Monday, August 30, 2010

Non-Muslims and The Mosque plus 2 Other Stuffs I'm Confused About

When someone champions something to which he does not understand, it is just plain sad and pathetic. Let us move into a realm of fantasy and consider a fish who champions global warming (yes, in the negative sense of things) or Bush championing war in Iraq (Wait, that is reality. He truly does not understand anything does he?).

So it is a bit pathetic when a Muslim champions for Islam's cause by condemning the act of besmirching the sanctity of the mosque. Well if it is indeed besmirching, I would not have a problem with it. However, this ‘act’ only involved a non-Muslim entering a mosque, the same non-Muslim handing out donations and that same lady giving a talk in the mosque.

How is that considered ‘besmirching’?

Well, according to him, it is because there’s political motive behind the visit – and how does he prove it? Simply by pointing out the fact that she wasn’t wearing ‘tudung’. Nice, should I also point out that one is a frog simply because he jumps a lot? (or that he does kind of look like one).

Let’s take a look at history and traditions. Of course coming from me this does not hold much water, but as it has already been said by Islamic scholars like Dr Asri and Ustaz Zaharuddin and well respected Muslim leader in Nik Aziz, I think I’m well supported.

Rasulullah s.a.w. has once met Christians of Najran at the An-Nabawi mosque during his time. The purpose of the visit was to debate on matters of religion. Best explained from this text I found in the world web wide: “When the Najran delegation reached Madina, they debated with the Prophet in an investigatory dialogue for two or three days in the mosque (Masjid) of Madina. Prophet Muhammad allowed them to pray in the mosque (Masjid al-Nabawi) where the Muslims prayed. The whole incident was the first occurrence of peaceful dialogue between Christians and Muslims; it was the first time that Christians prayed in a mosque.” They cited Ibn Hisham, Abd al-Malik, al-Sirat al Nabaviyyah, Egypt 1955,575 as their source. I have no reason to doubt their source as this has been widely circulated long before this issue cropped up – and well documented.

On the whole matter of rules and regulations, you can read here for a better understanding.

One could argue that an investigatory dialogue to debate whose religion speaks the truth is a more controversial matter than, let’s say, handing out donation – just ask Zulkifli Noordin. But some people just choose to be ignorant for the benefit of personal gains. In fact, commonly in such debates one would deny the truths about the other’s contention. Shouldn’t it be considered besmirching one’s religion if indeed one party denies the existence of the other religion’s God? Then why did Rasulullah s.a.w. allow the Najran Christians to pray in the mosque?

Would any actual Muslim even consider to question Rasulullah s.a.w.’s judgment?

Looking at the big picture, what Rasulullah s.a.w. did was an act of preaching the true faith. What he did is Dakwah, to attract the non-Muslims, in this case Christians, to Islam. Who can deny that his approach has indeed been successful? Christianity has long existed before Islam, so has Judaism for that matter, but there is no one other faith

that has grown as rapidly as Islam.

I mean, let's look west for a bit. The location, New York City. The Google keyword, "Ground Zero". The issue, building a social centre for Muslims right smack in the middle of New York and very close to the World Trade Centre. Why is it an issue? Well, it wasn't at first, the builders were given the go-ahead by the government, the city council and the mayor and so on, but it later became an issue because people found out that 2 top-most floors is where the mosque is located.

It suddenly became a terror centre. Here we have a country so diverse in culture and so diverse the people, unable to accept a mosque being build close to the World Trade Centre because it reminds them of 9/11 and equating what was a terror act to all things Islam. In New York, they are afraid of Islam, afraid of mosques and afraid to get know the real Islam.

Thus this brings us back to matters back home. It is not like this issue has never happened before. In fact, one only needs to go back to 2009 to find a similar incident that raised a similar issue. Of course, the players are a bit different, the state is the same and the messenger, well one expects no less from Utusan. Read it here, but I can say that it is basically the same – change Xavier with Teo, Jais with Mais, Pemuda UMNO with Perkasa – so don’t bother.

Sadly when a non-Muslim has so willingly entered a mosque in Malaysia, when some sees it as an opportunity to Da'wah and to show the beauty of Islam, some choose to see it in a bad way. To even suggest the banning of it when Rasulullah s.a.w. himself allowed it. Have we lost the plot? Do we not understand the meaning of Islam anymore?

It is utterly pathetic to say that you’re championing Islam when Islam itself does not want It to be championed in such a manner. Scream, kick, protest and do what you must for the sake of Islam but do not associate it with fallacy.

By the way, where’s Khairy in all of these?


Explain To Us Please

Yes PM Najib, care to explain what 1 Malaysia really means?

The Chinese are seeing light at the end of the 1 Malaysia tunnel. The oppositions are seeing nothing but a carbon copy of their agenda. Perkasa just doesn’t see anything.

I tried understanding the whole huu-haa that is ‘1 Malaysia’ and though I appreciate the attempt by the government to portray Malaysia as a rather more wholesome entity, I can’t see pass the number ‘1’. That is there’s 1 race above the others – as expounded by Perkasa and some in UMNO.

When someone tries to explain that it is about bringing the different races in Malaysia under one huge umbrella with the words ‘1 Malaysia’ and the Malaysian flag donning its every space, it quickly got shot down by those associated with the ones that actually came up with the concept. The PM’s mentor shot it down, his deputy shot it down, his cousin shot it down and even his lobbyist – his main man doing all the Malay-based work -- shot it down. The only one really championing this cause is his purported enemy from within.

I would love to know it’s all about. But all I’m getting are mix messages – from the same people.


Surely New Zealand Could Do Much Better Than That

New Zealand could really do much better. I mean, they’ve got an Oscar winning director in Peter Jackson. Orlando Bloom, Liv Tyler, Elijah Wood have all been there and stayed there for quite some time. Sam Neil and Anna Paquin is said to be from there. These are beautiful influential people, idols to some people in this world, highly attractive and would definitely do well to advertise the beautiful country that is New Zealand.

But instead they have the Malaysian Tourism Minister doing all the work for them, without actually working for them (I’m guessing with her salary being paid by the Malaysian government).

I read The Star almost every day and since last week, I’ve not seen a single issue where our beloved (and said to be the most efficient based on KPIs achieved) tourism minister not advertising for the New Zealanders. It’s great that she could have a holiday whilst working (argue all you want, that is the dream job) and we’re all happy for her, but seriously? So far I’ve seen pictures of her in the snow, by the country side and the latest one is the gondola ride with her husband – looking cozy with matching vests, blankets and hats. I’m not going to even question what’s her husband doing there (they look like a nice happy couple).

I realize you’re doing a world of good over there promoting Malaysia since this country is indeed very beautiful. But are all the coverage necessary? You probably reached like 5,000 Kiwis with the “Malaysia, Truly Asia” message, but New Zealand reached at least 1.5million Malaysian people with all the pictures you published. I’m not against promoting other countries, but at least get something substantial in return.

However, I’m happy to say, I welcome today’s article which has this line “In wrapping up the tour mission…” in it. This basically means, it’s all over folks! What a rousing success for the Ministry, and New Zealand! What joy it is for Malaysia! Not only does the mission promote Malaysia outside the country, but it also serves as an inspiration to all the children, the younger generation, that if you study hard and work hard, you could one day end up with the dream job that is Minister of Tourism.

Now how do I book an online trip to New Zealand? Christchurch looks nice this time of year. Wait, am I allowed to go to Christchurch, given that there's the word "Christ" and "church" and you know the whole issue with mosques and non-Muslims? Does it work both ways Pak Ali?

No comments:

Post a Comment