Honestly, I am not a big fan of Zakir Naik, due to different beliefs. But from the lense of traditional Islam, what he did here is no wrong.

Indeed, the most important thing in Islam is to believe in God: There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God. Other prohibition in Islam, such as pork or alcohol is much smaller than syirk. So they should NEVER be in the way of someone who wants to embrace Islam.

p.s: I was shocked when zakir said it's okay to eat dolphin though.. lol.. In literal Islamic tradition, maybe thats correct. But as a rationalist Muslim, of course I don't agree with that simply.

===

about my belief that Muhammad was not illiterate, (for xein & s2peMocls too)


That's why I said we must know the history to understand the ayat. We should learn the history of pre-Islamic Arabia (tanah Arab sebelum Muhammad bawa Islam).

There's a lot of things Muslims today don't know about pre-Islamic Arabia. We call it "zaman jahiliyyah", and we imagine them having no religion, maksiat sana sini, kekejaman sana sini, no rule whatsoever, etc. This is of course wrong.

Anyway, to cut the story short, during that time, one of the people having prominent role in (pagan) religion are poets. These poets (arabic: kuhhan) supposedly have strong spiritual connections, and can recite divine poems. Muhammad did not believe those kuhhan, he believed they are fake (ala raja bomoh but minus the funny rituals).

So when Gabriel came to Muhammad in Hira', he asked Muhammad to "recite", not "read". [Note, they both "Iqra" in Arabic, and "baca" in Malay, so its understandable that people can confuse them.] When Gabriel said "recite!", he was talking about doing what kuhhans do. Muhammad, who do not like the kuhhan, of course don't know & didn't like reciting poems, so Gabriel taught him to (remember, the ayat in the Quran are poetic, rythmic, beautiful language which normal arabs/humans cannot produce), and so the story goes.....


This is one of the oldest and most popular debates, what Iqra means, was Muhammad illiterate, etc. I know a lot of people believe Muhammad was. I don't. Muhammad was a great man in society, even before he become a prophet, there is a reason he was called Al-Amin. Such a great man cannot be illiterate. We need to know the history, what happen then, connect the dots, then we can understand better. Like when I talk about zaman jahiliyyah, a lot of Muslims nowadays dont know what it really is, ironically being ignorant about it.


Damn, read more, people.. that's a long post I typed.. I should become a writer

I think the girl already interested in and studied Islam so it's ok. And I believe conversion should be allowed to be relax and easy like this. Not to say to take religion too lightly, but to not scare people away from religion especially with "once in, cannot go out", "apostasy is punishable by death", making Islam a scary thing.

Haha, that's the problem, isn't it.. People should stop eating dolphin, and when we say this, we're looking at the Japanese.

Muhammad was "Al-Amin" long before he become a prophet. He was so good and trustworthy in business and negotiation, that even the successful businesswoman Khadija was impressed with his business and negotiation skills, and married him. It is very unlikely that such a great merchant and negotiator like Muhammad cannot read.

I think people can easily believe Muhammad was illiterate because too many of us lose touch of the real life of the 7th century, we're too romanticized with only sacred stories, ignoring facts like Khadija being a businesswoman.

Yes, one of the reasons people believe Muhammad was illiterate was that if so, it will further show how Quran is a miracle.

Betul betul betul.. Islam menjana pemikiran intelektual, Allah bagi kita otak untuk berfikir, bukan sekadar telinga dengar masuk telan saja..

This is a good question in challenging the minds of people who do taqleed, who only listen to naqli. I sometimes use this hypotheitical situation too.

Another one I use: "if you are alone in an elevator with a pious Jew, in an empty building, with no eyes watching, what would you do to him?" I use this to the anti-semitic muslims.

To muslims who uses rationale, who uses their head, their god-given brain, the aqli, these questions are ridiculous to even ask because of how obvious the answer is: of course the eskimo will not enter hell, of course we'll do no harm to the Jew. But to traditionalist muslims, muslims who only rely on naqli, who will only wait and listen to ustaz and not use their own brain, these questions will perplex them, they cannot answer, their brain will be challenged.

But I think it's good that their mind is challenged. So they can try to think about it. Come up with an answer. Theorize. Be brave. Make this an intelligent discussion. Allah gives us brain to think. Islam tells us to be intelligent. So why everything also we must wait and listen to ustaz only? That is taqleed, right there, blindly following. When you blindly follow, blindly believing, never actually really think about it, can you call that real belief? Real iman?

Of course tak halal. Tapi dosa kecik ja, sebab takda lah menyusahkan orang sangat, sebab yang dia tiru tu kan surely kompeni besar, Gucci atau Prada.. So barang tiruan kat pasar malam tu, takde effect sangat lah kat diorang.

Sama macam makcik jual nasi lemak tepi jalan.. Takda permit dan lesen. Sebenarnya haram. Tapi, itu kesalahan kecil. Tak menyusahkan pun. Allah maha pengampun, besar kemungkinan dimaafkan.


My 2 cents.

Tak semestinya merestui, maka tak semestinya halal. Jarang sangat yang tak ambil tindakan ni sebab merestui. Usually because the cost is higher than the benefit.

Contoh, rakyat dok biar ja ahli politik makan duit rakyat. Kita restui kah? Duit tu jadi halal kah? No. Sebenarnya sebab kita rakyat marhaen nak naik turun mahkamah pi saman menteri, kos puluh2 ribu. Menang belum tentu.

Lagi satu, undang2 dah cakap jual barang tiruan, is illegal. Kalau original pengeluar restui pun, it is still illegal, therefore still haram.

Orang minta pendapat. Kita bagi pendapat. Bagus kita berbincang secara intelektual dalam forum ni.


Agak no-brainer untuk company designer untuk tidak setuju dengan counterfeit. Ini pengetahuan umum. Smeua orang tahu cetak rompak tu illegal dan haram. Tanggungjawab terletak pada si pelaku, bukan pada mangsa. Bukan Gucci yang kena turun Petaling Street untuk tinjau, si pencetak rompak yang kena ada conscience.

Malaysia menandatangani perjanjian dengan siapa? Penghasilan tiruan mana boleh jadi hak si peniru. Harta intelek is harta intelek. Harta fizikal mana boleh jadi harta intelek. Fahami dulu makna harta intelek. Bro, mana ada orang perundangan cakap melantun sana sini macam ni. Orang bukan perundangan pun tahu ini nonsense.

Kita tulis, tapi kita tak buat tidakan yang boleh menghentikan songlap tu. Tulis di forum takkan ada hasil pada diorang.
Kasi lagi contoh. Orang kena rogol, tapi dia takut nak report, so dia tak report. Rogol tu halal kah? Tak bagi reaksi tak bermakna merestui.

UAI: Haram. Kecuali kafir harbi.

Meaning, oleh kerana US Military serang Iraq, Malaysian boleh tiru barang Levi's. facepalm.jpg Bijak sungguh laaa

ok

This is a very very good article on hudud. Sangat berinformasi dan membawa kemajuan.

https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/343676

My guess it's a normal ceramah, but with big names, that's why it's expensive.

I don't think so. afaik It's not a for-charity event. If its for fund raising they'd put that big in the poster.

NO ONE knows for sure if their religion (or atheism) is true or not. Like xein said, we do research, and comparison, then we choose side. We don't know for sure, but we believe. We have faith.

Then there is matter of blind faith (taqleed), and real faith (imaan), but that's another story.

There is no empirical evidence on theism NOR atheism (btw, that "the onus of proof lies on theists" is pure unreasonable bullshit). You study them all, the different teachings, then you make your own judgement.

Yeah, that's extremely common, I would say most muslims in Malaysia are the same. But it's common in all religions.

To me that is not iman. But God is loving and forgiving, who knows, maybe thats okay.. idk

It's good that he's honest.

Should we just accept Islam simply because we were born into it? Is that a true choice? A true belief?

Hmm? What is this about? I lazy to scroll far. About whether Islam is a new religion brought by Muhammad?

It's not. Muhammad did not brought an all new original religion. Islam during his time adapted practices existing at that time, e.g. hajj/pilgrimage, "biblical stories" such as Adam and Moses, etc. But all of these teachings and practices, came from God, so its not "someone elses". We all worship one same God.

My belief is that, Islam has always exist throughout these times. God did not confer a brand new religion in 500 AD. But since Adam. It was just not known then as "Islam", and not known as the same as what it came to be during Muhammad's time.

What Jesus, Moses, Abraham, etc believed was the religion that became Islam during Muhammad. The same thing. I believe Jesus did not preach trinitarianism, but unitarian, one God, no begotten "son".

After Jesus died, his teaching evolved into many, with one prominent one being Christianity. But it is modified/derailed so far that it is not acceptable in the tenets of Islam. In the same time in the pre-Islamic Arabia, there is this teaching/religion called "Hanif", which I believe is the closest to what the prophets preached before (Jesus, Moses, etc). However, perhaps even Hanif was not close enough to be acceptable, making Muhammad preached Islam.

Islam has always been evolving, before Muhammad, DURING Muhammad, and now after Muhammad. And this is ALL ACCEPTABLE.

Our (muslim) mistake today is thinking Islam is rigid and fixed. It's not. Islam has always been malleable. As long as the core beliefs (thawabit) are not changed.

Ehh..I’m not so knowledgeable lah.. But I hope this helps.
----
Even against kafir harbi, we should follow war ethics as much as possible.
----
"nenakluki and menguasai orang tempatan" <-- I’m not sure what that means.

"orang tempatan, orang yang dinamakan kafir harbi" <-- And I don’t think this is accurate.

I understand ”kafir harbi” as people who are actively attacking Islam. If Muhammad was attacking them, I say that’s fair.

I won’t simply equate ”orang tempatan” in his time as ”kafir harbi”.
---
Islam and paganism, my stand is as mentioned.
----
Muhammad was chased out, of course that’s wrong. He should be allowed forever. Just as we should allow others forever.