Serious PAP Double standard on religion, what is the WP and other oppo waiting for? ATTACK!!

Re: PAP Double standard on religion, what is the WP and other oppo waiting for? ATTAC

The Singapore Malays have to understand that action against non-muslims who have done things against Malays and Muslims have been pretty instaneous. Always end up in jail. No ifs and buts. They should reciprocate in equal measures.

Not only they did not report, one of them, a member of their elite professional body vilified and tried to marginalise the one who reported the incident and even suggested that being a convert is an issue.

Papsmearer said:

There is and has always been a double standard for muslims versus Christians. If there was a radical priest saying things about the muslim religion in katong Church, the ISD will be all over it tomorrow. But malays seem to get away with it. Shan coming out to defend this action is ridiculous. They are all scared of offending the malays and indirectly big neighbour in the north.

Click to expand...

Re: PAP Double standard on religion, what is the WP and other oppo waiting for? ATTAC

Historically the Muslims and the Catholic have been watched as both had intermittent issues,over the last 50 years. Sikhs come next. Niven Road priest sikh priest sent packing him during the Golden Temple insurrection.

The Hindus are completely benign, there is no way 2 Indians can ever agree to mount a challange so the authorities don't give a fuck. The only time the became a concern was around the tiny Sri Lankan Tamil community and possible funding and support for the Tamil Tigers. Interestingly it was Chinese and Indian who were detained under ISA for helping ship arms for the Tigers.

The_Hypocrite said:

I was told that in the Catholic church..All the sermons r recorded by the ISD...So y the double standards on the mudslimes...This case will piss off the other religions as they are treated 2nd class

Click to expand...

Re: PAP Double standard on religion, what is the WP and other oppo waiting for? ATTAC

scroobal said:

The Singapore Malays have to understand that action against non-muslims who have done things against Malays and Muslims have been pretty instaneous. Always end up in jail. No ifs and buts. They should reciprocate in equal measures.

Not only they did not report, one of them, a member of their elite professional body vilified and tried to marginalise the one who reported the incident and even suggested that being a convert is an issue.

Click to expand...

He has been posting quite abit over the past year in particular about his personal views on the state of the faith (and its organised Malay Muslim leaders) in Singapore so he is not an unknown actor in this whole incident. The merits of his views aside, he is not a "mere" convert who "suddenly felt uncomfortable" so there is much more fire where this smoke comes from - the issue of whether using FB as the medium to express his views/incite a response as a recurring bugbear is one that has dragged a number of people into his net, including the Mufti - there is definitely more to this story and his decision to record and report the misdemeanour....

https://www.facebook.com/Helikoan?fref=ts

Terence Helikaon Nunis
13 January ·
After almost 20 years as a Muslim, I have arrived at some conclusions that put me at odds with the community.
1. I do not believe the hijab is necessary. It is a cultural affection of the Arabs that evolved into a political statement. It is not mentioned in the Qur'an. And the same with the niqab.
2. I think halal certification is either a scam or an unfortunate cost. Unless there are obvious reasons to suspect otherwise, everything is automatically halal.
3. I do not believe damnation permanent. Neither do I believe Salvation is exclusive to Muslims. That limits God's Mercy.
4. I think many "authentic" narrations, even in Swahih al-Bukhari, are fabricated. We should exercise more skepticism of problematic ahadits.
5. I do not believe dog saliva is najis al-mughalazhah, or any restrictions on dogs as pets. That contradicts the Qur'an.
6. I do not believe that non-Muslims are restricted from inheriting from Muslims. There is no such stipulation in the ayat. There were historical reasons for the hadits.
7. I do not believe all forms of interest is necessarily usury, riba'. That is a fundamental ignorance of economics.
8. I certainly do not believe in gender segregation in public places. Strict gender segregation is unnatural.
9. The concept of an Islamic state is an oxymoron.
10. Drawings and artistic representations of the Prophet (s.a.w.) are not automatically blasphemous.
11. Stoning is not a valid means of capital punishment.
12. Most hudud punishments are outdated, and specific to certain conditions that do not exist for most of us.
I admit I never cared what Muslims think of me, orthodoxy or otherwise. I did not come to Islam to follow ingrained cultural practices and social beliefs masquerading as religion.


Terence Helikaon Nunis
19 January ·
This is a guideline for conversations with Muslims on religion:
1. Any line of argument that ends with, "It is the fault of the Jews", immediately loses credibility.
2. Contentions within Islam discussed publicly also have a non-Muslim audience. So, Muslims cannot claim some mythical intellectual superiority in Islam as long as every doctrinal challenge is met with an emotive response, takfir and appeals to authority.
3. Muslims cannot claim that, unlike Christianity, Islam has no clergy, when they treat their scholars like clergy.
4. There is no conversation when it begins with, "Who is your shaykh?", "Where did you learn?" and "Do you know the Qur'an?" It assumes that the one asking has the authority to demand anything, or comes from a higher level of knowledge. Even in the history of the Salaf, we never hear our scholars beginning a counter-point with this. Credentials are always established after an introduction.
5. Muslims cannot demand respect based on some authority they have in their local community, or because they think they are somebody when they do not give it.
6. "You are a kafir for believing this", "Fear Allah", "Are you a Muslim?" or anything along those lines is not a cogent argument. No one person has the right to claim guardianship over orthodoxy.
7. Any response that begins with, "You should not question ..." is invalid. If a doctrine cannot be questioned, then it cannot be challenged and if it cannot be challenged then there is no sound basis for belief. If everything in Islam cannot be questioned, then Islam ceases to be a religion and becomes a superstition.
8. Any response that begins with, "This will shake the faith of the people" is likewise invalid. If a Muslim's faith is so weak that a mere question will shake it, then that faith is a facade.
9. Any statement that begins with, "All the Muslims believe this," or "No one questions this," is obviously a lie. There are a multitude of sects and schools of thoughts. There are differences of opinions across schools and even within the same school. Most Muslims have only ever heard one position, and imagine that is the only one.
10. And finally, most Muslims like their converts when these converts shut up and follow. They want some form of assimilation. Some take it to the extent that they have invented the word, "revert", to imply that life experience and knowledge prior to conversion, has no legitimacy. Any convert that has the temerity to question anything, is told, "You were never a Muslim," never one of "us". A vast section of the ummah celebrates conversions like trophies. People are not Pokemon, we are not here to be "collected".

Re: PAP Double standard on religion, what is the WP and other oppo waiting for? ATTAC

gatehousethetinkertailor said:

He has been posting quite abit over the past year in particular about his personal views on the state of the faith (and its organised Malay Muslim leaders) in Singapore so he is not an unknown actor in this whole incident. The merits of his views aside, he is not a "mere" convert who "suddenly felt uncomfortable" so there is much more fire where this smoke comes from - the issue of whether using FB as the medium to express his views/incite a response as a recurring bugbear is one that has dragged a number of people into his net, including the Mufti - there is definitely more to this story....

https://www.facebook.com/Helikoan?fref=ts

Terence Helikaon Nunis
13 January ·
After almost 20 years as a Muslim, I have arrived at some conclusions that put me at odds with the community.
1. I do not believe the hijab is necessary. It is a cultural affection of the Arabs that evolved into a political statement. It is not mentioned in the Qur'an. And the same with the niqab.
2. I think halal certification is either a scam or an unfortunate cost. Unless there are obvious reasons to suspect otherwise, everything is automatically halal.
3. I do not believe damnation permanent. Neither do I believe Salvation is exclusive to Muslims. That limits God's Mercy.
4. I think many "authentic" narrations, even in Swahih al-Bukhari, are fabricated. We should exercise more skepticism of problematic ahadits.
5. I do not believe dog saliva is najis al-mughalazhah, or any restrictions on dogs as pets. That contradicts the Qur'an.
6. I do not believe that non-Muslims are restricted from inheriting from Muslims. There is no such stipulation in the ayat. There were historical reasons for the hadits.
7. I do not believe all forms of interest is necessarily usury, riba'. That is a fundamental ignorance of economics.
8. I certainly do not believe in gender segregation in public places. Strict gender segregation is unnatural.
9. The concept of an Islamic state is an oxymoron.
10. Drawings and artistic representations of the Prophet (s.a.w.) are not automatically blasphemous.
11. Stoning is not a valid means of capital punishment.
12. Most hudud punishments are outdated, and specific to certain conditions that do not exist for most of us.
I admit I never cared what Muslims think of me, orthodoxy or otherwise. I did not come to Islam to follow ingrained cultural practices and social beliefs masquerading as religion.


Terence Helikaon Nunis
19 January ·
This is a guideline for conversations with Muslims on religion:
1. Any line of argument that ends with, "It is the fault of the Jews", immediately loses credibility.
2. Contentions within Islam discussed publicly also have a non-Muslim audience. So, Muslims cannot claim some mythical intellectual superiority in Islam as long as every doctrinal challenge is met with an emotive response, takfir and appeals to authority.
3. Muslims cannot claim that, unlike Christianity, Islam has no clergy, when they treat their scholars like clergy.
4. There is no conversation when it begins with, "Who is your shaykh?", "Where did you learn?" and "Do you know the Qur'an?" It assumes that the one asking has the authority to demand anything, or comes from a higher level of knowledge. Even in the history of the Salaf, we never hear our scholars beginning a counter-point with this. Credentials are always established after an introduction.
5. Muslims cannot demand respect based on some authority they have in their local community, or because they think they are somebody when they do not give it.
6. "You are a kafir for believing this", "Fear Allah", "Are you a Muslim?" or anything along those lines is not a cogent argument. No one person has the right to claim guardianship over orthodoxy.
7. Any response that begins with, "You should not question ..." is invalid. If a doctrine cannot be questioned, then it cannot be challenged and if it cannot be challenged then there is no sound basis for belief. If everything in Islam cannot be questioned, then Islam ceases to be a religion and becomes a superstition.
8. Any response that begins with, "This will shake the faith of the people" is likewise invalid. If a Muslim's faith is so weak that a mere question will shake it, then that faith is a facade.
9. Any statement that begins with, "All the Muslims believe this," or "No one questions this," is obviously a lie. There are a multitude of sects and schools of thoughts. There are differences of opinions across schools and even within the same school. Most Muslims have only ever heard one position, and imagine that is the only one.
10. And finally, most Muslims like their converts when these converts shut up and follow. They want some form of assimilation. Some take it to the extent that they have invented the word, "revert", to imply that life experience and knowledge prior to conversion, has no legitimacy. Any convert that has the temerity to question anything, is told, "You were never a Muslim," never one of "us". A vast section of the ummah celebrates conversions like trophies. People are not Pokemon, we are not here to be "collected".

Click to expand...

This helikaon chap doesn't behave like a muslim even though he claims to be one for the past 20 years. His old culture and religion's way of thinking is still deeply ingrained in him. He's clearly not a Muslim at heart.

Re: PAP Double standard on religion, what is the WP and other oppo waiting for? ATTAC

PAP's record of handling religious issues had been below par.

It took Old Man LKY himself to settle matters with the Vatican when the younger generation leaders screwed up on the Catholic social activists issue.
Reputation of ISD also plunged.

Re: PAP Double standard on religion, what is the WP and other oppo waiting for? ATTAC

MUFTI arbitrarily cherry picks issues to defend?! we dont see them "issuing" protest against indonesia haze but 7th month events, they want to annihilate chinese practice, go figure..

http://rilek1corner.com/2014/02/08/muslim-wants-burning-of-incense-banned-in-sg/

Salaam.

I think it is time for those who have upper respiratory ailments and asthma to have their views known to Mr Vivian Balakrishnan, the Minister of the Environment & Water Resources that we have had enough of this years of suffering, choking and having to run to the hospital in the middle of the night as our neighbours irresponsibly burn their incense right below our window sending dangerous and choking particles into our throats. We have the right to a clean air. I believe that neighbour burning of incense should be banned. Instead, the government should allocate particular locations where the burning could be done equipped with air pollution removal facilities. In the current dry spell with strong winds, it can dangerous as the grasses are dry and would catch fire easily. Secondly, the pollution is direct and at very high level.

Wallahu a’lam.

Abdul Hakeem Mohd Ismail

Re: PAP Double standard on religion, what is the WP and other oppo waiting for? ATTAC

"they" are the untouchables now

Re: PAP Double standard on religion, what is the WP and other oppo waiting for? ATTAC

scroobal said:

Historically the Muslims and the Catholic have been watched as both had intermittent issues,over the last 50 years. Sikhs come next. Niven Road priest sikh priest sent packing him during the Golden Temple insurrection.

The Hindus are completely benign, there is no way 2 Indians can ever agree to mount a challange so the authorities don't give a fuck. The only time the became a concern was around the tiny Sri Lankan Tamil community and possible funding and support for the Tamil Tigers. Interestingly it was Chinese and Indian who were detained under ISA for helping ship arms for the Tigers.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree and I am with you on this.

Re: PAP Double standard on religion, what is the WP and other oppo waiting for? ATTAC

There are so many questions here that the local prostitute press does not even bother to address, and Shan seems to have colluded with the Mufti to downplay this situation.

1) Who is this cleric that gave this sermon against Christians and jews?
2) He is speaking Arabic during the sermon. So, he is from another country. Who sponsored him to come to Singapore? Cannot be that he just came here on a visitor/tourist visa and then just showed up at the Chuliah Mosque, and say I want to preach there.
3) Some one gave this cleric accommodations, food, and maybe even a plane ticket to Singapore. Did they not check his other sermons or at least find out about them before they invited him to singapore to preach? And if they did, why did they ignore the fact this guy is a radical.
4) Why does ICA even let this sort of people in?
5) You cannot tell me that MUIS does not know what this cleric has been saying in one of their own mosque. he has been doing it for more then one time. And yet, they were still content to let him carry on. If this Nunis guy had not taped it and posted it on FB, this foreign cleric might still be talking shit about Christians and Jews.
6) Now that he has been outed, why not reveal the name and where the cleric is from and what is his status now. Has he been deported? Has been arrested, interrogated, etc. There is deafening silence on the part of the PAP on this.
7) Why do malay muslims say this Nunis guy is not a true muslim as he is eurasian and a convert? Yet, their leader Yaacob has married a Catholic woman who is not a Malay, so why are they not calling him a fake muslim?

Re: PAP Double standard on religion, what is the WP and other oppo waiting for? ATTAC

Simple...two legs, good, 4 legs bad...then 4 legs good, 2 legs bad....3 legs better!

Re: PAP Double standard on religion, what is the WP and other oppo waiting for? ATTAC

I did google about his background when this first emerged. Seems to consider himself as an intellectual of sorts on the religion and has been engaged with similar folks internationally.

The government on both sides of the Causeway as well authorities in most Muslim countries have never allowed independent discussion or interpretation of Islam by a lay person. Even expressing an opinion is a concern. So whether he is absolutely right or wrong on anything about the religion is going to be an issue. And he publicily doing it thru social media and his block made it worse in their eyes.

So the Muslim leaders of sorts reacted to his actions rather than the actions of the Imam. Now they have egg on their faces. It is embarrasing. To be honest, the few things that I read that he has written seems to be ramblings and I am not sure why he is still with Islam if he has so many issues.

More interestingly I note Shan's and Yaacob's veiled threat to society as a whole. Its meant to appease the Muslims. The fact that Shan first claimed that the NUS chap vilified the convert, his later comment is about investigating why it was video taped and released to the social media. So the pendulum has completely swung to the other side within a day.

gatehousethetinkertailor said:

He has been posting quite abit over the past year in particular about his personal views on the state of the faith (and its organised Malay Muslim leaders) in Singapore so he is not an unknown actor in this whole incident. The merits of his views aside, he is not a "mere" convert who "suddenly felt uncomfortable" so there is much more fire where this smoke comes from - the issue of whether using FB as the medium to express his views/incite a response as a recurring bugbear is one that has dragged a number of people into his net, including the Mufti - there is definitely more to this story and his decision to record and report the misdemeanour....

https://www.facebook.com/Helikoan?fref=ts

Terence Helikaon Nunis
13 January ·
After almost 20 years as a Muslim, I have arrived at some conclusions that put me at odds with the community.
1. I do not believe the hijab is necessary. It is a cultural affection of the Arabs that evolved into a political statement. It is not mentioned in the Qur'an. And the same with the niqab.
2. I think halal certification is either a scam or an unfortunate cost. Unless there are obvious reasons to suspect otherwise, everything is automatically halal.
3. I do not believe damnation permanent. Neither do I believe Salvation is exclusive to Muslims. That limits God's Mercy.
4. I think many "authentic" narrations, even in Swahih al-Bukhari, are fabricated. We should exercise more skepticism of problematic ahadits.
5. I do not believe dog saliva is najis al-mughalazhah, or any restrictions on dogs as pets. That contradicts the Qur'an.
6. I do not believe that non-Muslims are restricted from inheriting from Muslims. There is no such stipulation in the ayat. There were historical reasons for the hadits.
7. I do not believe all forms of interest is necessarily usury, riba'. That is a fundamental ignorance of economics.
8. I certainly do not believe in gender segregation in public places. Strict gender segregation is unnatural.
9. The concept of an Islamic state is an oxymoron.
10. Drawings and artistic representations of the Prophet (s.a.w.) are not automatically blasphemous.
11. Stoning is not a valid means of capital punishment.
12. Most hudud punishments are outdated, and specific to certain conditions that do not exist for most of us.
I admit I never cared what Muslims think of me, orthodoxy or otherwise. I did not come to Islam to follow ingrained cultural practices and social beliefs masquerading as religion.


Terence Helikaon Nunis
19 January ·
This is a guideline for conversations with Muslims on religion:
1. Any line of argument that ends with, "It is the fault of the Jews", immediately loses credibility.
2. Contentions within Islam discussed publicly also have a non-Muslim audience. So, Muslims cannot claim some mythical intellectual superiority in Islam as long as every doctrinal challenge is met with an emotive response, takfir and appeals to authority.
3. Muslims cannot claim that, unlike Christianity, Islam has no clergy, when they treat their scholars like clergy.
4. There is no conversation when it begins with, "Who is your shaykh?", "Where did you learn?" and "Do you know the Qur'an?" It assumes that the one asking has the authority to demand anything, or comes from a higher level of knowledge. Even in the history of the Salaf, we never hear our scholars beginning a counter-point with this. Credentials are always established after an introduction.
5. Muslims cannot demand respect based on some authority they have in their local community, or because they think they are somebody when they do not give it.
6. "You are a kafir for believing this", "Fear Allah", "Are you a Muslim?" or anything along those lines is not a cogent argument. No one person has the right to claim guardianship over orthodoxy.
7. Any response that begins with, "You should not question ..." is invalid. If a doctrine cannot be questioned, then it cannot be challenged and if it cannot be challenged then there is no sound basis for belief. If everything in Islam cannot be questioned, then Islam ceases to be a religion and becomes a superstition.
8. Any response that begins with, "This will shake the faith of the people" is likewise invalid. If a Muslim's faith is so weak that a mere question will shake it, then that faith is a facade.
9. Any statement that begins with, "All the Muslims believe this," or "No one questions this," is obviously a lie. There are a multitude of sects and schools of thoughts. There are differences of opinions across schools and even within the same school. Most Muslims have only ever heard one position, and imagine that is the only one.
10. And finally, most Muslims like their converts when these converts shut up and follow. They want some form of assimilation. Some take it to the extent that they have invented the word, "revert", to imply that life experience and knowledge prior to conversion, has no legitimacy. Any convert that has the temerity to question anything, is told, "You were never a Muslim," never one of "us". A vast section of the ummah celebrates conversions like trophies. People are not Pokemon, we are not here to be "collected".

Click to expand...

Re: PAP Double standard on religion, what is the WP and other oppo waiting for? ATTAC

scroobal said:

I did google about his background when this first emerged. Seems to consider himself as an intellectual of sorts on the religion and has been engaged with similar folks internationally.

The government on both sides of the Causeway as well authorities in most Muslim countries have never allowed independent discussion or interpretation of Islam by a lay person. Even expressing an opinion is a concern. So whether he is absolutely right or wrong on anything about the religion is going to be an issue. And he publicily doing it thru social media and his block made it worse in their eyes.

So the Muslim leaders of sorts reacted to his actions rather than the actions of the Imam. Now they have egg on their faces. It is embarrasing. To be honest, the few things that I read that he has written seems to be ramblings and I am not sure why he is still with Islam if he has so many issues.

More interestingly I note Shan's and Yaacob's veiled threat to society as a whole. Its meant to appease the Muslims. The fact that Shan first claimed that the NUS chap vilified the convert, his later comment is about investigating why it was video taped and released to the social media. So the pendulum has completely swung to the other side within a day.

Click to expand...

Why he is still with Islam is not our concern, nor the concern of anyone else. he has converted (most eurasians being catholics or christians), and that is no easy thing to go against his own race and religion. That takes courage. And the muslims themselves have accepted his conversion. He seems to be a devout muslim, going to mosque and what not. What he says makes sense. If islam claims to be a tolerant religion, then their treatment of him shows that to be a falsehood. And he mentioned about dog saliva, which is also something that puzzles me. In other muslim countries, dogs are kept as security and guard dogs. this is permitted in Islam. why is it in singapore and malaysia is it that dog saliva is something that is against the religion, even if its from a german shepherd guard dog?

Re: PAP Double standard on religion, what is the WP and other oppo waiting for? ATTAC

scroobal said:

I did google about his background when this first emerged. Seems to consider himself as an intellectual of sorts on the religion and has been engaged with similar folks internationally.

The government on both sides of the Causeway as well authorities in most Muslim countries have never allowed independent discussion or interpretation of Islam by a lay person. Even expressing an opinion is a concern. So whether he is absolutely right or wrong on anything about the religion is going to be an issue. And he publicily doing it thru social media and his block made it worse in their eyes.

Click to expand...

Islam itself doesn't encourage independent discussion by a lay person, be it Muslim and especially non-Muslim.

Hence, a lot of political power is automatically given to their version of clergy, the islamic scholars and mullahs. The islamic scholars have a lot to lose if ordinary muslims decide they want to intepret Islam on their own, instead of relying entirely on the advise of their scholars through edicts and fatwas. Hence, this Helikaon chap is upsetting the ship by not only blowing the whistle, but by openly disagreeing with the imam.

Re: PAP Double standard on religion, what is the WP and other oppo waiting for? ATTAC

JohnTan said:

Islam itself doesn't encourage independent discussion by a lay person, be it Muslim and especially non-Muslim.

Hence, a lot of political power is automatically given to their version of clergy, the islamic scholars and mullahs. The islamic scholars have a lot to lose if ordinary muslims decide they want to intepret Islam on their own, instead of relying entirely on the advise of their scholars through edicts and fatwas. Hence, this Helikaon chap is upsetting the ship by not only blowing the whistle, but by openly disagreeing with the imam.

Click to expand...

What is there to disagree? Did the foreign cleric make those comments against Christians or jews? yes or not? If yes, then is it not a good thing that Nunis revealed to the world? If the Iman say its not a good thing, then is he also saying the same negative things about Christians and Jews? If he says yes, these words are not acceptable, then he should thank Nunis for bringing it up.

Re: PAP Double standard on religion, what is the WP and other oppo waiting for? ATTAC

Papsmearer said:

What is there to disagree? Did the foreign cleric make those comments against Christians or jews? yes or not? If yes, then is it not a good thing that Nunis revealed to the world? If the Iman say its not a good thing, then is he also saying the same negative things about Christians and Jews? If he says yes, these words are not acceptable, then he should thank Nunis for bringing it up.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter.

The issue is that the islamic scholars don't want a precedent where a layman gets to challenge the scholars and imams and win.

Try debating about islam with any muslim, and inevitably, they will question your islamic credentials or the lack of as why you shouldn't be questioning Islam at all. Muslims use the same tactic against fellow muslim who disagree with their scholars. Grassroots feedback indicate that most Muslims disagree with helikaon not because he is wrong, but because he as a layman, had challenged a cleric and embarrassed the religion by exposing its anti-jew anti-christian face. Most muslims from all walks of life dislike jews and christians especially. The only common thing they have is that they go to mosques.

Re: PAP Double standard on religion, what is the WP and other oppo waiting for? ATTAC

JohnTan said:

Most muslims from all walks of life dislike jews and christians especially. The only common thing they have is that they go to mosques.

Click to expand...

Most muslim malays have never met a Jew, and they wouldn't know one if it bit them on the arse. How do you dislike someone or something you have no personal knowledge of? I guarantee you that many of these minahs fucking angmors are fucking a Jew, but do they care? I don't think local malays dislike Jews unless they have been brainwash by their imans.

Re: PAP Double standard on religion, what is the WP and other oppo waiting for? ATTAC

Papsmearer said:

Most muslim malays have never met a Jew, and they wouldn't know one if it bit them on the arse. How do you dislike someone or something you have no personal knowledge of? I guarantee you that many of these minahs fucking angmors are fucking a Jew, but do they care? I don't think local malays dislike Jews unless they have been brainwash by their imans.

Click to expand...

Do you know it part of being a muslim to hate Jews and Christians and be aligned with the palestinians (muslim brotherhood)?
What double standard you talking? PAP does it right not to agitate followers of the peaceful religion. The repercussion if double standard is not practiced, you find peaceful muslims turning out to protest or riot in Geylang Serai, Jarkata and Kuala Lumpur. The mass and scale will be much bigger if you use the turnout to protest against Ah Hok as a gauge. Any political party in power worthy its salt would clear the peaceful imam with just a token warning. Islam is a peaceful religion that preaches peace.

Seriously, I would choose to accept the double standard to enjoy the existing peace. Even Goliath PAP dare not play play with the religion of peace, you still want lesser WP to attack?

Re: PAP Double standard on religion, what is the WP and other oppo waiting for? ATTAC

scroobal said:

I did google about his background when this first emerged. Seems to consider himself as an intellectual of sorts on the religion and has been engaged with similar folks internationally.

The government on both sides of the Causeway as well authorities in most Muslim countries have never allowed independent discussion or interpretation of Islam by a lay person. Even expressing an opinion is a concern. So whether he is absolutely right or wrong on anything about the religion is going to be an issue. And he publicily doing it thru social media and his block made it worse in their eyes.

So the Muslim leaders of sorts reacted to his actions rather than the actions of the Imam. Now they have egg on their faces. It is embarrasing. To be honest, the few things that I read that he has written seems to be ramblings and I am not sure why he is still with Islam if he has so many issues.

More interestingly I note Shan's and Yaacob's veiled threat to society as a whole. Its meant to appease the Muslims. The fact that Shan first claimed that the NUS chap vilified the convert, his later comment is about investigating why it was video taped and released to the social media. So the pendulum has completely swung to the other side within a day.

Click to expand...

And another academic jumps in and specifically addresses your point about state-community dynamics: https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2017/03/06/the-singapore-muslim-community-and-the-imam-issue/


The Singapore Muslim Community and the Imam Issue
March 6, 2017

By Kamaludeen Mohamed Nasir, Associate Professor of Sociology, Nanyang Technological University

It is well-known that Singapore is a multi-religious society. The 2014 report by Pew named our city-state as the most religiously diverse among the 232 countries studied. What is assumed in this discourse is that all religions are the same and subjected to similar state-society relations.

The fact is, Islam is the most regulated religion in our tiny island and this has been the case for decades. From the appointment of a Minister-in-Charge of Muslim Affairs, to the creation of a statutory board called the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) where the Mufti is located, and to the Administration of Muslim Law Act that has regulatory powers over local mosques and madrasahs (Islamic schools), there is no doubt that Islam is given a unique attention by the state.

A stark under-appreciation of this social reality, especially among the non-Muslims, is apparent to me in the decade or so that I have been teaching in our local universities. I have always asked my students, that if all the Churches were made to say the exact same thing for their Sunday service with a text provided by an office of a statutory board, how would the Christian community react? The students could not even begin to imagine this! Will this then breed mistrust among the Christian community? This is but just one issue besieging the Muslim populace in Singapore.

When I had coffee with a top local social scientist of NUS a couple of weeks back, we agreed that Islam is the most hierarchical and bureaucratized religion in Singapore.Failure to understand how Islam is managed leads to a failure in understanding the reaction of its local adherents.

This distrust of the Muslim religious elites amidst the disciplining of Islam, from prescribed texts for the weekly Friday prayer sermons, to appointed instructors to "upgrade Islam" through the Asatizah Recognition Scheme that makes it mandatory for every religious teacher to be registered (even those teaching Qur'anic reading in the local neighbourhoods), impact heavily on the religious elites. Many scholars have called this age as one characterised by a crisis of religious authority. The situation can be especially dire in our local Muslim community, given the unique structures bearing upon them.

Distrust breeds distrust. It is not that Singaporean Muslims are predisposed towards being rude or as the Minister of Law put it, "kurang ajar", towards the state-endorsed religious authority. It is the structures that have been put in place that create such an environment.

The recent issue regarding the police report made against an Imam for making alleged "incendiary" supplications against Christians and Jews that are outside the MUIS-endorsed text cannot be disentangled from the issue of the autonomy of the Muslim clerics. I have engaged the local religious elites numerous times over the last few years and have rarely met a group that is more in fear. The culture of fear among the religious class is often talked about and in one of the engagements that I had with a group of religious elites, one of them candidly lamented, "We are directed and scripted."

It has often been mentioned that attitude reflects leadership. The angry reaction of the Muslim community in light of the Imam issue should be seen against this backdrop. The absence of the voices of the religious elites in the initial stages of the debacle created a void in the community who then went online to make sense of the matter.

Last week, Assoc Prof Khairudin Aljunied was singled out in parliament for encouraging the “vilification” of the whistle-blower, Terence Nunis. The fact is that hundreds of Muslims had begun pitching in their views on various platforms after Nunis’ pronouncements on Facebook. This was substantiated in a belated statement by the Minister-in-Charge of Muslim Affairs, Assoc Prof Yaacob Ibrahim, who mentioned that the video uploaded by Nunis had indeed "sparked a storm" and "generated many emotions both online and offline. Many in our community felt angry, because they believe that the postings could be used to cast aspersions on Islam and the asatizah in our Mosques".

It is interesting to note that both Assoc Prof Khairudin and the Mufti appropriated a satirical and poetic style respectively, as means of social critique. However, it has been well-documented that the Singaporean brand of criticism is often manifested through humour, satire and poetics as seen in Talkingcock, Mr Brown, Yawning Bread, Jack Neo’s films and the like. Indirect criticism is characteristic of societies living under soft-authoritarian rule.

There are no differences in opinion that if the allegations against the Imam are proven to be true, his incitement has no place in our multi-religious society. But if it is not – and many among the Muslim community have come to this conclusion upon the explanations provided by numerous local religious scholars who have later gone public in discussing the meaning and context of the supplication – then sadly, the Muslim community will see this as yet another example of disciplining and an attempt to emasculate the local religious fraternity despite the state’s paradoxical pleas for Singaporean Muslims to give the local religious scholars their ears.

It remains to be seen in the aftermath of the Imam episode if the state would choose to go down the path of imposing further restrictions to ensure that the MUIS-endorsed texts be read to the letter, curtailing any creative license of preachers and punishing any dissent towards state-appointed authority. The more enlightened way must be to empower the religious scholars in the field and to give them ownership over their areas of expertise to prevent religious discourse from being co-opted, hijacked and subjected to ad hominem attacks.

The coming forward of a good number of religious elites, including its umbrella body, Singapore Islamic Scholars & Religious Teachers Association (PERGAS), with regard to this Imam issue is a good development that needs to be applauded. The social media provides a ready platform for this. These attempts to speak truth to power should also be captured in the mainstream media. PERGAS' need to again clarify their position after feeling that they were misrepresented in the Malay mainstream media regarding their statement towards Assoc Prof Khairudin is not a good sign. The perception that the Malay mainstream media is not balanced and selective in their reporting has also led many to turn to the cyber-sphere to air their perspectives.

In fostering this development of active citizenship, we need to keep an eye on encouraging diversity and not just promoting those with a certain kind of thinking that the state can easily manage. This is in line with what the PM had recently mentioned in his interview on February 24th in Today newspaper under the title, “Leaders must be able to take criticism, acknowledge mistakes”. Only then can we move forward as a nation.

Re: PAP Double standard on religion, what is the WP and other oppo waiting for? ATTAC

Thanks for this. I am shocked that he wrote this. Thought it is indeed factual in regard to being higly regulated, directed, scripted etc, his writing shows how naive he is. He is a Malay Muslim academic in a state institution and comments and views from this background is highly valued for intelligence, sensing the ground and are a virtual barometer for the authorities. I am not sure if he realised what he was doing.

This confirms that the Malay elite do not realise that they have a community issue and they are certainly have no reciprocated to the PAP quid pro quo arrangement post the AMP rebellion. The constant detention of Muslims unde ISA since the original series of arrests, their continued poor academic performance as community, their wayward youth, high divorce rate, abuse of office and theft of funds within office holders of community organisations, higher incidence of medical issues amongst their elderly are not the figment of someone's imagination. These issues have not come down in all these years.

Instead this guy wants the state to step back. Does he even ralise why the Madarashs were shut down.

gatehousethetinkertailor said:

And another academic jumps in and specifically addresses your point about state-community dynamics: https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2017/03/06/the-singapore-muslim-community-and-the-imam-issue/


The Singapore Muslim Community and the Imam Issue
March 6, 2017

By Kamaludeen Mohamed Nasir, Associate Professor of Sociology, Nanyang Technological University

It is well-known that Singapore is a multi-religious society. The 2014 report by Pew named our city-state as the most religiously diverse among the 232 countries studied. What is assumed in this discourse is that all religions are the same and subjected to similar state-society relations.

The fact is, Islam is the most regulated religion in our tiny island and this has been the case for decades. From the appointment of a Minister-in-Charge of Muslim Affairs, to the creation of a statutory board called the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) where the Mufti is located, and to the Administration of Muslim Law Act that has regulatory powers over local mosques and madrasahs (Islamic schools), there is no doubt that Islam is given a unique attention by the state.

A stark under-appreciation of this social reality, especially among the non-Muslims, is apparent to me in the decade or so that I have been teaching in our local universities. I have always asked my students, that if all the Churches were made to say the exact same thing for their Sunday service with a text provided by an office of a statutory board, how would the Christian community react? The students could not even begin to imagine this! Will this then breed mistrust among the Christian community? This is but just one issue besieging the Muslim populace in Singapore.

When I had coffee with a top local social scientist of NUS a couple of weeks back, we agreed that Islam is the most hierarchical and bureaucratized religion in Singapore.Failure to understand how Islam is managed leads to a failure in understanding the reaction of its local adherents.

This distrust of the Muslim religious elites amidst the disciplining of Islam, from prescribed texts for the weekly Friday prayer sermons, to appointed instructors to "upgrade Islam" through the Asatizah Recognition Scheme that makes it mandatory for every religious teacher to be registered (even those teaching Qur'anic reading in the local neighbourhoods), impact heavily on the religious elites. Many scholars have called this age as one characterised by a crisis of religious authority. The situation can be especially dire in our local Muslim community, given the unique structures bearing upon them.

Distrust breeds distrust. It is not that Singaporean Muslims are predisposed towards being rude or as the Minister of Law put it, "kurang ajar", towards the state-endorsed religious authority. It is the structures that have been put in place that create such an environment.

The recent issue regarding the police report made against an Imam for making alleged "incendiary" supplications against Christians and Jews that are outside the MUIS-endorsed text cannot be disentangled from the issue of the autonomy of the Muslim clerics. I have engaged the local religious elites numerous times over the last few years and have rarely met a group that is more in fear. The culture of fear among the religious class is often talked about and in one of the engagements that I had with a group of religious elites, one of them candidly lamented, "We are directed and scripted."

It has often been mentioned that attitude reflects leadership. The angry reaction of the Muslim community in light of the Imam issue should be seen against this backdrop. The absence of the voices of the religious elites in the initial stages of the debacle created a void in the community who then went online to make sense of the matter.

Last week, Assoc Prof Khairudin Aljunied was singled out in parliament for encouraging the “vilification” of the whistle-blower, Terence Nunis. The fact is that hundreds of Muslims had begun pitching in their views on various platforms after Nunis’ pronouncements on Facebook. This was substantiated in a belated statement by the Minister-in-Charge of Muslim Affairs, Assoc Prof Yaacob Ibrahim, who mentioned that the video uploaded by Nunis had indeed "sparked a storm" and "generated many emotions both online and offline. Many in our community felt angry, because they believe that the postings could be used to cast aspersions on Islam and the asatizah in our Mosques".

It is interesting to note that both Assoc Prof Khairudin and the Mufti appropriated a satirical and poetic style respectively, as means of social critique. However, it has been well-documented that the Singaporean brand of criticism is often manifested through humour, satire and poetics as seen in Talkingcock, Mr Brown, Yawning Bread, Jack Neo’s films and the like. Indirect criticism is characteristic of societies living under soft-authoritarian rule.

There are no differences in opinion that if the allegations against the Imam are proven to be true, his incitement has no place in our multi-religious society. But if it is not – and many among the Muslim community have come to this conclusion upon the explanations provided by numerous local religious scholars who have later gone public in discussing the meaning and context of the supplication – then sadly, the Muslim community will see this as yet another example of disciplining and an attempt to emasculate the local religious fraternity despite the state’s paradoxical pleas for Singaporean Muslims to give the local religious scholars their ears.

It remains to be seen in the aftermath of the Imam episode if the state would choose to go down the path of imposing further restrictions to ensure that the MUIS-endorsed texts be read to the letter, curtailing any creative license of preachers and punishing any dissent towards state-appointed authority. The more enlightened way must be to empower the religious scholars in the field and to give them ownership over their areas of expertise to prevent religious discourse from being co-opted, hijacked and subjected to ad hominem attacks.

The coming forward of a good number of religious elites, including its umbrella body, Singapore Islamic Scholars & Religious Teachers Association (PERGAS), with regard to this Imam issue is a good development that needs to be applauded. The social media provides a ready platform for this. These attempts to speak truth to power should also be captured in the mainstream media. PERGAS' need to again clarify their position after feeling that they were misrepresented in the Malay mainstream media regarding their statement towards Assoc Prof Khairudin is not a good sign. The perception that the Malay mainstream media is not balanced and selective in their reporting has also led many to turn to the cyber-sphere to air their perspectives.

In fostering this development of active citizenship, we need to keep an eye on encouraging diversity and not just promoting those with a certain kind of thinking that the state can easily manage. This is in line with what the PM had recently mentioned in his interview on February 24th in Today newspaper under the title, “Leaders must be able to take criticism, acknowledge mistakes”. Only then can we move forward as a nation.

Click to expand...

Re: PAP Double standard on religion, what is the WP and other oppo waiting for? ATTAC

Similarly surprised that he threw in his hat in this manner - his academic CV does reflect a breadth of academic research into the very social issues you have mentioned but somehow his sentiment about state engagement and the trade-offs are off-kilt. I find it peculiar especially since his focus has been a blend of social realism, Foucauldian analysis of the criminal elements of community, etc so he should be aware and sensitive to the shifting community dynamics.

http://nanyang.academia.edu/KamaludeenMohamedNasir/CurriculumVitae

Some selections:

Kamaludeen Mohamed Nasir, Alexius Pereira and Bryan Turner, Muslims in Singapore: Piety, Politics and Policies (London: Routledge)

Kamaludeen Mohamed Nasir and Syed Muhd Khairudin Aljunied, Muslims as Minorities: History and Social Realities of Muslims in Singapore (Bangi: National University of Malaysia Press)

Kamaludeen Mohamed Nasir, “Antipodal Tattooing: Muslim Youth in Chinese Gangs,” Deviant Behavior , 37(8): 952-961

Kamaludeen Mohamed Nasir, “ Protected Sites: Reconceptualising Secret Societies in Colonial and Postcolonial Singapore,” Journal of Historical Sociology , 29(2): 232-249.

Kamaludeen Mohamed Nasir and Bryan Turner, “Governing as Gardening: Reflections on Soft Authoritarianism in Singapore,” Citizenship Studies , 17(3/4): 339-352.

Kamaludeen Mohamed Nasir, “Rethinking the 'Malay Problem' in Singapore: Image, Rhetoric and Social Realities,” Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs , 27(2): 309-318.

Patrick J. Williams and Kamaludeen Mohamed Nasir, “Youth Cultures in Southeast Asia: Exploring Hijabista and Hijabster Phenomena”, Minor Revisions Re-submitted to Crime, Media, Culture: An International Journal

Kamaludeen Mohamed Nasir, “Institutionalizing Islam in Singapore: Managing Islam through Constructing an Ethnoreligious Identity” in Muslim Minorities in East Asia , edited by Yuka Kobayashi, Jikon Lai and Samer El-Karanshawy, Cambridge University Press (forthcoming)

Kamaludeen Mohamed Nasir, “The Malay Gangster” in Figures of Southeast Asian Modernity , edited by Joshua Barker, Eric Harms and Johan Lindquist, Hawaii University Press (with Foreword by Benedict Anderson), pp. 198-200.

“The Malay Problem: Thinking with Emile Durkheim.” 1stvInternational Conference on Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, Jul 18-21, Island of Rhodes, Greece.

“Disciplining Islam: A Foucauldian Analysis of Islam In Singapore.” The 6th Annual Conference of the International Social Theory Consortium, Jun 9 –11, Singapore.