Singapore Malay Model Got Canned For Drinking Beer In M'sia.
- Thread starter MrSoftie
- Start date
Dime
New member
Prayers can be done at home.But on Fridays we would gather in the mosque for prayers.But we only prayer for one "session" of the day.We have five praying "sessions".
Whitestrat
New member
While I appreciate the purity and innocence of this belief, being a father, I cannot agree with it. The minute my son was born, I knew EXACTLY what my purpose for living was. To say that my life now is worthless would be irresponsible to the next generation, and a highly presumptious thing to say.
This is not quite the same as what I mentioned. What I was trying to say had nothing to do with an afterlife. I was referring to this life we're living now. Material matters should be secondary. Happiness should be more important. How you achieve that happiness is up to you.
Not only Muslims are taught this. It is a fundamental belief for Christians as well.
Again, I come back to fatherhood. When I die, the only things that would have proved that I lived as a good man, are my children, and what they will become. If they become criminals, i have failed. If they become useful to society, I have succeeded. My LIVING testimony to my life would be carried forth by my children, and likewise, I carry the deeds of my father. That to me is paramount.
Religion is a way of life. Not just Islam. One thing I've noticed that religious zealots don't get, is EVERY religion has equal importance to it's followers. There is NOTHING that makes Islam more special than say, Buddism or Hinduism. The belief of importance is the same for all followers. To the Christian, Christianity is a way of life. It affects (or rather, should) the way they live. The only thing I've noticed, is that Islam has managed to keep this going on for centuries in the same way, while Christianity has in some ways changed with the times. (though not necessarily for the better) but this does not change the fact that both are life altering institutions.
Whitestrat
New member
Yes, i know this, but why? Is there a reason for this?
K2desoog
New member
One interesting point to note...
You must not miss 03 Fri prayers in a row.
If you do, you're 'out' of Islam (i'm not sure what its called though. anybody?)
fgl
Well-known member
coolhand
New member
ah...let's close up this thread..too many points and counter-points from what i observed
at the end of the day, whatever beliefs or faiths have you, the most important thing is doing good to each other,working hard for your loved ones and being sincere and fair to others...
and have a good Carlsberg at the kopitiam below after work...that to me is happiness and heaven..
at the end of the day, whatever beliefs or faiths have you, the most important thing is doing good to each other,working hard for your loved ones and being sincere and fair to others...
and have a good Carlsberg at the kopitiam below after work...that to me is happiness and heaven..
billthegeek
New member
Hai.... morality is simply a matter of herd conformity. Whatever the majority says is right. People need to understand this.
I find it interesting how people try to justify their version of morality with intimidating huge chunks of words, which doesn't answer the question they are addressing.
Well, personally, i feel that if you ban alcohol, you stop people from exercising their own judgement. It kind of dumbs you down.
I find it interesting how people try to justify their version of morality with intimidating huge chunks of words, which doesn't answer the question they are addressing.
Well, personally, i feel that if you ban alcohol, you stop people from exercising their own judgement. It kind of dumbs you down.
fgl
Well-known member
eh sial la
Jerseystar
New member
fgl
Well-known member
obzervr
New member
Is six lashes for drinking beer a Quranic Injunction?
By Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
The Star Online (Malaysia)
July 29, 2009
Malaysian Syariah authorities should reconsider the law on consuming alcohol, which is described in the Quran in the mildest language of prohibition.
ON July 20, the Pahang Syariah High Court sentenced part-time model Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarnor, 32, to a RM5,000 fine and six lashes of the rotan for drinking beer.
No doubt the court has the jurisdiction to impose such a sentence as provided by the law.
Some have questioned the appropriateness of the sentence of whipping given that the court has discretion to impose a mixture of fine, imprisonment and binding Kartika over for good behaviour for a certain period, or just admonish her.
Others have questioned the appropriateness based on the legitimate argument that the Syariah holds Muslims responsible for their actions that result in negative opinions of Islam.
A news item like this certainly presents Islam and Malaysia negatively on the international stage.
But I would urge the Malaysian Syariah authorities to seriously reconsider the Syariah basis of this law on the following Syariah grounds:
Neither the Quran nor the Hadith invokes a penalty for alcohol consumption. The sin of consuming alcohol is described in the Quran in the mildest language of prohibition.
When it comes to dietary laws, the Quran commands the believers in Sura 5:3: "forbidden ( hurrimat ) to you is the dead animal, loose blood, and the flesh of the pig".
The 90th verse of the same Sura cautions the believers that "wine, gambling, etc, are an impurity so avoid them ( fa-jtanibuh )".
Some legal scholars suggest that the divine command ijtinab , to avoid something, is milder language than tahrim , prohibition.
A Muslim consuming a glass of wine with a pork chop commits a more serious offence in eating pork; yet as there is no Quran or Hadith penalty for consuming pork, there is also none for alcohol consumption.
The question then is how did the penalty for alcohol consumption come about?
It occurred during the time of the second Caliph Umar b. al-Khattab. There was a companion of the Prophet ( sahabi ) who had fought on the Prophet's side in his battles.
A heavy drinker, he would walk the streets of Madina drunk at night and loudly shout scandalous things about people. The inhabitants of Madina complained, and Umar formed a committee to decide what to do.
Imam Ali, based on the man having committed slander, suggested the penalty for slander, whose maximum penalty is 80 lashes.
Since that time, this has been considered the maximum penalty for alcohol consumption, based on utilising the Syariah concept of ta`zir (deterrence).
I disagree with this being the mandatory sentence for the offence of wine consumption, because it is the maximum sentence for another, separate offence - slander - albeit committed under the influence of alcohol.
Had the man just fallen on the street in a stupor and suffered a terrible hangover without having hurt anyone, no punishment would have been established.
Had cars existed then and had he run his car over some pedestrians and killed them, should we invoke ta`zir now and have a penalty for alcohol consumption equal to that of accidental manslaughter?
There are additional arguments we can marshal from the Quran and Hadith. The Quran repeatedly urges Muslims to forgive those who wrong them, even for slander and manslaughter!
When the Prophet Mohamed's wife Aisha was wrongly accused of having committed adultery, her father Abu Bakr sought to have the penalty of libel meted against one of his employees who had slandered her.
God then revealed verse 24:22, urging the believers to pardon and forgive those who have wronged them, so that God would forgive them their own sins.
But I see no evidence that Kartika wronged anybody after drinking beer.
Verse 4:92 gives the penalty for a Muslim accidentally killing another as freeing a slave and paying compensation to the victim's family - unless the family forgoes compensation and forgives the offender.
And if the defendant can't afford to pay, then he should fast for two consecutive months. Accidental homicide is a much greater sin than alcohol consumption; yet the Quran suggests that the victim's family would do well to forgive the offender, and the penalty here is not jail time or corporal punishment, but a two-month fast.
The Quranic and Prophetic teachings are about forgiveness, compassion and positive personal transformation. Sura 48:29 describes Prophet Mohamed's companions as "firm against unbelievers and compassionate to themselves", and this is what I urge the Malaysian authorities to exemplify: show compassion to Kartika and forgive her.
But if the Pahang Syariah court insists on establishing a penalty for the mere consumption of alcohol, why not replace the current law - a maximum penalty of a RM5,000 fine and six lashes of the rotan - with spending RM5,000 on feeding the poor and fasting for six days?
Wouldn't that be more in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Quran and the Prophetic Sunnah?
Were this the case, I have a hunch that many Malaysians who imbibe may voluntarily mete such a "penalty" on themselves - to the benefit of the poor, to the benefit of their own spiritual progress and standing before God on Judgment Day, and to the benefit of the Malaysian Syariah Court's, Islam's and Malaysia's image on the international stage.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is the Chairman of the Cordoba Initiative , an international organisation devoted to improving West-Muslim world relations, and author of "Islam, A Sacred Law, What Every Muslim Should know about the Shariah".
__________________
Posted on a prompt of a Non Musician reader of this thread.
By Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
The Star Online (Malaysia)
July 29, 2009
Malaysian Syariah authorities should reconsider the law on consuming alcohol, which is described in the Quran in the mildest language of prohibition.
ON July 20, the Pahang Syariah High Court sentenced part-time model Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarnor, 32, to a RM5,000 fine and six lashes of the rotan for drinking beer.
No doubt the court has the jurisdiction to impose such a sentence as provided by the law.
Some have questioned the appropriateness of the sentence of whipping given that the court has discretion to impose a mixture of fine, imprisonment and binding Kartika over for good behaviour for a certain period, or just admonish her.
Others have questioned the appropriateness based on the legitimate argument that the Syariah holds Muslims responsible for their actions that result in negative opinions of Islam.
A news item like this certainly presents Islam and Malaysia negatively on the international stage.
But I would urge the Malaysian Syariah authorities to seriously reconsider the Syariah basis of this law on the following Syariah grounds:
Neither the Quran nor the Hadith invokes a penalty for alcohol consumption. The sin of consuming alcohol is described in the Quran in the mildest language of prohibition.
When it comes to dietary laws, the Quran commands the believers in Sura 5:3: "forbidden ( hurrimat ) to you is the dead animal, loose blood, and the flesh of the pig".
The 90th verse of the same Sura cautions the believers that "wine, gambling, etc, are an impurity so avoid them ( fa-jtanibuh )".
Some legal scholars suggest that the divine command ijtinab , to avoid something, is milder language than tahrim , prohibition.
A Muslim consuming a glass of wine with a pork chop commits a more serious offence in eating pork; yet as there is no Quran or Hadith penalty for consuming pork, there is also none for alcohol consumption.
The question then is how did the penalty for alcohol consumption come about?
It occurred during the time of the second Caliph Umar b. al-Khattab. There was a companion of the Prophet ( sahabi ) who had fought on the Prophet's side in his battles.
A heavy drinker, he would walk the streets of Madina drunk at night and loudly shout scandalous things about people. The inhabitants of Madina complained, and Umar formed a committee to decide what to do.
Imam Ali, based on the man having committed slander, suggested the penalty for slander, whose maximum penalty is 80 lashes.
Since that time, this has been considered the maximum penalty for alcohol consumption, based on utilising the Syariah concept of ta`zir (deterrence).
I disagree with this being the mandatory sentence for the offence of wine consumption, because it is the maximum sentence for another, separate offence - slander - albeit committed under the influence of alcohol.
Had the man just fallen on the street in a stupor and suffered a terrible hangover without having hurt anyone, no punishment would have been established.
Had cars existed then and had he run his car over some pedestrians and killed them, should we invoke ta`zir now and have a penalty for alcohol consumption equal to that of accidental manslaughter?
There are additional arguments we can marshal from the Quran and Hadith. The Quran repeatedly urges Muslims to forgive those who wrong them, even for slander and manslaughter!
When the Prophet Mohamed's wife Aisha was wrongly accused of having committed adultery, her father Abu Bakr sought to have the penalty of libel meted against one of his employees who had slandered her.
God then revealed verse 24:22, urging the believers to pardon and forgive those who have wronged them, so that God would forgive them their own sins.
But I see no evidence that Kartika wronged anybody after drinking beer.
Verse 4:92 gives the penalty for a Muslim accidentally killing another as freeing a slave and paying compensation to the victim's family - unless the family forgoes compensation and forgives the offender.
And if the defendant can't afford to pay, then he should fast for two consecutive months. Accidental homicide is a much greater sin than alcohol consumption; yet the Quran suggests that the victim's family would do well to forgive the offender, and the penalty here is not jail time or corporal punishment, but a two-month fast.
The Quranic and Prophetic teachings are about forgiveness, compassion and positive personal transformation. Sura 48:29 describes Prophet Mohamed's companions as "firm against unbelievers and compassionate to themselves", and this is what I urge the Malaysian authorities to exemplify: show compassion to Kartika and forgive her.
But if the Pahang Syariah court insists on establishing a penalty for the mere consumption of alcohol, why not replace the current law - a maximum penalty of a RM5,000 fine and six lashes of the rotan - with spending RM5,000 on feeding the poor and fasting for six days?
Wouldn't that be more in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Quran and the Prophetic Sunnah?
Were this the case, I have a hunch that many Malaysians who imbibe may voluntarily mete such a "penalty" on themselves - to the benefit of the poor, to the benefit of their own spiritual progress and standing before God on Judgment Day, and to the benefit of the Malaysian Syariah Court's, Islam's and Malaysia's image on the international stage.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is the Chairman of the Cordoba Initiative , an international organisation devoted to improving West-Muslim world relations, and author of "Islam, A Sacred Law, What Every Muslim Should know about the Shariah".
__________________
Posted on a prompt of a Non Musician reader of this thread.
hecklerkoch
New member
fgl
Well-known member
fg: ya lor... dare to do, dare to take!
ok peace
Imagine theres no heaven
Its easy if you try
no hell below us
above us only sky
hecklerkoch
New member
Come crawling faster!
Obey your Master!
Your life burns faster!
Obey your Master!
Master of puppets, I'm pulling your strings!
Twisting your minds and smashing your dreams!
Blinded by me, you can't see a thing!
Just call my name and I'll hear you scream!
Obey your Master!
Your life burns faster!
Obey your Master!
Master of puppets, I'm pulling your strings!
Twisting your minds and smashing your dreams!
Blinded by me, you can't see a thing!
Just call my name and I'll hear you scream!
