==> Pls visit new site at http://malaysia-today.net/ <==

Dear Observer,
You have a very good observation. Thanks you.
The true will reveal with honest and solid discussion like this.

report abuse

disagree 20

agree 36

densemy, please stop insulting others. If you have nothing better to post just ignore the discussion all together. It is ppl like you who is giving MT a bad name.

report abuse

disagree 17

agree 16

Welcome back Observer!

report abuse

disagree 15

agree 16

What is the point of the above letter other than to insult Islam and Muslims? Ok, you don't believe in Islamic teachings, fine. Nobody's forcing you to believe.

And they say Muslims are emotional. Sheesh.

report abuse

disagree 20

agree 20

I actually read the whole thing! Both this and the previous articles. Actually finds it quite fascinating and informative.

And along the way, I too realize, that through discussions (not arguments, ok?), we can understand much more of others. Whatever we think of it, that's emotional, but the information is good, and that's creating better understanding.

report abuse

disagree 7

agree 17

Even the references... Wikipedia ? Awww those things are written by the Westerners who've always known to be bias against the people that they don't favor, albeit the Muslims.

Funny, funny.

report abuse

disagree 6

agree 13

The observer writes:

Then lets look at your language : "If I ask my husband to wear an underwear, that means I want him to cover his private part, no? Should I then have to specifically say this "Darling, please use this underwear to cover your penis (pardon me for the word)" instead?

Maybe The Observer should stop lying to people. This article is written by Quinary and not by the owner of antiantihadeeth blog. The article can be read here.http://antiantihadeeth.*******...-from.html.

It shows how THe Obesever if not so observant. hahahahaha

report abuse

disagree 6

agree 23

Patricia Crone of Oxford University is blazing new trails in Islamic research which people like you will never be able to explain. She says that in the Sufyanid period (early Muawwiyah?) coins were minted but there was no mention of 'Rasulullah' or of 'Muhammad'. How do you explain that? Which hadeeth can you refer ? Muhammad and Rasulullah only appeared much later, about 250 years after the prophet's death. Strange.

Err, what a weird reasoning. Just because the Prophet is not mentioned in any of the coins, this PAtricia woman says the PRophet is actually non existence?

What about the azan? The Azan is uttered since the time of the Prophet and the Prophet's name is mentioned clearly in the Azan for 1400 years?

The Observer is caught lying again.

report abuse

disagree 7

agree 23

She says that in the Sufyanid period (early Muawwiyah?) coins were minted but there was no mention of 'Rasulullah' or of 'Muhammad'. How do you explain that?

Its a very simple answer RPK. The answer is "Only Allah know".

report abuse

disagree 2

agree 7

Please dont take the silly an childish route and say that Patricia Crone is a Zionist, Orientalist etc. She refers YOUR ulama punya buku lah! Go and read her books, if you do read books.

The Obsever sole reference is this Patricia lady??? Who died and made Patricia infallible? Unmistaken.

Apparently, she is the only one who reads the book but come out with a weird conclusion?

Are u sure she referred to books by ulama or some ancient Arab writers?

She reads our ulama books? Which one? As far as I know, orientalists like Patricia dare not present her works in Al Azhar or any seats of Islamic learning.

She hides behind the walls of Western academia and feel secure.

If the likes of Patricia works is credible, I dare them to present their works and defend it in seats of learning of Islam.

That alone is strong enough proof that Orientalist's misunderstanding of Islamic literature.

ANyways, Orientalists have been proven wrong and mistaken for the last 200 years. So, it's weird that The Observer/RPK sole reference is ONE Orientalist.

Hahahahahahaha. In other words,

report abuse

disagree 7

agree 19

well Observer, obviously your not a Muslim as you do not believe in the prophet (peace be upon him). Ash hadu alla 'ila ha illAllah wa ash hadu anna Muhammad rasulullah.

scholars have devoted their lives to Islam and studying the Quran and hadiths.
And you suddenly come out commenting on Islam just because you've read some books and know a bit or two about Arabic and found some articles on Wikipedia, like you know everything about it. BOOHOOO!

Your no different than those UMNO warlords fighting for so called 'malay rights' even though their not malays!

report abuse

disagree 6

agree 22

I do believe though, that Raja Petra has touched this tudung issue at a very wrong place. This should be settled at ummah level first before opening it like that for public scrutiny. Among the statement published in The Great Tudung Debate article (which was said to be written by Raja Petra's anonymous friend) is this comment on An-Nur 31:

Again there is no mention of head (ru'usa) in this verse or face (wujuh/wajh). Please note the words 'draw their veils over the bosoms'. The arabic is as follows:
walyadribna : and strike / cover
bi khumurihinna : with their outer garments
Ala : over / upon
juyoobihinna : their bosoms / breasts
Women are told to cover their chests/bosoms/breasts. That is all. This tallies with the earlier verse 33:59 above where the women are told to lengthen their clothes/garments. There is absolutely no mention of head (ru'usa), face (wujuh) or hair.

My response :
This depends largely on what is the interpretation of the word khumur. I am not sure whether this friend of Raja Petra speaks Arabic (which I am quite sure this anonymous friend of his has no arabic knowledge), but one thing not highlighted is the fact that khumur (the plural word of khimar) means something to cover, and what was normally referred to as head cover (tudung). The classical arabic dictionary, aqrib al-mawarid defines khimar as :
"all such pieces of cloth which are used to cover the head. It is a piece of cloth which is used by a woman to cover her head."

Imam Abu'l-Fida ibn Kathir said: "Khumur is the plural of khimar which means something that covers, and is what is used to cover the head. This is what is known among the people as a khimar."

So linguistically, khimar does not only mean something to cover, it is commonly used at that time to refer to head cover (tudung). So now we can see that khimar can be used as :

1. A piece that covers
2. Something specifically used to cover the head / head cover / tudung

report abuse

disagree 5

agree 9

i'M IN MIDDLE EAST, I READ QURAN ALMOST DAILY BUT I DARE NOT ASK THE ARAB BOY TO TEACH ME WHAT IS STATED IN THE QURAN THOUGH I COULD NOT UNDERSTAND ARABIC, THEY MAY TRANSLATE TO ME BETTER THAN USTAZ IN MALAYSIA BUT FOR SURE THE INTERPRETATION BY THE USTAZ WILL BE BETTER SINCE TO INTERPRET ONCE NEEDS TO KNOW ALL THE HISTORICAL BEHIND EVERY VERSES AND IT WAS FROM HADEETH, IF YOU DON'T TRUST HADEETH HOW YOU GOING TO TRUST QURAN

TQ

WRM

report abuse

disagree 8

agree 16

It’s either Particia is making a false claim or Observer is not very observant. But, it’s the trait of people like Observer and Raja Petra. Their main reference is Western, Christian and Jewish Orientalist. They rely upon these people blindly for their source in understanding Islam. The fact that people like Observer have no ability to understand Arabic confirms the fact that he doesn’t refer to scholars of Islam at all except through Western, Christian and Jewish Orientalists eyes.

Little does people like Observer know, Orientalist contradicts each other. If Patricia Crone says that Prophet Mohd’s existence cannot be confirmed, another Orientalist name Nabia Abbott confirms the existence of Al Hadeeth and even linked directly to the Prophet. Nabia says:

... the traditions of Muhammad as transmitted by his Companions and their Successors were, as a rule, scrupulously scrutinised at each step of the transmission, and that the so called phenomenal growth of Tradition in the second and third centuries of Islam was not primarily growth of content, so far as the hadith of Muhammad and the hadith of the Companions are concerned, but represents largely the progressive increase in parallel and multiple chains of transmission.[11]

[11] N. Abbott, Studies In Arabic Literary Papyri, Volume II [Qur'anic Commentary & Tradition], 1967, University Of Chicago Press: Chicago (USA), p. 2.

report abuse

disagree 3

agree 13

A reference to the article by Patricia Crone shows that she relies heavily on PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to support her work But, at the same time she didn’t study the “papyrus” or “manuscripts” plus various oral traditions that is abundance and great in numbers. It is probably because Patricia Crone is not trained enough to read and understand Classical Arabic and as such she is unable to appreciate the massive and abundance evidence

Now Nabia Abbot chooses to study the abundance of evidence and she confirms the existence of Prophet Mohd SAW thus making Particia looking like an idiot. In addition, another orientalist, J Robson, wrote a book entitled “The Isnad of Muslim Tradition” actually proving the soundness of the Isnad system. So, it’s clear orientalist worshipper like Observer and the rest are barking up the wrong tree.

report abuse

disagree 5

agree 13

Dear Observer,
anyone that wears tudung and say GOD commands them to wear tudung is a disbeliever and munafeeq (Hypocrite) as per the Quran. When you clearly show the deception that they try to incorporate in AnNur 31, by taking parts of the ayat to justify they cannot answer but instead try to quote Imam this and Imam that. They have taken their Imams as their GODs. They disbelieve in a simple verse of the Quran that I and many others find very clear, without refering to Imam this and that.

Altojo, you are either blind or illiterate. Please read this:

Again there is no mention of head (ru'usa) in this verse or face (wujuh/wajh). Please note the words 'draw their veils over the bosoms'. The arabic is as follows:
walyadribna : and strike / cover
bi khumurihinna : with their outer garments
Ala : over / upon
juyoobihinna : their bosoms / breasts
Women are told to cover their chests/bosoms/breasts. That is all. This tallies with the earlier verse 33:59 above where the women are told to lengthen their clothes/garments. There is absolutely no mention of head (ru'usa), face (wujuh) or hair.

My response :
This depends largely on what is the interpretation of the word khumur. I am not sure whether this friend of Raja Petra speaks Arabic (which I am quite sure this anonymous friend of his has no arabic knowledge), but one thing not highlighted is the fact that khumur (the plural word of khimar) means something to cover, and what was normally referred to as head cover (tudung). The classical arabic dictionary, aqrib al-mawarid defines khimar as :
"all such pieces of cloth which are used to cover the head. It is a piece of cloth which is used by a woman to cover her head."

Imam Abu'l-Fida ibn Kathir said: "Khumur is the plural of khimar which means something that covers, and is what is used to cover the head. This is what is known among the people as a khimar."

So linguistically, khimar does not only mean something to cover, it is commonly used at that time to refer to head cover (tudung). So now we can see that khimar can be used as :

1. A piece that covers
2. Something specifically used to cover the head / head cover / tudung

report abuse

disagree 5

agree 14

THIS DEBATE SHALL BE AMONG THE MUSLIMS; AND BEING A MUSLIM NOTHING JUSTIFY ONESELF TO EXPOSE THEIR AURAT BE IT A MAN OR A WOMAN TO NON MAHRAM. WHOEVER SAID AGAINST THIS EDICT THEY ARE MORE OR LESS KUFUR DUE TO THEIR IGNORANCE OR ULTERIOR MOTIVE TO STRAY OTHERS.

FOR THE OTHER RELIGION THEY CAN CONFESS TO THEIR FATHER SO THEY CAN REPEAT ANOTHER SIN; CAUSE FATHER ALWAYS FORGIVE A SON; IS THIS SOMETHING PERSONAL SO THE GOD HAS NO RULE TO PARDON SINCE SOME FATHER HAS TAKEN OVER THE ROLE.

TQ

WRM

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 7

Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun: During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.

Now, there's a lesson here... Please don't behave like monkeys.

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 3

I'm afraid that the Quran just cannot be simply literally translated.

By just literally translating "walyadribna bikhumurihinna ala juyuubihinna" as "and cover with their clothes upon their breasts", does it mean that muslim women just have to cover their breasts with clothes and can go around butt naked?
of course not!

And please stop arguing that putting on the tudung is a form of oppression while on the other hand saying that nuns covering up, as good and pious believers.

Please keep an open mind and leave the arguments to the more knowledgeable.

Wallahua'lam

report abuse

disagree 4

agree 12

written by Admiral Tojo, September 09, 2008 22:35:51
No Cabearth aka Rahman Celcom who is woman now,
who the **** is this Imam Abdul-Fida ibn Kathir? He is NOT mentioned at all in Quran. Give me his biodata, this demi GOD of yours. A bit like the Japanese anime think.

'walyadribna bikhumurihinna ala juyuubihinna'. means 'and cover with their clothes upon their breasts'.

How clear and simple it is, even without refering to Imam This and that. Now do you comprehend?

Cabearth, are you into cross dressing too?

Shalom

No mention of Aidid Safar in the Quran too, but u follow him like a Prophet. All 3 juzuk of the Quran he translated.

Not to mention, the fact that the Quran is in Arabic yet u condemn the Arabs.

You are an embodiment of confusion, Altojo.

HAhahahahaha. Sucker.

report abuse

disagree 8

agree 10

Uneminent, you are wrong there. Islam is a perfect religion. The teachings are simple enough for everyone to glean the truth out of it with or without anyone's guidance. That's supposed to be the beauty of it. Truth is not solely owned by the learned. In fact, truth is all around in the believers and non-believers, in the living and the inanimate, etc.. Heed the wise words of the past which repeatedly tell you not to follow blindly and be wary of those professing to know. Only with your ability to reason will you be able to find the truth, not the abilities of others. There are no stupid successful liars.





Cabearth, finding evidence of the past is difficult and the records are often lack objectivity. One of the strongest evidence is impartial corroborative evidence be it in science, history or in law. Thus physical archaeological evidence are highly prized as it can corroborate the stories that are passed down. They give a better picture than only following oral or written history.

For example to really know the greatness of the Roman empire, it's not just about reading the Roman writings of greatness as they may exaggerate but in finding corroborative evidence from their neighbours, preferably their enemies, or from what they left behind.

Other examples include was there a Temple of Solomon? Well, they follow the texts and then look for the site. That's how you know where it was.

On the contrary, see the atlantis story. The reason it's still a myth is because it lacks corroborative evidence even though many cultures have a similar story and it's clearly written down by a classical era Greek of renown (Think it was Plato. I'm bad with names).

Be very wary of writings or oral stories that cannot be corroborated. I'm saying this from the position where you easily denounce physical archaeological evidence and place oral and written history in higher importance. To me whatever P Crone paints a theory supported by physical evidence but this is just one theory. It's still refutable and maybe the evidence for this have not surfaced. However just because what she proposes goes against your ideals, it does not mean that her theory is incorrect. I suggest you read her writings and follow up her references first. Even now researchers are searching for evidence to corroborate many instances in history including those that touch upon many different faiths.

report abuse

disagree 2

agree 8

written by cruzeiro, September 09, 2008 22:54:06
Nice to know someone did actually recognize RC.
Didn't wanna mention it, since I'm just a poor Kufr .....
The writer, actually missed out one very characteristic feature of RC's writing -
the words "My Reply:" to points raised.
Anyone else noted that?

Maybe it's because my argument is valid. Something that is very lacking in any of yours.

Hahahahaha .

report abuse

disagree 5

agree 5

To me whatever P Crone paints a theory supported by physical evidence but this is just one theory. It's still refutable and maybe the evidence for this have not surfaced. However just because what she proposes goes against your ideals, it does not mean that her theory is incorrect. I suggest you read her writings and follow up her references first.

Here's the funny thing. Patricia studies sources third hand accounts of the Prophet SAW, yet she bypass the entire Al Hadeeth An Nabawi which is a complete and comprehensive record of the Prophet?

What exactly did she study? That's what I would like to ask?

report abuse

disagree 5

agree 8

Cabearth: What exactly did she study? That's what I would like to ask?

Well, just do what I suggest you to do, go read her stuff and follow up her references. No need to ask. You already have a starting point to help you answer your question. Tunggu apa lagi? You do not even know if she completely bypass the entire Al Hadeeth An Nabawi.

Similarly, before I can kutuk any of your references I have to read about them first. You don't see me dismissing your references if I do not understand what's it about first, do you?

report abuse

disagree 3

agree 5

Dear RPK,

I purposely write this comment to you because I think you're the only person who would understand what Im about to write.

My points are as follows:-

1. Quran is not a book. Its a spirit.
2. It came to Mohammad SAW as a spirit and words of god.
3. Hence, any interpretations of Quran should be done spiritually not literally or by reading other books or hadiths.
4.Hadith are hearsays and some are just ideas.
5.Quran was only printed as book hundreds of years after Mohammad because people do not carry the spirit anymore.
6.The only way to understand Quran is to Zikir Allah and meditates for Allah, ask him anything and read the quran again then you’ll understand.
7.Don’t ask other people what it means until you have done No. 6.

Thanks ….

report abuse

disagree 6

agree 6

any interpretation remains an interpretation which will be coloured by the interpreter's bias and prejudices......

Everything you see is really a point of view...just choose the one that you believe to be the right one...
walahualam

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 3

DEAR SHALOM, FOR SURE YOU HAVE NO HEAD AND YOU DON'T NEED A TUDUNG TO COVER BUT SINCE YOUR AURAT AT THE BOOBS I COULD NOT IMAGINE THE OTHER TORSO UNCOVERED. MIGHT BE YOU ARE THE ONE OF NON MUSLIMS TAKING PART IN THIS AURAT DEBATE AND YOU ARE FOLLOWING THE PATH OF SYAITAN, PITY TO YOU. ISLAM IS NOT FOR ARAB BUT IT IS UNIVERSAL, SINCE THERE ARE ALSO CHRISTIAN ARABS, ATHEISM ARABS; AND ARAB IS A RACE OR NATION FOR THE MIDDLE EASTERN ORIGINATED PEOPLE EVEN THEY ARE RESIDING OUTSIDE THE MIDDLE EAST. IF WEARING TUDUNG CAN BE UNHYGIENIC WHAT ELSE TO WEAR BECAUSE THE MOST SWEATING PART IS BETWEEN YOUR TWO LEG CLOSE TO YOUR ANUS, I THINK YOU SHOULD NOT WEAR ANYTHING ITS TOO HUMID. THE BEST STUDENT IN SPM WAS WEARING TUDUNG, WHAT IS THE HECK??? YOU THE PRODUCT OF HEADLESS WESTERN MISSIONARY.

BUT I WONDER TO GET ACROSS THIS MESSAGE WITHOUT HEAD WHERE DID YOU HIDE YOUR BRAIN, AHHH ?????.

WRM

report abuse

disagree 2

agree 4

"She says that in the Sufyanid period (early Muawwiyah?) coins were minted but there was no mention of 'Rasulullah' or of 'Muhammad'. How do you explain that?"

WHAT TO EXPLAIN, BECAUSE OF THE MINTED COINS WITHOUT THE PROPHET'S NAME ON IT THAT TO SAY HIS NEVER EXISTED'. EVEN THE STRAY DOG IS LAUGHING INSTEAD OF BARKING. WHAT IS INSIDE THE KUBUR NABI IN MADINAH AND KUBUR PARA SAHABAT DI MEKAH DAN MADINAH. LUCKILY MUHAMAD WAS MENTIONED IN THE QURAN AND THE GREAT VISION OF ABU BAKAR AND OTHMAN THAT THE VERSES, KALAM ALLAH WERE WRITTEN IN THE QURAN DUE MANY HAFAZANS HAVE SYAHID, OTHERWISE THE PATRICIA WOULD SAY THERE IS NO QURAN SINCE SULFYANID. WHAT A NONSENSE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM THE LIAR AND THE LIKES, ONE OF THEM SALMAN RUSHDIE AND FOR THE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVES THEM; YOU ARE PART OF THE BIGOT IN THE WILDERNESS.

report abuse

disagree 2

agree 3

Cabearth, finding evidence of the past is difficult and the records are often lack objectivity. One of the strongest evidence is impartial corroborative evidence be it in science, history or in law. Thus physical archaeological evidence are highly prized as it can corroborate the stories that are passed down. They give a better picture than only following oral or written history.

Corroboration.. hmm never thought of that.... good point AsamLaksa

Too much dependency on oral is gonna kill you heh heh...

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 1

Frankly speaking chappies, this debate about a little piece of cloth is just a storm in a tea cup. There are more important issues at hand such as the state of Malaysia's economy, our freedom vis a vis ISA, the dismantling of our judiciary and the attack on our Royal institutes. May I suggest that it is entirely up to the individual whether to cover up with a tundung or not. The important issue is that it should not be imposed on others to cover up. It is entirely an individuals dress sense and dress code. It will be an affront to freedom if the muslims started to enforce the tundung on to non muslims in such a hot and humid climate. Otherwise let each unto their own dress codes.

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 2