"You play football with your head, and your legs are there to help you."

I am devastated. The only comfort I managed to gather upon hearing the news whilst stuck in horrible traffic in heavy rain at the back of a relentless week, was that even though Johan Cruyff has left us mere mortals, his spirit will never leave us in our minds and hearts. His legacy will live on parallel with football as we know it, and encapsulates the essence of what makes the game so beautiful. The Quintessence of Football. 

If I wanted you to understand how important he is to football, I would've explained it better.

Football owes Johan Cruyff an immense debt, which unfortunately but truthfully, can never be repaid. The books remain unbalanced for eternity. And, similar to how these hypothetical books remain unbalanced, the respect, love and inspiration I derive from the great man himself will never truly be explained. Mere words cannot express these emotions with any fulfilling conviction.

I maintain that Johan Cruyff is the greatest thing to happen to football and that he is one of the greatest player there ever was or will be. No one man has contributed more to football as both player and manager as he has. He's revolutionised the sport, changed it for the better, forever. Without Cruyff, the Xavis and Iniestas of this world wouldn't exist. Totaal Voetbal, Tiki Taka and the eponymous Cruyff Turn are but three examples of an everlasting legacy that we will all remember, and an impact on football that will never be repeated. This will live on through generations and will not fade to the savages of time.

In a way, he's probably immortal.

Thank you, Johan.

Bombing Syria Is Not The Answer To Defeating The Islamic State

        The #SyriaVote took place in The House Of Commons earlier today and the motion was approved by British lawmakers to proceed with airstrikes against ISIS in Syria. Merely hours after the House voted in favour of bombing ISIS stronghold, British RAF Tornado fighter jets were deployed to conduct strikes, as confirmed by Britain's Ministry Of Defence. In light of recent events in Paris, once again the West has taken steps that incur backlash and proves the link between Western military intervention in the Middle East and terror attacks in the West. It is glaringly evident to anyone with open eyes that violence begets violence, yet somehow for the last decade most of us decided not to see.

        Often we forget the irrefutable fact that Western intervention in Iraq post-9/11 was what fuelled extremism and radicalisation and hence, the birth of ISIS (formerly knows as AQI). Think about 9/11. Al-Qaeda said vaguely in the propaganda how the West "are the crusaders, and we want to get you out of here". But the real strategy behind the attacks wasn't revealed for a few years, and they came from internal al-Qaeda memoranda that surfaced. In the aftermath of 9/11, they didn't understand then that Al-Qaeda was dearly hoping for a large military war deployment so that it could bog them down and win the propaganda war. The challenge, here, for any government responding to this kind of stuff is to wait until you know exactly what your enemy is trying to provoke you to do. They don't know yet why ISIS are doing these atrocities, and now they risk of making some major blunders that play straight into their enemy's hands. The geopolitical situation entangled in the Middle East is a vastly complicated, delicate matter than needs light threading for effective efforts to bear fruitful. 

        The case has not been adequately made that extending air strikes will defeat ISIS. A strategy for the defeat of ISIS depends crucially on ground troops and a political settlement, or the path towards a political settlement. That is because ISIS cannot be defeated from the air alone, as even supporters of air strikes acknowledge, and because ISIS’s success depends on the vacuum created from a multi-sided civil war (which again, was a direct effect of Western occupation). Neither an explanation of who the ground troops will be, nor the political settlement they are seeking in Syria, has been provided by any Western government. They are going ahead without an adequate road-map or a clear strategy. ISIS is a network, not simply an organisation with a headquarters. What is more, nearly 3000 coalition air strikes have already been aimed at Syria and the case for what British air strikes will add is weak. ISIS can only be defeated in Syria with an effective and comprehensive plan. That is what is required and the proposition fails to meet that test. Whats even more disgraceful of supporting airstrikes with no clear plan is systematically ignoring the calls of the innocents that are going to be bombed. Terrorists bombed innocent civilians in Paris, now the West retaliates by bombing innocent civilians in Syria. Two sides of a coin? They purposely avoid the main killer that have slaughtered far greater number of people than ISIS have -- Bashar Assad. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind that bombing ISIS will result in an upsurge of other people in the region to get rid of them. The only stance taken by the West  has been cowardly, gesture politics. Sending drones and fighter jets conducting airstrikes only result in collateral damage; murdering countless innocent people including women and children.

        Its a bit outrageous how hypocritical the British government is acting in fighting ISIS. Any public utterance of "foreign policy" has and will evoke outrage from politicians and pundits. The rise of the Islamic State is from the deliberate policies and actions undertaken by the United States and its allies. The West's disastrous wars have bred and increased, not diminished, the threats to international security. British government officials were quick to comment that Putin has incited terrorist incident on Russian civilians following the downing of Russian MetroJet airliner in Egypt on 31 October, killing 224 civilians. Now compare and contrast their remarks about Flight 9268 with their reaction to the Paris attacks. Rather than accusing President Hollande of inciting terrorism against the people of France, or calling the atrocious attack as a direct consequence of French involvement in Syria, they have taken aim at anyone who draws attention to the country's military intervention in Muslim-majority countries.

        If ISIS did bring down the airliner, then of course it would be madness to pretend it wasn't linked to Putin's military campaign on behalf of the dictator in Damascus. Yet it would be equally insane to pretend the horror in Paris had nothing at all to do with France's military involvement in the Middle East and west Africa. Blaming terrorism solely on religious ideology or medieval mindset is intellectually lazy, short sighted, self serving, and plainly wrong. Generalising the entire instability and conflict of the region is down to the Sunni-Shia divide is equally ridiculous and factually wrong. Countless worldwide Muslim scholars of every denomination have condemned violence against civilians, citing Quranic verses and Hadith from the Prophet. Scripture reading, of any faith, must be done with proper commentary and background study from scholars and learned people of the said faith. But ISIS does not do this. Its members search for text snippets that support their argument, claim that these fragments are reliable even if they are not, and disregard all contrary evidence -- not to mention Islam's vast and varied intellectual and legal tradition. Their so called prophetic methodology is nothing more than cherry-picking what they like and ignoring what they don't.

        The reality is, understanding political violence requires the understanding of political grievance. The inconvenient truth is that geopolitics is governed as much as physics is  by Newton's Third Law of Motion: "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." The CIA, back in the 1950s, coined a term "blowback" to describe the unintended negative consequences for US civilians of US military operations abroad. Today, when it comes to Russia, their official enemy, the British government somehow understand and embraces the concept of blowback. When it comes to their own country, the cries of innocent women and children begging for the bombings to be stopped has fallen upon deaf ears. Yes there is no grievance on earth that can alleviate and justify the slaughtering of people in Paris, Syria, or anywhere else in the world. And yes the savagery of ISIS is perhaps unparalleled in modern history. But it did not emerge out of nowhere, as the US President Barack Obama said himself, ISIS "grew out of our invasion" of Iraq. 

        Stupidly, the United States and its allies have averted their gaze from the glaringly evident and pretend that their enemies (Russians, Iranians, Chinese) are attacked for their policies while themselves, the liberal democracies (US, Britain, France) are attacked solely for their principles. This is the simplistic geopolitical fantasy that the likes of David Cameron tell themselves. It gives them solace during times of weakness and vulnerability, but it does nothing to stop the next terror attack.

Excuses For Gaza War Crimes

You've got to hand it to Israeli spinners like Mark Regev. They are masters of PR. In fact, as the Independent's Patrick Cockburn revealed over the weekend, "the playbook they are using is a professional, well-researched and confidential study on how to influence the media and public opinion in America and Europe".

Let's be clear: I'm no fan of Hamas, a brutal and anti-Semitic group which has been accused by Amnesty International and other NGOs of human rights abuses against the people of Gaza and of war crimes against the people of Israel. Firing rockets into civilian areas isn't justified under international law, even if it is framed as part of a (legitimate) struggle against foreign military occupation.

Having said that, however, in recent weeks we've supporters of Israel's latest assault on Gaza on radio and on Twitter and I've been astonished not just by the sheer number of fact-free claims made by those supporters, but also by their confidence, slickness and sheer message discipline. According to the pro-Israel, pro-IDF crowd, Hamas is to blame for everything.

This, of course, is utter nonsense. To quote the late US senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts."

So, in a Moynihanian spirit, here are fact-filled, evidence-based rebuttals to the 11 main myths, half-truths and self-serving 'talking points' that are repeatedly pushed by various Israeli spokespersons, both on the airwaves and on social media.

1) The Gaza Strip isn't occupied by Israel

Boston Globe: "Israeli-imposed buffer zones.. now absorb nearly 14 percent of Gaza's total land and at least 48 percent of total arable land. Similarly, the sea buffer zone covers 85 percent of the maritime area promised to Palestinians in the Oslo Accords, reducing 20 nautical miles to three." Human Rights Watch: "Israel also continues to control the population registry for residents of the Gaza Strip, years after it withdrew its ground forces and settlements there." B'Tselem, 2013: "Israel continues to maintain exclusive control of Gaza's airspace and the territorial waters, just as it has since it occupied the Gaza Strip in 1967."

2) Israel wants a ceasefire but Hamas doesn't

Al Jazeera: "Meshaal said Hamas wants the 'aggression to stop tomorrow, today, or even this minute. But [Israel must] lift the blockade with guarantees and not as a promise for future negotiations'. He added 'we will not shut the door in the face of any humanitarian ceasefire backed by a real aid programme'." Jerusalem Post: "One day after an Egyptian-brokered cease-fire accepted by Israel, but rejected by Hamas, fell through, the terrorist organization proposed a 10-year end to hostilities in return for its conditions being met by Israel, Channel 2 reported Wednesday.. Hamas's conditions were the release of re-arrested Palestinian prisoners who were let go in the Schalit deal, the opening of Gaza-Israel border crossings in order to allow citizens and goods to pass through, and international supervision of the Gazan seaport in place of the current Israeli blockade." BBC: "Israel's security cabinet has rejected a week-long Gaza ceasefire proposal put forward by US Secretary of State John Kerry 'as it stands'."

3) Israel, unlike Hamas, doesn't deliberately target civilians

The Guardian: "It was there that the second [Israeli] shell hit the beach, those firing apparently adjusting their fire to target the fleeing survivors. As it exploded, journalists standing by the terrace wall shouted: 'They are only children.'" UN high commissioner for human rights Navi Pillay: "A number of incidents, along with the high number of civilian deaths, belies the [Israeli] claim that all necessary precautions are being taken to protect civilian lives." United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, 2009: "The tactics used by the Israeli armed forces in the Gaza offensive are consistent with previous practices, most recently during the Lebanon war in 2006. A concept known as the Dahiya doctrine emerged then, involving the application of disproportionate force and the causing of great damage and destruction to civilian property and infrastructure, and suffering to civilian populations. The Mission concludes from a review of the facts on the ground that it.. appears to have been precisely what was put into practice."

4) Only Hamas is guilty of war crimes, not Israel

Human Rights Watch: "Israeli forces may also have knowingly or recklessly attacked people who were clearly civilians, such as young boys, and civilian structures, including a hospital - laws-of-war violations that are indicative of war crimes."Amnesty International: "Deliberately attacking a civilian home is a war crime, and the overwhelming scale of destruction of civilian homes, in some cases with entire families inside them, points to a distressing pattern of repeated violations of the laws of war."

5) Hamas use the civilians of Gaza as 'human shields'

Jeremy Bowen, BBC Middle East editor: "I saw no evidence during my week in Gaza of Israel's accusation that Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields." The Guardian: "In the past week, the Guardian has seen large numbers of people fleeing different neighbourhoods.. and no evidence that Hamas had compelled them to stay." The Independent: "Some Gazans have admitted that they were afraid of criticizing Hamas, but none have said they had been forced by the organisation to stay in places of danger and become unwilling human-shields." Reuters, 2013: "A United Nations human rights body accused Israeli forces on Thursday of mistreating Palestinian children, including by torturing those in custody and using others as human shields."

6) This current Gaza conflict began with Hamas rocket fire on 30 June 2014
Times of Israel: "Hamas operatives were behind a large volley of rockets which slammed into Israel Monday morning, the first time in years the Islamist group has directly challenged the Jewish state, according to Israeli defense officials.. The security sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, assessed that Hamas hadprobably launched the barrage in revenge for an Israeli airstrike several hours earlier which killed one person and injured three more.. Hamas hasn't fired rockets into Israel since Operation Pillar of Defense ended in November 2012." The Nation: "During ten days of Operation Brother's Keeper in the West Bank [before the start of the Gaza conflict], Israel arrested approximately 800 Palestinians without charge or trial, killed nine civilians and raided nearly 1,300 residential, commercial and public buildings. Its military operation targeted Hamas members released during the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange in 2011."

7) Hamas has never stopped firing rockets into Israel

Jewish Daily Forward: "Hamas hadn't fired a single rocket since [2012 Gaza conflict], and had largely suppressed fire by smaller jihadi groups. Rocket firings, averaging 240 per month in 2007, dropped to five per month in 2013." International Crisis Group: "Fewer rockets were fired from Gaza in 2013 than in any year since 2001, and nearly all those that were fired between the November 2012 ceasefire and the current crisis were launched by groups other than Hamas; the Israeli security establishment testified to the aggressive anti-rocket efforts made by the new police force Hamas established specifically for that purpose.. As Israel (and Egypt) rolled back the 2012 understandings - some of which were implemented spottily at best - so too did Hamas roll back its anti rocket efforts."

8) Hamas provoked Israel by kidnapping and killing three Israeli teenagers

Jewish Daily Forward: "The [Israeli] government had known almost from the beginning that the boys were dead. It maintained the fiction that it hoped to find them alive as a pretext to dismantle Hamas' West Bank operations.. Nor was that the only fib. It was clear from the beginning that the kidnappers weren't acting on orders from Hamas leadership in Gaza or Damascus. Hamas' Hebron branch -- more a crime family than a clandestine organization -- had a history of acting without the leaders' knowledge, sometimes against their interests." BBC correspondent Jon Donnison: "Israeli police MickeyRosenfeld tells me men who killed 3 Israeli teens def lone cell, hamas affiliated but not operating under leadership.. Seems to contradict the line from Netanyahu government."

9) Hamas rule, not Israel's blockade, is to blame for the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip

US State Department cable: "Israeli officials have confirmed to Embassy officials on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis.. Israeli officials have confirmed.. on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge." The Guardian: "The Israeli military made precise calculations of Gaza's daily calorie needs to avoid malnutrition during a blockade imposed on the Palestinian territory between 2007 and mid-2010, according to files the defence ministry released on Wednesday under a court order.. The Israeli advocacy group Gisha.. waged a long court battle to release the document. Its members say Israel calculated the calorie needs for Gaza's population so as to restrict the quantity of food it allowed in."

10) The Israeli government, unlike Hamas, wants a two-state solution

Times of Israel: "[Netanyahu] made explicitly clear that he could never, ever, countenance a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank.. Amid the current conflict, he elaborated, 'I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.'"

11) All serious analysts agree it was Hamas, and not Israel, that started this current conflict

Nathan Thrall, senior Mid East analyst at the International Crisis Group, writing in the New York Times: "The current escalation in Gaza is a direct result of the choice by Israel and the West to obstruct the implementation of the April 2014 Palestinian reconciliation agreement." Henry Siegman, former national director, American Jewish Congress, writing for Politico: "Israel's assault on Gaza.. was not triggered by Hamas' rockets directed at Israel but by Israel's determination to bring down the Palestinian unity government that was formed in early June, even though that government was committed to honoring all of the conditions imposed by the international community for recognition of its legitimacy."

Yusuf Qaradawi and Applying The Shariah Law - reflection for MalaysianMuslims

The talk about applying Shariah is widely debated throughout the nation at the moment. A majority of us have a distorted view on the Shariah Law. Even we as Muslims have not fully understood the framework and prerequisite of this divine law, let alone our non-Muslim friends.

Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi recently devoted an entire interview (use Google Translate) on Al Jazeera TV to this important subject. I would like to summarize what Dr. Qaradawi said, and then add a few comments. For those looking for a quick thirty-second read, I apologize. Dr. Qaradawi is a significant scholar in the Sunni Muslim world, and I want to accurately present what he said and believes. 

Moderator Uthman began by quoting from the surah Talaq (Divorce), "These are the Hudud, the set limits of Allah, and anyone who transgresses them harms himself (Quran 65:1). He then posed his first set of questions. Why are people today calling for the application of Shariah? What does that mean? Are the corporal and capital punishments in Shariah relevant today? Can Shariah be applied in Western countries? 

For 13 centuries, Dr. Qaradawi responded, Muslims were ruled only by Shariah which can be defined as the judgments of Allah and his Prophet as laid down in the Quran and the Sunnah (the life and teaching of Muhammad). Muftis, judges, and jurists all based their rulings on Shariah. This only changed when 19th century Imperialists entered Muslim countries and replaced Shariah with European law. Since then, Muslim reformers have been calling for the restoration of Shariah. This is to be expected, because Muslims must be governed by the laws that came down from Allah. It is only natural that people today are calling for a return to the rule of Shariah, and we are among those people. 

The application of Shariah, however, must be governed by Ijtihad, said Dr Qaradawi, or creative thought, to determine how it can be enforced today. It would not be helpful to simply take rulings from ancient texts and apply them carte blanche to modern societies. Just as the Ulama, or Muslims scholars, used Ijtihad in the past to determine how to apply Shariah, scholars today must do the same. Shariah is applicable for all societies throughout all time, but the Ulama must engage in Ijtihad to determine exactly how to apply it today. Most Muslim countries today are governed by civil law. This is often compatible with Shariah, with the main difference being that Shariah incorporates the corporal and capital punishments represented by Qisas and Hudud. Qisas is the element of recompense, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and Hudud refers to the limits determined by Allah beyond which which physical punishment is required.

Shariah, continued Dr. Qaradawi, cannot be divided up into sections with some accepted and others rejected. If we are going to apply Sharia, we must apply it all. The controversial elements of Shariah, those of Qisas and Hudud, are contained in the final revelations of Allah to his Prophet (comment: the later surahs of the Quran, in Islamic theology, are considered the most important because many of the earlier surahs were abrogated or cancelled out by later revelations). 

There are five rulings in the Quran that include corporal and capital punishment, including one for Qisas and four for Hudud. The text about Qisas is in Baqarah (Quran 2:178), which stipulates that a murderer is to be killed unless the family of the victim is willing to accept blood-money instead of the life of the killer. 

The four rulings for Hudud are sex between unmarried people, falsely accusing women of immorality, opposing Allah and his Prophet, and theft. Surah Nur (Quran 24:2) states that unmarried people who engage in sexual activity, or Zina, are each to be flogged 100 times. The same surah (Quran 24:4) declares that men who falsely accuse chaste women of immorality are to be flogged 80 times. Surah Maidah rules that those who "wage war against Allah and his messenger and do mischief in the land" (Quran 5:33) are to have their hands and feet cut off from opposite sides. The final Quranic ruling, which is from the same chapter, states that both male and female thieves are to have their right hands amputated (Quran 5:38). 

These few verses, however, represent only a small part of Shariah. There are thousands of verses in the Quran that lay out the way Allah commands people to live (comment: the literal meaning of Shariah is "the path Allah intends people to follow"). Shariah includes religious, civil, moral, cultural, and commercial rulings. It governs personal, family, national, and international relations. All of these are included under the rubric of "Shariah Law". 

At this point in the interview, a viewer noted that videos splashed across Youtube and the Internet showing hands and heads flying off were giving "enemies of Islam" ammunition to attack Allah's religion. Isn't there a problem, the viewer asked, with the literal application of the Hudud of Islam? 

The problem, replied Sheikh Qaradawi, is that the Hudud are being enforced before the conditions for their application are met. The first goal of Muslims is to establish true Islam, and then they can apply Shariah with the Hudud. Muhammad SAW fully established Islam in Medinah, with its rules for social and economic justice, before ruling the hands of thieves were to be cut off. The Quran states in 2:43 that "prayers are to be conducted and charity is to be given" in the Muslim society, and this refers to establishing true Islam. If this is done in equity, with money taken from the rich and given to the poor, and opportunities for employment given to all, there will be no need for the thief to steal. When a wealthy merchant informed the Caliph Umar that he wanted to cut off the hand of his slave because the slave had stolen his camel, Umar replied, "Had you properly fed and cared for your slave, he would not have needed to steal your camel. Go and meet his needs as his master, or I'll cut off your hand!" Islamic justice must first be established in Muslim countries, and then the Hudud can be applied. 

Dr. Qaradawi followed this with an anecdote from an eighth century scholar in Basra, Iraq, named Imam Hasan al-Basri. During one of Hasan's sermons, a clamor arose in the street. When Hasan asked what the noise was about, he was informed that a thief had been arrested. Hasan commented, "So the thief who steals secretly (the government official) has arrested the thief who stole openly." Corrupt businessmen today, noted Qaradawi, who are close to Arab rulers and who steal millions from the national treasury are not prosecuted, whereas an unemployed laborer who steals to feed his family is punished. 

It is also important, added Shaykh Qaradawi, to be sure that the accused really is guilty before applying the punishments of Hudud. For the ruler to err by granting pardon to a guilty man is better than his erring by punishing a man who was in fact innocent.

"That all sounds fine," responded moderator Uthman, "But are Shariah and the Hudud really applicable in the 21st century?" 

Scholars have argued across the centuries, replied Dr. Qaradawi, whether Allah ordained the Hudud as a deterrent to crime or a purification for crimes committed. In reality they are both. They are a purification and a motivation for the individual who has been punished not to repeat his crime, and they provide a deterrent to others who see the severe punishment meted out upon the criminal. Some people argue that the Hudud of Shariha are overly severe, but what is the alternative? The alternative in civil law is imprisonment, but in reality prison is neither a deterrent nor a punishment. Many thieves who go to prison are released only to repeat their crimes. Even worse, they meet criminals in prison who teach them to become experts in crime. The individual with a high school education in crime gets his BA in prison, and the criminal with a BA gets his PhD! They meet people in prison with 50 years of criminal experience, and learn all the tricks of the trade. The thief who goes to prison because he stole a sheep learns how to steal the whole herd. 

The Islamic law of corporal punishment is more severe, but more effective. The basic principle is that the individual must know that if he or she commits the crime the punishment will follow. The Caliph Umar said, "The punishment is only to be given to the person who knew it was coming." If the society does not know the difference between what is Halal and Haram (right and wrong) in Islam, society must be taught. 

Many people do not understand the principle behind the Hudud. They think, for example, that a man who commits fornication should be punished. But Shariah states that he is only to be punished if he does this flagrantly and openly with four witnesses. If a man commits fornication privately and seeks Allah's forgiveness, he does not need to be punished. But if there are four witnesses who testify before a judge that the man committed fornication, he is to be lashed. This is the punishment for a man who has sex with an unmarried woman; if she is married and there are four witnesses they are to be stoned to death. 

When Islam has been established in the society, the rules of Hudud are to be strictly enforced. After the Prophet established Islam in Arabia, he commanded that a woman from the Beni Makhzum tribe should have her hand cut off because she had stolen. Her tribe sent spokesman Usamah bin Zayid to plead for mercy for her. Muhammad became angry and demanded, "Are you asking me not to apply the punishment that Allah has commanded? Are we to perish like those before us, who punished only the weak and did not punish the strong? I swear by Allah that if my own daughter Fatimah committed theft, I myself would cut off her hand."

The moderator next asked if the rulings for Hudud were only in the Quran, or were also found in other sources. Dr. Qaradawi replied that many were also located in the Hadith and the Sunnah, the sayings and life examples of Muhammad. The difference is that punishments not specified in the Quran are open to Ijtihad. As an example, the Quran forbids the drinking of alcohol, but does not specify the punishment for imbibing. Some scholars ruled that the punishment for drinking alcohol was 80 lashes, but others said 60 and still others 40. Some scholars, on the other hand, believe that the punishment for drinking alcohol should be merely a slap or a fine.

Capital punishment for the crime of Ridda, or leaving Islam, is also specified not in the Quran but in the Sunnah. Many people know the Hadith narrated by Ikrima, "The Prophet said, If a Muslim leaves Islam, kill him," but there are many similar Hadiths. Abdallah narrated, "The blood of a Muslim can only be shed in three cases: if they commit murder, adultery, or leave Islam." 

Abu Musa recounted that after Muhammad sent him to Yemen as a governor, the Prophet sent Muadh bin Jabal to assist him in his duties. As Muadh rode into Abu Musa's court, he saw a man bound hand and foot as a prisoner. Before Muadh dismounted from his horse, he inquired why the man was bound and was informed he was a Jew who had become a Muslim and then left Islam. Muadh refused to get off his horse until the man was killed, saying, "I will not sit with you until he is killed in accordance with the decree of Allah and his Apostle." Only after he was killed would Muadh dismount and sit with Abu Musa.

The Quran also indicates the death penalty is to be applied for those who leave Islam, said Dr. Qaradawi. Surah Maidah (Quran 5:54) says that if Muslims leave Islam, Allah himself will bring people to fight against them. The meaning of this verse is that Ridda is to be resisted in the strongest possible terms, especially when it is a community or society that is turning away from Islam.

The interview concluded with Dr. Qaradawi giving his opinion on various details of Hudud; should the hand of a thief be cut off at the wrist or the elbow? Dr. Qaradawi says it is the wrist. 



Personal Comments (not from interview): 

 Media commentators have recently mocked the voters of Oklahoma for voting not to apply Shariah law in any form in their state. In the context of how Dr. Yusuf Qaradawi interprets Islam and Sharia, my opinion is that those voters probably made a pretty good choice. 

See, a lot of Malaysians, especially the conservative Muslims, misunderstand when some Muslims disagree with the implementation of Shariah law in Malaysia. They think that we disagree with it, or even worse, disbelieve in Allah’s divinity. Most of the time, however, this is not the case. A lot of Muslims (me included) disagree with the implementation of Shariah law, not the law itself, because we don’t trust people, not because we don’t trust in Islam. We disagree in fear that Allah’s divine law will be manipulated by the evil, unjust, corrupted and tyrannical to achieve their own selfish agendas. We disagree in fear that it will taint the justice that it was supposed to serve. When a divine law is being handled by petty human beings like ourselves, injustice is bound to happen.

Many in favour of the implementation of the law will argue saying “It’s Allah’s law. We have to do it no matter what. It is the right thing to do and Allah will eventually show the way.” The simplest way to test this hypothesis is to look at other Muslim countries that abide by the Islamic criminal jurisprudence and ask yourself, “How do they treat their women, children and minorities? Are they treated justly and fairly?” You’d find the answer to be a resounding “No”. Despite their status as an Islamic country, many states that implement Shariah law are listed some of the most corrupt states in the world. If this is not enough to show you the damage that can be done by implementing the law, I don’t know what will. 

To those of you who admire Brunei for implementing the Shariah Law, here's a bit of info you might have not crossed over. The Sultan is exempted from the Law and have absolute power to amend their Constitution at his pleasure. Do you really believe this is what our religion is trying to instill? 

To conclude this, I'd like to quote Dr Qaradawi directly from this interview:

“Preserving the people’s freedom is more important than setting up a system of Shariah (Islamic law), even though freedom remains part and parcel of Shariah..”

Allah's law may be perfect. But the men running the show all have their self interests at heart.

-Ariff Alyahya

It is capitalism, not democracy, that the Arab world needs most

By Fraser Nelson

To watch events in Egypt is like seeing a videotape of the Arab Spring being played backwards. The ballot box has been kicked away, the constitution torn up, the military has announced the name of a puppet president – and crowds assemble in Tahrir Square to go wild with joy. The Saudi Arabian monarchy, which was so nervous two years ago, has telegrammed its congratulations to Cairo’s generals. To the delight of autocrats everywhere, Egypt’s brief experiment with democracy seems to have ended in embarrassing failure.

Normally, Western leaders would be lining up to deplore a coup d’etat, but yesterday even William Hague seemed lost for words. As a rule of thumb, he says, Britain prefers civilian rule. But when asked to condemn the Cairo coup, he declined. The Arab world’s Twitter accounts, once full of revolutionary optimism, have turned into a depository of despair. “Egypt has taught me that democracy is a lie and an elected president is a myth,” wrote Ahmed al-Husseini, a Sunni preacher from Bahrain. “No parliament, no elections, no ballot boxes. All lies.”

He has a point. Egypt’s election turned out to be like an Irish EU referendum: voters could give any answer they liked, as long as it was the right one. The army didn’t like how things were going, so it has asked voters to choose again. While the West was celebrating Egypt joining the comity of democratic nations, Egyptians themselves were sliding into an economic abyss, with terrifying shortages of fuel, food and security. Sectarian violence has been thrown into the mix, with persecution of the Coptic Christians followed by Sunni v Shia strife. The murder rate trebled. Things were falling apart, which is why the generals were welcomed back.

But the Arab Spring was a demand for freedom, not necessarily democracy – and the distinction between the two is crucial. Take, for example, the case of Mohammed Bouazizi, who started this chain of events by burning himself alive on a Tunisian street market two years ago. As his family attest, he had no interest in politics. The freedom he wanted was the right to buy and sell, and to build his business without having to pay bribes to the police or fear having his goods confiscated at random. If he was a martyr to anything, it was to capitalism.

All this has been established by Hernando de Soto, a Peruvian economist who travelled to Egypt to investigate the causes of the Arab Spring. His team of researchers found that Bouazizi had inspired 60 similar cases of self-immolation, including five in Egypt, almost all of which had been overlooked by the press. The narrative of a 1989-style revolution in hope of regime change seemed so compelling to foreigners that there was little appetite for further explanation. But de Soto’s team tracked down those who survived their suicide attempts, and the bereaved families. Time and again, they found the same story: this was a protest for the basic freedom to own and acquire ras el mel, or capital.

Bouazizi killed himself after police confiscated all his fruit and a pair of second-hand electronic scales. This was all he had. He was a gifted trader; he had hoped to save enough money to buy a car and grow his business. On the face of it, losing some fruit and a £100 pair of scales seems like an odd basis for suicide. But having made enemies of the police, Bouazizi realised he would not be allowed to trade again. His family say he felt his life had ended and that, if he died for any cause, it should be that the poor should be able to buy and sell.

For most of the developing world, no such right exists. In theory, everyone is protected by law. But in practice, the process of acquiring a legal licence is so riddled with bribery and bureaucracy that only a small minority can afford to go through with it. To de Soto, this explains much of world poverty. Step out of the door of the Nile Hilton, he says, and you are not leaving behind the world of internet, ice machines and antibiotics. The poor have access to all of these things if they really want it. What you are leaving behind is the world of legally enforceable transactions of property rights. These traders do not really break the law – the law breaks them.

Take Fadoua Laroui, a Moroccan mother, whose suicide was filmed. She explained her reasons before setting herself alight. “I am going to immolate myself,” she said. “I am doing this to protest against hogra and economic exclusion.” Hogra means contempt towards small traders, the contempt which Bouazizi was shown by the police. A similar story was told by the survivors, and the relatives of the deceased. As Bouazizi’s brother explained to de Soto: “People like Mohammed are concerned with doing business. They don’t understand anything about politics.”

Technically, the law covers everyone. But under Hosni Mubarak, for example, opening a small bakery in Cairo took more than 500 days of bureaucracy. To open a business in Egypt means dealing with 29 government agencies. The same story is true throughout the region: the average Arab needs to present four dozen documents and endure two years of red tape to become the legal owner of land or business. If you don’t have the time or money for this, you are condemned to life in the black market: no matter how good you are, you will never trade your way out of poverty. Arabs are so angry about this that they are burning themselves alive.

William Hague said yesterday that Egyptians want the freedom to express their views and choose their governments. Stability, he said, “comes from democratic institutions”. Yet there has been depressingly little evidence of this stability in democratic Egypt – as the Saudis are gleefully pointing out. This sets a terrible example to other fledgling democracies: that if things get tough, the army can eject the government and start again. Whoever follows Mohammed Morsi as president will know that, in effect, he serves at the pleasure of the military.

A few weeks ago, de Soto told the US Congress that the West has fundamentally misread the Arab Spring and is missing a massive opportunity. Bouazizi, and the five Egyptians who self-immolated, spoke for 380 million Arabs who lack property rights or any legal protection. This applies to Britain: if we were to become champions of these people, and demand the extension of property rights in return for our foreign aid, it could be the most effective anti-poverty strategy ever devised. And it might make us millions of new friends in the Arab world.

This is not a new idea, but the revival of an old one. As Margaret Thatcher once put it, “being democratic is not enough – a majority cannot turn what is wrong into right”. Freedom, she said, depends on the strength of the institutions: law and order, a free press, the police and an army that serves the government rather than supervises it. History is proving her right – in Russia, Afghanistan, Iraq and now in Egypt. The façade of democracy can be horribly deceptive; it is the strength of institutions that decides if nations rise or fall.

- Taken from The Telegraph, written by Fraser Nelson (author of The Spectator)

Football 101: Breaking the transition spell.

One of the many trials of being a football fan is that you have to endure whatever garbage your team churns out and accept it as part of the emotional contract you have drawn up with your club. You must persist through the torture, unable to leave your seat for an early train home or switch the channel on your television to escape from the drudgery. 

With the end of the 2012/13 campaign a matter of weeks away, Chelsea are approaching a crossroad in terms of their immediate future. 

How they finish this campaign will obviously have a huge bearing on their summer activity with a new manager on Roman Abramovich's shopping list along with a few new faces to continue the development of the first-team squad. In that regard, Champions League qualification is essential. After all, someone as big as Jose Mourinho that sits on top of the managerial tree simply does not do the Europa League. That competition is left for those seeking to forge a reputation (see Andre Villas-Boas) or those trying to restore one (see Rafael Benitez). The Champions League is where it's at and a failure to return among Europe's elite would bring significant repercussions on the club.

The last two campaigns have been designated as being part of the 'transition' between the old team and the next generation and as a result it has brought a scattergun array of highs and lows. For all the sixth-place finishes, provocative managerial appointments and home defeats to QPR, there have also been the victories in the Champions League and FA Cup as well as the arrival of Eden Hazard and Oscar's world-class talents. These peaks and troughs are part of a transition - even Sir Alex Ferguson occasionally go a season without a trophy – though one thing that must be avoided is allowing bloody mindedness to ensure that the club is constantly in the midst of such a period. In other words, Chelsea cannot be allowed to turn into Arsenal.

With Abramovich's desire to see Stamford Bridge illuminated with skillful football in the image of Barcelona, there has been a slight loss of identity; the same identity that brought the club three Premier League titles, four FA Cups, two League Cups and, of course, the European Cup. The ideal scenario is for the team to remain successful while serving up the type of flare to impress fans and neutrals. The problem with that – as we have seen at the Emirates – is that often the emphasis can weigh too heavily on the side of style at the expense of substance.

Beautiful football is worthless unless it is converted into silverware. If you think this is questionable, consider that Pep Guardiola – while still manager of Barcelona – conceded that he only instructed his team to play in their distinctive 'tiki-taka' style because it won football matches. Had it not served that fundamental purpose he would have sought another route to glory. 




Anyway, it is believed Petr Cech has become a target for Arsene Wenger as the Gunners plan to bolster their goalkeeping ranks. I for once, find this unbelievably hilarious. Why would Cech ever leave Chelsea? And if he did, why would he ever join.... Arsenal? In fact, who would want to join Arsenal? Lol. Yes offense.



What Chelsea need to take on board is that aesthetics must not take precedence over results. Arsenal have suffered through Arsene Wenger's fanatical desire to conquer the pace and physicality of English football with his cast of young players while simultaneously proving to his free-spending rivals that it can be done through small purchases rather than with the help of a bulging wallet. It hasn't worked. Arsenal have not even got close to the team they used to be and their stagnation should be a salutary lesson to everybody at Stamford Bridge that compromising success comes at a price. 

Another season of turbulence will only confirm the club as a madhouse and one that nobody with serious ambitions would be willing to join. It would undermine any chances of attaining major silverware and as a consequence, could persuade the likes of Hazard and Juan Mata that their futures lie elsewhere despite the money on offer.

The Gunner's trophy drought has seen each one of their stars – and Alex Song - eventually leave in order to add a medal to their collection and it will continue to happen there as long as the status quo is maintained. If fundamentalism takes hold among the Blues' hierarchy the same thing could happen in West London and Chelsea could become the new Arsenal.

Now that's a terrifying thought. 

-Ariff Alyahya
Credits and Labels: PL

How To Save Money

request from anas.

this time I'll explain things more detailed than in my tweets.

first of all, u need two plans; first the Main Plan, and then the Contingency Plan. the main plan is, structure your finances and set a goal of how much money u want to save.  For short-term goals, this is easy. If you want to buy a video game, find out how much it costs; if you want to buy a house, determine how much of a down payment you’ll need. For long-term goals, such as retirement, you’ll need to do a lot more planning (which i wont mention how here, because i myself dont know the methods)  Anyway, the amount of money u want to save must equal to the price of ur goal. eg, u want to buy a 500 bucks suit, then your goal must be 500 


.

next, establish a time-frame. eg: I want to buy original FIFA 13 in 2 months, etc.





 and then divide the amount of money u have into into 3 categories: 

first, the NECESSITIES category. this is the ABSOLUTE category. it means that this expenses are constant every month. eg: house rent. so if your income per month is 100 bucks, and your rent is 20 bucks, then so be it. this category can never be altered.

then, the FLEXIBLE category. this category is for things that differs in terms of price range every month. eg: price of food u eat. this month u went to Victoria Station, so ur food expenses just went off the roof. last month u just ate at Taco Bell, so your food expenses are much less. get it?

and lastly, the most important of all, the UNCERTAIN category. which involves the BALANCE u have left after NECESSITIES and FLEXIBLES. once you have made a financial plan of how your money flows,u must adjust your lifestyle in the way of benefiting the BALANCE u have. 

things that u can do; eat cheaper meals (maggi), no watching movies/bowling/karaoke, etc etc. 

set a target, eg: this month my bank balance must be 100 bucks. once u get a hold of this methods, it is just a matter of time until u'll reach ur goal target. 

this, of course, depend on ur earnings too. 



and the MOST IMPORTANT PART ABOVE ALL this is, keeping a RECORD of your expenses. really, most people tend to overlook this criteria, when actually it is most vital that u have a notebook of your expenses. 




next, TRIM your expenses. this involves the UNCERTAIN category i mentioned earlier which involves unnecessary things such as movies, snacks, and late night phone calls. (oops) :p





that was just the Main Plan. i havent talked about the Contingency Plan yet lol. 

the CONTINGENCY PLAN is what you have to do when things dont go the way u want, which, to me, happens all the bloody time. the contingency plan is all about making critical financial restrictions.when u dont have enough balance,u must find a way to reach the goal. this includes selling clothes u rarely wear to your friends. yep. thats why its called contingency plan. more like SOS. there's many things that u can do in ur contingency plan, i usually go with selling things and kutip hutang lama. when you are structuring your Main Plan, be sure to construct the Contingency Plan as well, eg: if i dont get this amount of money, then i must ________________________. dont make last minute Contingency Plans. it will usually result in worse outcomes.

but even if your Contingency Plan doesnt get u to your goal, dont give up. keep on doing it. its always really hard during the 1st few months. which comes to the last point,

dont get discouraged and don't give up..you may be surprised how much money you can put away for something far more enjoyable than what you could buy with short term savings.good things often take time.

but this are my amateur methods that can only save not so large sum of money. if you're planning to buy a ferrari or something, u might want to come up with something better. haha.

Thats all. hope this helps. well, at least, it helped me so many times before. i bought jerseys, shoes, designer clothes, all through this method. hope it can help u as well.





-Ariff Alyahya