The actuality which scholars all over a world as good as for hundreds of years have been not unanimous or joined per a definition of a verse'there is no constraint in religion'in a Qur'an equates to it is open to interpretation. Does it meant you have been not forced to turn a Muslim? Does it meant you have been not forced to turn a Muslim though once you do you contingency sojourn a Muslim? Does it meant you have been not forced to sojourn a Muslim though can leave Islam if you wish to?
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Mujahid Yusof Rawa, a PAS personality as good as a son of one-time PAS President of about thirty years ago, has taken Nurul Izzah Anwar's side in a current debate she is facing. And this debate is about her have a difference per leisure of religion.
The ex-Mufti of Perlis, Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin, additionally supports Nurul Izzah's statement. None of a alternative muftis have pronounced anything nonetheless though, although you am energetically awaiting their have a difference so which you can finalise this have a difference once as good as for all.
Ex-Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, however, disagrees with Nurul Izzah. The Tun pronounced which Islam is similar to Hotel California: you can check out though you can never leave. That equates to once you have been a Muslim you cannot leave Islam.
Deputy Minister in a Prime Minister's Department, Mashitah Ibrahim, agrees with Dr Mahathir, as does Ibrahim Ali of Perkasa.
In short, never thoughts either they have been supervision supporters, antithesis supporters, or neutral similar to Mohd Asri -- as good as you would similar to to believe which includes me as good -- Malays-Muslims have been deeply! widely separated upon counts related to Islam.
You see, religion, Islam or otherwise, functions upon a didactic discourse of I'm right as good as you're wrong. All religions work upon this principle. They additionally work upon a element of if you have been not with me (meaning of my same religion) afterwards you have been against me (meaning you have been my enemy).
Sure, religionists would repudiate this. They would contend which their sacrament is not similar to that. That, of course, is complete bullshit. At best they would endure your religion, as you have heard them contend mostly enough.
Tolerate is what you do when you have been faced with something repulsive similar to your neighbour's dog shit upon your lawn or a loud noise from your neighbour's karaoke event way past midnight. You endure something foul. So, if you endure an additional sacrament which equates to you cruise which sacrament as foul.
But religionists would repudiate this. And this is since they have perfected a art of self-hypnosis. They can have themselves believe in something false. Hence they can have themselves believe which they have been not similar to which even though they have been exactly similar to that. They have done rejection set of symptoms in to an expect science.
And this equates to whatever comes out of a mouths of religionists contingency be treated with colour with good suspicion. They have been good criminal artists. They can criminal themselves so what more criminal alternative people.
And this is since Nurul Izzah Anwar is right away in trouble. She gave her opinion. But as prolonged as her perspective is additionally your perspective which is okay. Once her perspective differs from yours, afterwards you will have her eat shit.
In a initial place, since was Nurul Izzah so silly as so attend which forum? And who was which stupid chairman who trapped Nurul Izzah by asking her which question? Did they intend to trap Nurul! Izzah m eaningful which once they pose which question she would be in trouble yes or no way she replied to it?
If Nurul Izzah had pronounced she does not support leisure of sacrament she is in trouble. If she says she supports leisure of sacrament she is additionally in trouble. Both ways she is cooked. And if she had said' no comment' she is additionally cooked.
you think which Nurul Izaah was set up. you thought she would be savvy enough to realise which religionists can never accept opinions. The scold perspective is their opinion. Your perspective is a wrong opinion. That is how it works.
According to a Selangor Islamic Affairs Council (MAIS), who spoke upon behalf of His Highness a Sultan of Selangor, His Highness is upset with Nurul Izzah. That is what a MAIS chairman, Mohamad Adzib Mohd Isa, said. Whether which is true or not you am not certain though most times these people put words in to a Sultan's mouth as good as a Sultan would be too scared to contradict them lest His Highness is indicted of supporting apostasy.
So there you are. After trapping Nurul Izzah, they right away trap a Sultan, meaningful which His Highness would not brave contend otherwise. Did you not contend which Umno is clever? How most times contingency you repeat which Pakatan Rakyat is not as crafty as Barisan Nasional at this game?
Religionists in ubiquitous as good as Muslims in particular do not endure differences of perspective as good as differences in interpretation. Religion, after all, is only which -- opinions as good as interpretations.
For example, when religious scholars or ulamak have a have a difference or emanate a decree, they will regularly begin with "According to so-and-so.yada, yada, yada"or "As reported by so-and-soyada, yada, yada".
That equates to this is a perspective of a third party. And this additionally equates to which it is quite hearsay.
The actuality which scholars all over a w! orld as good as for hundreds of years have been not unanimous or joined per a definition of a verse'there is no constraint in religion'in a Qur'an equates to it is open to interpretation. Does it meant you have been not forced to turn a Muslim? Does it meant you have been not forced to turn a Muslim though once you do you contingency sojourn a Muslim? Does it meant you have been not forced to sojourn a Muslim though can leave Islam if you wish to?
Yes, what does it mean? Some Muslims (from both sides of a domestic divide) contend it equates to you cannot leave Islam whilst others (from both sides of a domestic divide) contend you can. Muslims have been not unequivocally certain what it equates to though they take a mount which it equates to whatever you contend it means.
Okay, let's demeanour at this from an additional angle. Is Malaysia a Parliamentary Democracy or a Theocratic State? It can usually be a single or a other. If, as a little people say, a Sharia relates as good as all Muslims have been firm by a Sharia, afterwards obviously Malaysia is a Theocratic State.
And if Malaysia is a Theocratic State afterwards you have to annul ubiquitous elections as good as elect a leaders formed upon a element of a Council since ubiquitous elections will concede non-Muslims to turn leaders -- which is not acceptable at all in a Theocratic State.
However, if you elect a leaders through a ubiquitous choosing (which will concede non-Muslims to turn leaders) afterwards you have been a Parliamentary Democracy -- as good as which would meant you have been not firm by a Sharia though a Federal Constitution would prevail instead.
Our domestic leaders from both Barisan Nasional as good as Pakatan Rakyat contingency clarify this point. Are you a Theocratic State where a Sharia relates or have been you a Parliamentary Democracy which allows a citizens leisure of thought, leisure of opinion, leisure of association as good as leisure of! religio n?
Currently, Malaysia's standing is really confusing. And which is since Nurul Izzah is in trouble. She spoke as a Democrat. But a religionists will not concede that. They wish her to speak as an Islamist, not as a Democrat.
As a Democrat she is right -- you do have leisure of religion. As an Islamist you do not have leisure of religion. Once you have been a Muslim you sojourn a Muslim compartment a day you die. And if you leave Islam afterwards you die, now. In short, you have been put to genocide as an apostate.
Do you know who is to censure for all this? The politicians make use of sacrament for domestic benefit though they leave things really deceptive so which you sojourn confused. The more confused you have been a more they can feat a issue.
Anwar Ibrahim, a Opposition Leader, contingency take a mount upon this since he is a Opposition Leader. Najib Tun Razak, a Prime Minister, contingency additionally do a same since he is a Prime Minister.
Can Muslims leave Islam as good as if they do afterwards what does a supervision do to them? Will they be arrested, jailed, or put to death? Malaysians need to know so which this part can be put at the back of us as good as you can move upon to more important matters.
And as prolonged as Anwar as good as Najib sojourn wordless which is how prolonged this have a difference would go unresolved as good as Malaysians will continue to quarrel over religion.
Now do you know since you don't support both Barisan Nasional as good as Pakatan Rakyat? They have been both really divergent as good as mischievous. They confuse us as good as have us quarrel only so which they can benefit power.
Read More @ Source More Barisan Nasional (BN)! | < a href="http://pr.bonology.com/">Pakatan Rakyat (PR) | Sociopolitics Plus |
Courtesy of Bonology.com Politically Incorrect Buzz & Buzz
No comments:
Post a Comment