Morsi’s famous speech “One year is enough”

images

President of Egypt ousted a few weeks ago by a possible coup, either from the work of the army or the liberals then, a question arises, where all these Islamic organizations around the globe are expressing?

Morsi, or Muhamad Mursi, was the fifth Egyptian President, and the first as an elected member through a democratic election.

A Muslim Brotherhood and an Al Ikwan Muslimin’s party member. A party with a 84-year long history, the story of Hassan Al Bana, the hatred for Jews and the Western colonials and the love for Hitler.

Then, the credo of Allah is our objective, the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader, Jihad is our way, and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of our dreams.

Then comes the Palestinian, and all other good and bad in the history of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Then comes the jailbreak episode, in which he and his Ikwan Muslimin’s friends were asked how they escaped prison while in the custody.

All these enmeshed his memory. By then, in his last speech before the takeover by the military, he had said persistently, “Hey all of you, “One year is enough”.

There is not such a word in al Quran. The fact that he memorizes almost all of its verses he can only remember “one year is enough”.

He brings forth a voice of hatred among the liberals and the Christians alike. He moved to close down private TVs which spelled the anti-president propaganda, but allowed Brotherhood’s TV Channels to disperse anti-Islam.

He wrestles judicial institution, harassing judges who aren’t aligned to his Muslim Brotherhood. He appointed all senior and important posts in government with less experience Brotherhood’s members.

This is because he thought of winning more that 50% votes and as an elected president, he was entitled to threaten people who were opposing him.

And he can say one year is enough.

Do you think one year is truly enough?

You are talking about ruling nation of 84 million, diversity of people, weak, strong, rich, and poor.

Hadi Awang, I would urge you to read further on this person’s character to know why he was brought down and expelled.

DAP Christians are playfull, aren’t afraid of a full blown war from Muslims

We the Muslim have been made a scapegoat by DAP’s Christians in most aspects of our daily life. Never before we see such heinous acts from our fellow Christian community members causing disturbance in hearts and minds of Muslim in this country against the Christian community.

Hudud law and syaria rules are laughing matter, what more usage of the name of Allah which becomes a subject of playing ground for prejudice against Muslim.

At the height of power by the opposition parties, PAS and PKR, Dap’s Christians were playing fire against the Muslim by big-mouthing with a lot of slandering words and now when the power of the duo residing by lower supports from the grass root, we see a rise in objections from Muslims in this country for the unfaithful act against the people who in the first hand allow them to live in peace in this country. So it goes against Nurul Izah, seen as a scapegoat for the non-Muslim to annoy Muslim.

A small numbers of Christian but with big mouth will make them a subject for a constant provocative subordinate. We never had in any occasion in this country religion based clashes occurring which are not until now that we see a lot of hatred forums arising from the seeds grown by Christians DAP which, I am sure, will be the basis for future religious clashes happening in near future.

No one can say one religion is better than the other, especially true to the Christian minority living in a Muslim majority ruled country, like Malaysia. Other countries which have similar demographic details already have brutal damage arising from clashes from the need of either groups telling the other that their religion is always better in all aspects of life.

The spats arising from sharia ruling in Kelantan are becoming a laughing-stock to many non-Muslim. But the failure in planning by PAS government in initiating and implementing such rules in first place doesn’t make Islam a weak religion and shouldn’t become a subject for comparison between the religion.

We hope for peace and stability of the country, Christians or non-Muslim should respect each other’s religion and be mindful of the power within the majority of Malay Muslim. Bak kata perpatah”Sarang tebuan jangan di jolok”, so when it comes to religion even the weak, the ones who received constant bickering from you, will become very strong.  Be careful bro, I want to live in peace.

Christian pun tahu nilai baik dan buruk, Islam BN KO – entah dimana nilai kemanusian dalam kehidupan?

Jikalau sudah buat sesuatu yang salah, mereka terus insaf dan meminta maaf dengan berbagai cara.

Jasmine, 15, telah membenarkan boyfriend masuk rumah pada pukul 3 malam, dan bila ibu mereka mengetahui, mereka meminta Jasmine bertaubat, cara fahaman dialah.

Dia diarahkan supaya meletakkan satu papan tanda dijalan raya berhadapan rumah mereka dengan nota yang memberitahu orang ramai bahawa beliau telah melakukan satu kesilapan besar membenarkan seorang lelaki masuk rumah yaitu kesalahan terhadap agama mereka Christian, dan telah memalukan emak, bapak dan keluarga beliau, sampai petang hari.

Saya pun tidak tahu lah apakah nilai yang ada pada orang Islam jikalau sekiranya kita lihat vedio doa KO BN, walaupun mereka itu berkata bahawa perbuatan mereka adalah satu cara berkait dengan politik.

Jikalau ugama berkait dengan politik sekali pun, sebagai umat, adakah kita, umat Islam, seperti mereka di Kelantan itu, harus meninggalkan nilai murni beragama didalam mengejar poliik. Jadi politik apa kah itu,  jikalau nilai kemanusian dan agama tiada?. Jikalau tinggalkan nilai agama semasa mengejar politik, jadi politik yang dikejar itu ada nilai kah? 

Nampak dia orang tolak nilai kemanusian dan nilai murni agama. Jadi politik dia orang ni ada nilai kemanusian dan nilai suci murni Islam kah?

PS: Aku sekarang ni dah menulis semacam Nik Aziz dah. Hai, entahlah.

What’s the fuss, ECLM?

This small group of Christian of ECLM comprising some 3, 650 members is of  Tamil origin. It has 21 congregations nationwide and one of four Lutheran bodies in Malaysia.

The current bishop of the ECLM is the Rt Rev Solomon Rajah.

So it is just a small group of people of Malaysia but it has made big news yesterday.

What was written in Malaysiakini as quoted below:-

Dua pemimpin Kristian hari berkata laporan memetik kenyataan mereka dalam Mingguan Malaysia semalam, yang didakwa mengkritik ketua menteri Pulau Pinang, adalah “penipuan semata-mata”.

Biskop Gereja Lutheran Evangelical, Solomon Rajah dan bekas presiden Majlis Gereja Malaysia Thomas Philips hari ini berkata, kenyataan mereka dilaporkan di luar konteks dalam berita bertajuk ‘Gereja bukan tempat politik’.

Di lapurkan diluar kontek. So, what is the inside context?. Is it anything to do with religion or is it with politics?

The people have the right to know. We don’t want to be off-informed. For all keadilan of the people  and the right to know we want the truth.

We don’t want a repeat of Dr Mansor’s press conference in our state of Penang.

Can anyone please help to explain?

Cocky, Arrogant dan Tokong terdesak untuk PRU 13 – “Hey penganut Christian, tolong cari jalan gaduh dengan pemerintah Islam Malaysia”

Read more here.

If you’re so confused let read why Bible is of no use literally

By David Lose, Author, “Making Sense of Scripture”

I don’t read the Bible this way, and can’t imagine doing so. Here are four reasons why:

1) Nowhere does the Bible claim to be inerrant.

That’s right. At no place in its more than 30,000 verses does the Bible claim that it is factually accurate in terms of history, science, geography and all other matters (the technical definition of inerrancy). “Inerrant” itself is not a word found in the Bible or even known to Christian theologians for most of history. Rather, the word was coined in the middle of the 19th century as a defensive counter measure to the increased popularity of reading the Bible as one would other historical documents and the discovery of manifold internal inconsistencies and external inaccuracies.

The signature verse most literalists point to is 2 Timothy 3:16: “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” But one can confess that Scripture is inspired by God without resorting to claims that it contains no factual errors. We normally use the language of inspiration in just this way, describing a painting, a performance of Chopin, or even a good lecture as inspired. What binds the various and sundry texts found in the Bible together may be precisely that they are all inspired by the authors’ experience of the living God. There is no hint that the authors of the Bible imagined that what they were writing was somehow supernaturally guaranteed to be factually accurate. Rather, biblical authors wrote in order to be persuasive, hoping that by reading their witness you would come to believe as they did (see John 20:30-31).

2) Reading the Bible literally distorts its witness.

In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus drives the moneychangers out of the Jerusalem Temple in the days immediately preceding his crucifixion. In the Gospel of John, he does this near the beginning of his ministry, two years before his death. Similarly, in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the day Jesus is crucified is named as the Passover, while in John it is the Day of Preparation; that is, the day before Passover. Inconsistencies like this are part of what undermines claims to inerrancy of not just the gospels but also many other books in the Bible.

But if the primary intention of the biblical authors was not to record history — in the post-Enlightenment sense we take for granted today — but instead to confess faith, then these differences are not troubling inconsistencies to be reconciled but rather helpful clues to understanding the confession of the author. So rather than ask who got it right, we might instead wonder why John describes these events differently than the other Evangelists. As it turns out, both of these examples stem from John’s theological claim that Jesus is the new Passover lamb. For this reason, once he begins his ministry there is no need for Temple sacrifice, and he is crucified on the same day — indeed, at the exact hour — at which the Passover lambs were sacrificed on the Day of Preparation.

You can attempt to reconcile these and other discrepancies in the biblical witness, of course, and literalists have published books almost as long as the Bible attempting to do just that. In the case of the different timeframes for the cleansing of the Temple, for instance, one might suggest that Jesus did this twice, once at the beginning of his ministry and then again, for good measure, two years later. But far from “rescuing” the gospels, such an effort distorts their distinct confession of faith by rendering an account of Jesus’ life that none of the canonical accounts offers.

3) Most Christians across history have not read the Bible literally.

We tend to think of anything that is labeled “conservative” as being older and more traditional. Oddly enough, however, the doctrine of inerrancy that literalists aim to conserve is only about a century and a half old. Not only did many of the Christian Church’s brightest theologians not subscribe to anything like inerrancy, many adamantly opposed such a notion. For instance, St. Augustine — rarely described as a liberal — lived for many years at the margins of the church. An impediment to his conversation was precisely the notion that Christians took literally stories like that of Jonah spending three days in the belly of a whale. It was not until Ambrose, bishop of Milan, introduced Augustine to allegorical interpretation — that is, that stories can point metaphorically to spiritual realities rather than historical facts — that Augustine could contemplate taking the Bible (and those who read it!) seriously.

The point isn’t that pre-modern Christians approached the Bible with the same historically conscious skepticism of the Bible’s factual and scientific veracity that modern interpreters possess. Earlier Christians — along with almost everyone else who lived prior to the advent of modernity — simply didn’t imagine that for something to be true it had to be factually accurate, a concern only advanced after the Enlightenment. Hence, four gospels that diverged at different points, far from troubling earlier Christians, was instead seen as a faithful and fitting recognition that God’s truth as revealed in Jesus was too large to be contained by only one perspective. Flattening the biblical witness to conform to a reductionist understanding of truth only limits the power of Scripture. As Karl Barth, arguably the twentieth century’s greatest theologian, once said, “I take the Bible too seriously to read it literally.”

4) Reading the Bible literally undermines a chief confession of the Bible about God.

Read the Bible even for a little while and you’ll soon realize that most of the major characters are, shall we say, less than ideal. Abraham passes his wife off as his sister — twice! — in order to save his skin. Moses is a murderer. David sleeps around. Peter denies Jesus three times. Whatever their accomplishments, most of the “heroes of the faith” are complicated persons with feet of clay. And that’s the point: the God of the Bible regularly uses ordinary people to accomplish extraordinary things.

Why, then, treat the Bible itself differently? Rather than imagine that the Bible was also written by ordinary, fallible people, inerrantists have made the Bible an other-wordly, supernatural document that runs contrary to the biblical affirmation that God chooses ordinary vessels — “jars of clay,” the Apostle Paul calls them — to bear an extraordinary message. In fact, literalists unwittingly ascribe to the Bible the status of being “fully human and fully divine” that is normally reserved only for Jesus.