Study claims human race came from Proto-Malays...
(The Malaysian Insider) – Archaeological and genetic research suggests that ancient Proto-Malays who lived in the Sunda Shelf were the ancestors of the human race.
In a video presentation at the conference on the origin of the Malay race here, conference deputy chairwoman Zaharah Sulaiman explained how inhabitants on the Sunda Shelf survived the Toba super-volcanic eruption 75,000 years ago.
She added that the group, having left Africa, was forced to migrate to other parts of the world 25,000 years ago due to global warming, which she said caused floods that divided the Sunda Shelf into islands.
Supporting this theory was University Sains Malaysia scientist Zafarina Zainuddin, whose DNA-based study claims to trace “pure Malay lineage” for at least three generations.
Financed by a RM1.4 million grant from the Higher Education Ministry, Zafarina’s research ostensibly shows that Malays are the oldest community in South-East Asia.
“They can be traced back to 60,000 years,” Zafarina said.
She added that by finding “Malays have genetics which originate from Malay land”, this would reignite the “Malay spirit” so people will be proud to be Malays.
The conference was officially launched by Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhiddin Yassin, who expressed hoped the convention will contribute positively to the development of Malays as well as other races and religion in the country.
The Proto-Malays are one of three classifications of the Orang Asli, or the aboriginal people of Peninsular Malaysia, the other two being the Semang/Negritos and the Senoi. These classifications, which encompass the some 18 tribes or aboriginal groups in the peninsula are based on language and customs. Note that the classifications are based on not on genetics, but fairly mutable traits such as language – which can be learned. There have already been published studies about the genetic lineages of indigenous groups in Southeast Asia (see here and here) and that latter paper suggests that the Semang have the deepest ancestry in Peninsular Malaysia. This new claim that the Proto-Malays have a lineage that go back 75,000 years is quite controversial, and frankly unbelievable. If it is true, then where’s the data?
The story later quotes Dr Zafarina Zaifuddin, who has claimed to trace a “pure Malay lineage” through DNA, and that “Malays have genetics which originate from Malay land”. I wonder how this is done, since genetic populations are ordered around haplogroups (either Y-chromosome or mtDNA) , which are labelled with letters, not ethnic groups. The fact is, “Malay” and “Proto-Malay” are cultural definitions, and you cannot simply ascribe DNA groupings to either. The assertion that Proto-Malays can be defined as a genetic group that eventually populated the world makes as much sense as the equation Π + elephant = [The Complete Works of Shakespeare].
Yes, populated the world – and thus the origin to the entire human race is the other part of the story. Here this claim flies in the face of a mountain of fossil evidence showing the movement of anatomically modern humans out of Africa over the last 200,000 years. The reference to floods causing the creation of islands in the Sunda shelf is also amusing. Anyone with a basic knowledge of the palaeoenvironment would know flooding doesn’t quite capture the situation of rising and falling of sea levels due to temperature fluctuations during the glacial and interglacial periods.
Holy Studies had shown that years ago, when men become arrogant in attempting to reach heaven by building the Tower of Babel, God punished them by making them speak in different languages so that they would fight against each other instead of combining together in an blasphemic attempt to become divine by walking up the Tower to heaven.
A mysterious elephant and the blind men
Overnight, an elephant mysteriously appeared in a small village populated by blind men. The villager could only hear the sound of the elephant trumpeting. The village head call the animal as One Mysterious Darwin in memory of the scientist Darwin. That is more polite and respectable than calling the poor creature one miserable dumbo. After placing out a bunch of banana and water, the animal became approachable. The blind villagers hurdled around to touch and figure out what is the animal. One blind villager held one of it's feet. He said, "This animal has foot like a tree trunk. It must be strong and unwavering to winds." Another village held it's tail. He replied, "The animal feels like a rope with bushy end. Suspicious ..." The blind villager holding one ear said, "I do not know what to make out of this animal but it feels like a large wing. This could be a very big bird. It could fly and disappear in a big way." One blind elderly villager said, "It can't be a bird. From my end it feel slippery, smooth and pointed. Very sophisticated and probably very complicated animal." Then one blind lady holding the trunk howled, "Yes, it is smooth but wet at the end. It has a snake-like body that could suck and spray water." "No," said another villager. "It is like a wall," referring to the elephant body. "Just can't past through or even push it. We will never know what it is."
NOBODY KNOWS, FOR ONLY GOD KNOWS!!!!
The villagers decided to get some consultants to come over and examine the animal. They called their blind friends working as consultants. The blind consultants came and hurdled around the animal. One of the clever consultant friend touched the body and concluded, "Ah! This animal is a burden. It is too big and need a lot of money to feed it. What kind of food does it take? How much water it consume?" While, another clever consultant holding the trunk said. "I am not worried about that. As long as it is useful, it can generate income. This trunk can be used to work and lessen the villagers' daily burden. "And we can get our consultancy fees...." He asked, "Only thing is do we give the animal the food first before it generate income for the villagers or generate the income first before giving the animal food." The cleverest among them was holding the tusk. "This pointed object could be used for multitasking by the animal to get food and defense itself in the wild. It's material is smooth and hard. Something exotic about it. "There must be premium value and could generate high return. We can do many things and be very creative." The consultant at the tail replied, "That is interesting.
WISH I KNEW< IF I KNEW!!!!
"However, we are all blind. The villagers are also blind. We only understand about this animal from what we could get hold off. We do not know whether this animal is safe or dangerous to hold." The cleverest blind consultant agree. "I think it would be a great idea for the villagers to keep this animal. It is an attraction and can generate income for the villagers. We can get someone to help them tend the animal. We should convince the villagers in the simplest of language." The clever blind consultant holding the tail felt differently. He cautioned them, "No, we need to get some expert or someone familiar with the animal convinced it is safe and useful first. If the expert are not convinced, we should not pursue. "No point of us trying to convince the villagers. The experts will say something else and the villagers will stop believing us." The clever consultant touching the body still ask, "How are we to generate the money to help the villagers?"
The Tower of Babel.
The story about man's vanity to build tall towers is well known in the Bible. It is also told in the Quran. Quite aside from the issue of man's technical ingenuity and quest to break frontiers, is another story.
It is one about the symbolism in building such towers.
Before the tower was built, according to biblical records, mankind shared one language. I suppose, it's something like 1 Malaysia that we are now having. It was 1 this and 1 that.
In the bible the mythical tower was the tower of Babel. It symbolises man's arrogance in challenging the power of god. It wasn't just a tower to unite the efforts of mankind, or about making the tower as the focal point of cities. It was also a symbolism of a structure to subjugate the minds of mankind under the rule of one.
We know where it ended. It ended in breaking up of the one language. Its breakup was intended so that mankind could not come together in conspiracy. From here we learn, there is much merit in maintaining diversity as there are much disadvantages in uniformity.
One tower can also be a symbol of dictatorial powers and arrogance.
In Islam, Muslims are also well aware of stores about building towers. The Pharaoh ordered Haman to build up a tower to the skies. So that he can confront the God of Moses. It was his arrogance to build the tower so that he can prove Moses to be a liar.
It's also a symbolism of big government. That our bounties are determined and cared for by the overseeing and paternalistic government. That we derive the good life here as a result of the rule of one man.
But we must also be mindful of the ending.
When God saw that they acted so madly, he did not resolve to destroy them utterly, since they were not grown wiser by the destruction of the former sinners [in the Flood]; but he caused a tumult among them, by producing in them diverse languages, and causing that, through the multitude of those languages, they should not be able to understand one another.
BERSATU SUARA!!!!
The Qur'an: Pharaoh & Haman
Pharaoh said: "O Haman! Build me a lofty palace, that I may attain the ways and means- The ways and means of (reaching) the heavens, and that I may mount up to the god of Moses: But as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!" [Qur'an 40:36-37]
Haman is mentioned six times in the Qur'an and is referred to as an intimate person belonging to the close circle of Pharaoh.
Many western scholars have concluded that Haman is unknown to Egyptian history. The name Haman is first mentioned in the Biblical book of Esther, some 1,100 years after Pharaoh. The name is said to be Babylonian, not Egyptian. According to the book of Esther, Haman was a counsellor of Ahasuerus (the Biblical name of Xerxes) who was an enemy of the Jews. It has been suggested that Prophet Muhammad mixed Biblical stories, namely the Jewish myths of the Tower of Babel and the story of Esther and Moses into a single confused account when composing the Qur'an.
Controversy has prevailed since the European ‘Renaissance’ regarding the historicity of a certain Haman, who according to the Qur’an, was associated with the court of Pharaoh to whom Moses was sent as a Prophet by God.
Haman is mentioned by name six times in the Qur’an and is referred to as an intimate person belonging to the close circle of Pharaoh, one who was engaged in construction projects. Western scholars have concluded that Haman is unknown to ancient Egyptian history. They say that the name Haman is first mentioned in the biblical Book of Esther, around 1,000 years after Pharaoh. The name is said to be Babylonian, not Egyptian.
According to the Book of Esther, Haman was a counsellor of Ahasuerus (the biblical name of Xerxes) who was an enemy of the Jews. It has been suggested that Prophet Muhammad mixed biblical stories, namely the Jewish myths of the Tower of Babel and the story of Esther and Moses into a single confused account when composing the Qur’an.
We propose to examine the various aspects of this controversy, primarily grounded in a source-critical analysis along with a literary comparison, in light of modern historical and archaeological research.
Hāmān According To The Qur’an: A Brief Character Analysis
Haman is mentioned by name in six verses of the Qur’an.[1] From these six verses we can deduce Haman is one of the characters depicted in the confrontation between Moses and Pharaoh, indicating it is this part of the story where the context of Haman can be properly established.
Other characters that form part of this narrative are Hārūn (Prophet, supporter of Moses) and Qarūn. Three other characters, al-Samiri, the unidentified servant and the servant of God, do not play a role in the confrontation though they are part of the larger Moses narrative. One of the most vividly described and oft-repeated head-to-head confrontations in the Qur’an, this story can be found dispersed throughout many sūrahs. Based primarily on the principal continuous text portions we can indeed discover the Qur’anic Haman, and reach a more useful assessment of his character than simply listing the verses containing his name.
Criticisms By Western Scholars
Prominent Orientalists have not been able to correctly identify the Haman of the Qur'an, and have thus questioned his historicity. They have suggested that the appearance of Haman in the Qur'anic story of Moses and Pharaoh has resulted from a misreading of the Bible, leading the author of the Qur'an to move Haman from the Persian court of King Ahasuerus to the Egyptian court of the Pharaoh.
The first writer to enter the list of critics was Ludovico Marraccio, confessor to Pope Innocent XI. Published in 1698 CE, the English rendering of critical Note 1 on page 526 of Marraccio's Latin translation of the Qur'an read:
Mahumet has mixed up sacred stories. He took Haman as the adviser of Pharaoh whereas in reality he was an adviser of Ahaseures, King of Persia. He also thought that the Pharaoh ordered construction for him of a lofty tower from the story of the Tower of Babel. It is certain that in the Sacred Scriptures there is no such story of the Pharaoh. Be that as it may, he [Mahumet] has related a most incredible story.[1]
George Sale in his translation of the Qur'an said:
This name is given to Pharaoh's Chief Minister, from which it is generally inferred that Muhammad has here made Haman, the favourite of Ahasueres, King of Persia, and who indisputably lived many ages after Moses, to be that Prophet's contemporary. But how-probable-so-ever this mistake may seem to us, it will be hard, if not impossible to convince a Muhammadan of it.[2]
In what has been hailed as a "classic" article by Theodor Nöldeke that was published in Encyclopædia Britannica in 1891 CE and reprinted several times since, the author says:
The most ignorant Jew could never have mistaken Haman (the minister of Ahasuerus) for the minister of the Pharaoh...[3]
While dealing with the "wonderful anachronisms about the old Israelite history" in the Qur'an, Mingana says:
Who then will not be astonished to learn that in the Koran... Haman is given as a minister of Pharaoh, instead of Ahaseurus?[4]
On the mention of Haman in the Qur'an, Henri Lammens states that it is:
"the most glaring anachronism" and is the result of "the confusion between... Haman, minister of King Ahasuerus and the minister of Moses' Pharaoh."[5]
Similar views were also echoed by Josef Horovitz.[6] Charles Torrey believed that Muhammad drew upon the rabbinic legends of the Biblical book of Esther and even adapted the story of the Tower of Babel.[7] After talking about the apparent 'confusion' generated by this cobbling together of multiple sources, Arthur Jeffery says about the origin of the word 'Haman':
The probabilities are that the word came to the Arabs from Jewish sources.[8]
The Encyclopaedia Of Islam, which claims to have been prepared by a number of leading Orientalists, under "Haman" says:
Haman, name of the person whom the Kur'an associates with Pharaoh, because of a still unexplained confusion with the minister of Ahasuerus in the Biblical book of Esther.[9]
This claim has been repeated again by the Encyclopaedia Of Islam under "Fir`awn". It says:
As Pharaoh's counsellor there appears a certain Haman who is responsible in particular for building a tower which will enable Pharaoh to reach the God of Moses... the narrative in Exodus is thus modified in two respects, by misplaced recollection of both the book of Esther and the story of the tower of Babel (Genesis, xi) to which no other reference occurs in the Kur'an.[10]
Although the Encyclopaedia Of The Qur'an uses a mellowed down language when discussing Haman, it instead describes various possible views of who Haman was, it says:
There are conflicting views as to Haman's identity and the meaning of his name. Among them is that he is the minister of King Ahasuerus who has been shifted, anachronistically, from the Persian empire to the palace of Pharaoh... Other suggestion is that Haman is an Arabized echo of the Egyptian Ha-Amen, the title of a high priest second only in rank to Pharaoh.[11]
Consequently, it is not surprising to find some people[12] and atheists like Ibn Warraq[13] exploiting these comments in order to "prove" that the Qur'an contains serious contradictions. Yet all of the above statements are based on the misrepresentation of the historical value of the Biblical book of Esther, a misunderstanding of the Qur'anic narrative in general and the unproven assumption that Muhammad copied and in some cases altered the Biblical material while he was allegedly composing the Qur'an. It can be said with certainty that this is the most "celebrated" contradiction in the Qur'an among some people on the internet.
Let us first examine the authenticity and reliability of the Biblical book of Esther from which Muhammad supposedly appropriated the character Haman.
Is there Unity? Will there be Unity?
For 1,000 years Malays have been fighting Malays and for 1,400 years Muslims have been fighting Muslims. And the fight is not about Islam or Malay interests. It is about power and wealth.
Malays and Muslims can never unite. Look at the Middle East. They are all followers of Prophet Muhammad. They all pray to Allah. They all regard the Qur’an as Allah’s Holy Book. And they all agree that all Muslims are brothers-sisters of the same ummah. But is there unity in the Middle East?
The Muslims became divided and quarrelled with one another the day Prophet Muhammad died. And they are still fighting and killing each other until today. Malays, like any normal human being, are selfish and inconsiderate. That is what makes us human. Only animals in the wild unite. Humans, unlike animals, kill for sport and for fun.
Voices Scary, Truly Indeed!!!!
Muslims, non-Muslims in M'sia barred from praying together under new directive
PUTRAJAYA — Joint prayers at unity events involving both Muslims and non-Muslims in Malaysia have been barred under a directive issued by an agency under the Prime Minister’s Department.
The directive from the committee to promote understanding and harmony between religions, which is under national unity and integration department, was issued on Tuesday (Sept 3).
The letter, sighted by The Malaysian Insight, touched on two types of prayer sessions:
where Muslims recite their doa (prayer of supplication) simultaneously with members of other faiths who recite their own prayers before a function begins.
when Muslim and non-Muslim groups each prays before the start of a function.
The letter states that on the advice of the Federal Islamic Affairs Department (Jakim) both types of prayers should not be held in the same programme.
Such prayers should instead be “replaced with an activity where a message of unity is shared”, it stated.
The letter referred to arguments made by Jakim in a letter dated August 7 to the committee.
Sources in non-Muslim religious organisations told TMI they were aware of the committee’s and Jakim’s directives.
Two sources told TMI that they were made aware of the directive as the committee included representatives of the country’s major religious groups.
Read more at >>> https://www.todayonline.com/world/muslims-non-muslims-msia-barred-praying-together-under-new-directive
The Horrible Truth About Racism... By Melvin Caliste
Webster’s dictionary defines racism as: “1. A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. 2. Racial prejudice or discrimination. 3. Poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race. 4. The belief that some races of people are better than others.”
Racism, then, involves superiority, prejudice, discrimination, and violence. The construct of race is based upon the biological myth that race determines whether some human beings are superior to others. Therefore, individuals who participate in racist behaviors do so upon false presumptions.
The reality and truth is there are no subsets of the human species. Race, then, is not a biological construct but a social and cultural one. Professor Joseph Graves posited in his book The Emperor’s New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium , “What we call race is an invention not of nature but of our social institutions and practices.” Graves further stated, “All of America’s racist thinkers have relied on three unchallenged assumptions: 1. That races exist, 2. That each race has its own genetically determined characteristics, and crucially, 3. That social hierarchy results from these differences.”
Angela James noted in her article “Making Sense of Race and Racial Classification,” “Race is an exceedingly slippery concept. Although it appears in social life as ubiquitous, omnipresent, and real, it is hard to pin down the concept in any objective sense; this is because the idea of race is riddled with apparent contradiction. While it is a dynamic phenomena rooted in political struggle, it is commonly observed as a fixed characteristic of human populations; while it does not exist in terms of human biology, people routinely look to the human body for evidence about racial identity – while it is a biological fiction, it is nonetheless a social fact.”
W.E.B. Dubois in his book The Souls of White Folks said, “Race is utilized to maintain and control power due to fear of losing power and the current dominant position.” The Declaration of Independence says it best: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
When we consider the Biblical aspect, the apostle Paul by divine inspiration declared, “The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; and he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children’” (Acts 17:24-29, emp. added).
Therefore, racism is contrary to the truth of God and can never be in harmony with His will. And those who practice it can never be acceptable to God. Ironically, many proponents’ of racist ideology couch their hateful rhetoric and improper deeds in the blanket of “It is the will of God.”
Racism is antithetical to the doctrine of Christ. In Galatians chapter three, the apostle Paul upbraided the apostle Peter for showing a racist attitude toward the Gentiles. The record says,
But when Peter came to Antioch, I [Paul, MC] opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter in the presence of all, ‘If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’(Galatians 2:11-14)
Moreover, the characteristics of racism are identified in Scripture as deserving of death . The apostle Paul elaborated on this notion by stating, “And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death , they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them” (Romans 1:28-32).
Notice the racist’s characteristics in this verse: arrogant, boastful, depraved mind, wickedness, greed, murder, malice, unloving, and unmerciful. While doing research for this article, I came across a very disturbing picture of a mob scene where two African American men had been lynched and their bodies were burning, and the mood of the crowd was very festive. What I saw in this picture were people who were unloving and unmerciful. Violent acts of terrorism are major tools of the racist’s ability to keep and hold power.
Historically, racism has always and in every case cultivated suffering and death. The name Adolf Hitler immediately brings to mind the horrors of the Holocaust in which over six million Jews suffered and died. In America, between the years 1889 and the early 1920s, approximately 50- 100 lynchings occurred—every year. While African Americans were primarily targeted, Italian Americans, Asian Americans, and Jews were lynched as well. These unsettling facts were published in The Story of Race Transcript (www.understandinggrace.org). Educator and scholar Robert A. Gibson, in his course entitled “The Negro Holocaust: Lynching and Race Riots in the United States, 1880-1950” taught:
Most of the lynchings were by hanging or shooting, or both. However, many were of a more hideous nature, burning at the stake, maiming, dismemberment, castration, and other brutal methods of physical torture.
Lynching therefore was a cruel combination of racism and sadism, which was utilized primarily to sustain the caste system in the South. Many white people believed that Negroes could only be controlled by fear. To them lynching was seen as the most effective means of control.
The 1963 bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, was one of the most notorious incidents of racism that occurred during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, where four young girls were murdered and many wounded. On the night of June 21, 1964, in Neshoba County, Mississippi, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michal Schwerner were murdered for registering African American voters. In Money, Mississippi, on August 28, 1955, Emmett Till, a fourteen-year-old African American, was kidnapped from his aunt’s home and taken to a remote location were his assailants tortured and murdered him.
These are only a few instances of the horrors of racism. Where there is disenfranchisement, discrimination, exploitation, and civil/human rights violations, you will find racism. As people of God, we should never engage in, support, or tolerate the insanity and madness that presents in this manner. Our Lord Jesus has taught us a better way.
The apostle Paul provided the spiritual antidote in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8: “Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. love never fails…”
I LOVE YOU!!!!
In conclusion, racism denies the fundamental Biblical truth that we are all created in the image of God and should be treated as such. Every aspect of racism stands in stark contradiction to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” We as Christians must combat this evil by being the “salt of the earth” and “the light of the world.” May our Heavenly Father help us to see others through Christ-colored glasses.
A Split as there is no UNITY...
No religion is unified. How Catholicism, for example, is practised in rural Italy differs from the way this is done, say, in New York city. Language, culture, tradition, the political and social contexts, and even food is different in these two places.
Such geographic differences are certainly important in Islam. But also important are the numerous legal schools and their interpretations. Since Islam is a religion predicated on law (sharia), variations in the interpretation of that law have contributed to regional differences.
Also significant in the modern world is the existence of other religions. Malaysia, for example, has a relatively large percentage of religious minorities (up to 40% of the population). Saudi Arabia has virtually none.
Schools of thought
There are historical reasons for this variation. Despite popular opinion, Islam didn’t appear fully formed at the time of Muhammad (570-632). There were huge debates over the nature of religious and political authority, for instance, and who was or was not a Muslim.
It’s similarly misguided to assume that a unified teaching simply spread throughout the Mediterranean region and beyond. How Muhammad’s message developed into the religion of Islam — complete with legal and doctrinal content — took centuries to develop and cannot concern us here. What is important to note, however, is that his message spread into various (unbordered) regions.
Modern nation states would only arise much later. And each of these areas was already in possession of its own set of religious, legal and cultural traditions. The result was that Islam had to be articulated in the light of local customs and understandings. This was done, in part, through the creation of legal courts, a class of jurists (ulema; mullas in Shi`ism), a legal code (sharia) and a system of interpretation of that code based on rulings (fatwas).
Many local customs arose based on trying to understand Muhammad’s message. And these customs and understandings gave rise to distinct legal schools. Although there were originally many such schools, they gradually reduced to four in Sunni Islam – Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i and Hanbali. While these four schools all regard one another as orthodox, they nevertheless have distinct interpretations of Islamic law. Some of their interpretations are more conservative than others.
There are also a number of such schools in Shi`i Islam, as you can see from the image above.
The four Sunni schools are associated with distinct regions (as are the Shi`i schools). The Maliki school, for example, is prominent today in Egypt and North Africa. The Hanafi is in western Asia, the Shafi`i in Southeast Asia and the Hanbali (the most conservative) is found primarily in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf states.
Fundamental differences
All this legal and local variation has produced different interpretations of the religion. But despite such regional and legal diversity, many Muslims and non-Muslims insist on referring to Islam and sharia as if they were stable entities.
An example might be illustrative of the extent of the differences within Islam. Many non-Muslims are often surprised to learn of the cult of saints, namely the role Sufi saints (Sufism is Islamic mysticism) have played and continue to play in the daily life of Muslims.
Thousand Years More...
A Sufi saint is someone who is considered holy and who has achieved nearness to God. Praying to these saints and making pilgrimages to their shrines is a way to, among other things, ask for intercession.
Although these practices are not unlike the role and place of saints in Catholicism, in Islam they are much more localised. And this locally varied cult of saints played and continues to play an important role in Islamic religious life from Morocco in the West to Pakistan in the East.
Devotion to the saints is believed to cure the sick, make fertile the barren, bring rain, and so on. Needless to say, such devotion is often frowned upon by more fundamentalist interpretations.
While most legal schools are content – albeit somewhat bothered – by such practices, the conservative Hanbali school forbids cults like this. Its adherents have, among other things, destroyed tombs of saints in both the premodern and modern eras. They have also been responsible for the destruction of shrines associated with Muhammad’s family, such as the shrines and tombs of Muhammad’s wife.
The Hanbali school, backed by the wealth of the Saudi ruling family, has also tried to make inroads into other areas. Those associated with this legal school, for example, have built madrasas (religious seminaries) in regions traditionally influenced by other legal schools of thought.
Most fundamentalist movements in Islam, including Islamic State, have emanated from such ultra-conservative elements. The Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, for instance, are influenced by the more conservative elements of Hanbali ideology, even though they exist in a predominantly Hanafi legal environment.
The goal of many of these groups, sometimes referred to as Wahhabis or Salafis, is to return to what they imagine to be the pure or pristine version of Islam as practised by Muhammad and his earliest followers. They often have strict interpretations of Islam, strict dress codes and separation of the sexes.
The death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 BCE constituted a major crisis for the fledgling umma (Muslim community). The question of succession divided the umma into two distinct religio-political communities of interpretation, designated subsequently as Sunnism and Shiism. Although this schism was initially the result of political factionalism, it gradually gained theological characteristics as well . Even so, there is no clear distinction between Shia and Sunni Islam. In addition, both of these denominations can be divided into subcategories of interpretation: there are different branches of Shia Islam just as there are different branches in Sunni Islam.
Given the political instability and socio-religious factionalism among the early Muslims, various madhab (schools) of thought within Islamic jurisprudence emerged In the first 150 years of Islam. Most of them were short-lived, either becoming extinct or merging with other schools.
Today, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafii, Hanbali (Sunni), Jafari, Zaydi (Shiite), Zahiri and Ibadi are considered the main schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and all have major constituencies within both the Shia and Sunni communities.
Although these schools offer different legal interpretations about issues that are not addressed in the Koran and Hadith (traditions concerning the life and utterances of the Prophet Muhammad), in terms of the fundamental principles of Islam, they share common ground.
The 4 Schools of Thought...
There are four schools of thought or mazhab within the Sunni branch of Islam — Shafiee, Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali. Most Malaysian Muslims are Sunnis of the Shafiee school of thought.
The Maliki school of thought is the second largest of the four schools (approximately 25% of all Muslims — mostly in North Africa, West Africa, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and in some parts of Saudi Arabia).
Malik ibni Anas, the ‘founder’ of the Maliki school of thought, was an extremely outspoken man — too outspoken for his own good. He issued decrees or fatwas that forbid the pledging of allegiance to the Caliph Al-Mansur. For this very stubborn stance the Caliph had Malik flogged half to death and threw him into prison.
After a serious attack of conscience, Caliph Al-Mansur released Malik from prison and apologised to him. The Caliph also offered Malik compensation in the form of money and residency in Baghdad. Malik, however, declined the Caliph’s offer and remained in Mekah where he continued with what, today, would be considered as his radical and anti-Monarchy teachings.
Some years later, Harun al-Rashid, the new Caliph, summoned Malik to visit him while the former was performing the haj in Mekah (in Malay this is called titah mengadap or summoned for an audience). Malik, however, refused to do so. Instead, he invited the newly installed Caliph to attend his class to listen to his lectures, which the Caliph did.
That is the very short story about one of the four Imams of Sunni Islam and base on Imam Malik issued a fatwa forbidding us from pledging allegiance to the Ruler (whether Caliph, Agong, Sultan or whatever). And for that he was jailed and flogged. However, the Caliph realised he had erred and later released Imam Malik, apologised, and offered him compensation.
The famous Harun al-Rashid of ‘The Arabian Nights’ summoned Imam Malik but the latter refused to go meet the former. Instead, the Caliph was told that ‘the mountain should come to Muhammad’, so to speak. And instead of punishing Imam Malik or arresting him for ‘waging war against the king’, the Caliph did as he was told.
As a Muslim, if we do not want to follow the example of the Imams and the Prophet Muhammad, then whose example do we want to follow?
In the olden days in Europe, it was believed that the king was appointed by God and those who oppose the king have therefore sinned against God. You would then be jailed or put to death on charges of treason against the king.
New King James Version Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
The Queen at her coronation was asked “Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?” to which she replied “All this I promise and do.” It makes no sense to say that we are a secular state when its head of state has sworn to do such a thing. Moreover, if the next monarch breaks this allegiance to Christ, as he seems willing to do, he will break what the monarchy has been since the inception of the English nation. We remember too that the Queen was crowned by the Archbishop – if we became a secular state but retained a monarch presumably the monarch would be crowned by the Prime Minister.
Pressure is being exerted to make Britain an increasingly secular state. We recognise that the past is far from glorious, the Lollards and Reformers were persecuted by Church and state, since the reformation there has been discrimination against non-conformists and Roman Catholics, and the same can be said of those of other religions. Nevertheless Britain retains a strong Christian basis in our public life and in education.
Jesus taught his followers that they have to set up the Kingdom of God. What is the Kingdom of God?
The Hebrew word for kingdom is malkut and its Greek translation is basileia. Both terms primarily mean “rule” or “reign”. Only secondarily do they denote a realm, sphere, or territory over which a rule or reign is exercised. Both terms refer to the exercise of God’s power, dominion, or sovereignty.
Bible scholars agree that the Kingdom of God was the central message of the teachings of Jesus. The Biblical evidence for this is very clear.
For example, the gospel of Mark introduces Jesus and His mission with these words: And after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:13-14).
Matthew’s summary of Jesus’ ministry is similar: And Jesus was going about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people (Matt. 4:23).
Luke agrees with this: But He [Jesus] said to them, “I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose” (Luke 4:43).
Secular Humanism is Not a Religion
written by Jerry A. Coyne
These days you can dismiss anything you don’t like by calling it “a religion.” Science, for instance, has been deemed essentially religious, despite the huge difference between a method of finding truth based on empirical verification and one based on unevidenced faith, revelation, authority, and scripture. Atheism, the direct opposite of religion, has also been characterized in this way, though believers who criticize secular worldviews as religious seem unaware of the irony of implying, “See—you’re just as bad as we are!” Even environmentalism has been described as a religion.
The latest false analogy between religious and nonreligious belief systems is John Staddon’s essay “Is Secular Humanism a Religion?” for Quillette. Staddon’s answer is “Yes,” but his reasoning is bizarre. One would think that it should be “Clearly not” for, after all, “secular” means “not religious,” and secular humanism is an areligious philosophy whose goal is to advance human welfare and morality without invoking gods or the supernatural.
Nevertheless, Staddon makes an oddly tendentious argument for the religious character of secular humanism. After first giving a three-part definition of religion, he then admits that secular humanism violates two of the parts. That itself should have put paid to his claim. But he persists, arguing that secular humanism is still religious because, like some religions, it has a moral code that impels action. (He notes, however, that a secular moral code is inferior because it’s based not on superstition but on reason, and leads to unpalatable views.) In other words, he argues that secular humanism is religious because it embraces secular morality.
Staddon claims that “all religions have three elements, although the relative emphasis differs from one religion to another”:
The first is the belief in invisible or hidden beings, worlds and processes—like God, heaven, miracles, reincarnation, and the soul. All these are unverifiable, or unseen and unseeable, except by mystics under special and generally unrepeatable conditions. Since absence of evidence is not, logically, evidence of absence, these features of religion are neither true nor false, but simply unprovable. They have no implications for action, hence no bearing on legal matters.
But this characteristic is certainly not true of secular humanism, which of course is secular, i.e., holds no belief in “hidden worlds or beings.” Staddon’s second diagnostic trait of religion overlaps with his first:
The second element are claims about the real world: every religion, especially in its primordial version, makes claims that are essentially scientific—assertions of fact that are potentially verifiable. These claims are of two kinds. The first we might call timeless: e.g., claims about physical properties—the four elementary humors, for example, the Hindu turtle that supports the world, properties of foods, the doctrine of literal transubstantiation. The second are claims about history: Noah’s flood, the age of the earth, the resurrection—all “myths of origin.” Some of these claims are unverifiable; as for the rest, there is now a consensus that science usually wins—in law and elsewhere. In any case, few of these claims have any bearing on action.
This is nearly coincident with the first claim because some aspects of the supernatural—things like theistic gods, resurrections, an afterlife, miracles, and the soul—are claims about the universe, and some of them are testable. In fact, I’d say that claims about an afterlife are in principle more testable (say, through strong evidence of the deceased communicating after death) than are claims about literal transubstantiation of wine and wafers, which the Vatican has immunized against disproof by deeming the process undetectable by empirical means.
Further, much of a religion’s morality, as Maarten Boudry and I argued, derives directly or indirectly from its supernatural claims. So the view that abortion is murder, for instance, comes from the claim that fetuses, like adults, have souls, and therefore aborting them is murder. In Islam and Christianity, the view that homosexuality is immoral comes from scripture. And so on. A religion’s morality rests on that religion’s truth claims.
Finally, unlike secular morality, religious morality largely comes from interpreting what is God’s will—sometimes in the problematic “divine command theory” stating that whatever God says is good is good. In contrast, the morality of secular humanists derives from rational consideration about how we ought to act—principles based largely on reason but ultimately grounded on a secular preference (i.e., “I prefer a society in which individuals do what maximizes well-being.”). Once consequentialist preferences like this one are established, empirical study, aka science, can then help us decide how to act.
And the Lord said unto Moses
I am your Lord
And you shall call me God
And I'm the Master...
And you shall practice Lording
And you will call it Ketuanan
And I offer you peace
And I name you Moses Peace
For I am your Lord
Lord of all in this land
And I call it The Land Below The Wind
So go forth and tell your people
That I will make them the vicegerent
And they will live in prosperity
For you are the chosen people
And you will inherit the land
And you will rule over everything the eye can see
And I make this covenant with you
That you will obey my commandments
Or suffer my most devastating retribution
And Moses said unto the Lord
I hear you and obey you, oh Lord
But I fear my people may follow a false Prophet
This false Prophet who comes from the far north
And who is the son of Abraham
For this false Prophet has come to my people
And has promised them heaven and earth
And has led my people astray
So Moses incurred the wrath of the Lord
Do they not fear me? asked the Lord
Have they not seen the people before them suffer?
And Moses went back to his people
And he told his people what the Lord had commanded
But his people shunned the Lord’s word
So they suffered the Lord’s wrath
The Lord took away their oil
But He gave them back 5%
And other people came from across the sea
And they occupied the land of the chosen ones
And the people lived in poverty and misery
For the people did not learn
That everything comes from the Lord
And what the Lord giveth the Lord can taketh away.
#racism #towerofbabel #TheHorribleTruthAboutRacismByMelvinCalis #MuslimsnonMuslimsinMsiabarredfrompraying #IsthereUnityWilltherebeUnity #TheQuranPharaohHaman #WISHIKNEWIFIKNEW #NOBODYKNOWSFORONLYGODKNOWS #Amysteriouselephantandtheblindmen #StudyclaimshumanracecamefromProtoMalays #HumanRacetobeONEofUS #AnActofDevianceandofDefiancePartXII