nanda says:
“So if God tells me in the end that I have erred and He has willed me to be guided by Satan, then I’m doomed (which I pray all of us will be shown to the righteous path). I’m merely a servant and I have to submit to His will. But if a person now implies that I’m being guided by Satan, I cannot just accept it as a fact for if I did I would be ascribing compeers to Him. What I’m afraid is that in debating and trying to find the truth of the matter, some people have seen it fit to at certain instance of time, hopefully unknowingly, cross the boundary and make statements that is not rightfully theirs to make”
MY REPLY: I believe, God will NEVER will for you to follow the Satan. And you can never be tricked by Satan if u stick to the Quran.
But, if u change the meaning of the Quran, then your guide is gone forever. And you WILL be tricked by Satan.
Praying is good but you have to make serious effort to combat Satan’s temptation. The first move is to hold on to the guide that SAtan cannot compromise.
alhadee
June 24, 2008
abdul rahman,
MY REPLY: The Old Testement says that pork is prohibited. Does it mean Old Testement is the same of Quran in terms of truth?
MY ANSWER:
Like I said, I judge something based on its merits, not sentiments.
I know you are trying to play up with sentiments when you play the ‘deviant’ tune.
Whatever that comes from Syiah or Ahmadiyah or anyone else, I will judge it by its merits.
Your play-with-sentiment tactic does not work with me.
alhadee
June 24, 2008
Dear all,
I would like to conclude my debate here with Mr Rahman. I don’t see any point to continue further. cruzeiro is right when he said ‘..Sometimes it’s better to ignore those who’re unable to or fear to think with Reason and Logic…’
The argument started at:
https://harismibrahim.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/what-next-out-law-the-hadharites-rehab-centres-perhaps/
to
https://harismibrahim.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/judge-ye-the-tree-by-its-fruit/
and to this posting.
And I will leave it to you all to judge the merits of my points.
My stand is clear: there is no basis in the Quran to punish apostasy.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 24, 2008
Dear Nanda,
I actually enjoy your questions Nanda. I think you ask very good and specific questions and u help to clarify most of my previous points.
Taufiq
June 24, 2008
You cannot leave behind something you never had.
malaysiaputra
June 24, 2008
From my reading of what Rahman Celcom has written I must say he is assured of a place in heaven already.
makenon
June 24, 2008
haris,
i beg to differ, there is a punishment for apostasy in the Quran….pls refer to 5:54.
rc,
my appologies,it seem we don`t worship the same god, even though we read the same book.My god is too superior to be compare with yours.
May (my) god bless you.Yours seems hopeless. bye
makenon,
‘O you who believe! whoever from among you turns back from his religion, then Allah will bring a people, He shall love them and they shall love Him, lowly before the believers, mighty against the unbelievers, they shall strive hard in Allah’s way and shall not fear the censure of any censurer; this is Allah’s Face, He gives it to whom He pleases, and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing’ – Surah 5 verse 54 as translated by Shakir.
I agree with you.
Never said there was no punishment for apostasy.
My position has always been that it is a matter between God and man.
Nanda
June 24, 2008
Mr Abdul Rahman,
Thanks for the answer. However, I do not agree that most of your points are clarified.
You addressed some questions but you are not addressing many other questions which I think is more crucial.
And to alhadee’s reply, you in turn modified your original question in order to avoid answering his question straight forward.(alhadee’s comment stands till someone rebuts it)
In https://harismibrahim.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/what-next-out-law-the-hadharites-rehab-centres-perhaps/
Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib Says:
June 17, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Alhadee says:
“Muslims are required to follow the Quran.
And accepting the story in the Quran and acknowledging it to applied only to that period of time is included in following the Quran itself.”
+++++++++++
Abdul Rahman’s REPLY: DO u see anywhere that says 02:54 is time binded?
——————————————————–
Nanda says: I reiterated the question in this post and it was also repeated by alhadee
Nanda Says:
June 23, 2008 at 2:31 am
In ‘What next? Outlaw the Hadharites? Rehab centres, perhaps?’
alhadee Says:
June 19, 2008 at 3:04 am
Hello la brother. Let’s read the Quran again.
From Shakir, Sura Al-Baqarah verse 54
‘ And when Musa said to his people: O my people! you have surely been unjust to yourselves by taking the calf (for a god), therefore turn to your Creator (penitently), so kill your people, that is best for you with your Creator: so He turned to you (mercifully), for surely He is the Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.’
The Quran specifically said:
1. ‘.. Musa said to HIS people..’ Comment: Are anyone of us belong to Musa’s ummah? If you want to admit that you are Musa’s ummah, go ahead.
2. ‘O my people!’ Comment: There we have it, Saidina Musa talking to HIS people or his Ummah. Whatever command that follows are only for his people/ummah.
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.
——————————————————–
Nanda says: Mr Abdul Rahman, can you kindly reply to this as I believe alhadee can’t be more factual and literal in his reading/understanding of 2:54.
Also you said and I quote “I only said the punishement for apostasy had existed since Moses and has not been aborogated. THe fact that there is no verses aborogating it is testement to that.”
I believe alhadee’s comment also does not abrogate it but also establishes specific timeline and specific audience/recipient of the order.
——————————————————-
Alhadee repeated the question:
alhadee Says:
June 23, 2008 at 3:50 am
abdul rahman,
Abdul Rahman’s REPLY: BEcause it is in the Quran. Whatever is said in the Quran is to be applied until the end of days.
MY ANSWER:
Is that the best answer you could gave me?
I am going to repeat the question again;
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.”
Where does it says it applies to all time when whatever is ordered is explicitly stated for the people of Saidina Musa only?
Don’t beat around the bush.
——————————————————–
You replied:
abdul rahman abdul talib Says:
June 23, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Dear Alhadee,
Where does it say that the Quran is time bounded?
——————————————————–
I’m afraid you are doing just that, beating around the bush by now changing the question when nobody actualy said Quran is time bounded.
Also, to most of the things that I pointed out, you did not come with an answer but rather reiterated, went around in circles and avoided some altogether.
So, I honestly don’t think most of your points are clarified.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 24, 2008
Allow me to respond point by point:
Nanda says: Mr Abdul Rahman, can you kindly reply to this as I believe alhadee can’t be more factual and literal in his reading/understanding of 2:54.
MY REPLY: That is why I asked him where is the proof that the order in 02:54 is time bounded? SInce the quran isn’t?
His reply is that Musa uses the word “Ya Qaumihi”, but my contention is on the part “faqtulu anfusakum” which maybe AlHadee missed.
Nanda saya:Also you said and I quote “I only said the punishement for apostasy had existed since Moses and has not been aborogated. THe fact that there is no verses aborogating it is testement to that.”
I believe alhadee’s comment also does not abrogate it but also establishes specific timeline and specific audience/recipient of the order.
MY REPLY: But Al hadee failed to prove that. My argument is simple, if the order was issued on BAni Israel, where is the proof that the order is time bounded.
AND, since Prophet Mohd had showed us in his Al HAdeeth (which are revelations from god as well), it proves that the order issued in 02:54 is not time bounded and was carried out by all peoples until the end of time.
Of course, Prophet Mohd SAW did make certain adjustments i.e now if we repent the death penalty will be waived. THe Bani ISrael had to repent and still subject to death penalty.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 24, 2008
malaysiaputra Says:
June 24, 2008 at 11:40 am
From my reading of what Rahman Celcom has written I must say he is assured of a place in heaven already.
MY REPLY: So, by saying that I want to stick to God’s word without changing it, i am implying that I am assured of a place in heaven?
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 24, 2008
Nanda and Al Hadee says:
“Is that the best answer you could gave me?
I am going to repeat the question again;
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.”
Where does it says it applies to all time when whatever is ordered is explicitly stated for the people of Saidina Musa only?
Don’t beat around the bush.”
MY REPLY: OK let me put my question in another way.
What I consider time binded or specific reference is when GOd himself says so.
For instance, in As Saff:
“6. And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: “O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of an Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.” But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, “this is evident sorcery!”
Here it is clear that Jesus is sent to the people of Israel. We can never have any doubt on that fact.
But in 02:54, what we have is an order on the Bani Israel. No where does the verse says that the order is specifically for Bani Israel and specifically for the period of time.
That’s what I wanted to know from Al HAdee and you. Where is the proof to your claim.
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 24, 2008
al hadee says:
“Like I said, I judge something based on its merits, not sentiments.
I know you are trying to play up with sentiments when you play the ‘deviant’ tune.
Whatever that comes from Syiah or Ahmadiyah or anyone else, I will judge it by its merits.
Your play-with-sentiment tactic does not work with me.”
MY REPLY: I have contradicted this belief both from merit and credibility perspective.
Even if Maulana Muhammad Ali is not deviated, his argument is at best flimsy. Most of his understanding of 02:54 is shallow and introduces contradictions in the Quran. Didn’t u read it? Go to my website under the title “Haris Ibrahim Barking Up The Wrong Tree, Again”.
As for the shia and death penalty, my answer is if Old Testement says pork is prohibited, does that make the Quran the same as Old Testement?
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 24, 2008
Alhadee says:
“I’m afraid you are doing just that, beating around the bush by now changing the question when nobody actualy said Quran is time bounded.
Also, to most of the things that I pointed out, you did not come with an answer but rather reiterated, went around in circles and avoided some altogether.
So, I honestly don’t think most of your points are clarified.”
MY REPLY: U don’t understand my point, if the Quran is not time bounded, then who’s to say that the decrees in the Quran is time bounded as well.
All that you’ve quoted only prove one thing: that the death penalty is applied to Bani Isreal. Period
No mention of it being aborogated, stopped, aimed at a specific time and place.
Unless u can bring proof from the Quran that says otherwise, I guess my point still stands
abdul rahman abdul talib
June 24, 2008
Alhadee says:
“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.”
Where does it says it applies to all time when whatever is ordered is explicitly stated for the people of Saidina Musa only?”
MY REPLY: Yes it does, but there is no mention that such punishment is only applied to Musa AS.
And since we have Prophet Mohd SAW, he has proven to us that such order remains until the end of time.
That’s why 16:44 is very important to be understood.
cruzeiro
June 24, 2008
So the debate ends?
RC definitely did a good job here ….
RC,
I’m so impressed with your capacity for “reason” as you see it.
Your answer has illustrated my point.
(Don’t worry, I think it was a really good answer from my perspective, just as you believe it to be good from your’s)
Thanks, buddy – I’m sure many more like Nanda now understand how your “reasoning” works.
Once again- thanks.
rajraman666
June 25, 2008
This only for revert.
U are so obssess of your views and between you have fails to notice others views.
You said i am buffallo and you are the poor farmer.
Jihad yourself first by improving your poor farmer attitude and improve your income.(This is your main jihad in your life before you try to jihad your views to others.
You always can create your own blogs to get your own supporter by became rich and jihad for your poor narrow minded followers.
Just learn to accept others views altou we are not supporting you.
Dont bashed people like we are buffalo without brain.
Dont use very vulgar words term like asshole/whorehouse.
I always believe you have the rights to say politely but dont goes to the extend to vulgar to make or force people to accept your ideas.ITS LIKE FEEDING WORDS INTO SOMEONE MOUTH TO SPILL WHAT YOU WANT.
maybe i am a baffalo for you but this baffalo RAJRAMAN might earn 10 times more IN ONE MONTH (UNLESS YOU LIES YOU ARE POOR FARMER)than the master revert earn in one year.
So please dont insult anyone because we bash u,accept it and come out with counter attack without emotional.
Then people will respect you althou you are at wrong turf.
This PP is for people to stand the view not only your view but both side of views.Dont expect people will blindly follows what you say because you are to emotional.
revert anything your want to post/comments in PP please accept you are not always rights. Give some respect to others and in return we will respect your views until the last man stand altou we might not aggree.
I AM THE INTELEGENT BAFFALO THEN YOU REVERT AND WHAT I SHALL CALL U?will u like me to call u ….? I wont go to that extend to discrace anyone.
rajraman-i always wait for the moment to bash people when they bash me but will counter attack after i cool down.thats the game of strategic war.if you continue to USE YOUR BAFFALO BRAIN REVERT, THEN YOU WONT GO FAR.
The candle man-“i have dream”
may god or the jambu tree will bless u.I need to catch up my 4hours sleep.good morning to u candleman.
mawardi
June 25, 2008
Damn good! Bravo Abdul Rahman! I am behind you.
Yes, I love what Helen said about Abdul Rahman. Here is just a place of a bunch of childish-escapistic-argument experts. Hahaha.
alhadee
June 25, 2008
abdul rahman,
No mention of it being aborogated, stopped, aimed at a specific time and place.
MY ANSWER:
And so does the order to Prophet Ibrahim to sacrifice his son in (37:102).
Going by your logic, Muslims should sacrifice their son instead of animals because there are no verse aborogating (37:102).
But no Muslims sacrifice their son nowadays. It is because when a verse refer to one particular Prophet or group of people, it is understood that it stays that way.
No one else is included.
Even if Maulana Muhammad Ali is not deviated, his argument is at best flimsy.
MY ANSWER:
Good to hear you say ‘even’. We are making progress here.
If ‘flimsy’ means to take the whole story into consideration before interpreting, I am not sure what word is best to describe your method.
Taking the whole story into consideration will means no contradictions in the Quran. That is the whole point.
Believing that God ordered Samiri to run away and then ordered the ordinary people to be killed is equal in believing God is practising double standard.
Maulana Muhamad Ali does not believe that. And neither am I.
alhadee
June 25, 2008
So the debate ends?
RC definitely did a good job here …
cruzeiro,
You sound dissapointed. Please don’t be. Read the title of this posting again; ‘ Understanding the mindset of Rahman Celcom..’.
That is the whole point. 🙂
I am not trying to bring anyone to his knees. This is not an ego contest.
My wish is that Muslims be more critical in thinking and analyzing. They don’t have to agree with me either.
Like I said ‘..And I will leave it to you all to judge the merits of my points…’
And when that happens; praise to the lord!
alhadee,
Indeed, praise the Lord
HumanBeing
June 25, 2008
Haris’s view:
Understanding the mindset of Rahman Celcom,
which is..
“For Rahman Celcom, there is no spiritualized understanding of the Holy Qur’an.”
———————–
From the various discussion with RC here and in his post “Nice Try Haris Ibrahim, but You Missed by A Mile”, I would reaffirm Haris’s conclusion above.
Even his favourite Utaz do not explicit state that the Quran has any verse that enforces the death penalty for apostasy. See point “kedua”
http://www.zaharuddin.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=155
He relied heavily on the Hadiths which irrelevant for this article, thus a separate ‘debate’.
In contrast note, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, a well-known modernist Pakistani Islamic scholar, exegete, and educationist. He is a member of Council of Islamic Ideology since January 28, 2006,[2][3] a constitutional body responsible for giving legal advice on Islamic issues to Pakistan Government and the Parliament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javed_Ahmad_Ghamidi
Ghamidi do not support death for apostasy and believe that some of the Quran verses are time-bound and cultural relative where applicable.
In addition i noted that RC has a low level of human spirituality or probably none at all.
In terms of Maslow Hierachy of Need, RC is hovering at the lower basement of his mind tyrannized, stucked in the lower levels of basic physiological and security needs.
Note:
http://beinghuman-humannature.blogspot.com/2008/06/one-and-only-true-spiritual-path.html
His mind is not tuned towards the development of higher human values of empathy, compassion, sympathy and conscience as evidenced by his insistent on killing a human for merely changing one’s mind.
Besides, his logical and critical thinking is absymal. It is always black or white “us vs them”, “with me or not with me (Bush)” and seldom in thinking in terms of humanity (inclusive of the good and warts) as a whole.
Despite the above limitations, i enjoy discussing with RC. A suggestion is; Haris should allow all sort of posters (even Revert) so that we are can interact and be exposed to a wide range of religious/human thinking from various people. (censoring the vulgar and seditious)
ps: how do i tag an url in wordpress?
HumanBeing,
You said : A suggestion is; Haris should allow all sort of posters (even Revert) so that we are can interact and be exposed to a wide range of religious/human thinking from various people. (censoring the vulgar and seditious)
Reply : I only censor the foul language, or delete those posts that are obnoxious in the extreme. If I do not, I fear it will kill rational discussion.
Revert is always welcome with his comments, subject to the limits I’ve mentioned above.
Pisang Goreng Sedap Punya
June 25, 2008
The following conversation thread between me and Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib is very interesting:
Question 2:
Me: Are people who eat pork physically, mentally or spiritually inferior to people who don’t eat pork?
abdul rahman abdul talib: I dunno, but from what i learn people who eat pork is closer to cannibals
Me: So? How does that answer my question?
Question 3:
Me: If one eats pork, does he have a lesser chance to go to heaven on that merit alone?
abdul rahman abdul talib: Maybe because people should not eat what God prohibit them from eating. Adam ate the forbidden fruit and he was rid off from Heaven. Then he repented and allowed back in.
Me: So because pork is prohibited by God, that means people who eat pork will be rid from Heaven even if they did many good things (pahala) in life? So kalau buat pahala banyak-banyak, but tersilap satu, iaitu makan daging babi, maka takleh masuk syurga jugak ke?
Question 4:
Me: Why pork but not other possibly dangerous/poisonous/unhealthy meats as well?
abdul rahman abdul talib: Lions are prohibited by God to be eaten too. So is leapords, cheetahs, aligators, lizards, rats, dogs in Islam.
Me: How about puffer fish? It is poisonous and clearly hazardous to human health (mati kalau makan). Ada tak dalam senarai? Kenapa takde pulak?
Question 5:
Me: If pork is prohibited by God, then why did God create pigs in the first place, and why did he enable man to eat pork?”
abdul rahman abdul talib: Maybe God shouldn’t have created any types of animals that’s not edible.
Me: Maybe God shouldn’t have created animals that are not edible? Alamak. You mean Almighty God has made a mistake ke?!
a concerned voter
June 26, 2008
To Revert,June 22 2008 at 8:03pm,Valley of Bamiyan…..no,did not bother to finish reading….yawn..yawn…finally…zzzzzz!!
Nanda
June 26, 2008
Dr Cruz, I see what u mean.
alhadee, sir, thanks. Praise the Lord indeed.
Farida
June 26, 2008
A person who says “Maybe God shouldn’t have created any types of animals that’s not edible.” has appointed himself to be the judge of God. That’s blasphemy.
Pisang Goreng Sedap Punya
June 27, 2008
Farida,
Touché. This is precisely what I wanted to highlight about Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib, that the ignorant, least of all, should never try to pontificate.
a concerned voter
June 28, 2008
Just finished reread ‘Animal Farm’by George Orwell.A short story of a revolution among animals of a farm,and how an idealism was betrayed by power,corruption and lies.
What amuses me was why the author chose the pigs as the villians among the animals in the farm.Why not the horses,the cows or even the donkeys? Then I suddenly remember RC’s contention that pigs are the closest specimen to human beings and not the primates.A pig’s genetic is closest to human being?Still doubtful and must read up more on this but a pig’s mind is definately closest to human being -stupid and greedy.Just like Napoleon in ‘Animal Farm’.