USING THE NAME “ALLAAH ” (Part 3)

A REFLECTION AND RESPONSE TO ISSUES ON ISLAMIC DA’WAH, CHRISTIAN EVANGELISM, INTER-FAITH DIALOGUE, CONTEXTUAL USE OF ISLAMIC TERM, APOSTASY, REFUTING ALLEGATIONS AND CLARIFICATION ON PREVAILING MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ISLAM AND IT’S APPROACHES ON DA’WAH

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

Question:

“I am referring to the recent controversy (May 2008) in Malaysia regarding the request by the Catholic Church, for their use of the term ‘Allah’ in their translation of the Bible and other religious tracts for their congregation (in Bahasa Malaysia) and the objection of the Malaysian Islamic Authorities. The court there has now allowed the matter to be forwarded for a judicial review in the civil court.

My question for you is: ‘Does Islam have any objection for others of different faith from using this term? If it does object, (it seem obvious for most people to interpret from the Malaysian case that imply that only Muslims can use the name Allah), why is this so? And if Islam does not object to this, how would you then explain the basis for their objection? Are they wrong? Or perhaps there are other plausible explanations to this issue which may not have been considered.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONTINUATION ........

4.0 Dispelling some misunderstanding about Da’wah:

4.1 Confrontational?

One of the common complaints against Islamic Da’wah is that it is deemed confrontational. Many already seems to conclude that being confrontational is wrong, it is unacceptable in normal social interaction for it create tension which is bad for harmonious co-existence amongst people and therefore must be disallowed. This is a fallacy. And when even Muslims hold this view, giving discouraging apologetic remarks making excuses such “don’t want to cause offence to others;” or “don’t invite their dislike towards us, etc.,” we are indeed sadden because it reflect their lack of deep thinking upon what Islam stands for. Let us consider:

[A] Islam firstly stands for Truth, it advocate adherence to the truth and enjoins every good, and therefore conversely it opposes falsehood and every evil. By virtue of this reality, its existence is meant to be confrontational, to confront every falsehood and evil. So, we do not deny that the message of Islam is confrontational. Any Muslim who is totally against being confrontational should do more reflection. Even the kalimah of Islam (statement of Islamic creed) itself is confrontational: Laa-ilaaha il-lallaah "There is no god (i.e. no other deserving of worship), but God (Allah)”. From the history of our Prophet s.a.w, we learn how because of his confronting falsehood and evil, it brought about changes and established much better lives for everyone. And every Muslim knows of our social responsibility to enjoining good, commanding the doing of what is right and forbid wrong and evil. In fact even in any other society too, it has to depend upon its citizens to confront and eradicate crimes and deeds opposed to the law and social order. If we yearn for peace, progress and strive for an ideal, we cannot merely hope for it to just happen. How would this be possible without being confrontational? Perhaps the relevant question is not that we cannot be confrontational, but to consider the manner of confrontation is it the right or the wrong approach, based on concept of justice and common good? And remember that by being confrontational, it does not mean forcing people to accept our view. We will respect their right to hold on to their opinion.

• [B] Tension is not a bad thing. In fact existence of order and harmony can only be possible because of the existence of tension. The terms “order” and “harmony” implies presence of varieties, perhaps even contrary and opposing elements. What holds them together is the tension created by confrontation of opposing elements and their settling upon the median or equilibrium. Without which, these two terms do not make any sense. Perhaps what we should be concerned with is whether the degree of tension is healthy or otherwise. So, it is naive to expect harmonious co-existence without tension. On the contrary when tension becomes totally absent (e.g. checks and balance are removed) we may even face danger of imminent collapse and destruction of that society.

• [C] Is conveying a message to whomsoever it is meant for, wrong? Even though some may feel offended because they may deem it confrontational and insist that therefore it should not be delivered, shouldn’t it still have to be delivered? Is the messenger wrong to carry out a trust? Surely this line of argument, that you shouldn’t deliver disliked or unwelcomed messages, is preposterous. And the Qur’an that is with us contains many such messages to be appropriately conveyed. This is how Muslim views Da’wah effort, because for us, the messages came upon us to be delivered to those whom it is addressed to. It specially mentioned the People of the Book (Ahl-al-Kitaab); it is as though Muslims are holding on to a mail meant for them. Even if the message will be disliked, we have to deliver as it is a duty. We cannot betray the trust, especially to Christians because one of the reasons for Allah s.w.t. revealing the Qur’an is to warn them:

ٱلۡحَمۡدُ لِلَّهِ ٱلَّذِىٓ أَنزَلَ عَلَىٰ عَبۡدِهِ ٱلۡكِتَـٰبَ وَلَمۡ يَجۡعَل لَّهُ ۥ عِوَجَاۜ قَيِّمً۬ا لِّيُنذِرَ بَأۡسً۬ا شَدِيدً۬ا مِّن لَّدُنۡهُ وَيُبَشِّرَ ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنِينَ ٱلَّذِينَ يَعۡمَلُونَ ٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتِ أَنَّ لَهُمۡ  أَجۡرًا حَسَنً۬ا مَّـٰكِثِينَ فِيهِ أَبَدً۬ا وَيُنذِرَ ٱلَّذِينَ قَالُواْ ٱتَّخَذَ ٱللَّهُ وَلَدً۬ا مَّا لَهُم بِهِۦ مِنۡ عِلۡمٍ۬ وَلَا لِأَبَآٮِٕهِمۡ‌ۚ كَبُرَتۡ ڪَلِمَةً۬ تَخۡرُجُ مِنۡ أَفۡوَٲهِهِمۡ‌ۚ إِن يَقُولُونَ كَذِبً۬ا

Praise be to Allah Who hath sent to His Servant the Book, and hath allowed therein no Crookedness: (He hath made it) Straight (and Clear), in order that He may warn (the godless) of a terrible Punishment from Him, and that He may give Glad Tidings to the Believers who work righteous deeds, that they shall have a goodly Reward. Wherein they shall remain forever: Further that He may warn those (also) who say "Allah hath begotten a son": No knowledge have they of such a thing, nor had their fathers. It is a grievous thing that issues from their mouths as a saying. What they say is nothing but falsehood!

(Qur’an: al-Kahfi: 18:1-5)

From these three (3) reasons, Muslims need not be apologetic when people level accusations upon us doing Da’wah. Do not be faint-hearted as those ignorant ones who even dare to compromise Islamic principles for the sake of looking good in others eyes. May Allah s.w.t. forgive them because perhaps they did not know. We must correct this and persevere undeterred by whatever accusations, as we only meant well and the task is indeed noble. We are merely fulfilling an Amanah (a trust). The message of Islam is all about “An-NaseeHah” - the sincere advice. As in my earlier posting, even if it is unsolicited we still have to convey, as we believe it to contain message of Mercy and Compassion for the well-being of God’s entire creature.

4.2 Why difficult for Muslim to renounce (apostasy)?

Another complaint raised by some is that they have observed the rarity of Muslim renouncing their religion, while conversion to Islam is ever increasing. Added to this, they also could not understand why it seems that Muslim authorities would never allow for renunciation cases of Muslim to be approved in the Shari’ah courts. And why must that person have to seek the court’s permission in renouncing their Muslim status in the first place?

Islam is a religion which emphasises propriety for its adherent. It does not use force in getting people to embrace it. To become one, they are advised to study the religion and not blindly embrace it because being a Muslim requires ascertaining the veracity of Islam, commitment and fulfilment of responsibilities. When a person officially declares his “shahaa-dahtain”, it marks his entry into Islam and becomes part of the Muslim community with all rights and privileges as a Muslim.

As for those born into Muslim families, they are nurtured through an upbringing which must include study or knowledge on Islam, and when they attain to age of discernment, they would be expected to already know and consciously assume the full responsibility of being a Muslim. For these then, the age of discernment marks his actual entry into Islam. And because Islam claims itself to be the religion of Truth, with verifiable proof and based on knowledge and evidence, she does not expect any of its followers to ever renounce. And its adherents organize themselves as a community, with common allegiance. Any who renegade or renounce it after being Muslim; their allegiance towards the community would become suspect. This is because, after Truth, there is only misguidance and falsehood. The act of a Muslim renouncing, may tantamount to asserting that Islam is now deemed to be false. They would be required to proof this assertion if they think that Islam is false, failing which they would then be advised to recant and repent. This is their opportunity to even challenge any of Islam’s teachings if they can prove it to be false. It is because entry to Islam is via ascertaining proof of its veracity; thus if after being a Muslim, he wishes to now exit from it, he is required to prove it to be false. And mere opinion based on ignorance, surmise and conjecture is not the same as proof.

If after having faith a Muslim later may experience a doubt, this does not nullify his faith but rather what he needs is knowledge and explanation. He cannot use his doubt as though it is certain knowledge as basis to reject. Thus in Islam there is an important maxim in Islam: Al-ya-qii-nu laa yuzaa-lu bi-al-shakk (“What is certain [i.e. a conviction, ascertain and accepted based on certainty, proof], doubts (which may arise after that) cannot be a basis to remove or replace it.” i.e. to categorically accept or reject something must be based on a certainty, never based on doubts, conjecture or surmise. Why then would someone want to leave Islam, if Islam cannot be denied to be true? And if perhaps it is not pertaining to challenging the veracity and truth of Islam, do they harbour any hostile intent towards Islam? Or using their exit from Islam to later attack it? These are important considerations.

In the times of the Prophet s.a.w., when Muslim had to constantly face enemies who declared war upon them and were very determined to destroy the community, thus renunciation of Islam by any of its members then has always been proven to be equated with treason tantamount to attacking the whole community; a very serious crime and it carries grave penalty. Thus those who intended to do such were always counselled and advised to recant. This procedure has been followed by most Muslim community.

Today, the jurisdiction of the Shari’ah courts in many Muslim countries is limited mostly on personal and family law (civil) and many do not have power to enforce full rulings for renunciation (categorized under Jinaayah - criminal offence). Howbeit, because it involves a Muslim in matters of his religious affiliation, reference to the Shari’ah court or other Muslim authority is only pertinent because this religion has clear stipulations regarding this matter in their law. Civil court intervention in the matter is usurping Shari’ah court’s jurisdiction and would be deemed ultra-vires. Because of the serious repercussion of this act of apostasy under Hudud (as amongst crimes with specific punishment mentioned in the Qur’an and Sunnah), judgement or ruling as to whether apostasy if indeed is established in a Muslim or not, therefore is the prerogative of Shari’ah courts.

Referral to Shari’ah court is also necessary because under Islam, as a Muslim he has privileges and rights which the community is obligated to accord to him (e.g. inheritance, zakat, funeral, etc.) as well as responsibilities binding upon him to others in the community (e.g. to his marriage, family etc.) which may be affected and needs to be clearly ruled by the authority concerned. Therefore exiting Islam cannot merely be a unilateral act, as though by such action all things are cancelled. (I am reminded that even in secular civil law of association, company by-laws require the stipulating of procedures on membership entrance and termination, or even proper procedures for disbandment of the company itself.) As such a Muslim who intends to leave Islam (apostasies) would still be required to go through the process of counselling and clarification. For to allow a Muslim to knowingly choose what is clear to be false from that which is already known to be true, is allowing him to commit injustice to himself. Any moral society would never allow its member to wantonly self-destruct or commit suicide? For Muslims regard apostasy like a kind of ‘spiritual suicide’, an act of gross injustice to oneself. The reason why others should not proselytise to Muslim is because, apart from it being liken as spiritual suicide, abetting a Muslim to apostasy is seen as act of incitement to commit treason. Also to by-pass this procedure may give wrong signals to the general Muslims who may misinterpret it as the person’s hostility towards Islam and the community, which for most Muslims it is equated with treason.

For the record, although rare, there were many cases of renunciation (apostasy) that has happened, even in the past early period where Muslim authorities had to respect their decision to renounce as their right when they, the ones who intend to renounce (murtadin), being fully aware of the penalty for their action under Islamic law (the Hudud), were adamant and willing to accept and face the full consequence for their choice. In many Muslim country today however, because there is no power to apply the Hudud, most renunciation happened on the quiet, and Shari’ah court could only counsel and advise, and Muslims generally do not react to them unless these ex-Muslims display hostility and engages in attacking Islam after that. If they do this, then they would only be inviting charges of treason upon themselves.

4.3 Tolerance: “respect the right to a religion, not that the said religion is therefore right”

Many people seem to think that by doing Da’wah, apart from it being confrontational, they accuse Muslims of intolerance towards others. It seems that their understanding of tolerance is that one must accept the right of the other religions apart from ours to be also regarded as right (true). In other words, to assert that only our religion alone is right is deemed arrogance and intolerance. It seems we cannot hold any personal opinion that others are wrong, even if we can prove.

Let us reiterate that Islam teaches us to respect the right of others to their religion. This does not imply that we have to acknowledge that therefore the other religion is right. We are not offended if others think that Islam is wrong and only what they hold is right, as obviously Islam is not their religion. Each have that right to their religion, and that is why we have a variety of religions.

To assert this view in inter-faith dialogue is to be expected and cannot be labelled as intolerance, so long as one must be willing to substantiate it with proofs and reasonable arguments and open to considering the response to it from others, and hold to respect that in the final analysis each one has a right to hold to whichever religion they choose. There is truth to regard tolerance towards others as tolerating their right to differ from us, as in the seemingly paradoxical statement: “to agree to their right to disagree!”

4.4 Why is it that in certain Muslim country, the authorities there forbid any Evangelical activity and even putting up or displaying of their religious symbols e.g. cross or crucifix, is disallowed? How is this justified when Islam guarantees freedom of religion?

It is well to always remember the Muslims have challenged the Christians, inviting them to dialogue regarding aspects of their teachings which are regarded as excesses and untruth. This is not out of hostility, in fact by addressing the Christians as the people of the Book (Scripture) Islam embrace and acknowledges them to be from the Abrahamic tradition, possessing truth as well as sharing many similarities. There is even a special mention of them in the Qur’an, when God informs Muslims:

وَلَتَجِدَنَّ أَقۡرَبَهُم مَّوَدَّةً۬ لِّلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ ٱلَّذِينَ قَالُوٓاْ إِنَّا نَصَـٰرَىٰ‌ۚ ذَٲلِكَ بِأَنَّ مِنۡهُمۡ قِسِّيسِينَ وَرُهۡبَانً۬ا وَأَنَّهُمۡ لَا يَسۡتَڪۡبِرُونَ وَإِذَا سَمِعُواْ مَآ أُنزِلَ إِلَى ٱلرَّسُولِ تَرَىٰٓ أَعۡيُنَهُمۡ تَفِيضُ مِنَ ٱلدَّمۡعِ مِمَّا عَرَفُواْ مِنَ ٱلۡحَقِّ‌ۖ يَقُولُونَ رَبَّنَآ ءَامَنَّا فَٱكۡتُبۡنَا مَعَ ٱلشَّـٰهِدِينَ

“and nearest among them in love to the Believers wilt thou find those who say: "We are Christians:" because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant. And when they listen to the revelation received by the Messenger, thou wilt see their eyes overflowing with tears, for they recognise the truth: they pray: "Our Lord! We believe; write us down among the witnesses.”

(Qur'an: al-Maidah:5:82-83).

It should be stated that in fact, Muslim already believes in Jesus as the Christ (The respectful title in the Qur’an “al-Maseeh ‘Isa ibnu Maryam” meaning ‘the Christ, Jesus son of Mary’). But because of excesses and errors of the Christians as pointed out in the Qur’an, from the Islamic perspective, Muslims cannot acknowledge the Christianity today to be of that same religion as taught by Jesus (may peace be upon him), whom we believe to be one of the greatest messengers of God, miraculously born and had worked many wonders by God’s permission. Unfortunately, many Christians are unaware or conveniently ignore the charges which the Muslim had already level towards Christianity which require a response. And dialogue should be with those who know, and not indiscriminately done with just any Muslims. The ignorant should not be taken advantage of and be misled. Islamic authorities are not averse to dialogue with Christians; in fact they have been trying to do this with Christian scholars, and would discriminate between those who know from those who not. Likewise, Muslim authorities would expect anyone who tries to proselytise in their country to have their teachings (which they intend to peddle to their citizen) to be scrutinised, before it is ever allowed to be propagated. This is not that Muslims oppose anyone from practicing their religion, only in relation to their propagating it to the general public. This ban includes publicly advertising it, which some may interpret public display of objects of worship, or religious symbols such as cross and crucifix.

For Christianity, there are outstanding issues posted by Islam awaiting their response to them. If they have any response to present, they are firstly to present it to knowledgeable Muslims who are the appropriate people to engage them, not the lay Muslims. This is very much in line with what Allah s.w.t. has warned:

وَلَا تَقۡفُ مَا لَيۡسَ لَكَ بِهِۦ عِلۡمٌ‌ۚ إِنَّ ٱلسَّمۡعَ وَٱلۡبَصَرَ وَٱلۡفُؤَادَ كُلُّ أُوْلَـٰٓٮِٕكَ كَانَ عَنۡهُ مَسۡـُٔولاً۬

“Do not follow a thing, in which you have no knowledge (understanding) in; for your hearing and your sight and your hearts (thoughts), all of them will be questioned (in the Hereafter).”

(Qur'an: al-Isra':17: 36)

This is a justifiable policy and course of action consistent with and applicable even to many other things to be introduced into any country e.g. sale of products, control of illicit material, medicine, potentially dangerous and deceptive doctrines, etc. Likewise, for Muslims policy regarding proselytizing, this cannot be misperceived as curtailment of religious freedom. Islam respects freedom of religion.

4.5 Religious pluralism and transcendental unity of religion?

Inter-faith dialogue also brings people who promotes concepts, some fallacious, which may actually be undermining traditional concept of truth. Another fallacy advocated by certain quarter pertains to the idea of religious pluralism or transcendental unity of religion, which many of them understand to mean, that all religion although they differ very much with each other, “at the transcendental level (at the esoteric; beyond the grasp of human definition) all of them are speaking or referring to one and the same God, the same Truth!” - Even though they do not bring any convincing proof how that is possible, let alone true. One of them cleverly insist that the likeness of this concept is to that of the numerous spokes of a wheel where all points to the centre, although each spoke is different and diverse; just as different religions they posit from different perspectives, but all becomes united to a point. They unashamedly distort quotations (mostly cryptic) of spiritual personalities, saints, sages and Sufi masters etc. from various religious traditions, from which they then try to piece-together a picture of unity in diversity. The fact that these spiritual personalities all claimed allegiance to a particular and distinct religious tradition is conveniently ignored. They even resort to selective quotes of various religious scriptures just to support this novel idea. This view it seems is being peddled and popularised in the inter-faith dialogues, when the exclusivity and differences in each of the various religions are blurred and purposely ignored. Mainstream and traditional religions do not subscribe to this, by virtue of the fact that they have proselytizing as an agenda; they would regard it as ‘heresy’ although I have not yet heard them object to this in any interfaith dialogue. Perhaps they were not allowed to, or were politely told that it would be inappropriate to do so. This lends credence to the view that the inter-faith agenda is actually aimed at creating multi-religious harmony at the expense of striving for Truth.

Some have moved away from acceptance of the traditional notion of absolutism, to parrot the secularists’ notion of relativism. And because to them nothing is absolute, therefore truth has now become a relative notion. Every religion they contend can equally claim to be true irrespective of whether it contradicts one and the other or contains obvious absurdities.

Islam’s stand is that all true religions are based on revelation from God, and to every nation there has been sent a messenger. Mankind then tends to deviate from the truth and subsequent Prophets were sent to correct, restore and continue to further provide the guidance until it culminated with the Last Messenger, whose teaching will remain accessible to all. He did not deny previous truth brought by earlier prophets, only to continue and perfect the guidance. The basic truth has been revealed to all, although in some tradition it may have been mixed with untruths, therefore the onus of people is to constantly seek after the Truth, wherever and whenever it becomes available. Religion is only the path which, when it was revealed to every respective prophets since Adam a.s. had pointed mankind towards the straight course (Siraatal-mustaqim). Unfortunately in some religious tradition, it’s navigating instruments especially the compass, may have been tampered with or has become faulty due to aging or abuse; and their navigational charts unreadable or partially distorted with lines and scribblings added. Though we may claim to have a compass and an ancient chart; having these do not assure us that we are indeed upon the right course. Have we checked them all? Therefore the onus is for everyone to always check each of our bearings and charts (even though each may be having chart of different editions or age); and to discuss intelligently with each other, using whatever clear and verifiable evidence of what they hold to be the true course, and share. More importantly, in our actual journey of life; each step that we daily take; does it conform to the guidance that we claim to hold? And has our action been consistent and true to our course? This seems to me a better parable of our predicament. To simplistically brush aside differences and claim that because every religion seems to claim to be going to a common destination, therefore at the transcendental level, everyone is equally right, is preposterous.

4.6 WHAT DO WE MEAN BY "FREEDOM"?

Although we may be using the term 'freedom' mutually when speaking of rights, what does it really mean? Is our understanding and their understanding of this term the same? I have written something about this in a journal, which I feel is relevant for Muslims to understand it, and would like to share it here:

" Freedom and freewill – what do they mean? Lest some people may misconstrue this concept with the notion of “freedom” in the Western sense (thus we find some has mistakenly use the Arabic the term “hur-riyyah” for ‘freewill’), let us consider the Islamic perspective on this.

The meaning of “hurriyyah” is connected more towards the freeing or removing oneself from something, which is constraining him against his will. For a Muslim, to agree to this Western concept without referring it (i.e. qualifying it) to the Islamic perspective would be naïve. The very fact that ‘Islam’ requires of us Muslims, our submission and obedience to a higher power (Allah and His Messenger), we (as Muslims) therefore have already agreed to be constrained by all its stipulated ideals. Therefore our agreement to this concept of freedom should not be like that of the non-Muslims. Were Muslims to blindly imitate this obsession for freedom (in the Western notion) it would imply agreeing to even freeing oneself from the loyalty to Islam itself. Such would be termed in Islam as rebelliousness (al-‘isw-yaan) and it tantamount to a Muslim renouncing his religion (irtidad i.e. becoming a murtad). Na-‘uudzubillaah! Thus when we ponder deeply upon these two terms i.e. “freedom” and “Islam”, in the absence of any qualification, these would be incompatible terms. Perhaps what we need to clarify is that in Islam, we do recognize that within our nature, we do have freedom to make choices i.e. a free will. And with it man should assert this right responsibly. We, in Islam advocate “freedom” in the sense that by freewill here, but not absolute freedom).

According to Professor Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas Founder Director of ISTAC and one of the most prominent Muslim thinkers today, the term “ikhtiyar”, which also include this innate volition to act according to our will, but it delimits the scope of our choice within things which is good or better and does not condone the choosing of what is harmful and wrong. Interestingly, he argues, the word ‘ikhtiyar’ has ‘khayr’ (good), – ‘akh-yaar’ (better or superior) as the root. Therefore by the exercise of our freewill in the Islamic perspective, it is the freedom for us towards choosing only what is ‘right and good’. Western notion of freedom implies that choice is also for the ‘right to’ doing of what is bad and wrong. Thus, for them, individual right and freedom are not delimited and somehow they are even trying to extend it to freedom to self-destruct! Islam does not agree to such notion of freedom. This confusion in their concept of ‘freedom’ perhaps may account for their ‘iconoclastic’ tendencies towards all traditional value system (ethico-religio), and the obsession of wanting to free themselves from whatever they perceive as constrains.

In Islam, our concept of freedom (i.e. the freewill termed as “ikhtiyar”) cannot allow for such anarchic license. It is not a matter of freedom (ikhtiyar) for man to be at liberty to indulge in what is ‘bad and wrong.’ Though man may direct this free volition even to indulge in evil and wrong, but to be indulging in these (bad and wrong) would be termed as “zulm” (i.e. meaning one has “committed injustice and oppression” to oneself) and not an act of ‘ikhtiyar’. And since the society is obliged to uphold justice (as a collective social responsibility) and prevent or disallow such things from being done, such restrictions is not at all against personal freedom. Surely, there must be a limit to what we mean by “freedom”. This distinction is important as more young Muslims now seemed to be attracted to the ‘liberal’ ideas of freedom (as expounded by modernist) and yet they are ignorant of the profound difference in perspective in the meaning of ‘freedom’. Is the ‘freedom’ to be understood in the absolute sense? Surely not! Without clarification on this point, many young Muslims may be led to misconstrue the teachings of Islam, or even agree to the criticism levelled by the Westerners upon it. In my discussion with Dr. Wan Mohd Nor Wan Daud (ISTAC), he opines that what these Westerners may misperceive in Islamic society “as curtailment of individual freedom” is actually not acts intended to deprive the individuals of their rights, but rather as preventive action from his committing injustice to his ownself (and thus saving the individual as well as society from harm)."

(NUSMS (National University of Singapore Muslim Society) Quarterly Journal “The Fount”June 2001) - to read full write-up [click on my archive - "THE NEW MILLENIUM : A Reflection as Witnesses")

WaAllaahu a'lam

TO BE CONTINUED .............................

(5.0 Muslim commanded to invite to a common word )

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------