Allahu Akhbar!

Why and how could this happen?

In Turkey an earthquake brought down everything in the whole area but ...




In Aceh huge tsunami flattened the whole area but ...

Ujian Allah swt

At-Tagaabun 64

[14] Wahai orang-orang yang beriman! Sesungguhnya ada di antara isteri-isteri kamu dan anak-anak kamu yang menjadi musuh bagi kamu; oleh itu awaslah serta berjaga-jagalah kamu terhadap mereka. Dan kalau kamu memaafkan dan tidak marahkan (mereka) serta mengampunkan kesalahan mereka (maka Allah akan berbuat demikian kepada kamu), kerana sesungguhnya Allah Maha Pengampun, lagi Maha Mengasihani.

[15] Sesungguhnya harta benda kamu dan anak-anak kamu itu hanyalah menjadi ujian, dan di sisi Allah jualah pahala yang besar.

Did you feel it?

The strongest earth quake in 40 years - today, on the day of my birth. MasyaAllah. Whilst thousands died - unthinkable that it would happen to them -- it came without a warning -- it came as Allah's will.

The question here is that, the earth quake happened at 9 am. People all over the country felt it. But was there anything done by the government to warn the people that lives along the coast, or those that usually goes out to sea of the possible repercussions of an earth quake?

No! None!

Reporting the dead, is too late.

Hukum mengucapkan Merry Christmas

Hukum mengucapkan Merry Christmas kepada teman-teman kita yang beragama Kristien adalah Haram lagi Syirik.

Ia lebih besar dosanya daripada menyuruh orang berzina, minum arak, membuka aurat, main judi, membunuh dan sebagainya. Ini adalah kerana dosa syirik adalah dosa yang tidak akan diampunkan oleh Allah jika seseorang itu mati sebelum sempat bertaubat daripada dosa syiriknya.

Bagaimana mengucapkan Merry Christmas boleh menjadikan kita syirik? Kita tahu bahawa agama Christianity adalah agama yang batil (salah) lagi sesat kerana mempertuhankan manusia dan rasul yang bernama Isa yang mereka sebut sebagai Jesus Christ. Ada pula yang mempertuhankan ibunya, iaitu Maryam. Mempertuhankan seseorang ada banyak cara, samada dengan jelas menyembahnya atau dengan takut kepadanya atau dengan mengharap dan meletakkan sandaran kepadanya, atau ghalu (melampau) dalam menyanjungnya dan sebagainya. Jadi, agama Christianity adalah agama syirik, agama yang bukan sahaja menduakan Allah, tetapi mentigakan Allah dengan ajaran Trinity mereka yang mengajarkan konsep the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost atau Holy Spirit.

Nah, hari Natal atau Christmas adalah hari keagamaan mereka, syiar dan lambang kegembiraan mereka. Ia adalah perayaan yang ada sangkut pautdengan agama sesat ini.

Mengucapkan Merry Christmas memberi implikasi bahawa kita menyuruh atau menggalak atau memberi perangsang kepada orang Kristien supaya terus sesat dan menyesatkan. Ucapan Merry Christmas mempunyai unsur-unsur redha dan rela dengan kesyirikan yang mereka lakukan, atau yang mereka percayai atau yang mereka yakini, sekaligus memberikan kesetiaan kita kepada Bibel yang mereka anggap sebagai wahyu!

Apa yang perlu kita buat bila teman kita berikan kita hadiah Christmas?

Ambil sahaja sebagai suatu kurniaan Allah kepada kita. Kalau ianya makanan yang halal, makanlah. Kalau benda yang baik, gunakanlah. Kalau tidak halal, buang sahaja. Ini bukan membazir. Sebagai contoh, memakan daging babi diharamkan oleh Allah di dalam Al-Quran dan Al-Quran tidak mengharamkannya untuk orang Islam sahaja, tetapi untuk manusia secara umum. Jadi, kalau hadiah makanan itu tidak halal, buang sahaja. Kita tidak perlu membalas kembali pemberian itu. Kita pun tidak meminta diberikan sesuatu, jadi mengapa mesti kita terasa perlu untuk membalas kembali? Kalau ingin berikan hadiah sangat, berikan pada kesempatan yang lain yang tidak ada kaitan dengan hari kebesaran mereka atas dasar persahabatan biasa.

Kalau teman Kristien kita mengucapkan Merry Christmas, cukup kita senyum sahaja dan tidak perlu membalas ucapan itu dengan kata-kata “same to you” atau yang senada atau yang sewaktu dengannya; kerana membalas kembali memberi implikasi yang telah kita bincangkan tadi. Senyuman kita itu pun bukan kerana gembira kepada Christmas itu, tetapi kerana kita telah diberikan rezeki oleh Allah yang memang patut kita bergembira dan tersenyum.

Kalau mengucapkan Merry Christmas sahaja adalah haram, apatah lagi bersuka ria dan berpesta menyambut Christmas? Apatah lagi menghias pokok Christmas dan sibuk-sibuk di situ? Tidak cukupkah dengan Idul Fitr, Idul Adha dan hari Jumaat yang Allah telah kurniakan kepada kita sebagai Hari Raya?

Wajarkah kita hapuskan pahala ibadah puasa kita dengan kesyirikan yang amat tidak terasa itu? Dalam hadith sahih disebutkan bahawa syirik itu adalah seperti seekor semut hitam berjalan di atas batu yang hitam di malam yang gelap gelita yang berada di belakang kita. Begitulah hakikat syirik, tidak terasa kehadirannya, tetapi berbahaya untuk dunia dan akhirat kita.

Sesungguhnya mengucapkan Merry Christmas adalah aqidah yang berlaku setiap hujung tahun yang menghapus amalan ibadah kita sepanjang tahun itu dan jika ia tidak diiringi dengan Taubat Nasuha, bererti amal ibadah kita selanjutnya adalah null and void kerana dilakukan oleh orang-orang yang sudah rosak aqidahnya.

Jadi, ucapan mudah dan ringan seperti Merry Christmas ada kuasa untuk menghapuskan keimanan kita sepertimana ucapan dua kalimah syahadah mempunyai kuasa untuk menjadikan kita orang yang memeluk Aqidah Tauhid. Beza antara keduanya ialah, ucapan Merry Christmas menghancurkan keimanan dan membawa kepada kemurkaan Allah manakala kalimah syahadah membawa keredhaan-Nya.

Firman Allah di awal Surah Al-Kahfi yang bermaksud:

Segala pujian bagi Allah yang telah menurunkan Al-Kitab (Al-Quran) kepada hamba-Nya (Muhammad) dan tidak menjadikan baginya sesuatu kebengkokan. (Diturunkan) untuk memberikan peringatan mengenai siksaan yang keras dan berat dari sisi-Nya dan untuk memberikan berita gembira kepada orang-orang yang beriman yang beramal soleh bahawa bagi mereka pahala yang baik (Syurga).

Mereka tinggal di dalamnya (Syurga) selama-lamanya. Dan untuk memberi peringatan kepada mereka yang berkata Allah telah mengambil seorang anak (eg. Christians). Tidak ada bagi mereka dengan kata-kata itu daripada ilmu dan tidak pula bapa-bapa mereka; besar implikasi/risiko kalimat yang keluar daripada mulut-mulut mereka; mereka tidak mengatakan kecuali dusta.

Jadi, kata-kata Allah mempunyai anak itu adalah kata-kata yang besar implikasi dan risikonya dan besar pada pandangan Allah. Maka ucapan Merry Christmas yang memberi makna anjuran supaya bersukaria di hari kebesaran orang Kristien itu juga mengandungi anjuran supaya terus menganut ajaran sesat itu.

Sepatutnya kita berdakwah kepada mereka mengenai ajaran Islam, bukan menggalakkan mereka terus dalam kesesatan.

Apostasy: the Prophet has spoken ...

Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi
MKini: Dec 17, 04 3:39pm

It is with great interest that I read the flurry of responses to my letter entitled Have zero tolerance for apostasy.

Most of the respondents accuse me of being ‘hypocritical’, ‘arrogant’ and other accusations which are clearly a classical case of ‘argumentum ad hominem’. Some even went to the extent of documenting a clash of ‘liberal vs radical Islam’ which is not the issue I addressed in my letter.

I am even more shocked that a learned scholar such as Dr Syed Alwi Ahmad in his letter could hold such a ‘liberalised’ form of Islam which is tantamount to mocking the Prophet's (P) declared initiative: ‘Man badhla ha deenahu faqthuluhu’ (Whoever changes his religion, kill him).

Hence, I stand firm in my conviction that ‘liberal Islam’ is a concoction of Western liberalism and cannot be defined as Islam.

Kindly allow me to quote Dr M Hamidullah who in his book Introduction to Islam writes the following:

‘The Islamic law expressly recognises for non-Muslims the liberty to preserve their beliefs; and if it forbids categorically all recourse to compulsion for converting others to Islam, it maintains a rigorous discipline among its own adherents.

‘The basis of the Islamic ‘nationality’ is religious and not ethnic, linguistic or regional. Hence, apostasy has naturally been considered political treason. It is true that this crime is punished by penalties, but the necessity scarcely arose as history has proved.’

From the above, it is clear that the Qur'anic line

‘La ikraha fi d-din (‘There is no compulsion in religion’ -Sura' 2:256)

is generally understood to mean that no one should use compulsion against another in matters of faith, and not with regard to its own (former) adherents, i.e. apostates and the regulation of apostasy.

Let us examine the ‘ayaat’: ‘La ikhra ha fideen’ (There is no compulsion in religion). Now, what do we mean by ‘compulsion’? If a Muslim were to eat pork, commit adultery and murder people, does this mean that it would be ‘compulsion’ if Islamic laws were imposed upon this person?

Is it ‘compulsion’ then to prevent Muslims from committing adultery or eating pork? The only thing that is ‘contentious’ here is how the ‘liberal Islam’ folk have interpreted to suit their own whim and fancies.

On the claim that some apostates were ‘not open to choices because they were not exposed to other religions’, I for one can clearly say that this is nonsense. I myself have been brought up in a semi-liberal Muslim environment, was exposed to the Christian Bible about 10 years back, and yet I still remain a staunch Muslim and I am proud to call myself one.

It is certainly no excuse for an apostate to not have learnt Islam properly and to rely solely on what they have been spoon-fed at school or by their parents.

I must also address fears that I am espousing a ‘Taliban’, ‘Sudan’ or ‘Saudi Arabian-style’ ideology. Although I do hold that the Taliban did - in spite of their ultra-orthodox interpretations - attempt to practise Islam, I do not hold the Taliban to be Islamic.

Neither do I, in any shape or form, condone the style of Islam as practiced in Saudi Arabia or Sudan. As far as where I stand, I am simply a Muslim upholding the creed of the Ahl Sunnah Wal Jamaah and I will continue to struggle against all forms of distortion with regard to Islam whether it is by the ‘liberal Muslims’, apostates or others.

Amusing it is for some to tell me to ‘... return to the 7th century’ for I am currently in my second-year of completing my degree in Computing and Information Technology (specialising in software engineering) and hence will always remain in this present age and time determined as ever to see Muslims return to proper Islamic values and practices.

As of late, there are a group of so-called Muslims, sympathetic to the West, who attempt to synthesise Western ideas and philosophy with Islam and then pass it off as how Islam should be practiced.

In addition to this, they also espouse other ideologies of various heterodox sects which existed during Islam's Golden Age, such as the Jabbariyyah, Qadariyyah and several others which are too long to list here.

I find that these people are making a mockery of what Islam is and are putting forth their erroneous interpretations and rulings which are in total contrast to mainstream orthodox Islam.

One fine example would be the issue of apostasy where they say that the religion of Muslims should be a ‘free-for-all’ affair. However, we can read in Kitab al-Umm how Imam Ash-Shafi'i (R) discussed the issue of apostasy in three long chapters, defining apostasy, the circumstances leading to apostasy and, most importantly, its punishment and how it is to be executed.

Another example would be the issue of non-Muslims marrying Muslims. One can read the Qur'an as well as the corresponding chapters from al-Bukhari and Muslim on this issue to confirm that non-Muslim men are forbidden from marrying Muslim women unless if they convert to Islam.

Instead, these ‘liberal Islam’ exponents come up with their own various reasoning and interpretations for this issue which they either outsource from the Western feminist movement or from God-knows-where!

These are two examples that I have isolated. There are several more but I think my point is clear on how the members of the heterodox ‘liberal Islam’ movement think.

It is a shame that the malaise of ‘liberal Islam’ is infecting the best minds in the ummah. This is a malaise we should blame on the Barisan Nasional government for its overemphasis on Fard `al-Kifayah instead of balancing it with Fard `al-Ayn.

The verse (Qur'an, 2:256) I cited in my letter has been misused by liberal Islam adherents and apostates alike. This verse only refers to the freedom given to non-Muslims to practice their respective faiths or religious beliefs.

In short, a Buddhist is given the freedom to practice his/her religion, likewise a Christian, and so forth. A Muslim must never compel an adherent of another faith to convert to Islam as it is against the spirit of Qur'an 2:256.

Now the issue we are discussing here is the case of apostates and apostasy. The issue is not as ‘contentious’ as some wish to make it out to be, as the majority of scholars have agreed that apostasy is a capital crime and is considered treason against Islam and the ummah.

No amount of quoting from man-made laws such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which, by the way, Malaysia is not a signatory of) will change this obvious fact.

In the end, I would like to quote from Article XIII of the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights which states:

‘XIII: Right to freedom of religion.

'Every person has the right to freedom of conscience and worship in accordance with his religious beliefs.’

But, I must add, not the freedom to apostatise from Islam. And only God knows best.

The Family Under Attack

Thus Allah maketh clear His revelations unto you, that haply ye may be guided, and there may spring from you a nation who invite to goodness, and enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency. Such are they who are successful.

(Aal `Imran 3:103–104)

Muslims are quick to condemn obvious evils and injustices such as occupations and invasions. But there are other evil forces in the world that are not so obvious, yet they affect us directly or indirectly.

If the United Nations had its way, any adolescent in the world could receive sexual counseling and birth control, even an abortion, without parental knowledge or consent. But no teenage marriages, please! Women would be encouraged to join the paid labor force while their children are placed in day care at government expense. Wouldn’t a paid “professional” give your child better moral values than you could at home? Homosexuals would be free to marry each other—no matter what your country’s major or official religion is. You may believe that you live in a sovereign country, but United Nations conferences eat away at your nation’s right to determine its own policies and laws. Some portion of your taxes are paid to the United Nations as membership fees, but you have no voice in decisions that are made.

Or do you? In the coming months we will continue to present articles, reports, and live dialogues to show you what is happening at the United Nations with regards to women and family issues, how pro-family non-government organizations (NGOs) are fighting back, and how you can join the cause.

The Family Under Attack

As families disintegrate due to social, political, economic, and other forces, many international agencies are promoting policies that threaten the traditional family. At the United Nations, “Beijing” is not just a city in China.

The Establishment of Customary International Law

Is the UN culturally neutral in its interpretations? Can Western norms be forced on nations? And just how many genders are there? Austin Ruse of Catholic Families and Human Rights Institute answered these and other questions in an eye-opening Live Dialogue on October 26, 2004

The Anti-Family Agenda in the United Nations

Do these issues affect us in developed countries? Why do countries sign these agreements? What can we do to stop this agenda? Doug Clark of United Families International answered these and other questions in a Live Dialogue on October 5, 2004.

Petition to Defend Marriage

A coalition of NGOs is attempting to collect one million signatures worldwide to send a message to government officials and the UN General Assembly: Defend marriage, family, and human life.

The Doha International Conference for the Family

The most important conference in support of the family this year is the series of regional conferences, cross-cultural dialogues, and local meetings that culminates in Doha, Qatar in November, 2004.

Discovering the Anti-Family Agenda at the United Nations

A housewife-turned-activist describes her first eye-opening experience at a UN conference where she saw firsthand the orchestrated international efforts to undermine the traditional family.

Silent No More

By working with others, another housewife-turned-activist helped to make a difference in the language of a UN document so that it recognizes the rights of parents and the role of religion.

The United Nations Children’s Fund: Women or Children First?

For decades, the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) enjoyed a fine reputation for its earnest, unwavering commitment to improve the health and lives of children. But powerful forces within the organization and within the international community have demanded that UNICEF add new and controversial programs and that it embrace the ideology of radical feminism. From Catholic Families and Human Rights Institute.

UNFPA: Assault on the World’s Peoples

The United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) has been engaged for decades in a radical strategy: under the guise of “population control” to change the course of human sexuality by all means possible: abortion, overturning of parental rights, riding roughshod over sovereignty rights of nations, trampling on religious tenets, strong-arming nations into acceptance. From Catholic Families and Human Rights Institute.

Send your questions and comments to:
family_under_attack@islam-online.net

Beyond the tudung, knowing the hijab

by Mohd Rafiz
Nov 30, 04

I refer to the letter Tudung won't control lust in men by Pin Pan Dan, who has got it all wrong about the wearing of the tudung.

Yes, our International Trade and Industry Minister Rafidah Aziz doesn't wear one and Muslim newscasters in all the mainstream television stations also shun the tudung, but this does not mean that it is not obligatory for Muslim women to wear the tudung.

Nor does wearing it mean that the person is practising an extreme form of Islam. Rather, those not wearing it feel that they have not reached a certain level of commitment to wear one or have not been properly taught or coached on wearing a tudung voluntarily.

In the case of the newscasters, it's also due to the standard set by the television stations which oddly thinks that they wearing the tudung may bring down their ratings.

The hijab, or the Islamic veil, is the Muslim women’s dress code. The hijab prescribes that Muslim women should wear lose clothes that cover the whole of their bodies, except for their faces and their hands.

Yet, wearing the hijab doesn't mean just putting a piece of cloth on your head. It is an attitude, a way of thinking and a behavior. Basically it constitutes an Islamic way of life; it is a statement which should portray a certain attitude.

A Muslim woman can wear a long skirt and a scarf on her head, but if she flirts constantly and is not well-mannered, then she can't be really be described as wearing the hijab. The whole idea involves conducting oneself with dignity at all times. The hijab depicts a statement, and that is something one should be continually aware of.

It identifies the woman as a Muslim (yet it is not just a symbol). But the curiosity prompts people to question, and it is a good opportunity for the veiled woman to show non-Muslims the beauty of Islam.

A veiled woman may get stares at times, but it is amazing how many are sincerely interested to learn about the veil and about Islam in general. The hijab does not restrict the Muslim woman from doing the kind of things she wants to do.

It is a blessing, because it makes her watch her behavior continuously. However, sometimes the decision to wear the hijab is not very easy for some women and this could be the result of external pressures, notably from family and friends.

Unfortunately, some non-Muslims, or Muslims who don't have a good knowledge of Islam, consider wearing the hijab as being too extreme. But what helps a Muslim woman and actually makes her enjoy wearing the hijab, is her belief in Allah and the conviction that she's doing this only for the sake of Allah.

Also it is important to ascertain the motive behind wearing the hijab. For instance, a Muslim woman should not wear the hijab just to please her husband or to impress people at the mosque or just to have change. Muslim women wear the hijab to follow God's commands. They do it to enjoy the feeling of satisfying God.

Hijab may seem to be merely a woman's issue, but this is not true. Muslim men have to follow a certain dress code too. Muslim men should also wear loose clothes - no tightfitting jeans for instance - and they should not reveal the part between their bellies and their knees.

Also their attitude to all women should always remain respectful and businesslike, as the women's attitude to men should be.

Allah said in the Quran:

‘Oh Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and wives and daughters of the believers, to extend their outer garments around themselves, so that they would be distinguished and not molested. And God is All-Forgiving, All-Merciful.’

(Quran, 33:59).


What was the reason for Allah to reveal Verse 59 of Sura 33? This was an advice to the wives of the Prophet to make themselves recognised by pulling their the ‘jilhab’ over themselves.

It was not a question of a new item of clothing but rather a new way of wearing a old one and distinguishing themselves by this mode.

When the Prophet moved to Medina, women, whatever their status, were being harassed in the streets, pursued by the men who subjected them to the humiliating practice of ‘ta'arrud’ - literally ‘taking up a position along a woman's path to urge her to fornicate’ - to commit an act of ‘zina’ (unlawful sex).

Please read pages 180 -182 of: Dr Fatima Mernissi’s Women And Islam, Blackwell Oxford, UK, 1995.

It is everybody's human right to wear the tudung or not. I do not subscribe to the stupidity that all Muslim men are in grievous sexual incontinence and salivating badly when they see a women without a tudung.

Please call our Masjid a "MASJID" and not a "MOSQUE"!

Please read this and pass it on to any Muslims, as much as you can. It is a vital and an important information.

Muslims should now refrain from using the term "Mosque". I received an email recently from a friend who read this book called

"THE COMPLETE IDIOT'S GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING ISLAM"

and it is filled with fun facts.

One of them concerns the term "Mosque." So many of us think that this is the English translation of Masjid. I'm sure none of us ever wondered how this term came into being when it really had little in common with how it sounded compared to 'Masjid'.

We were very young when we were taught this English word. Our mind then were not critical & analytical, so didn't dare to ask / challenge our teachers, right?.

Anyway this book pointed out that the term 'mosque' is derived from the Spanish word for "mosquito." It was termed as such because during the Crusades, King Ferdinand said they were going to go and swat the Muslims "like mosquitoes".

Where else can they find Muslims in large number to be swatted if not in a Masjid?. So, they cheekily termed "Masjid" as "Mosque".

So dear Muslim brothers and sisters, let us refrain from using this term, which is obviously a disgusting slap in the face to the Ummah. Educate our brothers and sisters to the history and etymology of this word. And replace it with the word that is MEANT to be:

Masjid! The Place of Prostration!!

Not Mosque: the place to be swatted!

If any of you have doubts about this, then please go look for the book and read it.