Please Send Me Stuff

If you have articles, information, thoughts you want to share just send it to me at Please keep your articles brief, not more than 1000 words or just use bullet points. If you have pictures to go with the articles, that is even better. Towards an excellent Malaysia.

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Part 2 - The number of groups and individuals who may be called ‘Qur’anists’ appears to be increasing - Aisha Musa, PhD Harvard University.

My comments : 
i. This is an article written by Prof. Aisha Musa who holds a PhD in Arabic and Islamic Studies from the Department of Near Eastern Languages & Civilizations at Harvard University. She is currently an  assistant professor of Islamic Studies in the Religious Studies Department at Florida Inter-national University, in Miami. 
Dr Musa’s training at Harvard focused on early Islamic scriptural history, specifically the relative authority of the Qur’an and Prophetic Tradi-tions (Hadith). 
Her book,  Hadith as Scripture: Discussions on the Authority of Prophetic Tradi-tions in Islam (Palgrave, 2008), explores the development of the doctrine of duality of revelation and issues surrounding the relative authority of the Qur’an and the Prophetic Traditions (Hadith).
ii. To all the village idiots and their brethren, I did not write this. This is just to tell you what other people (much cleverer than you of course) may be discussing. This is slightly beyond anti-hysteria kits, flying off to the moon, kahwin misyar, two coconuts and a ghost and stuff like that.

iv. This is Part 2. I have some comments at the end.  Remember I did not write this. It is in the Internet, which is brought into our houses by the gomen of Malaysia. So go and blame the gomen for bringing this to us.

Part 2 :

For those who accept his findings, he says, ‘the results include a totally new sense of salvation, and full awareness that the Muslim masses have fallen vic-tim to Satan’s schemes’ (Khalifa 1982).

Khalifa starts by establishing premises on which all Muslims agree: obeying the Messen-ger is obligatory and Messengers do not speak for themselves (Khalifa 1982, pp. 1–2). 

By identifying these premises and using them as a starting point, Khalifa anticipates the response most often made when the Hadith are challenged – the Qur’an commands obe-dience to the Messenger, which requires acceptance of the Hadith. 

Khalifa understands this and agrees with a need to obey the Messenger. Where Khalifa differs with the majority of Muslims is on what obedience to the Messenger requires and what represents the teachings of the Messenger: 

Muhammad is represented by the Quran alone’ (Khalifa 1982, p. 3)

Khalifa cites more than 70 verses from the Qur’an, in both Arabic and Eng-lish, to support a number of assertions, including:

•The Qur’an is ‘complete, perfect, and fully detailed’;

•Muhammad’s only duty was to deliver the Qur’an;

•Muhammad was forbidden from explaining the Qur’an;

•Obeying the Messenger is following only the Qur’an;

•Religious practices came from Abraham, not Muhammad;

•‘Hadith’ and ‘Sunna’ are ‘100% conjecture’;

The Qur’an is only ‘Hadith’ that Muslims should follow. 

Khalifa (1982) cites many verses, but here I will only mention some key verses used. 

The translations are those of Khalifa, and these differ from more mainstream translators. The emphasis is also that of Khalifa. 

Among the verses used to support his assertion that the Qur’an is complete and fully detailed are 6:38–39: ‘We did not leave anything out of this book…’ (Khalifa 1982, p. 10). 

He then cites portions of 6:114–115: ‘Shall Iseek other than God as a source of law, when He revealed this Book to you fully detai-led.

The word of your Lord is complete in truth & justice’ (p. 10). 

Khalifa challenges Muslims by citing these verses under the heading, ‘Do you believe God or not ?’ (p. 10) 

The challenge is directed toward those who argue that the Hadith are a necessary com-plement to the Qur’an. 

How can a ‘complete’ book require a ‘complement’? 

The none-too-subtle suggestion is that no one who believes such a thing believes God. One who does not believe God is a disbeliever. 

As he did in his preface, Khalifa harshly condemns the vast majority of Muslims. This too is a very serious charge and one that angers many Muslims.

One of the strongest arguments for Hadith has to do with the details of religious prac-tices. Khalifa understands this. He says ‘their favorite question’ is ‘If the Quran is com-plete (as God says), where do we find the details of Salat [sic ] prayers?’ 

Khalifa’s parenthetical insertion is yet another none-too-subtle implication: those who ask this question do not believe what God says. He further states that the question ‘reveals their total ignorance of the Quran’ (Khalifa 1982, p. 37). 

Khalifa’s response to ‘their favorite question’ is that all religious practices come to us from Abraham, in support of which he cites Qur’an 22:78: 

He has blessed you and imposed no hardship in your religion; the religion of your father Abraham. Abraham is the one who named you ‘Muslims’ in the beginning…Therefore you shall observe the Salat prayers, give the Zakat charity…(Khalifa 1982, p. 38)

To show that the specific religious practices mentioned in 22:78 were given to Abra-ham, Khalifa emphasizes part of 21:72–73: ‘and We taught them righteous works and the observance of Salat and Zakat . (Khalifa 1982, p. 48). 

He offers similar verses regarding fast-ing and the Hajj to show that they too were known and practiced since the time of Abraham (Khalifa 1982, pp. 49–50), and Muhammad was to follow the religion of Abra-ham (Khalifa 1982, p. 40). 

Muhammad’s contribution to Islam was not the details of reli-gious practices, as these were already known. They are Abraham’s contribution to Muslims’ religious lives. Muhammad’s contribution was the delivery of the Qur’an.

Pointing out the Qur’an’s use of the Arabic construction ma…illa,  which he refers to as a ‘double negative’ used for emphasis, Khalifa cites the Qur’an 42:48 and 5:99 in support of the idea that Muhammad had ‘no duty except delivering (Quran)’ (Khalifa 1982, p. 32).

Another popular argument for Hadith that Khalifa attacks is that Muhammad explained things beyond the details of religious practices. He declares emphatically that Muhammad was forbidden to explain the Qur’an, citing 75:17–19: ‘It is we who will put it together as a Quran. Once we reveal it, you shall follow it . Then, it is we who will explain it’ (Khalifa 1982, p. 69).

What Khalifa offers is radical redefinition of the role of the Messenger as the majority of Muslims understand it. 

He even uses Hadith from the collections of al-Bukhari and Muslim in which Muhammad prohibited writing anything from him except the Qur’an as evidence that the advocates of Hadith do not even follow their own teachings (Khalifa1982, p. 34). 

However, he does not stop there. He also attacks the idea that Prophetic Hadith are a form of divine inspiration. Here too, Qur’anic verses are Khalifa’s weapon of choice, especially verses that use the Arabic word Hadith, such as: ‘‘These are God’s verses; we recite them for you truthfully. In which ‘Hadith’, [sic ] beside God and His verses do they believe in [sic ]?’’ (Khalifa 1982,p. 57). 

To further emphasize his point that the ‘‘Quran is the only ‘Hadith’ to be fol-lowed,’’ and that ‘all other Hadiths are blasphemous and misleading fabrications,’ Khalifa follows his citation of Qur’an 45:6 with 39:23 and 31:6–7, which also contain the Arabic word Hadith: 

‘‘God has revealed the best ‘Hadith’; [sic ] a book…;’’ and 

‘‘[t]here are those who advocate vain ‘Hadith’ causing diversion from the path of God, without knowledge, and fail to take such actions seriously…’’ (Khalifa 1982, p. 58). 

For Khalifa, there is no middle ground. There is no question of ‘authentic’ or ‘inau-thentic’ Hadith. For Khalifa, the crucial question is posed in 45:6. Khalifa sees anyone who follows any Hadith ‘after God and His verses’ as being described in 31:6.

They are ‘idol worshippers’ of Muhammad who are unaware of their idolatry and consider them-selves righteous (Khalifa 1982, 53–4). 

The importance of Hadith and Sunna for Khalifa is that they are a ‘necessary test to distinguish the true Muslim from the false Muslim’ (Khalifa 1982, p. 55). 

It is not surprising that Muslims worldwide reacted with anger and hostility. However,  not all Muslims had this reaction. 

Some were moved by the Qur’anic arguments he pre-sented.  One such Muslim is Kassim Ahmad, author of Hadith : a Re-evaluation  (Ahmad 1997). 

Kassim Ahmad. Born and raised in Malaysia in a traditional Sunni family, Ahmad (1997) says that he held the generally accepted Sunni beliefs, tempered by Ibn Khaldun’s criteria of checking tra-ditions against the Qur’an and rational thinking, until he encountered Khalifa’s work in  1985. 

Khalifa ‘opened for [him] a way to solve the problem of the Hadith’ (Ahmad  1997, p. 3). The problem to which Ahmad refers is ‘their negative effects on the Muslim community’ and their connection to the decline and fall of the Muslims. Because of their negative effects, Ahmad believes Muslims need to completely ‘re-evaluate the whole heri-tage of traditional Islamic thought’ (Ahmad 1997, pp. 2–3). 

Ahmad is not alone in calling for such a re-evaluation. Many Muslims have worked to reform Islam and Muslim think-ing, including Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Muhammad ‘Abduh, and Rashid Rida. In spite of the efforts of such reformers, Ahmad says, ‘the condition of the Muslim community has not changed much and continues to be precarious.’ The question that Muslims must ask themselves is ‘why?’ 

Ahmad recognizes that many social, cultural, political, historic, economic and other factors play a role, but not all factors play an equal role. Ahmad sees ideology as the most important factor (Ahmad 1997, pp. 5–6). 

He identifies what he sees as the basis for the failure of the modern reform movement begun by Muhammad Abduh:  His basic references are still the Quran  and the Hadith. 

I have pointed out that herein lies the failure of this movement. The Hadith, and everything else, have to be judged by the Quran. (Ahmad 1997, p. ix)

Ahmad’s hypothesis is that the early Muslims were successful when the Qur’an was their sole source of religious guidance and that Muslim society only declined after they granted Hadith authority along with the Qur’an:  After about three hundred years, extraneous harmful teachings not taught by Prophet Muham-mad but skillfully attributed to him gradually gained a foothold in the Muslim community and turned them away from the dynamic invincible ideology that initially brought them success.(Ahmad 1997, p. 8)

Although, he identifies the use of Hadith along with Qur’an as the reason for the decline and stagnation of Muslim society and calls for a complete re-evaluation of Islam’s intellectual heritage to remedy the problem of the Hadith, unlike Khalifa, Ahmad makes it clear that such a re-evaluation is not an attack against classical scholars. 

It is ‘a normal scientific procedure,’ in which all ‘great [Muslim] philosophers and scholars’ engaged (Ahmad 1997, p. 17). 

Ahmad then addresses what he calls ‘the Traditionists’ theory’ of the Hadith. He divides this into four arguments that he addresses one-by-one (Ahmad 1997, pp. 23–49).

•Sunna is revelation;

•‘Obey the Messenger’ means ‘Uphold the Hadith’;

•Hadith Interprets Qur’an;

•The Example of the Prophet.

Ahmad begins with the idea that the ‘wisdom’ referred to in the Qur’an refers to extra-Qur’anic revelations given to Muhammad. Ahmad’s starting premise is that the Qur’an explains itself. 

In looking at the twenty occurrences of the word hikma (wisdom) in the Qur’an, he concludes that ‘it is obvious that it refers to the teachings of the Quran, or to general wisdom that all prophet - messengers or moral teachers were endowed with’ (Ahmad 1997, p. 24). 

Among the verses he cites to show that the ‘wisdom’ is to be found in the teachings of the Qur’an is 17:39: ‘This is part of  the wisdom that your Lord reveals to you, where the word ‘wisdom’ refers to some 13 ethical teachings enumerated in verses 22 to 38’ (Ahmad 1997, pp. 23–4). 

Among the verses he cites to show that the ‘wisdom’ is something with which all prophets, mes-sengers or moral teachers were endowed are 3:81, which states that God has given all the prophets ‘the Book and wisdom,’ and 31:12, which states that God granted wis-dom to Luqman. 

Along with verses that contain the word hikma, Ahmad cites verses that describe the Qur’an as hakim, to support the idea that the ‘wisdom’ that God gave to Muhammad refers to the teachings of the Qur’an and not to any extra-Qur’a-nic revelation. 

The wise leadership that Muhammad demonstrated was ‘consequent upon his acting strictly in accordance with the ethical teachings of the Quran’ (Ahmad 1997, p. 25).

After examining Qur’anic usage of the word hikma, Ahmad examines the usages of Sunna and Hadith. He shows two different usages of Sunna, the first is for God’s system (Sunna) mentioned in 48:23, and the second is for ‘the example of the fate suffered by ancient communities,’ mentioned in 8:38. 

‘None,’ he says, ‘refers to the behavior of the Prophet.’ In discussing the Qur’anic usage of the word Hadith, Ahmad cites the same verses Khalifa used and concludes that the Qur’anic usage ‘categorically rejects any Hadith besides the Quran’ (Ahmad 1997, pp. 26–7). 

Addressing the second Traditionist argument that links obeying the Messenger to fol-lowing Hadith, Ahmad argues that ‘the messenger is not an independent agency [sic ],’ but the ‘agency [sic ] that delivered the message’ (Ahmad 1997, p. 31). 

Ahmad then mentions those verses that indicate that the messenger’s only function is to deliver the message. In keeping with the principle that the Qur’an explains itself, Ahmad points out that all verses that mention obedience to the Messenger do so only in connection with obedi-ence to God (Ahmad 1997, p. 32).

Having addressed the issues of the Sunna as a form of divine revelation and obedience to the Messenger, Ahmad takes up the idea that Muhammad explained the Qur’an. Here too, he presents the same verses used by Khalifa, but uses a milder tone. 

Like Khalifa, Ahmad argues that prayer, charity, fasting, and pilgrimage have been inherited from Abraham. He adds that even so, the Qur’an mentions the main features of these practices and that people learn these practices from parents and teachers, not from Hadith (Ahmad1997, p. 36).

Ahmad then responds to the final argument of what he calls the Traditionists’ theory – that when the Qur’an calls the Messenger ‘a good example’ in 33:21, it means his  behavior must be imitated as closely as possible in all things and this requires Hadith – in the same way he responded to the previous arguments, offering other verses from the Qur’an to explain the meaning key terms. 

To explain the meaning of ‘good example’(uswa hasana) in 33:21, Ahmad argues that the same words are used to describe Abraham and those who believed with him in 60:4 :   A good example has been set for you by Abraham and those with him. They said to their people,‘We disown you and the idols you set up besides God…’ (Ahmad 1997, pp. 38–9)

According to Ahmad, this verse shows that the good example refers to ‘one’s religious convictions, ideological position and struggle’ (Ahmad 1997, p. 39).

He also argues that it is unreasonable to think that God would require Muslims to imitate Muhammad’s per-sonal behaviors such as eating and dressing because such behaviors are matters of culture, education, and personal preference (Ahmad 1997, p. 39).

After dealing with general arguments supporting the Hadith as a source of religious law and guidance, Ahmad presents his argument that the Qur’an is complete, perfect, and fully detailed. 

Again, he uses the same verses used by Khalifa and comes to the conclusion that the status of Hadith is a form of idolatry: ‘To place the Hadith on an equivalent footing with revelation is to create another source of guidance – an idol. This is themajor problem with the Hadith’ (Ahmad 1997, p. 49). 

Ahmad, however, tempers his position, saying : the theory or doctrine that the hadith is an equal source of guidance with the Quran, pro-pounded by Shafi‘i, is the most important aspect of the hadith question. Even though we totally reject this doctrine, we do not reject the hadith as a secondary source, provided that it does not contradict the Quran. 

On this view also, we say that the hadith is an important source of early Muslim social history. (Ahmad 1997, p. 49)

Ahmad’s views on the Hadith, the nature of revelation, and the role of the Messenger, and the Qur’anic verses he uses to support those views are essentially the same as those presented by Khalifa, but his presentation differs dramatically. 

Not only does he use a much less strident and condemnatory tone, he also appeals to rational thinking, desires for social reform, and classical Muslim intellectual history to buffer and support his call for re-evaluation of the status of Hadith. 

Ahmad’s more tempered presentation was not enough to keep his book from being banned in his home country of Malaysia, nor from his being declared a heretic. However, his style has not garnered the degree of hostility that Muslims have directed against Rashad Khalifa.

My comments : This article will again expose  a few things.

i. Some werewolves will be frothing at the mouth. In the movies a werewolf is a satanic creature.

ii. The village idiots will react by screaming and yelling - due to extremely limited brain function.

iii. The doomed will say, "Let me ask my favorite retard".

iv. The non existent will ponder, "How can I reply this intelligently? How do I double check what they are saying."  But they do not exist. They are non existent.

Part 1 - The number of groups and individuals who may be called ‘Qur’anists’ appears to be increasing - Aisha Musa, PhD Harvard University.

My comments : 
i. The larger font size is upon the request of a friend (on behalf of the older generation) to make for easier reading.
ii. This is an article written by Prof. Aisha Musa who holds a PhD in Arabic and Islamic Studies from the Department of Near Eastern Languages & Civilizations at Harvard University. She is currently an  assistant professor of Islamic Studies in the Religious Studies Department at Florida Inter-national University, in Miami. 
Dr Musa’s training at Harvard focused on early Islamic scriptural history, specifically the relative authority of the Qur’an and Prophetic Tradi-tions (Hadith). 

Her book,  Hadith as Scripture: Discussions on the Authority of Prophetic Tradi-tions in Islam (Palgrave, 2008), explores the development of the doctrine of duality of revelation and issues surrounding the relative authority of the Qur’an and the Prophetic Traditions (Hadith).

iii. To all the village idiots and their brethren I did not write this. This is just to tell you what other people (much cleverer than you of course) may be discussing. This is slightly beyond anti-hysteria kits, flying off to the moon, kahwin misyar, two coconuts and a ghost and stuff like that.)

iv. This is quite lengthy. I have broken it into parts. I have some comments at the end.  Remember I did not write this. It is in the Internet, which is brought inside our houses by the gomen of Malaysia. So go and blame the gomen for bringing this to us.
Stories relating the words and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad, known as Hadith in Arabic, have long been esteemed by the vast majority of Muslims as a source of law and guidance second only to the Qur’an in authority. 

In recent years, an increasingly vocal Muslim opposition to Hadith insists that the Qur’an alone should be the sole source of religious law and guidance in Islam.  

Rashad Khalifa, Kassim Ahmad, Edip Yuksel, and Ahmad Subhy Mansour are among the most important rejecters of the Hadith, whose arguments influence a wide variety of groups popularly labeled Ahl al-Qur’an, Qur’niyyun or Qur’anists.
Qur’anists: Contemporary Muslim Opposition to the Use and Authority of the Hadith. 
Hadith : stories of the words and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad are the second scrip-tural source of law and guidance after the Qur’an for most Muslims. 
They are the only vehicle through which, according to the majority of Muslims, we can access what Muhammad said and did and that of which he tacitly approved. These stories have played an important role in shaping the development of Islam as we know it today. 
Recently, however, an increasingly vocal Muslim opposition to the use and authority of the Hadith has emerged. Insistence on the Qur’an alone as the sole source of religious law and guid-ance in Islam has earned those who oppose the Hadith the epithet ‘Qur’anists.’ 
This arti-cle will introduce the most prominent trends and thinkers among the various groups referred to by this title. 
There are two strains of opposition to the authority of the Hadith. The first is opposi-tion to an extra-Qur’anic source of scriptural authority and the second is to the problem-atic content of some of the Hadith that make the religion an object of ridicule.  Authenticity is also a concern, and opponents of the Hadith often argue that the Hadith have nothing to do with the Prophet. 
However, the overriding concern is about granting scriptural authority to something other than the Qur’an. The number of groups and individuals who may be called ‘Qur’anists’ appears to be increasing. 

The Internet has opened the discussion to a broad array of participants and  observers. At the time of this is being written, Wikipedia’s entry entitled ‘Qur’an alone’  contains links to more than a dozen websites dedicated to interpreting Islam without  using Hadith.  While some opponents of the Hadith express themselves openly, using their own names, others publish their views anonymously or under pseudonyms for fear of reprisals. 

Arrest, detention, and imprisonment of  Qur’anists in Egypt has gained increasing attention in the Muslim world since at least early 2003, when the London based, Arabic language daily,  al-Sharq al-Awsat, reported that eight Egyptians were sentenced by Egypt’s Supreme State Security Court to terms ranging from 6 months to 3 years for ‘contempt of religion  for rejecting Prophetic Traditions, interpreting the Qur’an for themselves in ways differ dramatically from mainstream understanding of Islamic beliefs and practices (al-Sharqal-Awsat

More arrests and detentions in 2007 sparked intense debated in the Egyp-tian press, and scholars of al-Azhar declared the Qur’anists apostates who are attempting to ‘destroy Islam.’ Former Deputy Rector of al-Azhar and member of the Islamic Studies Committee, Mahmoud Ashour, was quoted in  al-Sharq al-Awsat  as saying they are ‘more dangerous to Islam than any other group.’ (Khalil 2007). 

The situation of Egypt’s  Qur’anists illustrates the gravity of the issue for Muslims. An important aspect of the modern debates over the Hadith is that they involve edu-cated ordinary Muslims. 

In his 1999 article ‘The Coming Transformation of the Muslim World,’ Dale Eickelman discusses the effect that ‘unprecedented access that ordinary peo-ple now have to information and knowledge about religion and other aspects of their society’ is having on religious authority in the Muslim world:    

What distinguishes the present era from prior ones is the large number of believers engaged in the ‘reconstruction’ of religion, community, and society. 

In an earlier era, political or religious leaders would prescribe, and others were supposed to follow. Today, the major impetus for change in religious and political values comes from below. (Eickelman 1999)

The contemporary challengers of the Hadith illustrate Eickelman’s point – they are educated, ordinary Muslims rather than religious scholars or clergy. 

As Daniel Brown’s analysis of the early 20th century "Qur’an alone movements" shows they made use of the popular press and self-published books and journals (Brown 1996). This continues today.  The Internet has contributed to the spread and development of a variety of Qur’anist movements throughout the world. 

Besides the discussions in Egypt, opposition to the Hadith was and is taking place throughout the Muslim world, in countries such as Malaysia, Kuwait, and South Africa (Tolu-e-Islam 2009). 

Among the leading opponents of the Hadith are Rashad Khalifa and Ahmad Subhy Mansour, Egyptians who settled in the United States,  Kassim Ahmed of Malaysia, and Edip Yuksel, a Turkish religious activist who immigrated to the United States to escape  persecution in his homeland. Their works are available both in traditional print media  and on the Internet. 

Each of them was born and raised in a traditional Sunni family in a Muslim country. While some may have lived and studied in Western countries, they came to the West as adults with their respective cultural, social, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. They are not ‘Westerners’ who are seeking to ‘Westernize’ Islam to fit their ‘Western’ culture. 

This is significant because one of the most frequent criticisms of the modern-day opposition to the authoritative status of the Hadith is that it is an essentially Western-influenced assault on Islam (Hashim 2007).

Rashad Khalifa
The Qur’anic arguments leveled against the use of Hadith were most strongly articulated by Rashad Khalifa, in his 1982 book  "Quran, Hadith, and Islam". The book is less than 90 pages, but from beginning to end it is a vehement indictment of traditional Islam as idol-atry that violates the teachings delivered by Muhammad.

Born in Egypt in 1935, Khalifa came to the United States in 1959, where he obtained a PhD in Biochemistry. He settled in the United States and was active in the local Mus-lim community.  Dissatisfied with English translations of the Qur’an,  Khalifa set out to do a translation of his own ( 2009). 

In working on the translation, he scruti-nized the Arabic initials that preface certain chapters of the Qur’an. A computer analysis  of the text revealed numerical patterns related to the initials that according to Khalifa proved the divine origin of the Qur’an. This brought Khalifa popular acclaim throughout the Muslim world and even a congratulatory letter from the director of the Department of Research and Publications at al-Azhar University’s Academy of Islamic Research (al-Fuqa 1976; Unpublished letter). Ahmed Deedat also promoted Khalifa’s work in a booklet entitled "Al-Quran, the Ultimate Miracle"  (Deedat 1986).

However, numerical patterns in the Qur’an were not the only discovery Khalifa claimed to have made. In the preface to Quran, Hadith, and Islam he writes:

The continued research unveiled a startling fact: that the extremely popular ‘Hadith & Sunna’ have nothing to do with the prophet Muhammad, and that the adherence there to represents flagrant disobedience of God and His final prophet (Quran 6:112 & 25:31). This finding contra-dicts the beliefs of Muslim masses everywhere. 

Consequently, my personal popularity, and even the popularity of the Quran’s miracle, plunged to the point of endangering my life and reputa-tion. As it turned out, telling Muslims that ‘Hadith and Sunna’ are Satanic inventions is the same as telling Christians that Jesus is not the son of God (Khalifa 1982).

Khalifa’s declaration that the Hadith and Sunna were ‘Satanic inventions’ angered Muslims around the world (Bay  an min al-Azhar 1985). 

In the book prefaced by that bold declaration, Khalifa uses Qur’anic verses, a few Biblical verses, and even Hadith to sup-port his conclusions. 

My comments  for Part 1.

I have just two points.

Point 1. The rejection of the hadith has been part and parcel of Islamic history since day 1.  For example there are already about 100 million 'hadith rejectors' in the world today. These are the 100 million Shiahs in the world who do not accept the hadith collections of the Sunnis. Granted the shiahs have their own collections of what they believe are the extra Quranic teachings of the prophet (which the shiahs call 'khabar') it is NOT the same as the hadith collections of the sunnis.

Therefore from Day 1, the shiahs have been rejecting the hadith collections of the sunnis and vice versa. So the rejection of the sunni collections of hadith is a very, very old phenomena. It goes back maybe 1100 years.

Point 2.  The Quran says 'huwa samma kumu muslimoon' (Surah 22:78  ) which means 'He (Allah) has named you Muslims'.

This is a great honour granted upon Muslims by Allah swt - Allah swt has named us Muslims.

So why do you go around calling yourselves by other names? Just call yourselves Muslims. There are no such things as Quranists, ahlul Quran, Quraniyyun etc. 

The Quran says further, 'falaa tamootunna illa wa antum muslimoon' (Surah 2:132) which means 'therefore do not die except as muslims'.

Allah swt has named us 'Muslims' and we should not die except as Muslims. 

There is no need to call ourselves by any other names.

Continued Part 2.

Najib and Hadi regressing, not progressing nation

May 30, 2016

Najib Razak and Hadi Awang, in trying to win the hearts and minds of the Malays, are unfortunately doing so by dividing and further fragmenting the nation.

By P Ramasamy

The well-being and future of the country cannot be accurately gauged by who wins or loses the by-elections next month in Sungai Besar and Kuala Kangsar. Furthermore, the need to win the by-elections at any cost cannot be used to tamper with the nation’s Constitution or the well-being of the various races.

Even if one dismisses the recent tabling of the amendment to the Hudud bill as an exercise to garner support among the predominantly Malay/Muslim population, the amendments if debated and passed have far reaching effects on the various races in the country.

As it is, there is racial and religious polarisation in the country, no thanks to the Barisan Nasional or Umno brand of politics. 60 years of racial and religious politics has resulted in a grave deficit of trust and understanding amongst the various races. While other countries, which started later in the path to developmental have improved leaps and bounds, Malaysia has stagnated beyond imagination.

The diabolical combination of racial and religious politics has meant among other things, that the universal issues of justice, fairness, rule of law and governance have taken a back seat to ethnic and religious politics, to the point that nothing much else matters.

Ethnicity and religious politics have overshadowed other salient and important aspects in Malaysia. Widespread corruption, mega financial scandals, racial and religious discrimination and the overall lack of governance has a subdued presence in the Malaysian political scenario.

Given this situation, it is no wonder that Najib Razak can still survive as Prime Minister given the shield provided by race and religion that has helped him side-step the scandals of 1Malaysia Development Berhad and the movement of funds into his private bank accounts. In any other country, he would have been in the “second university”, to use the words of Kassim Ahmad.

Najib survives not because he is innocent but because the political and cultural context he operates in allows him to. It is the same context that allows him to use the administrative and political machinery to ensure the Opposition within is neutralised and contained. With the nation’s security agencies under his “spell”, he has succeeded in preventing the rise of the Opposition from without.

In this sense, hudud is all about securing political points with the Malay masses. It is about “entrapping” PAS and ensuring that it follows the dictates of Umno, although the actual beneficiary of this move will be the latter. PAS has become a pawn in the political game of Umno.

PAS, a party that held much promise an as alternative to Umno in capturing the Malay heartland a few years ago, has been reduced to a mere appendage to the dictates of Umno.

As Lim Kit Siang said, the tabling of the Private Member’s Bill, Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) (Amendment) 2016 in Parliament, was not a victory for Hadi Awang of PAS, but for Najib of Umno. Whether it is going to be a permanent or Pyrrhic victory remains to be seen.

Every action has its contradiction. Najib did not expect that leaders of BN’s component parties, especially the non-Malays would react, given their past slavishness. To date, four leaders have made it clear that if hudud is implemented, they will resign from their Cabinet posts. However, they failed to say whether they would lead their respective political parties out of the BN fold.

The bigger and more ominous contradiction for Umno will not be the actions by BN’s non-Malay component parties, but the reactions of those in Sarawak and Sabah. BN just won the Sarawak election and during the course of its election campaigns, Sarawakians made it clear that they were apprehensive of the politics of the Peninsular.

There are signs the hudud Bill has visibly shaken the people in Sarawak and Sabah, who have begun to question their very entry into the federation under the Malaysia Agreement of 1963. Some politicians in these states are even suggesting the need to re-think their being part of the Malaysian federation.

Najib and Hadi might have bitten off more than they can chew. I am sure Najib did not anticipate these wildly negative reactions to the hudud Bill. To date, his explanation of the purpose of the bill i.e. to increase the degree of punishment currently meted out by the Syariah courts, has been dismissed as a mere excuse.

Desperate times produce desperate politicians like Najib and Hadi. Once strange bedfellows, now they have come together for the sole purpose of winning the hearts and minds of the Malays in the two by-elections on June 18. Unfortunately, they are doing this by dividing and further fragmenting the nation.

With Najib and Hadi around, there is little wonder why Malaysia is not moving forwards but backwards. What a shame!

P Ramasamy is Deputy Chief Minister II of Penang.

My comments : As a young religious freak, Hadi was promising brownie points. So that he could secure brownies. For a certainty he never secured any brownie points (I have inside information) and also of a certainty Najib has been giving him the brownies that he sought after. A village boy who realised very early on that democracy can extract brownies from simple village people.  And that completes the psychoanalysis of Hadi.

A concise description of the situation by P. Ramasamy the Dep. Chief Minister of Penang.

Indeed the hudud of Pas is a serious bungle by Najib.  The people of Sarawak and Sabah really feel estranged more and more.  The PAS candidates lost their deposits in the recent Sarawak State elections. This is clear enough indication that Sarawakians think differently.

Well - not really. Muslims make up under 30% of the Sarawak population. Traditional cultures, Christians and other religions make up the balance 70%. So PAS will not sell in Sarawak.

On the Peninsula, those who are lazy, uncompetitive, non-competitive, those who do not wish to learn from others about how to be economically independent (its always the economy ok) will seek solace in "race and religion".

They will use "race and religion" for anything and everything, maybe even put it in a sauce bottle and use it for their cooking.

These are the lazy, the laggards, the uncompetitive, the non-competitive, the parasites.  It is an attitude problem. 

The solution is so easy and so very cheap, it costs almost no money and the effects will be everlasting  - just change the "losers" attitude.