Then, it's the same khutbah in Bank Islam KLCC except we didn't get the jawi slide shown.

I like your view:

"I was somewhat sad to read their posts. I mean, I understand we are not perfect and that we somehow will commit sin, but to totally and outwardly deny Allah/The Messenger and His religion?"

This is what we should feel towards others, not animosity. We should feel sad that there are people who are destined (ditakdirkan) to be ignorant of Islam, people who will inevitably be the fuels of hell.

But of course, I am only human. I get sad but often I get offended instead; too many times perhaps. emotions then cloud my judgment and empty words pour out in place of knowledge-based persuasion

So, knowing this part of me is still unbridled, I avoid entering into a pit with a lot of such people. we are told to avoid arguments, no?

Rasulullah shallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam bersabda:

مَنْ تَرَكَ الْمِرَاءَ وَهُوَ مُبْطِلٌ بَنَى اللهُ لَهُ بَيْتًا فِي رَبَضِ الْجَنَّةِ مَنْ تَرَكَ الْمِرَاءَ وَهُوَ مُحِقٌّ بَنَى اللهُ لَهُ بَيْتًا فِي أَعْلَى الْجَنَّةِ

“Barangsiapa yang meninggalkan perdebatan sementara ia berada di atas kebatilan, maka Allah akan bangunkan sebuah rumah baginya di pinggiran surga. Dan barangsiapa yang meninggalkan perdebatan padahal dia berada di atas kebenaran, maka Allah akan membangun sebuah rumah baginya di atas surga.”
(Shahih at-Targib wat Tarhib, jilid 1, no. 138)

From Islamqa.info

The websites that speak ill of the religion of Allah and of His Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) are no different from the gatherings where people say similar things that constitute kufr. In both cases it is haraam to stay in such gatherings and it is haraam to visit such websites, except for one who will object to what they do and is able to put a stop to these offences. If he is not able to do that, and those people carry on with what they are doing, then it is not permissible to remain in that gathering and it is not permissible to visit those websites.

Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And when you (Muhammad SAW) see those who engage in a false conversation about Our Verses (of the Qur’an) by mocking at them, stay away from them till they turn to another topic. And if Shaytaan (Satan) causes you to forget, then after the remembrance sit not you in the company of those people who are the Zalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers, etc.)” [al-An‘aam 6:68]

This post has been edited by abu.shofwan: Sep 27 2016, 09:13 AM

None from UK?

partly because they want it, partly because they know they should do it (because they know or are compelled by the "prophecy" - so to speak), partly because they can do it...

in any event, even the birth of our beloved prophet Muhammad SAW is one of the signs of the end of time on this world. for is he not the closure of all prophets?

Arab as a race. which means it covers the league of arab nations. in particular, of course, we are seeing this coming true with Dubai, who already has 2 buildings on that list alone. although, saudis are planning to up the game (in this picture), but there was news a few days ago in our papers that UAE has commissioned yet another sky scraper (unfortunately i didn't read the full news story though - but i have a good feeling it is Dubai again).

yg saya faham
the principle/original ruling of any kinds of food and drink is halal, until you find something that makes it haram
based on this understanding of mine, the halal certification is meant to be an assurance effort, i.e. to provide peace of mind that something is indeed haram.
so basically, in the extreme example, you were "originally" allowed to eat pigs - until came the warning/prohibition. the same case is true and well recorded for booze/beer/wine and the lots. originally, they were allowed to drink (as long as they were not getting ready to pray - iirc), then came the prohibition where it became "absolutely harooom.jpg"
the same principle applies to other things, which are not part of our ibadah.
if there were no prohibitions (some more examples, which may be extreme):
- you would have been allowed to interract freely with the opposite sex
- you would have been allowed to kill people
- you would have been allowed to steal from other people
- you would have been allowed to take interest from loans
on the other hand, there are no prohibitions to trade, so the original ruling that it is halal still stands. likewise for farming, traveling, site-seeing, etc.
Islam puts the barriers of haram in place. and you can turn haram things that were halal - I mean, if it were haram from the start then you can't make it haram again right?

Received this from whatsapp group. Some of you may be interested.


Attached thumbnail(s)

tak bersih bukan bermakna tak halal, bro
i think that way, too many things will be harooom (dirty pavement, rubbish bin, etc.) and cannot touch isn't it

in any case, yes if we don't know we are excused. similar to one ustadz that happened to eat bakso that contained porcine grease (don't know what it's called) - this one I heard from the ustadz directly. he only found out days later. so there is nothing else to do and considered excused.

edit:
with regards to the hadeeth, perhaps this will adress your question more directly.

https://islamqa.info/en/81692

81692: Did any of the Sahaabah drink the blood of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)?

Is it true that when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was treated with cupping, one of the Sahaabah drank the blood, and the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to him: “Prophethood has gone through you”?
This was mentioned by one of the students when we were talking about blood being naajis and that it is haraam to drink it.

(please read on, too long to paste here while mobile)

This post has been edited by abu.shofwan: Nov 4 2016, 07:20 PM

I'm assuming you mean the link I gave from Islam.qa

The writing is quite detailed in discussing each hadeeth. for people like me, i cannot brain the whole details and just go for the bottom line. so I'll just quote the conclusion here:

"Conclusion: Out of the reports about the Sahaabah drinking some of the blood of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), the report about ‘Abd-Allaah ibn al-Zubayr (may Allaah be pleased with him) is the most sound, although there is some debate about its isnaad. No other report is sound."

The Abdullah bin Zubair hadeeth is the first one (out of 5 hadeeths). it is considered the strongest of all the variations - yet it still has weaknesses. so, my take from this is that there is no convincing evidence that it had happened.
as a bonus, hadeeth no 2 was narrated by imam al Bukhari - but it looks like it was not in his sohih Bukhari (he wrote other books as well).

came accross this passage.
not to say this is what is happening right now. but it's food for thought, at the very least.

QUOTED ARTICLE:

Dengan demikian setiap amal perbuatan rakyat akan tercermin pada amalan penguasa mereka. Berdasarkah hikmah Allah, seorang pemimpin yang jahat dan keji hanyalah diangkat sebagaimana keadaan rakyatnya. Ketika masa-masa awal Islam merupakan masa terbaik, maka demikian pula pemimpin pada saat itu. Ketika rakyat mulai rusak, maka pemimpin mereka juga akan ikut rusak. Dengan demikian berdasarkan hikmah Allah, apabila pada zaman kita ini dipimpin oleh pemimpin seperti Mu’awiyah, Umar bin Abdul Azis, apalagi dipimpin oleh Abu Bakar dan Umar, maka tentu pemimpin kita itu sesuai dengan keadaan kita. Begitu pula pemimpin orang-orang sebelum kita tersebut akan sesuai dengan kondisi rakyat pada saat itu. Masing-masing dari kedua hal tersebut merupakan konsekuensi dan tuntunan hikmah Allah Ta’ala.[1]
Oleh karena itu, untuk mengubah keadaan kaum muslimin menjadi lebih baik, maka hendaklah setiap orang mengoreksi dan mengubah dirinya sendiri, bukan mengubah penguasa yang ada. Hendaklah setiap orang mengubah dirinya yaitu dengan mengubah aqidah, ibadah, akhlaq dan muamalahnya. Perhatikanlah firman Allah Ta’ala,
إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُغَيِّرُ مَا بِقَوْمٍ حَتَّى يُغَيِّرُوا مَا بِأَنْفُسِهِمْ
“Sesungguhnya Allah tidak akan merubah keadaan suatu kaum sehingga mereka merubah keadaan yang ada pada diri mereka sendiri” (QS. Ar Ra’du [13] : 11)
Saatnya introspeksi diri, tidak perlu rakyat selalu menyalahkan pemimpin atau presidennya. Semuanya itu bermula dari kesalahan rakyat itu sendiri. Jika mereka suka korupsi, begitulah keadaan pemimpin mereka. Jika mereka suka “suap”, maka demikian pula keadaan pemimpinnya. Jika mereka suka akan maksiat, demikianlah yang ada pada pemimpin mereka. Jika setiap rakyat memikirkan hal ini, maka tentu mereka tidak sibuk mengumbar aib penguasa di muka umum. Mereka malah akan sibuk memikirkan nasib mereka sendiri, merenungkan betapa banyak kesalahan dan dosa yang mereka perbuat.
Semoga jadi renungan berharga di pagi yang penuh berkah.


Sumber : https://rumaysho.com/1255-pemimpin-cerminan...-rakyatnya.html

a lie is a lie. and at the very core, it is a sin.
the way out that i can see, which had been used by our prophets (not just one) is to tell something without lying but not telling the whole truth. for example, if A asks if B is in the house (in that famous example here), C can say thay he "saw B leave earlier" (which is true, as B left the house earlier to drop his kid to school or something - although by the time A is asking, B is already back). so C is not lying - he did see B leave earlier, but his not telling the truth that B is already back.

our beloved and most revered Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) once used this to say that he came from "Maa". the hadeeth is quite long, but the crux of it was that they (Abu Bakar was there too, iirc) were asked where they came from (literally, the question was directed to our Prophet PBUH but was addressed to both) and our Prophet asked that the questioner to tell them a few things (how many camels slaughtered in a day, and so on) before he answered that he came from "Maa" (which translates to "water" - meaning water, or more precisely, the liquid that is passed by the male to the female to fertilize the egg).

our prophet Ibrahim (PBUH) also used the same, when he described Sarah as his "sister" - in which he meant sister in faith (a twist of all muslims are "brother in faith"). he didn't lie, but he also did not tell the whole truth.

all these were to avoid the greater harm. and all these are not sins, since they are not lies.

if it were up to my interpretation, based on the above examples, i'd say don't tell a lie, even a white lie. however, if there is absolutely no other way but to lie (to avoid greater harm), that white lie is a sin none the less, however, the benefit (pahala) you get from avoiding the harm far outweighs the sin.

This post has been edited by abu.shofwan: Dec 1 2016, 08:22 AM

there are situations where you would not be able to even do this. if a king/ruler/boss/soldier-with-a-gun-at-your-face asks something, not everyone can say "none of your business" - even if your loved one asks you something, you can't say that on every subject


a lie is a lie, which at the core is a sin.
it is better to not tell the whole truth if you can. however, i understand that there are situations where even this is not possible. in such a case, you have no choice but to lie. in this event, your lie would still be a sin, but at least the sin is minimized (or even negated) if you did so to avoid harm (avoiding the harm causes you to earn reward, so reward minus sin equals cosinus... er i mean... you still have balance reward). but it is a sin, none the less.

I have not managed to find the basis/dalil that says a white lie has no sin attached to it (can others please help find this, if any). so the above is to my interpretation based on the ground rules that (1) a lie is a sin, and (2) avoiding harm gives you reward. (these two are very common, no need for me to give the dalil here, right?)

so for me, if your basis of saying whether it's "okay" to lie or not is based on sins - the answer is no, it's still not okay because it is still a sin which subtracts from the reward you gained for avoiding harm. i mean, the best scenario is to reap the full reward (for avoiding harm) without any subtraction, right?

Apabila seorang mukallaf berada dalam keadaan tidak terpaksa meminum khamr, sedangkan ia tahu bahwa yang diminum adalah khamr, maka ia didera 40 kali. Apabila diperlukan, hakim boleh menambahnya hingga 80 kali, sebagaimana yang diriwayatkan oleh al-Hushain• bin al-Mundzir, “Bahwasanya ‘Ali mencambuk al-Walid bin ‘Uqbah karena meminum khamr dengan 40 kali cambukan, lalu ia berkata, ‘Nabi Shallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam telah menvambuk dengan 40 kali cambukan, Abu Bakar 40 kali cambukan, dan ‘Umar 80 kali cambukan. Semuanya merupakan Sunnah, dan yang ini (40 kali cam-bukan) lebih aku sukai.’” [13]

Apabila seseorang meminum khamr berulang kali, dan ia telah dicambuk setiap ia mengulanginya, maka boleh bagi imam untuk membunuhnya.

Dari Abu Hurairah Radhiyallahu ‘anhu, ia berkata, “Rasulullah Shallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam bersabda:

إِذَا سَكِرَ فَاجْلِدُوهُ فَإِنْ عَادَ فَاجْلِدُوهُ فَإِنْ عَادَ فَاجْلِدُوهُ ثُمَّ قَالَ فِي الرَّابِعَةِ فَإِنْ عَادَ فَاضْرِبُوا عُنُقَهُ.

‘Apabila ada seseorang yang mabuk, maka cambuklah ia, apabila ia mengulangi, maka cambuklah ia.’ Kemudian beliau bersabda pada kali keempat, ‘Apabila ia mengulanginya, maka penggallah lehernya.’” [14]

References: [13] & [14] as follow -

[13]. Shahih: [Mukhtashar Shahiih Muslim (no. 1047)], Shahiih Muslim (III/1331, no. 1707).
[14]. Hasan shahih: [Shahiih Sunan Ibni Majah (no. 2085)], Sunan Ibni Majah (II/859, no. 2572), Sunan Abi Dawud (XII/187, no. 4460), Sunan an-Nasa-i (VIII/314).

Sumber: https://almanhaj.or.id/1461-hadd-sakr-minuman-keras.html

imams should do qunut nazilah, instead of the normal qunut - at least for now la.

that "hakikat" should never stop us from praying
and if we do pray, that "hakikat" will not stop us from getting the rewards

edit for double post
error message received and was instructed to refresh page

by the way, qunut nazilah is not only during Friday prayer, but all through out the five daily prayers as well.

This post has been edited by abu.shofwan: Dec 15 2016, 05:05 PM

The answer is not that simple, since syiah is divided to many streams. The below is quoted from an article that touches on the conditions when it is haram, such as if they pray to Ali etc. But the syiah rafidhah quoted here is known to be one that strays quite far from Islam that most scholars consider them not part of Islam.


Syeikh Abdullah bin Abdurrahman Al Jibrin ditanya, soal itu berbunyi : wahai syeikh yang mulia, di negeri kami terdapat seorang rafidhah (bermadzhab syi’ah rafidhah) bekerja sebagai tukang sembelih, maka ahlusunnah datang kepadanya untuk menyembelih sembelihan mereka, dan begitu juga sebagian rumah makan, bekerja sama dengan orang rafidhah ini, dan dengan rafidhah lainnya yang berprofesi sama, apakah hukumnya bertransaksi atau berkoneksi dengan orang rafidhah ini dan semisalnya? Apakah hukum sembelihannya, apakah sembelihannya halal atau haram, berikanlah kepada kami fatwa, semoga syeikh diberi pahala oleh Allah.

Wa’alaikum salam warahmatullah wabarakatuh wa ba’du:

Tidaklah halal sembelihan orang rafidhah, dan juga memakan sembelihannya, sesungguhnya orang rafidhah pada umumnya adalah orang-orang musyrik, dimana mereka selalu menyeru Ali bin Abi Thalib di waktu sempit dan lapang, sampai di Arafah dan saat tawaf dan sa’i, mereka juga menyeru anak-anak beliau dan imam-imam mereka seperti yang sering kita dengar dari mereka, perbuatan ini adalah syirik akbar dan keluar dari agama Islam yang berhak dihukum mati atasnya.



Sumber: https://almanhaj.or.id/641-syiah-apakah-per...dhah-syiah.html

This fatwa addresses the condition that they (syiah rafidhah) slaughter by saying basmallah
(note, also from the same article forwarded earlier)

Lajnah (lembaga) yang diketuai oleh Syeikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah bin Baz dan (anggota-anggotanya); Syeikh Abdul Razaq Afifi, Syeikh Abdullah bin Ghudayan, dan Syeikh Abdullah bin Qu’uud, semoga Allah memberi pahala kepada mereka semua.

Jawabannya : Segala puji bagi Allah semata, dan shalawat dan salam semoga dianugerahkan kepada rasul-Nya dan keluarga beliau serta sahabat-sahabatnya, dan adapun selanjutnya :

Jika permasalahannya seperti yang disebutkan oleh penanya, bahwa sesungguhnya jamaah (kelompok) yang memiliki ajaran Ja’fariyah, mereka berdo’a dan meminta tolong kepada Ali, Hasan dan Husain serta pemimpin-pemimpin mereka, maka mereka itu adalah orang-orang musyrik murtad, keluar dari agama Islam, semoga Allah melindungi kita dari itu, tidaklah halal memakan sembelihan mereka, karena sembelihan itu adalah bangkai, walaupun mereka menyebut nama Allah saat menyembelihnya. [7]



Sumber: https://almanhaj.or.id/641-syiah-apakah-per...dhah-syiah.html

for me, i don't pay zakat pendapatan - if you guys are talking about the monthly payment type
my basis is that would be like "double taxation"
i pay RM## every month, then every one year I pay RM ### - calculation which includes money from the balance of my salary (of course, the full calculation includes my savings and all other whatever la). so i just pay once a year.
on a more religious stand point, i follow the ruling that there is no such thing as zakat pendapatan (monthly payment type). there is only zakat maal (zakat harta), calculated and paid on an annual basis.
the common and logical argument that supports this is that in the old days of the Prophet (PBUH) and sahabat, there are already people who work and earn salary. it was never known that these people pay zakat on a monthly basis.

one can, of course, argue that the monthly payment is like dividing your yearly zakat by 12. fine, la. but i just think it's premature to pay when really, you need to ensure that your harta meets the criteria of having a full year (hijri year) completed where the amount exceeds the minimum threshold (equiv to 85 g of gold, iirc). full year means the amount never drops below 85 g of gold. if it drops, the counter should reset upon the time the amount recovers. it's also like trying to stay ahead of fate (takdir), as if you already know what will happen (i.e. that you will meet the full year and amount criteria). who knows, we might die the next day and therefore we are liberated from the obligation to pay zakat, since we did not complete the full year cycle.

but that's just me and what ruling i hold on to. not trying to force it upon anyone.