Comments on: Who speaks for Islam?

By: Sumat

Sumat — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 07:52:45 +0000

As Islam is the official [religion] of the land, we deserve the right to talk about Islam, don’t we?

By: Roslan Ramli

Roslan Ramli — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:17:02 +0000

Years ago when I was in my twenties, my father-in-law reported to the qadi I was a kafir. It stated with a silly argument. I just could not accept that only Muslims go to heaven. My father-in-law brought me to meet a few ustaz but somehow the explanations given were difficult for me to accept.

I was called up for a meeting with the state qadi and was advised to learn more of Islam. My father-in-law believed that my marriage was not legitimate. Somehow my marriage ended up in a divorce.

Muslims expect me to believe 100% what they believe. Isn’t knowing your reality a life long process? Not that I am thinking at all about it, only sometimes.

Some people that are in the Islamic hierarchy are benefiting financially and politically if they can keep us under sunnah wal jamaah. Some have doubts and questions but it is best to toe the line. The government will keep on supporting these groups to win the next election. It’s getting out of control and dangerous.

The way I see it, most of the Muslims in Malaysia have a closed mind, although I might be wrong. I hope I will always have an open mind, to listen, until I die.

We all should be able to have an open discussion on Islam., without fear and in a friendly atmosphere but how do we make it happen?

After all, God is not going to put you in hell just for your religious beliefs.

By: Darren

Darren — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:56:28 +0000

Firstly, let me congratulate you on how fine, well balanced, and well thought out this article is. Unlike other opponents to Islamic Law – the Islamisation of Malaysia, etc – you have not blatantly attacked Muslims but argued for the root of the problem, the human condition. Must I say, it is only fair that we should not categorise Muslims as being solely responsible for the current affairs in Malaysia, but it’s mankind in general that led to what seems to be hierarchal super-dominance of Islam.

Humankind has always been close-minded to different opinions, and when we have the comfort of monopoly and dominion, we tend to shrink back from our liberties in exchange for security. I think Malaysians need to realise that it’s not Islam, nor is it a Muslim issue, it’s a human problem that needs to be fixed. Those in power, who are playing this religious-political game, need to be given a good lesson that any society that gives a little liberty for a little security deserves neither and would lose both, *to paraphrase Roosevelt, US President*.

Too much attention has been given to Islam, race, and politics – it is the human condition that needs to be attended to. Educate Malay [Malaysians], teach tolerance to the leaders, and build a common national identity that doesn’t favour one religion, race, creed, or language over the other. When everyone is only equal, legislatively, judicially, and religiously, then can Malaysia move forward. Can we truly say that we, non-Muslims, and Muslims alike, are truly tolerant of each other?

By: Luke

Luke — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:35:56 +0000

There are basically two types of food for the human species (other species, only one type of food):
1. Physical food , i.e. protein, carbohydrates, starch, trace minerals, etc., but please bear in mind people react to allergies, as the proverb goes ‘one person’s meat is another’s poison’.

2. The other type of food people take is the ‘spiritual’ food (called whatever you want – religion).

The similarity of both types of ‘food’ is the same, excessive or improper method of consumption of ‘physical’ food leads to obesity, diabetes and other bodily diseases, likewise improper interpretations or administration of ‘spiritual’ foods will corrupt one’s mentality, and the ‘my food is best, other foods are prohibited’ mentality.

Conclusion:- Like the proverb ['change is the only constant'], so it is the same with food, if a particular food offered to you makes you sick then it is your prerogative and choice to try other foods. If it is still not beneficial try another kind until you find the most suitable food – for example, grass-hoppers which are packed with protein without unhealthy trans-fat compared to fatty prime lamb that can cause diabetes that leads to coronary heart disease and heart attacks. It’s your choice of staying healthy in body, mind and soul.

By: Onan

Onan — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:13:43 +0000

Why waste time writing such a beautiful article? You are writing about the blind and the deaf and the poorly-educated wearing blinkers. You should know they won’t change nor want to change. The change can come only from the more enlightened Muslims themselves, others are just wasting their time. If you are worried just leave Malaysia and let the ayatollahs ruin it. Even then they are unlikely to wake up.

I know you won’t have the guts to print this.

===

Just a point of clarification – “ayatollah” is a Shia designation, while Malaysia is a Sunni-majority state. Sunni Islam does not have the same hierarchies as Shiite Iran. Perhaps an intelligent discussion on those you are dismissing would benefit from a little more accuracy and a little less stereotyping.

Shanon Shah
Columns and Comments Editor

By: jules

jules — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 18:11:44 +0000

This is well-writen. Thanks.

I humbly opine – a secular state that promotes civil liberties is the best because it is consistent with most religious teachings. Theocratic states on average tend to be more turbulent than secular states. Theocratic states give the greatest leeway to manipulate the populace for the benefit of the state’s leaders. A secular state celebrates diversity and promotes the individual’s right of worship. Legislation of morality is problematic because it impinges on freedom of personal choice. Legal sanctions on personal choices should only be considered in the light of how great the societal costs are. No leader should fear losing political power over the principle of [secularism].

By: James

James — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:10:18 +0000

In commenting on [religious] issues, please think about democracy. Do not let religion rule the country, let’s its people decide. Like Singapore.

By: edosmera

edosmera — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:57:23 +0000

That is the problem when the Muslims were thought to obey, listen and absorb by the so called ulama but not to use their brains to think as required and stated in the Quran. The Quran was written in Arabic but it has been translated in different languages. The languages and various races in this world were created by God. So I don’t see any problem for non-Muslims to talk about Islam if they have read the Quran in their mother languages. But to the ulama this is a taboo. Only those who understand Arabic can talk about Islam.

By: Iskandar

Iskandar — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:45:05 +0000

See…this is what a “healthy” discussion is all about. No one here is attempting to insult anyone. Everyone has different beliefs. Even within Islam, the various mazhabs have different beliefs, as with Christians.

The truth is no one has any real freedom in Malaysia, unless of course you are one of those in high places who are often in the media, and where you are free to commit crimes and no one can touch you.

“Insulting Islam” is just a convenient excuse to keep everyone quiet, and unfortunately the average “easily-confused” Malay [Malaysian] has been sucked in by the condescending ruling party politicians hook, line and sinker to keep selling this idea to the public…so…so sad.

How different things would be today for want of a broader-based and progressive education system.

By: Roslan Ramli

Roslan Ramli — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:54:10 +0000

There is no Allah but God. The non-Muslims are created by the same God. Only the perceptions of God are different among us. Like it or not, we are created by the same creator.

There is no freedom for us Muslims in Malaysia.