Singapore Malay Model Got Canned For Drinking Beer In M'sia.

Hi Guys,

Perhaps there is a need emphasise again the difference between Sin and Crime. If God forbids or prohibits somethings or some actions, perhaps, violating the prohibition may be viewed as a Sin. If Human authority (at the various levels it exist in various societies) forbids somethings or actions, violating the prohibition may be viewed as a Crime.

There are situations in History and present times where Human authorities adopt the prohibitions made by God to be equally applied as a prohibition by human authorities thus presenting a position; that is Sinful to God is also a Crime on Humanity thus the appropriate penalty is to meted out regardless the sinner has repented or otherwise, hope that the penalty will serve to bring the sinner towards repentance.

Even so, the degree of penalty imposed may be adopted by Human Authorities to be that recommended by God as prescribed by the respective scriptures where available. Or despite availability of penalty in the scriptures, may leave the degree of penalty at discretion of the decision makers amongst the Human Authorities

There are also situations in History and present times, where Human authorities do not adopt the prohibitions made by God to be equally applied as a prohibition by human authorities thus presenting a position; that is Sinful to God is left to God to decide on the penalty and hope the conscience will bring the sinner towards repentance.

Lets take Adultery for example as noted in several transliteration of the Qurán (surah 24 verse 2) and Old Testament (22:22),

http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/22-22.htm (several transliteration of the same verse)

http://www.quran.com/24 (to get the various transliteration, click on the left column under languages the various versions for a comparison style and scroll to verse 2)

Here, Adultery is mentioned in the two scriptures as sinful, and a punishment was also prescribed. However, if we reflect it on the lived reality of humanity, is adultery also deemed as a crime by Human Authorities in the 1st century, 5th century, 10 century, 15th century, 20th century and in various localities they were in (e.g. Europe, Mid East, Americas etc. or specifically in various countries/communities)? If it was/is a crime are the degree of penalty as prescribed by the scriptures or are there alternative penalties meted out?

Perhaps, by differentiating between a Sin and a Crime, it will be clearer who is being offended; God or Human Authorities. Where the sin is also regarded as a crime, cross referencing the penalties meted out by Human Authorities against what is prescribed in the scriptures, perhaps, it will be clearer if the decision was that prescribed by God or a decision at the discretion of the Human authorities.

Regards.
 
i think malaysia, or any country that claims to practice and promote racial/religious harmony, should treat every citizen equally, laws are applied for every single person. if one cannot drink, all cannot drink. religious laws are not to be involved in the countries' set of laws. (of course in countries like Arab, we all understand the situation of a pure Islamic country). countries punish people according to their set of laws. in religion, there are always afterlife punishment(as most religion believe of afterlife)

my 0.5 rupiah
 
We should be happy that Singapore doesnt punish as harshly as our neighbouring country for such offences.

So lets cheers to a cup of Tiger!
 
theunknown said:
i think malaysia, or any country that claims to practice and promote racial/religious harmony, should treat every citizen equally, laws are applied for every single person. if one cannot drink, all cannot drink. religious laws are not to be involved in the countries' set of laws. (of course in countries like Arab, we all understand the situation of a pure Islamic country). countries punish people according to their set of laws. in religion, there are always afterlife punishment(as most religion believe of afterlife)

my 0.5 rupiah
Click to expand...

In a way, I'd agree. The 'everybody equal' thing.

But the citizens themselves casts votes for representatives for their own govt. And by giving them their vote, it means they want the country 'run' in a certain way, by a certain rep, with whatever agenda that suits their own interest/purpose.

And the majority wins.

So in the end, its 'what you give (yr vote) is what you get'-lor.
 
fgl said:
just as the law in dhaka encompasses a woman who wore pants to be whipped 30 times?

DHAKA - A widow was whipped 202 times and a man 101 times following a fatwa by a religious leader for their alleged involvement in “anti-social activity” in a village in southeastern Bangladesh, prompting local protests and action by the police.

Piara Begum, a widow of 40, and Mamun Miah, 25, were whipped before hundreds of people at Khaiyar in Comilla district Saturday night.

The woman fell unconscious and was rushed to hospital. Doctors said she was critically injured and needed to be given intensive treatment.

Miah was whipped 101 times, The Daily Star newspaper said Monday.

Punishment under a fatwa is held illegal as per a high court ruling of 2001 in Bangladesh that has a predominant Sunni Muslim population.

The police arrested six people, including Moulana Mohammed Manirul Islam, a religious leader working in the local madrassa.

Piara Begum filed a case with the Debidwar police station under the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act.

[/URL]
Click to expand...

The general story goes like the above. Firstly, as in my previous post a fatwa cannot be passed simply by one man, that goes against Islamic Jurisprudence laid down. So clearly there's something wrong here if such a fatwa was issued by one man and something even bigger if people simply followed it.

My take from such a story if it is true is that the incident took place in a place which is tribal and the people living in it, know little about Islam but have great zeal in following what they think Islam is about.

You have a point in that there are many places in the Muslim world that are as backward as that. The people in these places often listen to the 'wisest' man around giving him titles like Sheik and even in such proclamations of fatwa produced by such sheiks that go against the Quran and Sunnah, the people blindly follow their sheiks even if you present to them evidence from the Quran and/or Sunnah. This is a sickness in the Islamic world and it usually stems of illiteracy whatever scriptural evidence we present is useless to them if they cannot read it. Often these Shieks among them are not any better.

I'm not defending the practice such as the above in fact I abhore it but I think your assertion that what happen above is Islam, I'm sorry but it clearly isn't. I do not know if the 202 and 101 stokes of the cane is in the Sunnah but I have a feeling it isn't because the highest number of strokes ever prescribed is 80 and that is for the man if he falsely accuses a woman of lewdness. Now this is something that isn't practiced in Muslim countries today but its something that I would like to see because it protects women from being degraded to what they are today in western countries and puts them highly in their true place that Islam has set for them. In this way, basically if you call a woman a slut (without evidence) you get lashed 80 strokes without leniency. Moral of the story if you don't falsely accuse a good woman, you got nothing to fear but if you do prepare to reap the worldwind.

I think FGL your gripe isn't with Islam but what's happening today that people too readily claim as legitimate in Islam which most often is not. See even if for instance you like your beer, you'd be surprised that most Muslims are tolerant enough to leave you alone because your sin is your own burden. And the only disagreement is that the drink you hold intoxicates oneself that if a muslim drank it, it prevents him from doing his solat/prayer properly and that God has forbidden it the moment it became an intoxicant.

I was once invited to a Saudi friend's place for dinner and there was this drink called 'subir' which was made of yeast and had a kick to it. It took two days to prepare and we had to finish it by that day because by the following day it would have fermented and would become intoxicating and hence haram. Naturally there was too much and we couldn't finish it and the third day there was still much left in the fridge. My hosts did not become hysterical can and threatened to kill anybody because there's 'alcohol in the house' they simply said this now has to be thrown away because it has become forbidden. And these are pious muslims who do pray 5 times a day. So there is another side of Islam out there that is what it says it is, tolerant, peaceful and everything else people have a hard time believing.
 
theunknown said:
i think malaysia, or any country that claims to practice and promote racial/religious harmony, should treat every citizen equally, laws are applied for every single person. if one cannot drink, all cannot drink. religious laws are not to be involved in the countries' set of laws. (of course in countries like Arab, we all understand the situation of a pure Islamic country). countries punish people according to their set of laws. in religion, there are always afterlife punishment(as most religion believe of afterlife)

my 0.5 rupiah
Click to expand...

If this was not a muslim country it would work i.e. no one can chew chewing gunm or eat on the train but if it was a Muslim country has a significant non muslim population it would be intolerant of other races, tribes, peoples' whose religions do not forbid alcohol.
 
Last edited:
obzervr said:
Hi Guys,

Perhaps there is a need emphasise again the difference between Sin and Crime. If God forbids or prohibits somethings or some actions, perhaps, violating the prohibition may be viewed as a Sin. If Human authority (at the various levels it exist in various societies) forbids somethings or actions, violating the prohibition may be viewed as a Crime.

There are situations in History and present times where Human authorities adopt the prohibitions made by God to be equally applied as a prohibition by human authorities thus presenting a position; that is Sinful to God is also a Crime on Humanity thus the appropriate penalty is to meted out regardless the sinner has repented or otherwise, hope that the penalty will serve to bring the sinner towards repentance.

Even so, the degree of penalty imposed may be adopted by Human Authorities to be that recommended by God as prescribed by the respective scriptures where available. Or despite availability of penalty in the scriptures, may leave the degree of penalty at discretion of the decision makers amongst the Human Authorities

There are also situations in History and present times, where Human authorities do not adopt the prohibitions made by God to be equally applied as a prohibition by human authorities thus presenting a position; that is Sinful to God is left to God to decide on the penalty and hope the conscience will bring the sinner towards repentance.

Lets take Adultery for example as noted in several transliteration of the Qurán (surah 24 verse 2) and Old Testament (22:22),

http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/22-22.htm (several transliteration of the same verse)

http://www.quran.com/24 (to get the various transliteration, click on the left column under languages the various versions for a comparison style and scroll to verse 2)

Here, Adultery is mentioned in the two scriptures as sinful, and a punishment was also prescribed. However, if we reflect it on the lived reality of humanity, is adultery also deemed as a crime by Human Authorities in the 1st century, 5th century, 10 century, 15th century, 20th century and in various localities they were in (e.g. Europe, Mid East, Americas etc. or specifically in various countries/communities)? If it was/is a crime are the degree of penalty as prescribed by the scriptures or are there alternative penalties meted out?

Perhaps, by differentiating between a Sin and a Crime, it will be clearer who is being offended; God or Human Authorities. Where the sin is also regarded as a crime, cross referencing the penalties meted out by Human Authorities against what is prescribed in the scriptures, perhaps, it will be clearer if the decision was that prescribed by God or a decision at the discretion of the Human authorities.

Regards.
Click to expand...

Hi,

I like your argument and but with respect to Islam there is one aspect that I think that you are unaware of. See in Islam, the proper Islam, we cannot separate religion from state affairs or politics, i.e. secularism. The reason being when the first Islamic state was formed back in the 7th century, to the believers, it was based on the laws of God not unlike the state of Israel under David and Solomon. The muslims see this Islamic state as a 'nation under God' since the laws and legislature they derived from the religion.

The reason why is that Islam is not just a religion but a way of life since it covers more than what to believe but also instructs us ways in which to conduct our daily affairs like business and trade, inheritance, marriage, treaties, war ethics, and of course the thing that everyone 'hates' the punishment legislature, or 'penal code'. Now most people think that Shariah is only this penal code but actually it refers to the whole thing that a muslim is supposed to live his life some of which is as mentioned above. This way of life, if the state was Islamic, would be adopted completely as the legal system or at least part of it for governing the affairs of muslims.

If a muslim isn't in an Islamic country, it is still a 'divine' law that he can follow personally and only for himself. With any law, if you don't break it, you don't have to worry.

The problem only arises when the punishment is meted out in an Islamic State which is their right to do so and people from outside the state wants to get involved and meddle in the country's affairs. Just like when the US tried to intervene on one Michael Fay who broke Singapore's laws on vandalism, to Americans caning is barbaric... see the parallels?

Therefore with certain punishments in Islamic countries which appear barbaric, like adultery, or apostasy, one has to see it from their point of view just like vandalism to Singapore is a crime against the state and its punishment also a deterrent against others from doing so. In Islam, adultery is a crime against the sanctity of marriage and marriage in Islam is a big thing. In fact in Christianity and Judaism marriage is also a thing proclaimed by God as sacred hence the punishments in your respective scriptures was also death by stoning.

Why apostasy in Islam deserves the death sentence is something many non muslims don't understand. Firstly a muslim is a person who truly believes that God is one and one only. If one doesn't believe this he never truly was a muslim. So apostasy in Islam from a 'true believer' is the willful proclaimation that God is not one but more than one after he/she has already believed and knows better. To muslims, it is also amounting to the breaking the first and most important of ten commandments

"Hear O Israel, I am the Lord your God who delivered you out of egypt. Thou Shall Not have any other God but Me"

this is the same as the Islamic creed, 'There is No God but He,and Muhammad is his messenger"

Now if one truly already believe that God is one but willfully go against this then he would be committing blasphemy of the highest order. In other words a willful act of treason against God. Recall a true Islamic state cannot separate religion from state. And what is the punishment fro treason in any country?

If on the other hand he never truly believed that God was one, i.e. never truly was a Muslim in the first place, then comes what I call the Lina Joy verdict, and that the law might be lenient on him/her.

The proclamation of the Islamic creed for a person to become a Muslim is not to be taken lightly just like if one becomes a new citizen of another country and pledges his loyalty to it, henceforth if he commits treason, the law has right over you.
 
Last edited:
Hi Jerseystar,

2 Points.

1) What is the position of the state during the lifetime of Muhammad? Is the Islamic state his 'Sunnah'?
2) What are the principles of Maqasid as-Shariah and Usul Fiqh and its authoritative position in reference to Shariah as you argued it?

In my opinion, the line of argument that there is an overzealous attempt to justify the position of some Human Authorities pertaining to following the codified version of Shariah (personal) laws which often emphasises the duties of subjects but not the duties of leaders so as to recreate a Pan-Islamic nationhood where the authority of governance are left to a handful of related people.

What is Religion here? Love for Benevolent God and God's creation or Fear of Human Authorities that proclaim to be representative of a Wrathful God (by what legitimacy the Authorities assumed power is another issue).

Anyway, the gist of my argument earlier was that not all prohibitions by God (sin against God), were prescribed with a penalty by God. However, when a penalty is meted out in the Human court of law, whose prescription is that, God's or Human's? If it is God's prescription, how was it prescribed? Has any of the Human Authority direct communication channel to receive the prescription such that, when implemented must be taken as infallible? Ohterwise, why blame God for a faulty penalty presciption that was formulated and executed by authority that are only Human?

Regards.
 
Aiyah, all things are just a false illusion. Our anger,our pain,our sufferings,our 'pleasures',our guitar effects,are all but temporary things. The concept of heaven and hell is but one part of the whole illusion which started due to greediness. May we diminish our attachments to pain and pleasure and seek ultimately a nothingness which is the true platform of being.
 
Last edited:
Hi observr,

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're trying to point out but if you're referring to the Islamic Jurispudence and you quoted the Arabic word for it, it's already been addressed in the earlier posts I think first put forth by hecklerkoch and my reply to I think FGL.

I believe I have also addressed your last paragraph earlier in my post about the haram and fatwa if I'm correct and that was what you were trying to get at. I'll try to address two points that I see you brought up so I'll just qoute you again below.

What is Religion here? Love for Benevolent God and God's creation or Fear of Human Authorities that proclaim to be representative of a Wrathful God?

Fear of Human Authorities has nothing to do with religion or at least Islam apologies I don't get the association. A muslim should fear none but God Almighty therefore he should act against a tyranically ruler or system, an invading oppressive army or even a neighbourhood bully victimizing an old lady etc. But before one gets the wrong idea here, it must be stated that because we fear God, it doesn't mean He doesn't love us. This is something a non muslim will have difficulty understanding because often we are presented with two sides of God, either He is a loving God or not.

And if He is not then He must be a Wrathful God. In Islam that is not the case. We are taught that God has 99 qualities one of which is Ar-Rahman translated (Most Beneficient/Most Compassionate) and another that is Ar-Rahim (Most Merciful). Think of the most loving person on earth and God Almighty is even more merciful beyond comparison. Think of the most merciful person and God Almighty is even more merciful beyond comparison. But what exactly is mercy here? We'll get to that later hopefully.

Other names include Al Ghaffar (The Forgiver) al-Waddud (The Loving One) as Sabur (The Patient One) However, He is also al-Adil (The Just) and al Mumtaqim (The Avenger). The non muslim might question how can God be loving and the avenger at the same time? Probably because they are used to God being only loving. And if he is loving then He can't be anything else but loving but to muslims He is all that more. To cut a long story short, the God muslims worship is the same God that saved the Israelites from Egypt out of love, but is the same God that destroyed Sodom for its transgressions of His limits. He is the same God that blessed the people of David and Solomon with a great kingdom bue He is also the same God that took away His favour from them when they broke their covenant and allowed Nebuchanezzar to conquer them and put them back into slavery. He is the same God that saved them from Babylon by sending Cyrus the Persian to liberate these people and allowed them to return to Jerusalem.

I know that's probably more than what you wanted but you asked the question what is religion here and one needs to understand all that before he can answer. Religion to the muslim is keeping the covenant we made with God Almighty, which is worshiping no other God but He, not associating anybody with Him, obeying his laws, doing good in this life so that God may love us, keeping away from all that is sinful, hearkening to his call through the prophets he has chosen, following their ways. I know there's more but how to answer such a question?

Which leads us to your next point.

Anyway, the gist of my argument earlier was that not all prohibitions by God (sin against God), were prescribed with a penalty by God. However, when a penalty is meted out in the Human court of law, whose prescription is that, God's or Human's? If it is God's prescription, how was it prescribed? Has any of the Human Authority direct communication channel to receive the prescription such that, when implemented must be taken as infallible? Ohterwise, why blame God for a faulty penalty presciption that was formulated and executed by authority that are only Human?

Again you've asserted that there is only one of two discourse. Either it was God punishment or Mankind's punishment. So I have to clarify here. I agree that not all prohibitions by God were prescribed with a penalty by God. However, in Islam all prohibitions have been prescribed already and what God has prohibited, no man, judge, court or king can proclaim as permissible. For most Muslims if it was already prohibited most of us would avoid it, easily for some and with great difficulty for others.

You asked if it was God's prescription for punishment, how was it prescribed? Through His messenger Muhammad who did have a direct communication channel as you put it (through the arch angel Gabriel, peace be upon them both). It came down as divine revelation which often happened in the presence of muslims and was committed to memory initially and later compiled under God's command and by his messenger's supervision.
Well you asked the question. That scripture is the Quran and its revelation is not by God inspiring one or many to write it but whatever the messenger hears through 'direct channel' he tells the people and its a verbal revelation that is memorized, written down and preserved through memory. So if anyone has issue with this then try to disprove the Quran if you can. But let me clarify at this point, that Muhammad was conveyed the revelations through the archangel Gabriel because we are told that of all the messengers of God, only Moses was the one to whom God spoke directly and that is a title in the Quran.

Anyway, as I've said earlier, and as hecklerkoch pointed out, if something is not mentioned in the Quran, we turn to our second source which is the Sunnah, if it is not there, then the procedure of Islamic Fiqh (jurisprudence) comes into play, the deliberation by the ulama's (clerics) and this is not as I mentioned one man deciding and passing a one man fatwa. Believe me real fatwas are not passed so easily. Think more on the scale of councils of Nicea, Constantinople, etc. then you get an idea. The reason being that if there is a consensus from a large number of leaders then there is a higher chance of agreeing on a correct and just ruling and only then will a fatwa be passed. The Sunnah legitimizes this procedure and further adds that if after all of this and a fatwa is passed and the people follow it, then we are told they will be rewarded in the hereafter for it even if that fatwa passed was 'wrong'. Also, if after all that deliberation and the fatwa passed was correct, the reward will be double.

The reason for this is probably a bigger topic altogether which I don't really want to go into right now but basically it involves intentions. But in a nutshell, because the people follow what was prescribed by the religion on matters not specifically stated, the intention was to be dutiful and God only knows how imperfect mankind is but because of the intention of obeying God, which can't really be faulted. Hope that answers your questions.
 
Hi Jerseystar,

You have described a procedural approach to the hierarchy of reference sources i.e. Quran, Sunnah, Ijma', Qiyas, Urf etc. etc.

However, those are sources to guide the what and where of legal rulings. While these hierarchy of reference sources are for guidance of interpretation on Legal Rulings executed by Human Authorities within the Shariah Court system, the Why, When and How; i.e. the hierarchy of priorities are contextual requirement.

By the Maqasid, I'm refering to:-
"Maqasid Al-Shari'ah, or the higher goals and objectives of Islamic law, is an important and somewhat neglected theme of shariah. Generally the Shariah is predicted on the individual and that of the community and its laws are designed so as to protect these benefits and facilitate improvement and perfection of the conditions of human life on earth. This is an easy birds eye view of the subject, simplifying its main principles to help readers understand the subject of Maqasid Al-Shari'ah and how it explains the 'wisdom behind rulings'."

"Educating the individual (tahdhib al-fard) is another important objective of the Shari’ah so much so that it comes, in order of priority, even before justice and maslahah. For these are both socially-oriented values which acquire much of their meaning in the context of social relations, whereas tahdhib al-fard seeks to make every individual a trustworthy agent and carrier of the values of the Sharî’ah, and it is through educating the individual that the Shari’ah seeks to realise most of its social objectives. The overall purpose of a great deal of the laws and values of the Shari’ah, especially in the spheres of ‘ibadat and moral teaching, is to train an individual who is mindful of the virtues of taqwa and becomes an agent of benefit to others."

Both Sources from: Mohammad Hashim Kamali on Maqasid Al-Shariah

Without effective pedagogical approaches, education will not be effective. Without education, the wisdom behind moral guidance may not be affective. Where the wisdom behind a ruling meted out by Human Authorities is vague, doubtful or absent, the ruling would not function to fulfill Justice. Without Justice, the purpose of the ruling contradicts the purpose of Shariah and may be assessed as faulty ruling.

I guess, regardless one's faith, the words of St Augustine is worthy of reflection that "An unjust law is no law at all". Why is it that a ruling against non compliance of a moral prohibition (e.g. the case where the lady was caught drinking) is taken so seriously while the non compliance of moral promotion (i.e. education and outreach) is not meted with a penalty?

Consider this, Isn't Lying a sin? But is lying criminalised? Isn't leadership irresponsibility (zulm or zalim) a sin? Why isn't irresponsibility criminalised?

Reiterating and rephrasing my earlier point: It is unfortunate that the obsession in the dominant discourse on Islam is the Ahkam or legal rulings, and more specifically in personal law. This obsession makes even moral policing legitimate in this day and age. Obviously, this is a faulty reasoning on the purpose of religion. Consider the many many episodes where Muhammad dismisses even personal confessions to sinful acts with a comparison to God's benevolence to be so great that his mercy and forgiveness is unmatched. As rightfully cited earlier by another forummer, Jesus educated his people against self-righteousness.

Well, Jerseystar and all, I'd personally like to rest from this thread altogether. It is pointless for forummers to read what I wrote as I am no scholar of religion and have no authority to speak in God's name. While faults may occur while attempting to understand and 'represent' the divine, my appreciation of the faults in the exercise and application of religion are human in nature, nothing divine about it. Worse still I am an anonymous virtual being known only to the few forummers that have jammed or transacted with me. However, if anyone is keen to learn more on the discourse by authoritative sources;

Do pick up a book by Khaled Abou El Fadl - Speaking in God's Name (basic info: http://spectrum.muis.gov.sg/cms/Research/spResources_subpg.aspx?id=3568)

Regards.
 
jerseystar said:
i think fgl your gripe isn't with islam but what's happening today that people too readily claim as legitimate in islam which most often is not.

See even if for instance you like your beer, you'd be surprised that most muslims are tolerant enough to leave you alone because your sin is your own burden.

.
Click to expand...

jersey star: Exactly ... I dont have a problem with my religion - only the ppl who are "authorities" on it.... Too many religious leaders these days are twsiting & turning the words of god to suit their own needs ... In every religion..

Oh ya...i dont really like beer... I'd rather have a coke
 
Abitabh said:
Aiyah, all things are just a false illusion. Our anger,our pain,our sufferings,our 'pleasures',our guitar effects,are all but temporary things. The concept of heaven and hell is but one part of the whole illusion which started due to greediness. May we diminish our attachments to pain and pleasure and seek ultimately a nothingness which is the true platform of being.
Click to expand...


Found your mountain ??

Illusioin my ass ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

fgl
  • Locked
Muslims and alcohol
15 16 17
Replies
333
Views
45K
Lovehurts
Lovehurts

Latest posts

Share this page

Back
Top