"I'm certain which she is ignorant, this is given she done such a statement. Her matter has obviously deviated from themaqasid syari'yyahand can be categorised as devious from Islamic principles. we feel she has been articulate yet enough eremite knowledge. It is some-more fair for her to redress a matter usually yet rambling it, as God is all merciful," Religious scholar Ustaz Fathul Bari Mat Jahaya was quoted inBerita Hariantoday.
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Malaysia Today's readers have a critical problem in trying to understand a difference in in between partisan, non-partisan, bipartisan, etc. And which is given many of them fall in to a 'either we have been with me or we have been opposite me' rut done 'popular' by US President Bush.
How would we take it if a Muslim who propagates a concept of an Islamic State says to we which 'either we have been with me or we have been opposite me'? If we do not await a concept of an Islamic State afterwards we have been a enemy of Islam as good as being an enemy of Islam which can be regarded as a declaration of quarrel as good as any one who declares quarrel opposite Islam can be lawfully killed.
According to a didactic discourse of 'either we have been with me or we have been opposite me' which would certainly have sense. It might not have clarity to non-Muslims or to those who have been opposite to an Islamic State yet afterwards these people have been a enemies of Islam anyway so who a hell cares what they think?
Yes, if we await President Bush afterwards we await a concept of a powerful nation having a right to wage war an additional nation usually given a US does not simil! ar to a politics. Basically, might is right. Those who carry out a guns carry out a universe as good as dictates what a universe can as good as cannot do.
Brunei refuses to reason approved parliamentary elections as good as refuses to abolish a outdated system of comprehensive monarchy. Should Singapore explosve as good as wage war Brunei so which democracy can be installed in which Sultanate? Indonesia discriminates opposite a Chinese as good as murdered 500,000 Maoist Communist supporters. Should China send a couple of chief bombs to Indonesia to teach it a lesson even yet those Indonesian Chinese have been Indonesians as good as not Chinese adults or of Chinese ethnicity?
What about Saudi Arabia as good as all those alternative kingdoms, sheikhdoms, emirates, etc? They as good do not use democracya lathe west. Should a US explosve as good as wage war those countries so which a adults of those countries can reason giveaway as good as satisfactory elections as good as elect a supervision of their choice? If democracy can be forced down Iraq's throat certainly a same should be done to those alternative autocratic monarchies in a Middle East as well.
Okay, so we do not await a thought of a powerful nation being authorised to explosve as good as wage war an additional nation usually given a US does not similar to a politics. If we await which thought afterwards no nation is safe. Anyone who is not pro-US (or worse, anti-US) can get bombed in to a Dark Ages with a good detriment to property as good as lives. Who appointed a US a law enforcemetn officer of a universe anyway? Must a universe do things usually a American way? Is a US a trustee of probity as good as anything deliberate incorrigible by US standards contingency be solved by troops action?
If we do not await America's action afterwards does which meant we have been pro-Saddam Hussein? Saddam usually did what Hitler did as good as if we do not await what Hitler did afterwards certainly we can! not awai t what Saddam did, especially what he did to his own adults of Kurdish ethnicity. Saddam embarked upon ethnic cleansing usually similar to what Hitler did. So how can Hitler be wrong as good as Saddam be right?
Okay, so we do not await Saddam. But afterwards we do not await what a US did either. So what is a mount then? We contingency possibly be pro-Saddam or pro-Bush. We can be opposite both. Either Saddam is right or Bush is right. Both cannot be wrong. Hence it is a avocation to await a single as good as conflict a other.
My mount is clear. we do not await both. While we do not await what Saddam did to his own people we additionally do not await a thought which might is right as good as a powerful nation can legitimately explosve as good as wage war an additional country.
There have been many immorality regimes in this world. Iraq is not a usually one. But given explosve as good as wage war usually those immorality regimes which have been anti-American as good as afterwards support, urge as good as urge alternative immorality regimes which have been pro-American? (And this is a basis of America's foreign policy).
Is it possible to be opposite to both? Are we obligated to await a single upon top of a other? Well, it all depends upon possibly we have been frank in your 'struggle' as good as possibly your onslaught is formed upon beliefs or we have alternative personal as good as distant motives in mind.
Most times a onslaught is not formed upon sincerity or beliefs yet is encouraged by personal gain (parochial, ethnic, racial, religious, etc., included). And this is what we have been observant in Malaysian politics.
The Member of Parliament for Lembah Pantai, Nurul Izzah Anwar, has usually attracted a little debate per her matter about leisure of preference -- which can additionally be pronounced to be about leisure of religion. (Read a news inform byMalaysian Digestbelow).
The emanate is: do we h! ave leis ure of preference or do we not have a leisure to choose? In short: is Malaysia a democracy or is Malaysia a theocracy? It is possibly a single or a other. It cannot be both during a same time.
Thisfaux pas, as a little view it, (or misquote, as Nurul Izzah explains it) is starting to be used opposite her. Trust me upon that. Was she misquoted? Was she misunderstood? Did Nurul Izzah do a U-turn? Or have been Malaysians not rebuilt to allow leisure of choice?
Now, this is not about Barisan Nasional contra Pakatan Rakyat. Just for purposes of this essay let's not be partisan. Let's demeanour during things as if we have been not supporters of possibly Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat. we know many Malaysian brains have not grown to a turn where we can do that. But try anyway, sort of similar to hypothetically speaking.
we contend this is not about Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat given there have been Muslims in both Barisan Nasional as good as Pakatan Rakyat, as there have been non-Muslims. Malays, Chinese, Indians, as good as 'lain-lain' have been in both Barisan Nasional as good as Pakatan Rakyat. So this cannot be about Barisan Nasional contra Pakatan Rakyat.
Now, we have been articulate about shift for quite a little time now. Hence a struggle, during slightest as distant as we am concerned, is about change. But have been we additionally articulate about change? we listen to a little of we screaming ABU (Anything But Umno). we listen to a little of we screaming which we contingency opinion for Pakatan Rakyat. we listen to a little of we screaming which 55 years of BN is enough.
Okay, whatever it might be, those have been merely a equates to to an end. We shift a supervision given we seek change. We have been not becoming different a supervision usually for a consequence of becoming different a government. There contingency be an endgame as good as becoming different a supervision is usually a equates to to which end.
More Barisan Nasional (BN) | Pakatan Rakyat (PR) | Sociopolitics Plus |
But have been we starting to see which end? Will becoming different a supervision achieve a shift which we seek? That is a fundamental theme as good as a theme we contingency address prior to we take this to a next level, which is a shift which we have been looking for.
Nurul Izzah talked about leisure of choice. And now she is getting whacked for that. So now she has to insist herself or even do a U-turn as good as redress which statement.
The emanate is not possibly she did contend it or she did not contend it or possibly she was misquoted or misunderstood. To me which is not important. What is critical is even if she did contend it what is wrong about her observant it?
Nurul Izzah was articulate about leisure of choice. Was she wrong? Does Pakatan Rakyat or PKR, a party she represents, not await leisure of choice? It appears similar to Nurul Izzah is starting to have to quarrel this debate all upon her own. No alternative opposition leader is starting to come to her defence. PKR, DAP as good as PAS have been not starting to get involved.
Let me be transparent upon this. Pakatan Rakyat is not supporting or is opposing leisure of choice. Pakatan Rakyat is starting to sojourn neutral. Pakatan Rakyat is not taking sides in this issue. Pakatan Rakyat is not for or opposite leisure of choice, which equates to which Pakatan Rakyat does not have a stand.
Okay, back to a emanate of change. we am articulate about change. Change equates to to devious from what is. Change equates to to discard a aged ways in favour of a new ways. Change equates to we have leisure of choice. Change equates to not being forced to do something which we do not instruct to do. Change equates to to be authorised a leisure we do not now have.
So given is Pakatan Rakyat keeping mum? We want to know possibly Pakatan Rakyat supports change. We want to know possibly this shift includes leisure of choice. We want to know possibly Pakatan Rakyat's policies h! ave been opposite to Barisan Nasional's or usually a same as Barisan Nasional's?
Currently it appears similar to there is no difference in in between Pakatan Rakyat as good as Barisan Nasional. Currently it appears similar to Pakatan Rakyat as good as Barisan Nasional share a same policy. Currently it appears similar to Pakatan Rakyat, usually similar to Barisan Nsional, does not await leisure of choice.
In which case have been we unequivocally articulate about change? Explain to me what we meant by shift given we do not quite understand what we meant by it when both Barisan Nasional as good as Pakatan Rakyat do not await leisure of choice. Pakatan Rakyat as good as Barisan Nasional appear very joined upon this issue. That would meant we will not be observant shift never thoughts who we opinion for.
********************************
Fathul Bari Claims Nurul Izzah 'Ignorant', Lacks Religious Knowledge
(Malaysian Digest) - Parti Keadilan Rakyat vice boss Nurul Izzah Anwar has come underneath fire over her matter allegedly bargain of leisure of preference for Muslims in selecting their religion.
The statement, done during a forum upon Saturday, has given drawn complicated critique from certain quarters, together with Muslim scholars.
Religious scholar Ustaz Fathul Bari Mat Jahaya pronounced ignorance was to censure for her statement.
"I'm certain which she is ignorant, this is given she done such a statement. Her matter has obviously deviated from themaqasid syari'yyahand can be categorised as devious from Islamic principles."
"I feel she has been articulate yet enough eremite knowledge. It is some-more fair for her to redress a matter usually yet rambling it, as God is all merciful," he was quoted inBerita Hariantoday.
Fathul Bari, who is additionally Umno Young Ulama (Ilmu) working committee secr! etariat chairman, pronounced her matter goes opposite what has been repeated by Nurul Izzah's father, Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim onmaqasid syari'yyahor a key reasons given a Al-Quran was passed down, which have been religion, mind, life, property as good as dignity.
"Nurul Izzah should have referred to PASulamafirst. Even a Opposition leader himself always spoke aboutmaqasid syari'yyah," he said.
Fathul Bari pronounced Nurul Izzah's matter could have implications upon Muslims in a future, ensuing in Muslims not fixation sacrament as a many critical subject, as good as steer towards pluralism ideology.
"How can we contend sacrament is giveaway as good as open, or place Islam upon a same turn as alternative religions. If this happens, consider of given Islam is enshrined in a constitution as good as what is a role of a Malay rulers," he said.
Meanwhile, Puteri Umno chief Datuk Rosnah Abdul Rashid Shirlin pronounced Nurul Izzah's matter can create unease within a Muslim community.
"Imagine, even with enforcement, there have been Muslims who becomemurtad. The incident will be worse if there is comprehensive freedom," she said.
She said, in counts of faith, it is obviously settled which Muslims should do all they can to safety Islam as good as not place it in a exposed position.
Nurul Izzah, however, has given denied which she had trivialized a emanate of Islamic conviction as good as which she upheld apostasy.
The Lembah Pantai MP pronounced she was unhappy which certain buliding were rambling her statements upon a theme of sacrament being forced onto Muslims in Malaysia.
She pronounced she had attended a forum patrician 'Islamic State: Which Version? Whose Responsibility?' as a panellist upon Saturday. In a theme as good as answer session, a single of a questions posed to her was upon a emanate of Isl! am being imposed upon Muslims.
"My answer stressed upon a word 'there is no compulsion in Islam'. This was taken from verse 256 of theSurah Al-Baqarahin a Al-Quran. The word relates to all mankind," she said.
Nurul Izzah added which she binds firm to a belief which after embracing Islam, a Muslim is bound by Syariah law, usually as how a adult is bound by a Federal Constitution.
"I am unhappy which there have been efforts to turn my matter as if we had trivialised conviction or simply accepted how Muslims can become apostates," she said, adding which she has always been bargain of educational programmes to make firm one's conviction as good as increase bargain of a religion.
Malaysiakinihad upon Saturday quoted Nurul Izzah as observant which people should not be constrained to adopt a particular religion, with a same requesting to Malays.
"If we ask me, there is no compulsion in religion... how can any one contend sorry, this (religious freedom) usually relates to non-Malays, it has to apply equally," she was quoted as saying.
The inform additionally quoted her as observant which her delegate propagandize education, set amidst a Catholic propagandize backdrop, did not change her.
"Even me, being schooled in Assunta (secondary school) with a huge cross in a gymnasium as good as an active singing Catholic society did not change me," she was quoted as saying.
However, a inform pronounced she stopped short of observant which Malays should be legally postulated eremite freedom, saying: "I am, of course, tied to a prevailing views."
Read More @ Source More Barisan Nasional (BN) | Pakatan Rakyat (PR) | Sociopolitics Plus |
Courtesy of Bonology.com Politically Incorrect Buzz & Buzz
No comments:
Post a Comment