There is a furor within muslim communities over Switzerland's decision to ban minarets in its country. I personally don't see why muslims should be angry of the Swiss government's decision.
Minarets do not represent Islam in any way because Islam had made it clear that any physical representation of Allah and His prophets are un-Islamic and not allowed. The same can be said about the representation of Islam.
The typical design of mosques is still considered as a symbol of Islam. Domes, minarets and arches are made to believe to be descended by Prophet Muhammad and Allah. If you are one of those people, let me teach you something about the history of minarets and mosques.
During the prophet's time, any piece of land used by a congregation to perform prayers are called Masjid which means 'place of worship'. After Prophet Muhammad's death, the religion began to spread all over asia, africa and europe by several empires, the most notable being the Ottoman turks. When they arrive is Spain, they were impressed by the design of existing churches there. As they continued with their conquests, they were awestrucked by a church in Constantinople. That church was Hagia Sophia.
The Hagia Sophia was then converted into a mosque. Out of respect, christian ornaments such as the cross and paintings of Jesus Christ were maintained. If you visit the Hagia Sophia today, you can see Arabic Khat of Allah and Prophet Muhammad across a gigantic cross.
Because of the church's shear beauty, they replicated the design in the construction of other mosques and that started the design trend of mosques to this very day.The word minaret comes from the worn An-Nar which means 'fire'. Minarets were first constructed along the beaches of the Mediterranean sea as beacons ( a sort of lighthouse) for approaching ships. Flames were flared on the highest peak of the beacons. These innovative constructions were called Minnar by persians. This is how minarets and menara gets its name.
So as you can see, there is nothing Godly or Islamic about the design or existence of minarets.
Today, minarets are not used to broadcast the time of prayer anymore because there are electrical speakers on roofs now that can emit sound to a wide radius. Minarets today are merely decorations.
The fact the domes are still constructed in mosques is to me an unsolved mystery. Domes were used those days because there were no speakers and microhones. The interior structure of a dome helps with the acoustic of mosques so the congregation can hear the Imams clearly. Today, domes are decorations because it does not function as acoustic devices anymore. The resources saved from making domes can be used to construct offices and community halls in mosques.
Islam is not a stagnant religion. It is a religion of progress. That is why it forbids any form of symbolism or representations so it can be adapted into different times and places.
There is nothing wrong with the banning of minarets in Islam. If you find that it is offensive, it is strictly your personal opinion and has no correlation to the conduct of Islam.
29 comments:
Salam
Saya setuju bahawa menara masjid yang tinggi2 itu bukanlah melambangkan islam sebenar..cuma ada beberapa fakta perlu dibetulkan
1. Hagia Sophia di Istanbul, Turki bukan di Spain.
2. Kerajan kristian yang berpusat di Istanbul adalah kerajaan kristian timur Byzantin,bukan kristian katolik yang berpusat di Rome yang wilayahnya meliputi Spain pada ketika itu.
3.Dalam Hagia Sophia tak ada lambang salib sebab telah dipadamkan, gambar2 ikon kristian pun tak ada full figure...muka figure juga dipadamkan jadi kosong
4. Kubah dan menara adalah bukan berasal daripada senibina gereja di kerajaan kristian katolik, walaupun konsep ruang hampir sama. Rekaan gereja katolik berbeza.
I did some corrections on the location of Hagia Sophia.
The paintings are still there.
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/61/70061-050-5B9DD25F.jpg
The cross is also still there.
http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1264805452032922374LNpEum
The Hagia Sophia was constructed by the order of Justinian, a christan emperor of Constantinople
Famous in particular for its massive dome, it is considered the epitome of Byzantine architecture and to have "changed the history of architecture." It was the largest cathedral in the world for nearly a thousand years, until the completion of the Seville Cathedral in 1520. The current building was originally constructed as a church between 532 and 537 A.D. on the orders of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian, and was in fact the third Church of the Holy Wisdom to occupy the site. (The previous two had both been destroyed by riots.) It was designed by Isidore of Miletus, a physicist, and Anthemius of Tralles, a mathematician (wiki)
constantinopole adalah nama lama Istanbul, pusat kerajaan byzantin. Link pertama menunjukkan gambar seorang yang dikatakan saint/sahabat nabi isa, bukan nabi isa..sebenarnya ada beberapa figure lagi yg bukan nabi isa...jadi figure tu cuma dikekalkan bahagian atas saja...asalnya figure penuh...ada figure nabi isa tapi telah dikosongkan bahagian muka...cross kat figure dalam link tu tak lengkap sbb terlindung dengan figure sebab tu tak dipadamkan...
gambar link kedua tu adalah lambang salib yang dibuat dengan menggunakan batu kat luar...saya refer pada "Out of respect, christian ornaments such as the cross and paintings of Jesus Christ were maintained. If you visit the Hagia Sophia today, you can see Arabic Khat of Allah and Prophet Muhammad across a gigantic cross."
saya ada gambar salib yang dipadamkan pada bumbung dalam aya sofia, tapi rasanya saya tak ambik gambar figure nabi isa yang telah dikosongkan bahagian muka, dan jugak salib pada tiang mozek yang dikorek supaya tak membentuk salib yang sempurna
as for the design of the dome, konsep nya adalah lebih ruang untuk pengaliran udara bukan setakat akustik....rumah pun kalau ada ruang lebih untuk pengaliran udara akan lebih selesa
maaf, saya dah check, figure tu mmg jesus..saya tertukar dengan figure patron saint of istanbul...dah tak ingat kat bahagian mana saya tengok muka jesus tu dilopongkan..
link yang kedua tu adalah bongkahan batu runtuhan aya sofia lama di letakkan kat luar sebagai bahan pameran...
You can't simply dismiss the issue just by looking at the history. To conclude that Muslims should not be bothered about it as minaret was not a symbol of islam is rather shallow.
If so, pursuant to historical facts and your own argument, why should be a ban after all?
The ban and the reaction towards the ban is basically due to the public acceptance that minaret refers to mosque, where Muslims worships TODAY. This should be the basis on how to address the issue.
Personal opinions are NOT absolute in Islam. In the end, there is a right and wrong answer.
"There is nothing wrong with the banning of minarets in Islam. If you find that it is offensive, it is strictly your personal opinion and has no correlation to the conduct of Islam."
The France ban on burka, the Swiss ban on minaret are all a slapped to Arabs and Islam. For these are main symbols of Islam in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. It is meant as a slapped to Arabs and Islam.
You are not offended because you are not arabs and you are not that islamic.
But to the Arabs Islam they are offended but there is nothing they can do about it! Because Swiss is an independent country and not part of Arab Caliphate.
You get your facts wrong!
The minaret was put up after Hagia Sofia was converted into a mosque.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_Sophia
"In 1453, Constantinople was conquered by the Ottoman Turks and Sultan Mehmed II ordered the building to be converted into a mosque.[4] The bells, altar, iconostasis, and sacrificial vessels were removed, and many of the mosaics were eventually plastered over. The Islamic features — such as the mihrab, the minbar, and the four minarets outside — were added over the course of its history under the Ottomans."
MasyaAllah, how careless of you when you talk about Islam and other Muslims!
Another resource that said minarets was added by muslims;
http://www.hagiasophia.com/listingview.php?listingID=7
"With the following years, Sultans added something to the building. Sultan Bayezid ordered a new minaret changing the previous one of his fathers’. In the 16th century, Suleiman the Magnificent brought two colossal candles from Hungary to be placed on both sides of the mihrab. To the end of the 16th century during the reign of Selim II, famous architect Sinan strengthened the building by adding structural supports to its exterior. He also built two minarets on the western end of the building and the mausoleum of Selim II to the southeast of the building. In 1600s, two mausoleums were added next to Selim II’s: Murad III and Mehmed III."
Saya rasa pengajaran daripada isu ini adalah setiap orang berhak memberikan pendapat peribadi, tapi pendapat perlu disandarkan kepada fakta yang betul. Setiap isu perlu dikaji dengan mendalam, bukan setakat melihat symptom tanpa mengkaji root causes.
Fakta-fakta tak kisahla sains, sejarah, teknologi dan sebagainya perlu dirujuk dan banyak buat cross references, sumber internet sangat tak reliable, boleh edit selepas publish.
Is there an absolute right and wrong answer? There are very clear guidelines in Islam but some things are up for debate for the pursuit of answers.
A few centuris ago, epilepsy was considered a form of demon possession and the cure was exorcism. It obviously never worked. Today we know that we can cure epilepsy with brain surgery.
In worldly aspects such as medicine, architecture etc, what is considered wrong and right simply evolve with time.
akuatik,
The real lesson here is the importance to listen and read to different views and not get caught up with a single peripheral vision.
I admit I got some of the facts on Hagia Sophia wrong because I didn't cross check what I know with ehem, wikipedia. I learnt about Islamic architecture history 4 years ago so I might have forgotten some facts. When you corrected me, I gladly ammended the content.
And THAT is the most valuable lesson we can learn, that nobody is absolutely correct, no matter how Islamic they think they are.
Afiq,
With your answers in mind, i advised you to seek knowledge. you must learn how to analyze facts and how to give opinions. when it comes to islamic issues, it must comes with nas and not just from your brain. these are Allah's words not mine. Look it up in the Quran. make the effort to seek truth rather than hide behind your own ignorance.
You don't even have the basic of usulfiqh to escape by arguing that there is no right or wrong answer. there are stages where issues are unclear only when there are clear opposing views but ALL must come with nas and analysis in usul fiqh. a proficiency in arabic is only a pre-requirement. you don't know enough to give such opinions.
You are clearly jahil. You are also to egoistic to apologize for your own error. You changed the topic and steered away from the issue. is not just about your mistake of facts. i expected your cynical remarks towards wikipedia as such, i give another source which you don't even dare to discuss.
my concern is how you would come up with the idea that muslims should not be offended by swiss govt's ban? you never question the ban. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE BAN? can you please answer this? there is no right or wrong answer for this. you said it yourself. i just want to know.
don't be angry when i call you jahil. it is the truth. it is nothing to be ashamed of. i am also jahil. but you are wrong this time. it is my duty as a muslim to inform you.
your last paragraph tells a lot about you. you think is always about the people and not the knowledge.
[And THAT is the most valuable lesson we can learn, that nobody is absolutely correct, no matter how Islamic they think they are]
THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG AND A JAHIL STATEMENT.
ISLAM IS AS IT IS REGARDLESS OF WHO PREACHES IT. and this case, it us who debated this issue.
Lets look into ourselves as a people. That is why all other laugh unto us Muslims and couldn't care less.
There was a time when Islamic Architecture was lauded. (Is it still).
What have we done as a people to show we are that are the best of creation and should gain due respect.
Setakat bayar zakat fitrah RM4.50setahun sekali tak payah nak berbangga...
Do more.
Hudan (Guidance),
Bainat (Prove it),
Furqan (then only Difference is perceptible).
(2:185)
Realise that the Bainat (Proofs) you guys quotes whether it be Hagia Sofia was the result of a Civilisation that was based on the Hudan (Guidance).
That is the Furqan (Perception/ Differentiation) that we all seek.
Allah gave us the Hudan (Guidance) and the Diinul Haq (the True way) to be above all others (Yuz-hirahu 'ala din kulihi) (9:33).
The Civilisation did not crash only recently. The final crash of the bankrupt Islamic Ottoman Government in 1926 was preceded by hundreds of years of human greed and Property/Harta (Lata), Power/Takhta (Mana) & Lust/Wanita (Uzza).
We have to learn from this. This is not about muslims in France, in Switzerland. Neither is it about Palestinians or the Sudanese.
For so long that we fractionalise ourselves as a people, for so long that we think that we muslims have won the grace of Allah, for so long as we will be a small, marginalised, little people.
Civilisations rise and fall. How far deeper and further must we fall after the Ottomans to realise that we must rise as one?
Discussion of islam is always so interesting in this blog, its a shame that all comments from your previous postings disappeared.
I see a pattern, almost.
First there people who corrects afiqsays, then in came self righteous who claim that they know better about Islam so afiqsays should shut the fuck up. Then afiqsays will edit his posting n thank the contributor n Thennnn the second guy will say that afiq is egoistic and refuse to listen to other people.
Its become a pattern.
I think the second commentor always have a superior complex on them, n that makes other commenter afraid to comment. But then there is always ritz who says something that is sometimes off topic. The second type commenter, like this one being hamba allah is a classic example of pak lebai who thinks younger folks should just shut up than to argue and learn new things. How to learn when they are afraid?
Fikir fikirlah pattern ini hamba allah. Bertegur dn menasihat kah baik baik. Kamu menunjukkan keJAHILAN diri sendiri sahaja.
Then there is the "Observer" pattern who has nothing to say.. really... ;-P
I say what I say, because, there are issues, and then again there are issues.
I tend to agree with Afiq Deen which I read to mean that Minarets are not the real issue.
I try to lay out the most basic issue that need to solved and yes every word that I say is actually underlaid by nas and ayat. That is why some people who are not familiar will feel that what I say is off tangent.
I submit that there is only one tangent. Somebody mentioned Usulfiqh. Yes that tangent is (forgive my rumawi since i don't have a jawi keyboard- nor do I know how to use one if I had one) Tarakkul qiyas li dalil aqwa minhu min ijma', sunah aw quran. Meninggalkan qiyas kerana dalil yang lebih kuat daripadanya daripada ijma sunnah dan quran.. dan dalam turutan itu.
Therefore, I try to balance off a discussion 1. by bringing in a quranic view, 2. by delving into the basic of the issue.
The Alquran has a wealth of information within its 6236 ayat. The sunnah tells us how the Prophet practised it. Do not fear the Quran. Yes we all need to know Ulum ulQuran and Mustalah alHadith.
But do not make more complicated than it really is.
Is it really about How high a minaret is, or how big a dome is? Neither is it about RM4-50....
Saya terkejut dengan post Afiq ni!
Tapi nampaknya perbincangan berjalan dengan baik dengan hujahan dan alasan.Banyak orang dah komen jadi saya tak perlu tambah byk sgt.
Kecuali Observer yang lebih berminat menyerang orang daripada berhujah. Dia sangat jelas menyokong afiq membuta tuli lantas memperbodohkan diri sendiri.
[I think the second commentor always have a superior complex on them, n that makes other commenter afraid to comment. But then there is always ritz who says something that is sometimes off topic. The second type commenter, like this one being hamba allah is a classic example of pak lebai who thinks younger folks should just shut up than to argue and learn new things. How to learn when they are afraid?]
mana datang semua ni? takde kat post ni pun. kalau ye pun ritz selalu cakap camtu, dia tak offtopic pun kali ni. hamba allah pun tak cakap camtu pun. kau kenal siapa dia ni? entah2 budak sekolah menengah.
Cubalah ikut nasihat sendiri dan berhujah dengan ritz dan hamba allah tu. Afiq sendiri pun berhujah walaupun fakta salah dan fahaman pun salah. hamba allah pun dah terangkan ini bukan pasal siapa lebih islamik tapi soal ilmu itu. ritz terangkan lebih mendalam. kalau kau tak faham, lebih baik tanya je dia. bukannya selamba serang dia pula. tak malu!
[Fikir fikirlah pattern ini hamba allah. Bertegur dn menasihat kah baik baik. Kamu menunjukkan keJAHILAN diri sendiri sahaja.]
Apa itu pattern? apa kaitannya?
lebih baik diam daripada cakap benda bodoh observer!
saya tunggu komen hamba allah selepas ini.
What do I think about the ban? I think it is caused by the sudden resurgence of Islam fanaticism in Switzerland. It's their way of putting a lid on it.
The reaction of muslims were expected.
Hamba Allah, I will try my very best to not make this personal.
The definition of Islamic architecture has changed. Today, a structure is considered Islamic if it is sustainable, eco-friendly and spatial composition that supports the values and virtues of muslims' lifestyles.
Minarets, domes, arches etc are decorations and has no function in these modern times. Its existence is purely aesthetical and supports a popular dogma.
This dogma is very outdated. Not only is it outdated, it is very unIslamic. Since when has Islam give priority to superficiality?
It's not very nice (or Islamic) to repeatedly call me jahil just to prove a point.
Observer, that pattern is evident in any discussion. You are a part of the pattern too.
Ritz, there are 10 dozens ayats on Islamic architecture in the Quran and not one glorifies the 'Islamic' designs of mosque that we see today. All the ayats are about how important it is to avoid wastage, commendable lifestyles that can only be made possible by design and spatial orientation and structure.
Architecture is what I learned for the past 5 years in a university that specialises in Islamic architecture. So I don't understand how some of my explainations are called jahil in nature. Can Hamba Allah specify which part of my entry do you think is jahil..
I would like to know.
You wrote;
[I personally don't see why muslims should be angry of the Swiss government's decision.]
[There is nothing wrong with the banning of minarets in Islam. If you find that it is offensive, it is strictly your personal opinion and has no correlation to the conduct of Islam.]
It is not about the architecture. It is about the ban. The ban is wrong and it wasn't because of architecture. It was due to islamophobia.
It was your indifference towards the ban. The ban is unnecessary but you thought it was ok because minarets are not symbols of islam.
The ban and the reaction towards the ban is basically due to the public acceptance that minaret refers to mosque, where Muslims worships TODAY. This should be the basis on how to address the issue.
You said;
[Islam is not a stagnant religion. It is a religion of progress. That is why it forbids any form of symbolism or representations so it can be adapted into different times and places]
[During the prophet's time, any piece of land used by a congregation to perform prayers are called Masjid which means 'place of worship'.]
Since we live in these times, most of the times we have proper and grandeous Masjid and most already has minarets. The minaret is not against the religion. It is only a common feature in a mosque of which any absence of minaret would not hinder muslims from their obligations. Some masjids and suraus in Malaysia are basement rooms and kampung houses. As such, it is not unislamic to either have or not have a minaret at a mosque.
But why the ban? it is a sign of intolerance and that is unislamic. You don't see it at all. You gave in due to the facts in architecture. you gave in so easily. you forget the concept of the benefits of ummah and jamaah.
I strongly believe that the issue of Muslims reaction towards the ban (plus the issue of the ban itself) should be debated by people who know fiqh AND architecture. Simply says, someone who knows what exactly islamic architecture is.
(I don't know as much as an architect does, but i know more lah compare people with no background at all)
My point is, jahil tu sangat general. Klu jahil dlm bidang sains tak semestinya jahil dlm bidang agama, and vice versa.
Dan, jahil tu tengok tempat juga. Klu the discussion is on arcitecture, (well minarets is architecture issue)then just let the architects have their say.If you don't know anything about architecture then u are the jahil one in this case.
Dear Hamba Allah, picking up on your:
[But why the ban? it is a sign of intolerance and that is unislamic. You don't see it at all. You gave in due to the facts in architecture. you gave in so easily. you forget the concept of the benefits of ummah and jamaah]
My central thoughts have always been; If Muslims want respect then we as an Ummah and Jamaah should earn it.
(9:20) Allah menaikkan darjat (a'zamu darajatan) oran-orang (in a group) yang beriman, berhijrah dengan harta dan diri itulah orang2 yang menang.
Yes, as an Ummah and as a Jamaah. As long as we are infighting we will get nowwhere. Remember how the colonials divided and conquered us. I quote Lawrence of Arabia: for so long as the arabs fight tribe among tribe, for so long as they will be a little people... (I have used variations of this)
So my opinion is that we should fix us.
I also use the examples of Civilizations because that is the story of Islam. The building Madinah and various form of the word (Madani, Mudun, Tamaddun, and yes Afiq--- "DEEN").
Inilah syariat, wasiat, wahyu, wasiat, Allah kepada Semua Rasul Ulul Azmi (42:13). Read the History of Islamic Civilisations and you will find that different rasul were sent at different periods. Read Surah Attin is the story of rise and fall of civilasations.
Note that Rasul Ulul Azmi (the determined ones were sent when Islamic human civilisation was at its lowest. And their job was to unite the Ummah and Jamaah. (An Aqiimu Deen Wala Tatafarraqu fih). Nuh Ibrahim Musa Isa and finally Muhammad (SAW) all the people that they were sent to rose to great heights of Civilisation. And then the people fell. (Laqad khalaqna fi ahsani taqwim thumma radadnahu asfalasafiliin- maha benar ayat Alla itu).
Allah then follows with the Ayat 42:14:
"Dan mereka tidak berpecah melainkan sesudah datangnya pengetahuan kepada mereka kerana kedengkian antara mereka."
[Why is it that we are Arguing sampai teruk2] [Ada adab untuk ber bahas- Ud'uu Illa sabili rabbka bilhikmah was mauizatul hassanah Wa jadilhum billati hia ahsan- Bahas dengan sebaiknya untuk mendapat hasil yang paling baik bukan untuk menghina dan mengutuk dan mengata siapa yang baik atau jahil]
"Kalau tidaklah kerana sesuatu ketetapan yang telah ada dari Tuhanmu dahulunya sampai kepada waktu yang ditentukan, pastilah mereka telah di binasakan."
[ You guys nak tunggu Allah tarik balik etetapan itu dan hancur kan kita sebagai umat Islam? Itulah akhirat yang sebenar2nya. Contoh2 kecil Allah dah bagi (30:41) Learn from it]
"Dan sesungguhnya orangorang yang diwariskan kepada mereka Alkitab benar-benar berada dalam keraguan yang menggoncangkan tentang kitab itu"
[Korang goncang dan tak yakin kepada janji Allah? Neither do kita sebagai Ummat Yakin dengan penyelasaian yang Allah suruh. LET US BE AT PEACE WITH EACH OTHER AND UNITE]
Korang nak MENARA- Ingat "Alam tarakaifa faala Bi 'Aad, Irama Zatil Imaad"
ADAKAH TIDAK KAMU LIHAT BAGAIMANA DIA PERLAKUKAN KAUM AAD, MEREKA YANG MEMBINA BINAAN-BINAAN TINGGI.
Don't get me wrong I am not saying tak bleh bina binaan tinggi... BUT it s not about the binaan but about us as a people. Where are we going and how do go about doing it.
We want people to respect us and allow our Minarets? The muslims should learn to earn that respect.
If Muhammad can earn that respect from the Quraish Council and replace the fallen Hajarul Aswad for being Al Amiin (48:27 read it on the story of the Hudaibiah Agreement between Muhammad and the Quraish).
Why can't we do that and be Al Amiin. Why can't we be Fatanah when we speak.
Bukankah itu sifat seorang Rasul (33:21) Siddiq, Amanah, Fatanah dan Tabligh. Sifat itu bukan milik Rasul sahaja. Malah mereka sebagai suri teladan yang baik (Laqad kaana lakum fi rasululillahi uswatun hasanah).
Memanglah mereka yang lain perlekehkan Umat Islam... Jangankan nak bina Menara Mesjid, nak jual petrloeum pun nak kena minta kebenaran.
Jual Engine Kapal Terbang cabuk pun semua orang termasuk venezuela terkedek2 nak tolong- takut US lenkali tak nak jual Senjata kat kita and Venezuela.
Korang nak transfer duit lebih Euro15,000-00 korang tahu tak kena beritahu Bank Negara under Anti Money Laundering and Anti Terrosist financing Act. All subject to FATF (Google it!). Those laws are also about other controlling us. They come and audit our country and Bank Negara annually you know. Takut org Islam buat pasal lagi macam 911.
Guys look at the bigger picture. Stand together and Stand tall.
Jangan jadi politician- "Divided We Stand"
bukan setakat isu agama je nih, ini isu kebebasan architecture jugak, kalau diaorang memang ban towers makes sense ah jugak kot.
lagipun tak kesah ah kalau minaret tuh simbol islam yang sebenar ke tak ke, kalau diaorang ban orang islam main bolasepak kita tak patut bengang sebab bolasepak tuh bukan budaya islam? this is about freedom kot.
maybe if we ban crosses on churches kat malaysia orang kristian tak patut marah sebab kalau dikaji dulu-dulu crosses bukan simbol sebenar christianity?
saya sudah menuntut di sekolah senibina selama 7 tahun, dan bekerja juga sudah 7 tahun, maka pengalaman langsung tidak langsung di dalam industri senibina adalah lebih kurang 14 tahun, maka atas kapasiti ini saya merasakan apa yang dibuat kerajaan swiss tiada kena mengena dengan senibina sebaliknya adalah lebih kepada islamophobia.
jika minaret itu adalah dari gereja dengan lambang salib yang indah di atas muncungnya adakah kerajaan swiss akan melarang penggunaannya juga?
saya rasa TIDAK
saya telah membaca artikel ini di majalah Architecture Review (keluaran berapa saya tak ingat) tapi penulis itu juga ada mempersoalkan kebebasan bersuara di Swiss dan hubung kaitnya dengan senibina minaret tersebut.
ini semua lebih kepada kerajaan Swiss tidak mahu ada bentuk islam secara fizikal kelihatan lebih menonjol.
kita tidak seharusnya menafsir sesuatu ikut suka dan peredaran zaman, kerana jika itu dibiarkan bersuara maka suatu hari nanti akan ada remaja yang selepas mandi secara bersih dan wangi akan terus bersolat, kerana di fikirannya terlintas, "...saya sudah bersih, kenapa perlu ambil wudhu' lagi?"
Islam adalah agama yang syumul dan dijamin Tuhan dari kerosakkannya. Jika kita suka untuk menginteprasi Islam ikut keadaan kenapa perlu Tuhan turunkan Al-Quran dari mula lagi? yang mengisahkan tentang kesilapan umat-umat terdahulu?
Mari kita semua beristighfar bersama-sama
Amin
Make more post like this one
[url=http://www.venditascarpe.com/]gucci shoes
[/url]
Nice site, nice and easy on the eyes and great content too.
Post a Comment