This is a response to a post by another blogger, in good faith...

This is the url, al you can read straight to the source:

http://writtenbyhim.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/10-dalil-pakatan-sesat/

Vote PAS: You'll be in heaven

The issue is simple, this is the result that a person should get when he support Islam. Islam have prescribe everything in our way of live, even on the manner of how this country should be administered and how the constitution should be. We have a constitution that says, 'this constitution is supreme law of the land, other law against or contradictory, ultra vire, thus becoming null and void, Art. 4 of the Federal Constitution. We have in the constitution that says, this country is a parliamentary democracy country, where people are regarded as the most supreme in this country and no other.

We have Islam that says, that you are a muslim and that you are ought to obey all what has been compelled upon you, in which adherance will entitle you heaven but defiance will grant us hell. We have before us that we must in any way upheld what was given by our God through the devine revelation, al-Quran and through the hadith, conduct and teachings of the prophet, pbuh. Our religion teaches us that we must and under duty to protect Islam with our life, if that is necessary. Further Islam only recognise a country that upheld Allah as the most supreme not human or people, that a country must have Islamic law and all things done must in good faith promotes Islam.

When we say that UMNO people does not promote Islam that they are not really into recognising God's law nor that they want Allah to be the supreme authority in the constitution of this country, we can say that when you do this, you go to hell and when you agaist this you'll go to heaven. Al-Quran and Hadith is quite clear on this, so what is wrong by saying UMNO people go to hell?

Allowing Lina Joy to renounce her religion

This issue has been a hot issue for quite sometime. It is very easy to comprehend. We must note that cases of murtad causes a negative impact on the face of Islam, when people convert out of Islam, thus showing the diminishing credibility of faith in Islam. One's faith in Islam is the work of God, as only Him allows or rejects that someone should have this 'hidayah'. We must also remember that murtad is a serious crime in Islam, that it is punishable with death, upon the attemp to revive the faith through advise.

Given the situation and time that we are living in, do you think that we actually can kill those who are murtad, in this country? The answer is no. Another question is, if you don't allow a no more believer to be called as muslim, will that in fact and also to God imply that she is a muslim? Again, the answer is no.

Many people are not aware that by having alot of people who, as to the law, called muslim, but their hearts doesn't give a shit about Islam is something wrong, from logical sense I suppose. Even one of the Malaysian greatest mufti stated that, what is the point of keeping this non-believers as muslim, it will invite more problems and more damage on the face of Islam. If the image of Islam were damaged by the muslims itself, can you imagine the image of Islam where, those who do not believe are called as muslim.

Even, the Syariah Court, in the state of Ngerei Sembilan have granted many application to convert out of Islam, not on the basis that convertion out of Islam is terribly wrong, but to the point of not keeping these people who are faithless in Islam, to be called muslim. Given that we cannot kill this people, still we call them muslim, we are we going?

I will continue further...

Obama's speech at Cairo: Addressing the muslim world

It is indeed very interesting to hear what the President of United States have to say about muslims. It is also of no doubt that Obama have successfully used the emotions of the audiences, primarily muslims by reciting few verses in Holy Quran about the common principles of humanity.

I would say, for most of the speech, I couldn't agree more of what he have stated. But on few points, I am very sceptical of what he have stated. One of them is on Iran's right to use peaceful nuclear for energy. He repeatedly say what was always said by the previous President of United States of America, that if Iran comply with the non-poliferation treaty on usage of nuclear weapons, than it is their right to do so. To this point, any President of United Stated, never recognise that Iran is exactly complying with the treaty, the IAEA have conducted investigations and the result is only that Iran have indeed followed these rules. This has never been recognised and the question that we have to offer here is, why the US never attempted to recognise this finding that ultimately prove that they are doing it according to the agreement, which will conclude that Iran is execising their rights?

Another point here is, issue of religious freedom, it is very essential to have people of different religion to respect at one another, that is important, even Islam itself promotes that. But here when Obama said, that it must be a choice of a women to wear hijab, it is just not justified. Indeed, as stated by Obama, America is good at advocating human rights, as they themselves have prosecuted those who try to prevent a muslim women who choses to wear the hajib in America. But when it comes to islam there is no pick and choose, America may say that in democracy we may never pick and choose which to follow and what not, same with Islam, when you are a muslims, a women must cover what is expected to be covered, and this is compulsory, it must be adhered, and to impose law to compel such things is to me, very justified.

The solution that Obama suggested for the issue israeli settlements in Gaza and the Palestinian people right for an establishment of a nation, that Israeli to stop more settlement, and the palestinian people ceasing their attack on israeli citizens. He stated that the road map was clear to provide an end to this problem. But the grave inconclusiveness in respect of actions here is very doubtful, Israeli, through their prime Minister responded on the cease of settlements, is negative, if this does not happen, how does the Palestinian find a reason to stop their violence?

Another point on Obama's critic over use of aggression of the Palestinian people, he said that they will never win, as the world nowadays is not forged through coercion. This is so true when, a country is a position like Iran, where they are fighting for their rights, there is no necessity for them to go to war to have their right. But what happen in Palestine, is that day by day their territory is encroach upon, their citizens are chased away from their homes by the Israeli troops, as such their crisis is an invation to a should be sovereign nation. If America were to be in the position of the Palestinian people, can they be expected to use diplomacy for protection of their own citizens. Obama stated that it is his first duty as the President of United States to protect the citizen of America, America even go to war, to Iraq, admitted by Obama as a war of choice, as in Afganistan, war of necessity to protect their citizens. Look America have gone beyond what they are justified when protecting their citizen compared to what is currently done by the Palestinians.

Despite these disagreements, I would congratulate this President, as it is not easy for him to say what he have said, as all done in capacity of the President of United States. many implications fell upon him to bear, such their interest over the favour of the Jews, the citizens views on how islam be approached, and et cetera.