 |
'son' is like 'bin' thus 'son' of John is 'Johnson' and 'son' of Peter' is 'Peterson' |
'Patronymic name' is defined in dictionary as a name derived from the name of a father eg. bin Mahathir meaning the child of a man by the name of Mahathir.
There is an existing Fatwa which says those children born out of wedlock (illegitimate kids) shall carry the patronymic of bin Abdullah, not unlike Chinese converting to Islam. Also read my Bend the ethnic belief - Bin the 'bin Abdullah'.
 |
Admiral Zheng He was a Chinese Muslim who visited Malacca during Sultan Mansur Shah's reign His fleet visited SE Asia, South Asia (India etc), the Middle East, Somalia & the Swahili coast Naval historian-author, Gavin Menzies, claimed Zheng He reached Americas 70 years before Columbus He didn't have a bin Abdullah to his name, wakakaka |
Wikipedia tells us:
The person who issues a fatwā is called, in that respect, a mufti, i.e. an issuer of fatwā, from the verb أَفْتَى 'aftā = "he gave a formal legal opinion on".
This is not necessarily a formal position since most Muslims argue that anyone trained in Islamic law may give an opinion (fatwā) on its teachings. If a fatwā does not break new ground, then it is simply called a ruling.
The primary difference between common-law opinions and fatwās, however, is that fatwās are not universally binding; as Sharia is not universally consistent and Islam is very non-hierarchical in structure, fatwās do not carry the sort of weight as that of secular common-law opinion.
Latheefa also noted the NRD’s latest statement in the wake of the landmark judgment that it would continue with its practice of not letting Muslim children bear their father’s name if they were born less than six months into a marriage.
She noted that the appellate court order is binding, adding that she did not recall the NRD requesting for a stay of judgment pending its challenge to the Federal Court.
“It’s unprecedented and it’s illegal for a government department to refuse to comply with a court order and thus defy. It's an inexcusable public defiance,” she said.
The primary difference between common-law opinions and fatwās, however, is that fatwās are not universally binding; as Sharia is not universally consistent and Islam is very non-hierarchical in structure, fatwās do not carry the sort of weight as that of secular common-law opinion.
Nonetheless, notwithstanding the binding nature of the Court of Appeals landmark ruling, the Director General of the NRD voices his intention to ignore it and keep on 'bin Abdullah'-ing children born out of wedlock.
MM Online reported:
Latheefa also noted the NRD’s latest statement in the wake of the landmark judgment that it would continue with its practice of not letting Muslim children bear their father’s name if they were born less than six months into a marriage.
She noted that the appellate court order is binding, adding that she did not recall the NRD requesting for a stay of judgment pending its challenge to the Federal Court.
“It’s unprecedented and it’s illegal for a government department to refuse to comply with a court order and thus defy. It's an inexcusable public defiance,” she said.
Fahri Azzat also shared Latheefa’s view.
“They have basically announced that they are going to behave illegally. They are not interested in obeying the law but a Fatwa Committee. Their statement shows a complete lack of respect for the law and due process,” he said.
He called on the NRD director-general to resign from his position “for issuing a statement that is in defiance of the law”.
If you recall, during AAB's days as PM, he in a speech unprecedentedly mentioned about annoying naughtiness of 'lil Napoleons' hampering government work. At that time there was little respect for poor AAB but today I could see what he meant by 'lil Napoleons.
The DG of NRD must be one of them, a man so arrogant and insubordinate as to openly voice his illegal intent to ignore a ruling by the Court of Appeals.
Now, let us for a moment leave aside the desire of more compassionate Muslims to do otherwise to the Fatwa so as not to humiliate children born out of wedlock in carrying the sign of 'illegitimacy' in their patronymic (as Chinese Muslims convertees do).
While I can see the anger and aggressive push of conservative Muslims to have it their own way, I find it quite flabbergasting that their arguments would go to the ridiculous extent of saying that if illegitimately born kids were given a patronymic, that would open the floodgates of illicit sex or zina.
I have never heard of such flabbergasting bullshit lack of logic and fear-mongering.
Wakakakaka... reading in a wider context, ain't this fit like clockwork with yr previous article of "De fact and De ceit about 'De facto'" le!
ReplyDeleteSometimes u do behave as if been hit by bouts of nyanyuk - right hand just hands in the answer. Straight away left hand asks the same question again!
Oui...ada buat pemeriksaan otak ke?
aiyoyo CK, try as hard as you have been doing to fix me up,you're still zero lah, wakakaka
DeleteI just point the direction lah.
DeleteU fix yrself, which so ever way u like..
So, where the zero comes from?
U, wakakakaka..
So children born out of wedlock (illegitimate kids) are considered in the same class as Chinese Muslim Converts?
ReplyDeleteTo them and the NRD DG and the fuckwa, I say Kaneneh, Niamah Gorhoi!
BTW, is Gorhoi Hainanese, wakakaka
Delete"At that time there was little respect for poor AAB but today I could see what he meant by 'lil Napoleons."
ReplyDeleteso the next time when u wan to write stupid thing, always remind yrself how ignorance u r.