Is it OK to lie to non-Muslims? Taqiya

I have sat through the video, 3 things you probably don't know about Islam and its main points can be summarized as
1. There are contradictions in the Quran but Quran has provided a way to handle contradictions: if there are contradictions, the later verses will override the earlier verses
2. It is the obligation of every Muslim to strive till Sharia is imposed in the whole world (creeping Islam)
3. It is OK to lie to a non-Muslim as long as it advances the interest of Islam (Taqiya)

I have not read the Quran, perhaps later when I have done, but have found an article where they quote verses from the Quran at Lying (Taqiyya and Kitman). The verses are not quoted verbatim but explanations. However, since the verses are numbered it will be easy to refer to the Quran to look up the verses and this is what I intend to do when I get my hands on the free copy of translation of the Quran and I would encourage you to do the same.

But in the meantime, let me focus on 3 (Taqiya) and examine this recent incident where PAS has passed a bill to impose Hudud on Kelantan and Kelantan PAS was also reported to have said We have the numbers for Hudud in Parliament

Note that in 2011, PAS had pushed the Welfare State and the slogan PAS for all, supposedly to appease non-Muslims and now has turned around and pushed to impose Hudud despite strong objections from its allies in DAP.

Footnote: There don't seem to be any reference to lying to non-Muslims to advance the interest of Islam in Wikipedia: Taqiya, only mentions of lying in time of dangers, so this may mean we really have to read the Quran for ourself to establish the truth.

Video: 3 things you probably don't know about Islam

Raja Zarith Idris message regarding Christmas celebration

RAJA ZARITH IDRIS (Sultanah of Johore)

_______________________________________________________________
Season of goodwill
MIND MATTER by RAJA ZARITH IDRIS (Sultanah of Johore)

If Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Isa (Jesus), a prophet respected and revered in Islam, is it so wrong to wish a blessed day for those who celebrate it?

DURING the days before Christmas last year, I wished my friends who were celebrating it "Merry Christmas" in much the same way they would wish me "Selamat Hari Raya" or "Happy Eid".

I find it rather sad that such a simple greeting – one which I grew up with and which I have never regarded as something that would compromise or de-value my own faith – is now regarded as something so religiously incorrect for us Malaysian Muslims.

When I was at boarding school in England , I had to go to church every Sunday because it was part of the rules. My father advised me to consider it as part of my "education" and he had no doubt that the experience would strengthen rather than weaken my own faith.

I was able to see the similarities and differences between Christianity and Islam. I learned more than the average Malaysian Muslim would about Christianity. I learnt that just as we Muslims categorise ourselves according to the four different schools of thoughts of the four Imams (Imam Malik, Imam Al Shafi, Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Ahmad Abn Hambal) and are either Sunnis or Shias, so Christians too are divided into different sects or churches.

Going to church did not make me less of a Muslim when I was a young girl, and neither does saying "Merry Christmas" make me less of a Muslim now. My faith has not been shaken just because I wished some friends a time of joy with their families. Neither will I suddenly suffer from amnesia and forget what my religion is.

What I do not wish to forget, however, is that there are good, kind people who are not of the same faith as me.

As Harun Yahya, the Turkish writer (he was selected last year as one of the 500 most influential Muslims in the world by the Royal Isla mic Strategic Studies Centre of Jordan ) noted: "Islam is a religion of peace, love and tolerance".

Today, however, some circles have been presenting a false image of Islam, as if there were conflict between Islam and the adherents of the two other monotheistic religions. Yet Islam's view of Jews and Christians, who are named `the People of the Book' in the Quran, is very friendly and tolerant.

"This attitude towards the People of the Book developed during the years of the birth of Islam. At that time, Muslims were a minority, struggling to protect their faith and suffering oppression and torture from the pagans of the city of Mecca . Due to this persecution, some Muslims decided to flee Mecca and shelter in a safe country with a just ruler. The Prophet Muhammad told them to take refuge with King Negus, the Christian king of Ethiopia . The Muslims who followed this advice found a very fair administration that embraced them with love and respect when they went to Ethiopia . King Negus refused the demands of the pagan messengers who asked him to surrender the Muslims to them, and announced that Muslims could live freely in his country.

"Such attitudes of Christian people that are based on the concepts of compassion, mercy, modesty and justice, constitute a fact that God has pointed out in the Quran."

I do not wish to be a self-centred Muslim who expects friends of other faiths to wish me Selamat Hari Raya or, for those who are not Malaysians and therefore do not know about Hari Raya, a Happy Eid and yet do not return their goodwill when it is Christmas, Chinese New Year, Deepavali or Vesak Day.

Every year, friends who are Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs or those without any faith come to our home to celebrate Hari Raya with us. They do so with sincerity and as a mark of respect for one of the most important days in the Muslim calendar. Why should we not reciprocate their kindness, show them the same mark of respect for their religion and wish them the same joy on their holy days of celebration?

An Islamic scholar and lecturer also reminded me that as Muslims we must remember the importance of both the five Pillars of Islam and in the six Pillars of Iman (Faith), which are:Belief in Allah;

Belief in the angels;

Belief in the revealed Books (which include the Bible, the Torah and the Holy Quran);

Belief in the Prophets (May Peace be Upon Them);

Belief in the Resurrection and the events of Kiamah, the Day of Judgement; and

Belief in the predestination (Qada' and Qadar) by Allah in all things.

The prophets include not just Muhammad (May Peace Be Upon Him) as the last prophet and as the Messenger of Islam, but also in the 24 earlier ones who are mentioned in both the Bible and the Quran. Four of them are Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses), Daud (David), and Isa (Jesus).

So, if Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Isa (Jesus), a prophet respected and revered in Islam, is it so wrong to wish a blessed day for those who celebrate it?

We are now in the second decade of the 21st century. Surely, we should, now more than ever, be far more enlightened at a time when information of any sort and of all kinds are so readily available to us.

What is most important is that we regard one another as fellow citizens and treat each other with respect, regardless of our race or religion.
The writer is Royal Fellow, School of Language Studies and Linguistics, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), and holds a BA (Honours) degree in Chinese Studies, University of Oxford .

[The writer is also the current Sultanah of Johor]

Debate: Did Mohammad exist?

From OutsideTheBox: Modern 'Muslim' Intellectuals, I was alerted to this debate between Robert Spencer, author of book “Did Muhammad Exist?” and concluding with answer "no" and David Wood, probably a historian or if not, probably an intellectual who knows that historian judge the truth of something on mainly 3 basis, sources:
1. were there early sources
2. multiple sources
3. independent sources
but ended up with the conclusion "yes".

David Wood's website is Answering Muslims.

Below I embed the video which if I manage to find the time to watch again, I probably will:



From there, I was alerted to another debate, this time between 2 Christian, Robert Spencer who concluded Muhammad did not exist and another Christian who believed Muhammad historically existed (I think it is Robert Spencer, and hopefully I got the above video and this video embedded below right:



If you are a seeker of truth, I would encourage you to pay attention to the 2 videos above or perhaps also the webiste Aramiac Broadcasting Network which claimed to be seeking after truth which if I can manage to squeeze in the time, I will return to read and/or watch more videos.

And for balance, here is Adnan Rashid's Muslim Debate Initiative which Robert Spencer put as a lesser formidable debater than David Wood which if I have all the time in the world would like to find out more too (but doubt I can spare the time).

Rusman: Malaysia’s Muddled Experience with Islamic Law

Reposting Din Merican’s article here because his blog’s black background color, white text plus quotes with gray text made the post difficult to read:

Malaysia’s Muddled Experience with Islamic Law

Guest Writer: Rusman

We all know that Malaysia has become more and more ‘Islamic’ over the last 20 years. By ‘Islamic’ we mean not that people have become more inclined towards personal piety, to strive for establishing justice and mercy on the Earth, etc. Rather we are referring to the external dimension of Islam whereby you see institutionalized religion crystallized in the form of an official bureaucracy that seeks to legitimize itself by exerting social, cultural and political influence on  Malaysia.

There are various reasons for this. Certainly there has been a global resurgence of Islamic identity brought on in different countries for different reasons as a response to modernity, secularism, crass consumerism, colonialism and neocolonialism, export of Saudi ideology funded by Saudi petrodollars. I could go on.

In Malaysia some of these factors are also relevant. But we can also attribute the increase to a concerted effort by the government and ruling party to create and strengthen a series of administrative institutions designed in part to flex Malaysia’s muscles as a modern but very Islamic country. And behind these ostensibly unbiased public policy decisions was certainly some political motives driven by the competition between UMNO and PAS to attract the conservative Malay Muslim voter by being seen as the true defender of the faith.

As of late the rhetoric around Malaysia’s so-called Muslim identity has reached the level of the irrationality. Over the last few years we have seen rulings such as the banning of yoga, the banning of non-Muslims using the word Allah, the enlistment of neighborhood Imams as virtual religious police with the power to arrest. In Kedah, a state governed by PAS under the banner of Pakatan Rakyat, the ruling which makes Islamic fatwas unchallengeable in the court of law is yet another example of the gradual encroachment of Islamic law into the space of Malaysia’s secular legal system.

As an outside observer of Malaysian politics its downright confusing. Where does religious authority lie in Malaysia? With the federal government and its many agencies and bureaus of religion? With the sultan? With the state governments? With imams? What are the legal implications of a fatwa in Malaysia?

Tamir Moustafa, Associate Professor at Simon Fraser University in Canada has a forthcoming article in Law and Social Inquiry entitled “Islamic Law, Women’s Rights and Popular Legal Consciousness in Malaysia. [Tamir Moustafa: Islamic Law in Malaysia]

His article raises some valuable insights about the history and development of Islamic law in Malaysia to better understand some of the questions I raise above. Moustafa’s objective is to understand if there is a disconnect between “fundamental conceptual principles in Islamic legal theory and how those concepts are understood  among lay Muslims in Malaysia.”

It is important to appreciate the theoretical framework of Moustafa’s argument- which is to differentiate between sharia and fiqh. Sharia is the Divine Law as revealed by God. Fiqh is the man made laws and regulations based on authoritative sources of Divine Law: 1) the Quran 2) traditions of the Prophet Muhammed 3) qiyas (analogical reasoning) and 4) ijma’ (scholarly consensus). [In actual fact the methodology is more complex that this and takes into account much more including local custom among other things; however for the purposes of this blog we'll keep things simple].

Moustafa aims to find out how well do Malaysian Muslims understand the difference between the Sharia and the laws that they follow in Malaysia which are said to be Sharia, but which are in actual fact fiqh, by definition, because, as he demonstrates, they are neither based on any direct precedent from the Quran or the Sunnah.

Citing William Roff’s 1967 The Origins of Malay Nationalism

A direct effect of colonial rule was thus to encourage the concentration of doctrinal and administrative religious authority in the hands of a hierarchy of officials directly dependent on the sultans for their position and power. . . . By the second decade of the twentieth century Malaysia was equipped with extensive machinery for governing Islam. (pg 72-73)

Moustafa explains that in the span of less than 100 years there emerged in Malaysia a massive religious bureaucracy intended to centralize control of the the religious life of Malaysia (as opposed to leaving it decentralized and autonomous).

Furthermore what is truly shocking about this institutionalization and codification of the laws governing the Islamic religion is that the Shari‘a Criminal Procedure Act (1997) and the Shari‘a Civil Procedure Act (1997) borrow extensively from the framework of the civil courts in Malaysia. Moustafa says that “[t]he drafting committee literally copied the codes of procedure wholesale, making only minor changes where needed.”

Citing Abdul Hamid Mohamed, former Chief Justice of the Federal Court, who was on the drafting committee for various federal and state shari’a procedures acts in the 1980s and 1990s:

We decided to take the existing laws that were currently in use in the common law courts as the basis to work on, remove or substitute the objectionable parts, add whatever needed to be added, make them Shari‘ah-compliance [sic] and have them enacted as laws. In fact, the process and that “methodology,” if it can be so called, continue until today.

The provisions of the Shari‘ah criminal and civil procedure enactments/act are, to a large extent, the same as those used in the common law courts. A graduate in law from any common law country reading the “Shari‘ah” law of procedure in Malaysia would find that he already knows at least 80% of them . . . a common law lawyer reading them for the first time will find that he is reading something familiar, section by section, even word for word. Yet they are “Islamic law.” (Mohamed 2008, 1–2, 10)27

Moustafa adds that Abdul Hamid Mohamed himself, as well as most other legal personnel involved in the codification of Islamic legal procedures in Malaysia DO NOT have any formal education in Islamic jurisprudence. Let me repeat. The laws that govern Islam in Malaysia were codified by many people who have no formal training in Islamic Jurisprudence.

I’m starting to understand one of the reasons why the issue of authority and Islamic law in Malaysia is so confusing. It’s because the people who set up the system in the first place were themselves likely confused and had no real idea what they were during from the standpoint of Islamic jurisprudence. Whether intentionally or unknowingly, their lack of familiarity with the topics they were confronting was one reason why Islamic legal theory was subverted or ignored even though these individuals probably felt they were working for the sake of Islam.

Moustafa’s conclusion is:

The religious councils, the shari‘a courts, and the entire administrative apparatus are “Islamic” in name, but in function they bear little resemblance to anything that existed before the British arrived. A deep paradox is therefore at play: the legitimacy of the religious administration rests on the emotive power of Islamic symbolism, but its principal mode of organization and operation is fundamentally rooted in the Weberian state  [i.e that state that wishes to have a monopoly of [violent] control over its people].

We’ll review the results of the survey Moustafa conducted in Malaysia on a later post. For now I think it’s worthwhile to discuss what these facts mean for Islam and Muslims in Malaysia.

Politics aside (and politics play an important role no doubt), when Malaysians grapple with the trials and tribulations of how to be a good, practicing Muslim in the modern world, they are not only confronting a formidable adversary in the prevailing materialistic, secular, consumer-driven culture of consumption and instant gratification that is encroaching on every open society.

In addition they have to confront incredibly aggressive and, one might argue, ill-conceived bureaucracy of Islamic affairs that exists throughout Malaysia. Given that many of the laws enshrined in this bureaucracy are not even remotely based on derivations from traditional Islamic sources but are more likely vestiges of British colonial law “adapted” to an Islamic language, what kind of Islam are Malaysians supposed to be following? Furthermore if the people entrusted with the controls of these organizations are themselves ill qualified to carry out their tasks, then where are Malaysian Muslims to turn and what recourse do they have when the system (inevitably) fails to operate in a just and truly Islamic manner?

RPK's take on Hudud & PAS

As part of trying to understand the mind of Muslims and PAS, here is a reproduction of RPK's NO HOLDS BARRED: Thick in the head which incidentally repeated wha I had mentioned in my earlier post - Should non-Muslim have a say on Malaysia becoming an Islamic state?:

RPK: PAS requires non-Muslims to pay ‘Islamic’ tax other than income tax. Muslims pay zakat and non-Muslims pay kharaj. Is this not a violation of Article 11(2) of the Constitution?

At least now in addition to knowing the people of the book are referred to as dhimmis in an Islamic state, I now know the rest are called thimmies (also referred to as Ahl Zimmi?) and the tax paid by non-Muslims is called jizyah

Full text from RPK's article:

Grow up, PAS supporters. Stop acting like bloody spoiled children who throw tantrums every time someone does not agree with you. You are still far from matured. And until you show maturity do not expect us to show you respect. Respect must be earned. Stop demanding that we show you respect when you have not earned it.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

We are still seeing a lot of venom being spitted out because of my article on Hudud. The trouble is these people appear to think they have every right to propagate Hudud (just because they happen to be Muslim-Malays) and others have absolutely no right to oppose the issue.

They appear to have forgotten one very crucial issue. PAS is a political party. Therefore, whatever PAS says and does is politics. That is all it is. Politics. Nothing more nothing less.

Any political party is allowed to propagate and promote its objective, aspiration, ideology, mission, vision, manifesto, and what have you. This is the right of all political parties. And in that same spirit, any citizen of Malaysia has the right to disagree with what these political parties stand for.

It just happens to be that PAS promotes the Hudud issue. And those who do not support this issue are allowed to oppose it. What if PAS promotes the issue that every Malaysian citizen must be given a free cow? Do we have right to oppose that if we disagree with this idea?

What if PAS says that Malaysian males of the age of 15 must be allowed to vote and for females it should be the age of 11 because that is the age of puberty? Can we disagree with that proposal on grounds that Malaysians of age 11-15 are just too young and instead propose that all Malaysians of the age of 18 should be allowed to vote since they can get married and can drive a car at that age -- so they should be also allowed to vote at that age?

PAS members and Malaysians in general scream that Barisan Nasional and Umno do not respect the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. But do the PAS supporters respect the Constitution?

Article 8 (1 and 2) of the Constitution says all Malaysians must be treated equal. So how can Muslims suffer a different punishment from non-Muslims for crimes they commit? Is this not a violation of the Constitution? And is PAS respecting the Constitution by proposing different punishments for crimes based on your religion? The Constitution says there must be no discrimination based on religion.

PAS requires non-Muslims to pay ‘Islamic’ tax other than income tax. Muslims pay zakat and non-Muslims pay kharaj. Is this not a violation of Article 11(2) of the Constitution?

Why scream about Barisan Nasional and Umno not respecting the Constitution when we too do not respect it? We scream blue murder when it suits us. But we also violate the Constitution when it suits us.

This is what these emotional PAS supporters are overlooking. PAS is a political party. And everything they say and do must be seen as politics. And in politics we have a right to agree, disagree, and agree to disagree.

So what if PAS happens to be talking about Islam or Islamic laws? It is still politics since PAS is a political party. And in politics we have every right to agree or disagree with what you say and do.

Grow up, PAS supporters. Stop acting like bloody spoiled children who throw tantrums every time someone does not agree with you. You are still far from matured. And until you show maturity do not expect us to show you respect. Respect must be earned. Stop demanding that we show you respect when you have not earned it.

***********************************************

DAP will not compromise on hudud issue, says Karpal

(The Star) - DAP will not depart from its stand that Malaysia should not be an Islamic country.

DAP chairman Karpal Singh said PAS should not infringe the ruling by the five-men bench Supreme Court ruling in 1988, which decreed that the country is governed by secular laws.

“This ruling is not overturned and therefore the decision still stands.

“PAS has to accept the Supreme Court’s pronunciation,” he told a press conference at the Air Itam market yesterday.

He was commenting on PAS Youth chief Nasrudin Hassan Tantawi’s statement that it would continue to push for the implementation of Islamic laws in Malaysia despite fierce objection from the DAP.

Karpal Singh, who is also Bukit Gelugor MP, said the party would not compromise on its principles to appease its political partners.

He said DAP was not anti-Malay or anti-Islam but “what we want in absolute terms is what the Constitution provides for and for what the Supreme Court has decreed”.

“Syariah laws means hudud laws and hudud laws are inappropriate for a multi-cultural and multi-racial country like Malaysia.”

On the allegation made by Umno Youth that the state government was using the Penang Turf Club’s contribution to fund its hardcore poor eradication programme, Karpal Singh said Umno should not exploit the issue.

“The income of the country or at least part of it is from gambling.

“If Umno is right, then all governments (state and Federal) should be condemned as the gambling permits are also issued by the Federal Government,” he said.

***********************************************

Federal Constitution of Malaysia

Article 8

1. All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

2. Except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.

Article 11

1. Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.

2. No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own.

Article 153 - Islam, Muslims, bumiputeras, non-Muslims

Aizuddin Danian argued that Article 153 of the Malaysia Constitution that provides special privilages to bumiputers creates unfairness and is unislamic. I would believe so. However, as a non-Muslim and a non-bumiputera, what I am keenly interested in is whether similar discriminations and unfairness against non-Muslims in an Islamic state exist. There is some preliminary discussion of that issue in my earlier post on Should non-Muslims in Malaysia have a say regarding Malaysia becoming an Islamic state? at a time when I may not have an in-depth understanding of the issue yet. However, let us see what Aizuddin regarding bumiputeras and non-bumiputeras. Check back later to see if there is any further development:

Article 153 -- is it un-Islamic?
By Aizuddin Danian on September 20, 2010 9:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
Share |

Malaysia's official religion, according to Article 3 of its Constitution, is Islam. That doesn't make Malaysia a Muslim nation; there is a find line between a theological state and a secular one. We've yet to make that cross over.

Having said this, it came to mind whether there are any articles in our beloved Constitution that are un-Islamic, in particular Article 153.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, but subject to the provisions of Article 40 and of this Article, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall exercise his functions under this Constitution and federal law in such manner as may be necessary to safeguard the special provision of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and to ensure the reservation for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of such proportion as he may deem reasonable of positions in the public service (other than the public service of a State) and of scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government and, when any permit or licence for the operation of any trade or business is required by federal law, then, subject to the provisions of that law and this Article, of such permits and licences.

When you think about a Muslim Government in current times, you have to compare it against the Muslim Government of the Prophet Muhammad's time, namely his administration of Muslims and non-Muslims while he was alive.

Muslims are told to take the Prophet as an example (his sunnah); while the Holy Quran often speaks in parables, the actions of the Prophet are how Muslims for all time should interpret as manifestations of what the Holy Quran prescribes in practice. For example, the Holy Quran mentions that Muslims must pray, but it doesn't teach us how to pray. The Prophet's daily prayers are the sample of how these prayers should be performed.

What about the Prophet's political sunnah?

The basis i'm dealing from is the social contract the Prophet signed and ratified with the people of Medina called, the "Medinah Charter". Some say that the Charter is one of the first of its kind, the first ever written state constitution.

The document itself, signed in 622, is an excellent socio-political compromise. The Prophet Muhammad had to get away from the religious persecution of Mecca, and the people of Medina, due to conflict between the native communities of Khazraj and Aws, needed a peace-maker. It was a match literally made in heaven -- the Prophet brought Islam and peace to the Khazraj and Aws by being the one person both sides could trust, and the Prophet was provided a base from which Islam could grow and flourish in the region.

There are key articles in the Charter that can be, taken into context, contradictory to the Constitution of Malaysia, particularly Article 153 which promises a "special position" to the indigenous Malays (Bumiputeras).

Therefore, the thesis is: Malaysia is a Muslim nation. However, its constitution is not in accordance to the sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad. Does that make the Malaysian constitution (parts of it) un-Islamic?
Article 16 of the Medina Charter:

Those Jews who follow the Believers will be helped and will be treated with equality.

Article 17:

No Jew will be wronged for being a Jew.

Article 19:

The peace of the Believers (of the State of Madinah) cannot be divided. (it is either peace or war for all. It cannot be that a part of the population is at war with the outsiders and a part is at peace).

Article 30:

The Jews of Bani Awf will be treated as one community with the Believers. The Jews have their religion. This will also apply to their freedmen. The exception will be those who act unjustly and sinfully. By so doing they wrong themselves and their families.

The example in this document set by the Prophet is molded on several principles:

Loyalty will be rewarded, treachery will be punished.
The minorities of the community (the Jews) are equal in rights to the majority from the point of view of the State.
Those that need help will be given help, regardless of their belief.

Let's transplant these principles into our locality:

Loyalty will be rewarded -- the modern day equivalent is citizenship and nationality. If you profess to be a Malaysian, that means you are loyal to your country. No distinction is made to your ethnicity, race or origin. If you are loyal (i.e. a citizen), then you will rewarded by the State. In 622, "protection" was the reward. In 2010, "equal opportunity" should be the reward -- its the only real protection we have against the ills of socio-economic hardship.

The minorities have equal rights to the majority -- this is where the Prophet Muhammad was at least 6 centuries ahead of his time; even the venerated Magna Carta does not protect the rights of all its people equally. If people like Ibrahim Ali and the ultra Malays have their way, then the Prophet Muhammad will be at least 1,500 years ahead of us.

Those in need will be helped, regardless of their belief -- race is the new religion. In 622, the Prophet laid the framework for religious equality: the State will help you if you are in need (and if you are loyal), the State will be "blind" to your religion when dispensing this aid. Fast forward to the 21st Century, and at least where Malaysia is concerned, is seems that there are many in our society who believe that "help" should be dispensed based on your race. If you're a Bumiputera, then "more" help should be made available to you.

The crux of the argument is that the resources of the country will always be limited. To put it simply, there will always be only 100 cows to give away. While it may make sense to give a guarantee that 60% of the population will always have preference to 30 of those cows, this creates a vacuum where the herd has effectively become much smaller: after the "majority tax" the nation only really has 70 cows left to give away.

Considering the fact that these 70 cows need to be distributed evenly, its very possible that they won't be enough to feed everyone. What do you say to the starving people who couldn't get one of the 70 cows? Sorry, we know you're in need, but we've already reserved those 30 other cows, you can't have them (we'll give them to that other fellow instead, who may not need the cow to begin with but happens to be part of the privileged group).

The Prophet Muhammad was a pretty smart man. He knew that the Muslims needed the Jews, Christians and idol worshipers of Medina, just as much as they needed his unique peacekeeping talents.

The Malays of Malaysia need the Chinese, Indians and others, and vice versa. Its a symbiotic relation that only works when we're all equally vested and equally rewarded. While the early years of statehood required Article 153 (just like we required the Reid Commission to write our Constitution for us), i think the time has come that we use our own words to determine our own fate.

The sunnah of the prophet has shown us that equality and fairplay are the basic twin peaks of nation building. While i won't go so far as to say the likes of Article 153 in the Malaysian Constitution, PERKASA and the ultra Malay are un-Islamic for ignoring the sunnah of the Prophet, sometimes you just have to realize that the proof is in the pudding.

Related articles
Ibrahim Ali - intellectually bankrupt (aizuddindanian.com)
Am i racist? (aizuddindanian.com)
The Gini co-efficient is only half the story for Malaysia (aizuddindanian.com)
This is the sort of thing that inflames Muslims (aizuddindanian.com)

Categories: Perspectives
Tags: article 153, malaysia, racism
1 Comments
By timothy au on September 20, 2010 6:21 PM
Prophet Muhammad is an honorable man, those from perkasa and barisan national can't even be compare to His Highness shit!shit!shit!

Source: Article 153 -- is it un-Islamic?

Comparison - Islamic and Convention Banking - Islamic banking worst

by Syed Akbar Ali


I recently attended a talk on "Contemporary Islamic Finance". The speaker was a young man with a PhD in Islamic Banking and Finance (UK). He was from an outfit linked to INCEIF ( International Center for Education in Islamic Finance).

Islamic banking or Islamic finance exists because the religious folks have succesfully inculcated the idea that bank interest is riba and therefore haram. The Quran states clearly that riba is haram but nowhere can we derive the injunction that bank interest is riba. The two are not the same.

Anyway the religious folks have created 'islamic finance' and 'islamic banking'. To cut a long story short there really is no such thing. Islamic finance and Islamic banking are just arabised versions of conventional banking. There is nothing islamic about it. Neither is there anything un-islamic about conventional banking either.

If you take a housing loan from a conventional "haram" bank you pay a monthly instalment. If you dont pay, the bank will auction your property. If you go to an 'islamic bank' you still have to pay monthly instalments which can be more expensive than the conventional bank. If you dont pay your instalment, the islamic bank will still auction your property too. What is so islamic or unislamic about that?

The conventional 'haram' bank will charge you interest say 10% a year. The 'islamic bank' charges you what they call a 'profit rate' which will also be 10% or more a year. Kira-kira semua sama, tapi ini halal, itu haram. This is called pulling the wool over peoples' eyes.

Talking about the pricing of his Islamic banking products, the young man with the PhD in Islamic banking made no bones about it. He said it quite loudly and clearly 'we want to be the same as the market'.

I discovered this islamic banking trick years ago when we were handling the earliest stages of Islamic banking in Malaysia . At that time we called it an 'Islamic window' - Maybank did not yet have a full fledged Islamic banking license. But three months Islamic Bankers Acceptances (IABs) were priced exactly the same as three months conventional BAs. And so on. Tak ada beza pun.

A colleague who wore a kopiah to work had volunteered to go and work in the Islamic banking part of the bank. After a while he became even more confused. He said the calculations were all the same. In Islamic banking you add an 'Al' prefix to everything. Al Wadiah, Al Murabahah, Al Mudharabah, Al this and Al that. Other than the 'Al' its all the same.

Then the speaker dropped a bombshell. There is a famous case where an Islamic bank was suing a borrower for non payment of a housing "loan". According to Islamic banking the bank does not give you a "loan". The bank first buys the house from you at the market price. Then it sells the house back to you at a higher price over the period of the "loan" say 10 years, 15 years etc. Its just a deferred payment scheme with a 'profit rate' factored in.

The Islamic bank determines the selling price by compounding the "profit rate" (say 10% - copycatting the conventional banking system - 'we want to be the same as the market') for 10 years or 15 years. For those of you who have financial calculators (and if I still remember my financial computations), this is just the Future Value (FV) of an annuity at 10% starting with Present Value (PV) being the price of the house today and going forward 10 years, 15 years, 20 years etc. The Casio calculator will give you the 'islamic' answer in seconds. Does that make Casio 'islamic' too?

In a conventional 'haram' bank, if you default on your 20 year housing loan say after just three years, the conventional bank will ask you to pay back the principal amount of the loan plus 10% interest compounded for three years. The islamic bank cannot do that. The islamic bank will ask you to pay the full selling price of the house (based on 10% for 20 years) - even though you defaulted only after three years.

This is what the Islamic bank was claiming. However the very wise judge of the High Court Abdul Wahab Patail, the brother of our present AG, made a landmark decision. He ruled that the Islamic bank cannot charge the borrower the full amount for the full tenure of the "loan" when the borrower had defaulted just a few years into the "loan".

This decision by Justice Abdul Wahab Patail still stands until today and it has not been overturned. It also destroys a huge chunk of Islamic banking because the Judge has essentially ruled that the islamic banking system in Malaysia is actually unjust. It is worse than riba.

So how does INCEIF and the Islamic bankers handle this situation? This is where the speaker dropped the bombshell - and with a great big smile too. He said "the Muslims dont know" about Justice Abdul Wahab Patail's decision. Well dear Muslims, I hope that now you know. Please do spread the word quickly.

The speaker said that 'Islamic banking can still go on in our country because the Muslims dont know the decision by Abdul Wahab Patail'. In other words the islamic bankers are not going to tell the Muslim borrowers either. They will keep it quiet. Shhhhh ! ! And this is Islamic?

Then I learned something else too. While the speaker was talking about murabahah (one method of islamic financing), the Chairman at the talk was getting quite agitated. The Chairman was a foreigner from the Middle East and is an internationally acclaimed Islamic scholar himself. Suddenly he interrupted the speaker and made a clarification. He said that according to the Hanafi madhab (I think he is a Hanafi) murabahah was riba. Meaning murabahah was haram.

He then said that the Islamic banking practised in Malaysia was according to the Shafie madhab. Madhab means sect. Only then did it dawn upon me that in Malaysia we dont have generic islamic banking. It is "Shafie banking", according to the Shafie madhab.

A Muslim friend with a PhD from Cambridge later explained that this is partly the reason why there cannot be an "international Islamic capital market". One madhab's murabahah is another madhab's riba. One madhab's al bai al bithaman ajil is another madhab's riba also.

When a borrower defaults (or prepays) a 20 year housing "loan" say after just three years, the islamic bank can do what is called 'ibrar'. (In the old days they called it muqassa - I dont know why the change). 'Ibrar' means to refund the balance owing but not yet due. In other words 'buah belum masak lu jangan kira lah'. But there is no fixed or detailed idea about 'ibrar' among the islamic bankers.

So defaulting borrowers have no choice but to fight it out in the Courts with the Islamic banks. The speaker said that todate there are 3,500 unresolved cases of islamic banking BBA housing loans (Al Bai Al Bithaman Ajil) being disputed at the Courts in KL. And one judge, a Dato Rohana, has been assigned to handle all these cases. Well good luck Justice Dato Rohana. She will become an expert in Al Bai Al Bithaman Ajil calculations - maybe faster than Casio.

If it is a conventional housing loan, all these 3500 cases can be resolved by a Casio calculator. (Ya Allah, why do the Muslims like to create all these strange things and end up tying themselves in knots?)

During the talk, the speaker put up a slide that had the arabic word 'zulm'. Zulm in Malay is zalim, meaning oppressive. The meaning was that Islamic banking should not be zalim or oppressive like the 'conventional' banking system with its interest based practises.

But how is the islamic bank less oppressive than the conventional bank? You charge the same rates - quite unashamedly saying 'want to be the same as the market'. The terms and conditions are the same except when the 'loan' turns bad. Then the islamic bank can become worse than Shylock the Jewish moneylender. They want their pound of flesh. And the conventional bank is still 'haram'?

There is another danger lurking. Talk is some ignorant do gooders are thinking of legislation where Muslims will be barred from using the conventional banking system. They can only go to the Islamic banking system. That is how we end up in the Club of Doom.