I have always wondered what it would be like to debate someone who feels strongly for the status quo with regards to the distribution of wealth and opportunity in this country. I'm thankful that a reader of this blog, Pak Yeh, has presented me with this chance:
My dear brother.If you use only the Madina Charter as your argument without refering to the other verses of the uran,tjen you make the mistake of wrong tafsir.Lord Reid was the person who recommended Article 153...to help Malays better than their 7% equity of the bussiness monopoly by British and Chines bussinessman.It was totally an economic redistribution of wealth. It had nothing to do wuth race.It is like charity for the poor Malays.It really piss me off whrn people misunderstand the real good intentions of Lord Reid in drafting the Article 153.And it really piis me off when Malays misunderstabd the issue by saying it is racist law.It is a political and economic law ,my dear brother.Dont be a pengkhianat, and deny Malays their economic rights.
Pak Yeh,
On the issue of the Medina Charter:
Unfortunately, how the Prophet ruled Medina is the only example we have of how the Prophet treated minorities within the confines of a statehood.
True, Banu Qainuqa, Banu Nadir and Banu Qurayza were expelled from Medina several years after the Charter was signed, but the Prophet had good reason to do so -- they had committed treachery against the state. In the case of the Qurayza, they secretly and openly supported the Meccans. That's why you will notice that verses of the Quran revealed to the Prophet during his period in Medina are vehemently against the Qurayza Jews.
Having said that, i've yet to come across a verse in the Quran or even an authentic hadith where the Prophet treated minorities badly without cause. If you know of any such verse, i'd be very happy if you shared it with me.
My understanding of Islam is that it's a religion of justice and fairplay. It's a religion where you help the needy, the poor and the disadvantaged. Our pillar of charity and zakat is proof of this.
The Medina Charter clearly makes provisions to help the needy, regardless of their religion. This is anti-thesis to what we find in our own constitution.
Did you read fully and understand my example using the cows? Its simple logic, really. If you reserve a part of the pie to one particular party, it means the rest of the pie that everyone needs to share becomes that much smaller. It means that its very possible that, with that smaller portion, it becomes impossible to give everyone who needs a piece their just share as a citizen of this country.
A poor Chinese student finds it hard to get a scholarship even though his scores are better than his Malay peers. The rich Malay Datuk's son, who is admittedly smart too, but probably not in as great a need, will have no such problem. Is that fair?
If you think that's fair, well, then there probably really isn't much more i can say to change your mind.
If you think that's unfair, then you'll agree with me thats the lesson that Prophet was trying to teach us. Aid the needy and the ones that deserve aid. If you are a loyal citizen of the state, the state will be loyal to you regardless of your religion (in our case, race).
On your argument that Malays are poor:
When the Muslims migrated to Medina, besides the Prophet who was a successful merchant, do you really think that the majority of Muslims who were banished from Mecca were wealthy and rich?
The Jews of Medina, they were powerful, had great influence, and economic muscle to support their society. The Banu Qurayza controlled agriculture land, date and palm tree plantations, and cereal. For many years prior and up to the arrival of the Prophet in 622, they and the other Jewish tribes held political power and dominated Medina.
The Prophet knew this. He looked at his people, who were not as rich, not as powerful. He looked at the Jews who had wealth, food and position.
And, yet, he chose to come into an agreement with the Jews that gave them equal rights to protection and aid. Why would he do that if not because of his sense of justice and fairplay?
If he wanted to "protect" Muslims first, just like you want to protect Malays first, why didn't he come to an agreement in favour of his followers? After all, his people were the poorer ones, right?
Lastly, i urge you to read my other posts so that you get the full picture of my words and my intentions.
My analysis of Article 153 looks into the history of our Constitution. In this article, i fully support the inclusion of protection for the Malays at the point of independence and i give my reasons for it. I also discuss the reasons why the Sedition Act prohibits a challenge on Article 153, and i ask whether these reasons are still valid today.
You will also find in my research of our Constitution, that our beloved father of independence, Tunku Abdul Rahman and the Malay rulers actually didn't agree with the Reid Commission on the special position for Malays, but were convinced by Lord Reid to accept the provision. Does this fact surprise you?
Then in another posting, i praised Tun Dr Mahathir for the NEP, realizing that it was a necessary evil and vital for the initial development of the Malays.
So you see, i have covered this issue from various angles. I have considered the points you've made, and i agree with many of them.
Unlike some others that you may encountered in your travels, i'm not a radical. I believe that there is a place and time for everything. I also believe that the Prophet, with the Medina Charter, was trying to teach us something about justice and how to fairly manage the economic pie of a state.
If none of this has been able to convince you, i'm sorry; it's probably my own weakness that has failed.
I respect your right to your opinion, as i hope you'll respect mine.
Peace be upon you.
Ceh this is not even a debate, despite Aiz being soo diplomatic, the debate is a thrashing.
Ya Distribution of wealth is Islamic but Islam's version of distribution is based on needs whereas Article 153's version is based on race. The issue is not whether distribution of wealth is Islamic but whether the distribution as specified by 153 is Islamic? The answer a blatant No!
Now even if we assume that the Holy Quran does tell us to discriminate against non Muslims (which I don't buy by the way), Article 153 does not even do that. Based on 153, a poor Chinese Muslim and poor Indian Muslim is also discriminated on and is given less help compared to the rich Malay Datuk. How is discriminating fellow Muslims, Islamic or in line with the Quran...pray tell me?
Thank you for allowing a fair debate so the truth can be understood.
Before I start, I wish to clearify a point that we are al against the abuse of Article 153. I detest the abuse of Article 153 by UMNO.
Lets put religion aside first, and use our common sennxe only to understand the issue.
1)The scenario prior to undependence :m trade
73% of Malt answering this question.ayas economy was monopolised by the British and their bussiness partner in opium trade, tin,e.
The Malays had only 7% of the pie.
So the Reid report adressed this injuustice to the Malays by including the Article 153 into the Constitution.
This affirmative action was needed badly to prevent Malays from becoming beggers in their own country.
1.1)The issue is...Was article 153 a just law to be equal to all races and the poor of a particular race.???
You cannot get out of this debate withou this question.
1.2) Have all the Malays recieved their 30% ecomic pie.???
If the answer is no. Shouldnt we continue Article 153.??? (note: Abuse of Article 153 is not a reason to discontinue it.The solution the is to get rid of the abusers.)
Over to you Mr Aziuddin Mr Anonymouse or whoever wishers to debate.
Pak Yeh,
I think there really is a language barrier here. Either i don't understand what you're trying to say, or you don't understand what i've said. It's pointless to continue, i feel.
In any case, i think enough has been said. We'll let people read what we've both written and allow them to come to their own conclusions.
Heh,heh,heh.
A refusal to answer an debatees questions is a walkover in a debate. You lose brother.
Checkmate!!!
To you your religion and to me my religion.
I am not going to belief the hadis or Madina Charter that came about 300 years after the prophet died.I will only belief it if the Quran talks about it.
The hadis has only created discord among the Muslims leading them into mazhabs and war with each other.
Try using the Quran insread, will you.??? Or is the Quran incomplete as belived by the Hadis religion that even mock Allah by saying that Allah flip flopped in planing the solat from 50 to 5 solats a day.
Heh,heh,heh.
A penkhianat bangsa dan agama will not want to debate.
However for the benefit of other readers I will continue to refute and proof wrrong the so called Islamic reasoning of Aizuddin .
The Mdina Charter, probably witten by Jews, says that equal rights shall be given to Jews.
The Quran says otherwise. the Jews are cursed by Allah because they are unbelievers/kafir, they are racist, and liked to kill prophets.
Why the should the Jews be treated equal to Muslims.???
You youself have proven that spome Jews were persecuted
Similiarly Allah pineromised hell heaven for r/ninMuslim noiafbelievers/Muslims/Malays and promised hell for unbealivers/kafir Chineseiti
The Medina Charter (Piagam Madinah) that was the basis of Rasulullah S.A.W state building in Medinah is written by Jews? God that has to take the cake! You really should go back and read your Islamic history
Serious question Pak Yeh...are you anti hadith or anti Rasulullah? Muslims accept that the Holy Quran is the first source of Shariah and followed by Hadith and practice of Rasullulah S.A.W, which is why our Syahadah says that we believe in Allah and that Muhammad is the Rasul of Alah.
Now if you make fun of the prophet's words and actions...I really don't know what that makes you?
Heh,heh,heh.
A "penkhianat bangsa" will not want to debate.
However for the benefit of other readers I will continue to refute and proof wrrong the so called Islamic reasoning of Aizuddin .
1)The Mdina Charter, probably written by Jews, says that equal rights shall be given to Jews.
I dont see any of that rubbish in the Quran.In fact the Quran promised hell for the Jews, for being kafir, racist and killers of prophets.
Never mind that ,lets debate the Medina Charter like lawyer do.
Article 30:(Medina Charter)
The Jews of Bani Awf will be e JEWStreated as one community with the Believers. The Jews have their religion. This will also apply to their freedmen. The exception will be those who act unjustly and sinfully.
Note the last sentence "The exception will be those who act unjustly and sinfully."!!!
If the Jews/British and the Chinese had monopolied 73% of the economy, have they not acted "unjustly and sinfully".???
Hence Article 153 is to correct the injustice ineseby Jews/British/Chinese towards the Malys.!!!
Other reasons for keeping the Article 153 is,
2) Allah/the Quran does not treat the kafirs and the Muslims equally. The Kafir is promised hell, while the Muslims is promised heaven. Translate that to the Malaysian Muslim nonMuslim scenario, who should we favor.???
3) The Quran says,adopted children (Chinese/Indians/non Malays) cannot inherit property. Only real children (Bumiputras) can inherit prooperty.
Chines and Indians however,can inherit property from China and India where they are Bumiputras there.
Note: The Drunei government practices all of the above Quranic exhortations(item 2 and 3).
They are more Islamic than us Malaysians.
UMNO have trade our Malay rights by giving the non Malays citizenship.What we should have give was permanent residence only.
This is how a pembela Malayu should think.!!!
Not at all like some nonMalay ass kissers.!!!
So you see mr Aizuddin, your Medina Charter and pro non Malays and nonMuslims is contradicting the Quran.
I dont expect a debate from loosers, who, when it comes to a confrontation by debate, they quickly chicken out giving all sorts of excuse.,,,like often being gone by UMNO.
Pak Yeh, one simple question...is it Islamic to discriminate against fellow poor Chinese Muslims and Indian Mulims?
If you don't answer that, then no point going on and quite frankly I don't care if you think it's checkmate or anything else that makes you happy.
Sani Ismail said:
Pak Yeh, one simple question...is it Islamic to discriminate against fellow poor Chinese Muslims and Indian Mulims?
Nobody,not me,Muslim or non Muslim, should discriminate the poor. The exception is "Extreme Capitalist Goverment" like UMNO/BN who trive on robbing the poor through overspending and devaluation of the ringgit,thus making the poor even poorer.!!!.
That is why I have suggested that Article 153 should include a "Welfare State".!!!
Please read my article "Even Allah favors Article 153 that favours poor Malays and poor non Malays." at...
http://warongpakyeh.blogspot.com
.
Sani Ismail said:
The Medina Charter (Piagam Madinah) that was the basis of Rasulullah S.A.W state building in Medinah is written by Jews? God that has to take the cake! You really should go back and read your Islamic history
Not so, when the prophets sirah/biography and history is being written by Jews. I have my alternative history.
Sani said:
Serious question Pak Yeh...are you anti hadith or anti Rasulullah? Muslims accept that the Holy Quran is the first source of Shariah and followed by Hadith and practice of Rasullulah S.A.W, which is why our Syahadah says that we believe in Allah and that Muhammad is the Rasul of Alah.
No Muslim is anti hahtdis as long as he belives in the Quran. The Quran is "ahsanal hadis" refer Quran 39:23 "I have revealed(wahyu)ahsanal hadis ,a scripture..."
Allah warns Muslims not to use other unauthorsed hadis, refer Quran 31:6"Some people use lahwal(corupred0 hadis to mislead others from the straight path(Islam),without knowledge,and make a mockery of it(Islam)
Sani said:
Now if you make fun of the prophet's words and actions...I really don't know what that makes you?
I did no such thing.
I belived in the prfophets ahsanal hadis/the Quran .
Whatever written by Bukhari Muslim often contradicts the Quran and even mocks Allah as a flip flop planner of solat(50 to 5 solats, and makes it seem that Jewish prophets,Nosses and Jesus is smarter than Muhammad and Allah...refer the Israk mikraj hadis.
Therefore I think Bukhari Muslim could be a Jew.
Sorry to burst your misguided beliefs in the hadis books.
Want to debate more.?
Go on and read "Bohong Sunnat = Lahwal Hadis at...
http://warongpakyeh.blogspot.com
.
"Bukhari Muslim could be a Jew"?...ok I checkmate myself. Thanks for the entertainment Pak Yeh and no thanks, I'll turn down the invitation to visit your Warong...I fear I might die of laughter.
Dear Mr sani Ismail,
Laugh as much as you like.Thats what looser can do before fhey cry in hell.
Belief in Bukhari and Muslim besides Allah is Shirik and punishment for shirik is hell. You will find that out when you face Allah.
Anyway looser refrain from debates, because they have no brains to debate.
Anyway the issue is Article 153. You cant even debate by using common sense. whatmore using some Arab bullshit called "lahwal hadis".
No loss for not debating with brainlees goon who are pengkhianat bangsa.
.
Sorry Pak Yeh I don't believe you are a Muslim at all. Muslims believe in both Allah and Prophet Muhammad just like in the Syahadah. You deny the role of Hadith in Islamic jurisprudence even those that has been considered as Sahih by Ahl Sunah wal Jamaah.
By the way you didn't answer my last question on whether it is fair to discriminate Chinese and Indian Muslims...so check mate for you, you lose this time.
I dont expect a debate from loosers, who, when it comes to a confrontation by debate, they quickly chicken out giving all sorts of excuse. No loss for not debating with brainlees goon who are pengkhianat agama
Sani Ibrahim said:
Sorry Pak Yeh I don't believe you are a Muslim at all. Muslims believe in both Allah and Prophet Muhammad just like in the Syahadah. You deny the role of Hadith in Islamic jurisprudence even those that has been considered as Sahih by Ahl Sunah wal Jamaah.
Pak Yeh answer:
This is just your blank/stupid opinion that is not substantiated by the Quran. You have to prove with Quranic verses that I am not a Muslim because I do not belief in Bukhari Muslims books. Show me the proof or shut up your stupid gap.
These are my Qurtanic proofs not to belief in the hadis books of Bukhari and Muslim.
Allah himself says that the Quran is complete and thus it does not need any other book.
Allah also warns Muslims not to use lahwal hadis(proof:refer Quran 31:6)
Allah also said that the only good and COMPLETE Hadis is / ahsanal hadis is the scripture/Quran(proof:refer Quran 39:23).
Sani Ibrahim said:
By the way you didn't answer my last question on whether it is fair to discriminate Chinese and Indian Muslims...so check mate for you, you lose this time.
Pak Yeh answers:
Since when does Malays discriminate Chinese and Indian Muslims.??? We even made an Indian Muslim(Dr M) our Prime Minister.
The fact that the poor Malays and the poor of all races is not helped is due to the governments Extreme Capitalism.We need to implement a Socialist economy/Welfare State. Then and only then can the poor of all races be well taken care of.
Sani ibrahim said:
...so check mate for you, you lose this time.
I dont expect a debate from loosers, who, when it comes to a confrontation by debate, they quickly chicken out giving all sorts of excuse. No loss for not debating with brainlees goon who are pengkhianat agama
Pak yeh answers:
Whatever you said is false now. I have played the game.!!! And so have you..played the game/debate.
I am waiting for Quranic verses that proof that I am not a Muslim.!!! Otherwise you will be the non Muslim.!! heh,heh,heh.
Peace/Salam. May Allah guide you to the staight patah. Please listen and belief in Quran 31:6"Some people use LAHWAL HADIS to misguide others from the straight path,without knowledge,and make a mockery of it(straight path/Islam)"
Good analysis on the Charter of Medina and the comparison with our constitution. I have always wondered if a chinese or indian converts to Islam why does he not get the privileges of a Bumi? Is that Islamic/just and equitable. Good question by Sani there.
Similarly how has our NEP fared to improve the standard of living of the Bumis in Sarawak and Sabah. Bear in mind that Article 153 also grants special privileges to the indigenous people of Sabah & Sarawak. Or have they been conveniently forgotten. I am not sure what is Islamic about protecting the indigenous people of Sarawak and Sabah (who are majority non Muslims) if the needy of the Chinese and Indians are not met?
The protectionist policies of Sabah & Sarawak have left it under developed and lagging behind in terms of economic development. The chinese through hard work remain dominant in economics in these two states. So obviously the protectionist policies have not assisted to alleviate the situation.
The final question out all of this is how will the Malays and the Bumis of Sabah and Sarawak progress without government protectionist policies if they were to be revoked NOW?
If the Malays still need it after 57 years of independence then what does it say about the strength of the Malay race. The Bumis of Sabah and Sarawak need to allow themselves to freely compete with their West Malaysian counterparts if they are ever to become better developed and allow investments to move freely from West Malaysia to East Malaysia. Funny how West Malaysians need a work permit to work in East Malaysia. Gosh 1 Malaysia indeed. Islamically speaking I don't thinking weakening a group of people is Islamic.