بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِِ
الَّذِينَ يُبَلِّغُونَ رِسَالاَتِ اللهِ وَيَخْشَوْنَهُ وَلاَ يَخْشَوْنَ أَحَدًا إِلاَّ اللهَ وَكَفَى بِاللهِ حَسِيبًا

Khamis, Oktober 28, 2010

Separation of church and state hyped as a campaign issue

Source: Yahoo! News
By Rachel Rose Hartman

For the second time in the past two weeks, a tea party Republican has sparked a miniature media furor by questioning the separation of church and state.

"I disagree strongly with the concept of separation of church and state," Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck said in a video publicized yesterday. "It was not written into the Constitution."

Buck made the remark in 2009, but video footage of the event was posted on liberal website ThinkProgress Tuesday -- just one week after tea party Republican Christine O'Donnell made headlines for asking during a Delaware Senate debate where in the Constitution that provision exists.

Many liberal commentators poked fun at both candidates -- especially O'Donnell, whom critics claimed was not looking to score a debate point but was demonstrating her own deficient grasp of the Constitution. The same critics derided both tea party hopefuls as "extremists" -- but the absence of any constitutional basis for church-state separation has long been a bedrock belief in conservative circles.

Indeed, a review of recent public statements from prominent conservatives shows how widespread the idea is -- and how, in a movement conservative context, provoking the derision of liberal commentators on the issue is far from a liability.

  • Sarah Palin in April stated: "Lest anyone try to convince you that God should be separated from the state, our founding fathers, they were believers. And George Washington, he saw faith in God as basic to life."

  • Republican Sharron Angle, candidate for Nevada Senate, has repeatedly made clear her position that a separation of church and state is an "unconstitutional doctrine."
    Dan Severson, Republican candidate for Missouri secretary of state, said last week: "Quite often you hear people say, 'What about separation of church and state?' There is no such thing. I mean it just does not exist, and it does not exist in America for a purpose, because we are a Christian nation."

  • Republican House candidate Glen Urquhart of Delaware also questioned the separation of church and stat -- and gained extra media attention for suggesting it was Adolf Hitler who coined the phrase.

  • GOP Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, whose insurgent 2008 presidential bid is widely credited as one of the forerunners of the tea party movement, in 2003 wrote in an essay: "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."

Such assertions obviously command little assent among liberal Democrats -- but for candidates such as O'Donnell, Buck and Angle, the refutation of a constitutional basis for church-state separation alerts the powerful evangelical conservative base that they are candidates keenly attuned to the worldview of the evangelical right.

Buck spokesman Owen Loftus told the Denver Post that the left is just using the video as a distraction in the closing days of the campaign.

The First Amendment to the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." And the idea of a "wall of separation" demarcating the spheres of church and state is credited to Thomas Jefferson, in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1947 that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution prescribes a "wall of separation" between religion and state, but conservative legal thinkers contend that the ruling isn't grounded in the original intent of the Founders or the Constitution's actual language.

(Photo: AP/Barry Gutierrez)

Source: Yahoo! News

Baca lagi...

Rabu, Oktober 27, 2010

Is Islam Really the Greatest Threat to the World Today?

Source: Voice of Jihad

Recently the former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in an interview, asserted that “radical Islam” was the greatest threat to the world today. However, the term “radical Islam” is a comparatively recent phrase coined by the enemies of Islam to vilify Muslims seeking to organize themselves and live according to the edicts of Islam. After the defeat of European Crusaders at the hands of Muslim armies in Palestine , the European powers realized that they could never succeed in capturing and retaining any Muslims lands unless they distort the principles of Islam. Therefore, when European powers embarked on their aggressive colonial conquests, they did not only snatched these lands from the Muslims but also concocted a complicated and malevolent plan to distort the religion of Islam: Firstly, they tried to dilute the concept of Jihad in Islam. Secondly, they introduced the European notion of separation of politics and religion.

Thirdly, they abolished all Islamic laws and replaced them with man-made laws. The colonialists were aided in their plans by some hypocrites and heretics who, being enticed by worldly gains, actively supported the European powers in their designs against Islam.

The enemies of Islam succeeded in their plans to such an extent that today, ours enemies can call any Muslim recognising the validity and importance of these three aspects, as radicals and the whole world,including some simple-minded Muslims, actually believe their propaganda. This brief historical summary is being provided to clarify any misgivings that an average reader might have about the comments of the former British Prime Minister.

As for his comments that “radical Islam” is the biggest threat to the world today; to call it a lie, would be an understatement. Tony Blair said that radical Islamists believed themselves to be justified in the use of chemical,biological, and nuclear weapons. To our understanding, no Muslim country has ever been associated with the use of nuclear weapons, the only two nuclear weapons that were used against civilian populations were those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan, and both of those crimes against humanity were carried out by Americans.

Even today, the U.S. and its coalition allies continue to use uranium-depleted weapons against innocent civilians in Afghanistan . Muslims were not the ones who invented or used chemical and biological weapons in conventional (or unconventional) warfare.

The first deliberate large-scale use of chemical and biological weapons occurred in World War I, where all the warring parties were European powers. Muslims do not stock-pile large quantities of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. The only countries who have them are the very same ones that call themselves the defenders of worldpeace . Their refusal to disarm their nuclear weapons, while denying other countries the same measure of security poses the biggest threat to world peace today. When confronted with the hypothesis that Chechens, Kashmiris, Palestinians,Iraqis and Afghans were resisting foreign occupations of their lands, Tony Blair, who has always been a man of more form than substance, could not answer in any meaningful way,and simply resorted to typical British rhetoric calling our entire way of life “regressive, wicked, and backward-looking”. We are no more regressive than Tony Blair with his nostalgic thinking of when Britain actually was a power that mattered. We are no more wicked than Tony Blair who continues to justify his decision to invade Iraq without any legal pretext and despite the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq . And we are no more backward-looking than Britain whose very way of life is based on what they received from us and Roman way of life.

For over two centuries, Western powers have been plundering the resources of Muslim lands and murdering its inhabitants with impunity. Their aggressions against the Muslim populations have continued unabated until now. The discovery of vast natural resources and the strategic importance of the regions have reignited the greed of the Westerners seeking to further pillage our lands. The Muslim populations of these regions have been denied basic freedoms and their right to live according to their religion. This is why Western powers are so alarmed by this trend of Muslims returning to their religion and living according to its dictates. People like Tony Blair know that Islam is the only viable force in the world capable of thwarting their colonial ambitions in the region.

It was largely due to this Islamphobia that, when the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan was established, the Western powers were so quick in condemning it, and were looking for any pretext to destroy this legitimate government. The attacks on the twin towers were just the excuse the enemies were looking for to try and destroy our religion once and for all. The United States began their invasions of Muslims lands on nothing more than unproven speculation. The evidence they presented was mere circumstantial conjecture barely admissible in any legal tribunal. In one of the most ghastly acts in international law, the United Nations Security Council actually sanctified the invasion of Afghanistan without asking for any kind of proof linking any attacks on foreign nations by the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

The very least the United Nations could have done was to verify the truth or falsity of the evidence presented by the United States, and negotiate with the Islamic Emirate to set up a tribunal to give the accused culprits a fair trial under Sharia Law. Instead, the Western forces began a policy of blatant violations of international norms and customs, while the United Nations and other so called champions of human rights remained muted. The truth is that the actions America , in concert with Britain (at the time led by Tony Blair), took have proven to be the greatest threat to the world today. They have invaded and violated the sovereignty of dozens of Muslims countries around the world. They have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan , Iraq and other Muslim countries. They have taken innocent civilians off our streets and subjected them to the most grotesque forms of torture in Abu Ghuraib, Bagram and Guantanamo prisons. They have openly burned our Quran, and perpetrated an act of desecration by drawing caroons of our Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him),and called our religion a threat to world peace. They continue to bombard innocent Afghan civilians under the most unprovoked circumstances. And to top it all, they brazenly accuse us of terrorising our own people and being a threat to the world. It is hard to imagine which planet they live in and which aliens they hope to convince with their lies.

The reception Tony Blair received in Dublin is clear proof that no humans believe his stupendous lies.

Source: Voice of Jihad

Baca lagi...

Muslims live under dictatorship in US

Source: PressTV.ir

Logo of United Nations Human Rights Council

Muslims live under “ dictatorship” in the US, says an African-American Muslim activist, ahead of a review of the US human rights records by the UN Human Rights Council.

In less than two weeks, the Human Rights Council will, for the first time ever, assess the human rights status of the United States in a Universal Periodic Review (UPR).

“We [Muslims] believe that it is our duty, it is our responsibility to stand up to what we call the United States government's 'constitutional dictatorship',” activist and Imam of Masjid al-Islam Abdul Alim Musa told Press TV on Monday.

“When we say a constitutional dictatorship, we mean that they have a constitution, but with all of the new anti-terrorism bills, patriot acts, all of the homeland securities, all of the FBI memos... all of these new charges that they operate on allow them to go around all of the constitutional guarantees [for human rights,]” he added.

It is not only the Muslims that are under pressure in the United States, as other minorities also suffer discrimination.

According to a UPR report provided by the US government, the unemployment rate for African-Americans is 15.8 percent and for Hispanics, 12.4, compared to only 8.8 percent for whites.

A little less than half of African Americans and Hispanics own their homes, compared to three-quarters of the whites.

A person with disabilities is only one-fourth as likely to be employed as a person without, and white Americans are twice as likely as native Americans to have college degrees.


Source: PressTV.ir

Baca lagi...

Most Israelis view Tel Aviv negatively

Source: PressTV.ir

Far-right Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman (Credit: Getty Images)

A new survey conducted by an Israeli institute reveals that a majority of Israelis have negative views about the Tel Aviv regime.

The poll was conducted by Maagar Mochot, one of Israel's leading research institutions, in September and released in late October. The institute interviewed 1,200 Israeli adults.

According to the opinion poll, 81 percent of respondents considered Israel's image as negative and just 15 percent viewed Israel positive.

Israel fabricated its existence in 1948 during the Six-Day War against the Arab world, forcing 711,000 Palestinians to leave their homeland.

Estimates for 2008 put the number of the refugees at over 4.6 million.

In 1967, Tel Aviv went on to occupy and later annex the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and East al-Quds (Jerusalem), the promised capital of the future Palestinian state. The move is considered illegal under international law.


Source: PressTV.ir

Baca lagi...

Isnin, Oktober 18, 2010

Religious Bias in US Textbooks?

Source: Middle East Online

By comparison with Christianity, coverage of other world faiths is static and limited. Coverage of Islam in textbooks is similar to Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism in its focus on early origins rather than change over time. Christian history is actually treated in an exemplary manner in most history textbooks, notes Susan Douglass.

The allegation that textbooks favour Islam over Christianity is spurious, and the Texas Board of Education has been misled (Credit: bikyamasr.com)

(Middle East Online) Washington, DC - Last week, the Texas Board of Education adopted a resolution with a 7-6 vote that "accuses textbook publishers of favoring Islam over Christianity and tells them to stop it." Although the resolution is non-binding on future board members or textbook publishers, it attempts to set a precedent and represents acceptance of an allegation that although unproven, may be raised in other states. The resolution did not in fact concern textbooks currently in use in Texas.

The allegation that textbooks favour Islam over Christianity is spurious, and the Texas Board of Education has been misled.

A look at common US textbooks refutes the charge, which distorts the role of teaching about religion in US public schools. State social studies content standards require the beliefs, practices and history of major world religions be taught within constitutional guidelines for the academic study of religion. As such, textbooks are scrutinised prior to adoption in every state.

The resolution is based on sections on Islam and Christianity in textbooks. What about the other faiths? As a textbook reviewer for two decades, I assert that most textbooks are similar enough to allow generalisations about the coverage of religions. A world history textbook index might contain more entries under Islam than Christianity, but adding keywords like Church, clergy, monastery, cathedral, pope, Reformation, Protestant and Bible tips the scales the other way. Textbooks cover the roots of Christianity in the history of Judaism, and Old Testament figures like Abraham and Moses. Content about early Christianity is only a fraction of overall content on this faith.

Christian history is actually treated in an exemplary manner in most history textbooks. Why? Because Christianity is thoroughly intertwined with the history of European civilisation. Textbooks describe its rise in the late Roman Empire and its spread into Asia, Africa and Europe. They narrate the Roman Catholic Church's influence in medieval Europe and its split from the Eastern Orthodox Church. Textbooks cite cultural contributions of Christianity in learning, arts and social life.

They trace changes in the Christian tradition – intellectual movements, interactions with political and social systems – through the centuries. The books cover the role of Christianity in the Crusades, Renaissance and Reformation, Age of Exploration, Scientific Revolution and American history.

By comparison with Christianity, coverage of other world faiths is static and limited. Judaism is emphasised in the context of ancient times, but fades from the story with the rise of Christianity. References to the 13th century rabbi and philosopher Maimonides or pogroms during the Crusades do not make up for the absence of Jewish intellectuals and contributions to European culture, or Jewish merchant communities from the Mediterranean to China.

Textbooks describe Hinduism and Buddhism in ancient India. Buddhism's spread along the Silk Road extends the story, but readers find little about change over time. Textbooks show people practicing these faiths today, but the gap between ancient origins and contemporary faiths is wide.

Students may conclude from this imbalance that only Christianity possessed a rich, multi-faceted tradition. The charge that Christianity is shortchanged in textbooks is based on a distorted reading of the books, meant to foster a sense of victimisation among Christians.

Coverage of Islam in textbooks is similar to Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism in its focus on early origins rather than change over time. Many book's indexes are affected by the overuse of religious terms like "Islamic Empire" instead of geographic terms. This usage stems from Western academics, not textbook publishers. Terms like jihad (struggle) and sharia (Islamic principles) present another problem. Critics want to see such complex terms defined as "good" or "bad", while scholars recognise their complexity over time.

Historical thinking skills require differentiated views. Textbooks should not project concepts broadcast by today's extremists onto centuries of history.

Content on world religions is not new to textbooks, but texts on "non-Western" faiths were often inaccurate and inadequate. Hindu Americans have recently challenged textbook coverage on these grounds, just as historians and Muslim educators have worked to improve accuracy of content on Islam.

As a result, textbook coverage of Islam and other religions has improved in recent years. Textbooks today reflect attention to balance in page counts, topics, images and quotes from scripture. Editors enlist reviewers and take account of First Amendment guidelines for teaching about religion.

Backlash against improvement in the coverage of religions – not only Islam – has resulted in claims that coverage is too positive. Some want to project fear of Islam onto centuries of history, reducing the Muslim world’s relations with the West to a clash of civilisations. Efforts to improve accuracy are confused with proselytising or whitewashing, which is neither the intent nor the outcome of teaching about religions in public school.

The First Amendment Center – an advocacy group in the United States that works to preserve and protect First Amendment freedoms through information and education – has promoted understanding among Americans of diverse beliefs for decades, using a framework that offers other countries struggling with religious pluralism a model to emulate. State standards reflect national consensus that citizens should be literate about the world's religions. Political opportunism should not prevent students from learning within this American civic framework.

Susan Douglass is an educator and author formerly affiliated with the Council on Islamic Education (currently the Institute for Religion and Civic Values). She is an Education Consultant with the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, and a doctoral student at George Mason University. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from the author. Source: newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith.

Source: Middle East Online

Baca lagi...

In quiet revolution, Turkey eases headscarf ban

Source: www.reuters.com
By Ece Toksabay and Ibon Villelabeitia

Women in headscarves attend a demonstration in front of the Constitutional Court in Ankara October 23, 2008 (Credit: Reuters/Umit Bektas)

(Reuters) - Freshman Busra Gungor won't have to wear a wig to cover her Islamic headscarf, as many pious relatives and friends did to avoid getting kicked off campus.

In a landmark decision, Turkey's Higher Education Board earlier this month ordered Istanbul University, one of the country's biggest, to stop teachers from expelling from classrooms female students who do not comply with a ban on the headscarf.

It was the latest twist in a long political and legal tussle in Turkey between those who see the garment as a symbol of their Muslim faith and those who view it as a challenge to the country's secular constitution.

"I was ready to wear the wig, just like my cousin did," said Gungor, a 18-year-old student wearing a pastel-colored headscarf. "This is about my freedom. I don't see why my headscarf should be seen as a threat to anybody."

The debate is not unique to Turkey -- France and Kosovo, for example, ban headscarves in public schools, and parts of Germany bar teachers from wearing them.

But it goes to the heart of national identity in this country of 75 million Muslims whose modern state was founded as a radical secular republic after World War One.

Disputes over the headscarf and other public symbols of Islam are part of a wider debate over how to reconcile modernity and tradition as Turkey tries to achieve its decades-old ambition to join the European Union.

Together with the courts, Turkey's army -- which has a long history of intervening in politics and has ousted four elected governments -- has long seen itself as a bulwark against any roll back toward Islamization. Easing Turkey's secular laws would have been unthinkable a few years ago.

But reforms aimed at bringing Turkey closer to the EU have clipped the generals' power. In a sign of how influence and attitudes are shifting, the latest change on headscarves happened with more of a whimper than a bang.

"This is the same fight Turkey has had for 80 years over the secular-pious issue," writer Mehmet Ali Birand commented in an article entitled "Let them dress the way they want."

"The world has changed. Turkey has changed. Let's close those old books and look into the future," Birand said.

A bid by the ruling AK party to lift the headscarf ban three years ago sparked a major political crisis and almost led to the party being closed by the Constitutional Court for anti-secular activities.

But the rise of a new class of observant Muslims to form the backbone of the AKP, which has its roots in political Islam and has held power since 2002, is challenging old notions.

Opponents of the headscarf ban -- in place since a 1982 military coup -- say it is a violation of individual freedoms and incompatible with a modern democracy. Supporters say the prohibition is necessary precisely to defend Turkey's democratic values.

"Turkey needs to find a new relationship between state and religion," Ergun Ozbudun, an constitutional expert, said at a recent lunch with EU ambassadors and journalists.

Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, who comfortably won a referendum last month on government-sponsored constitutional reforms, has declared plans for a brand new basic law.

Seen as clear favorite in 2011 elections, the AKP is widely expected to try again to remove the headscarf ban. Among reforms approved in last month's referendum were an overhaul of the Constitutional Court, traditionally dominated by secularist judges.

Until the decision by the Higher Education Board, girls from religiously conservative families say they had to wear hats or wigs to conceal their headscarves in order to attend classes. Others decided to stay at home.

As the tide turns, some secularists fear growing social conservatism and "neighborhood pressure" will force them to change their lifestyle and adopt the headscarf.

"I don't think we will feel pressure to cover here in Istanbul, but I believe there could be a risk in most universities in Anatolian cities," said 18-year-old Begum Yildiz, a female student smoking a cigarette outside the university's entrance.

Another student who did not give her name was less sanguine: "I don't want the ban to be lifted. I know many girls whose families force them to wear the headscarf and they take it off at college. University has been a place for them to feel free."

Pinar Gedik, a student of Arabic who wears a pink headscarf, said the ban was still being enforced in some faculties.

"I can attend classes with my headscarf now, but it's still banned in many departments. The pressure is still there."

Although symbols of Islam are now more common in the public sphere, sensibilities are still raw. The talk of the town these days is whether generals and secularist politicians will attend a October 29 reception at the presidential palace on National Day.

President Abdullah Gul, whose wife wears a headscarf as does Erdogan's, traditionally hosts two separate receptions for guests with covered and uncovered wives. This year he plans to hold one ball.

Muharrem Ince, a senior MP from the secularist Republican People's Party, has said his party will boycott the ceremony.

"The president is changing the tradition of double receptions. This is because the AKP want to impose the headscarf not only at universities but from top to bottom," he said.

(Additional reporting by Ibon Villelabeitia; Editing by Mark Trevelyan)

Source: www.reuters.com

Baca lagi...

Isnin, Oktober 04, 2010

Lee Woon-Jae: Kiper Muslim dari Negeri Ginseng

Sumber: Republika OnLine » Dunia Islam » Mualaf

Lee Woon-Jae

REPUBLIKA.CO.ID, JAKARTA -- Nama Lee Woon-Jae mungkin terdengar asing di telinga kita. Tapi, tidak demikian bagi Penggemar sepakbola di Asia, terutama di negara asalnya Korea Selatan (Korsel). Lee merupakan penjaga gawang kesebelasan nasional Korsel yang pernah mengikuti beberapa kali Piala Dunia. Terakhir, dia ikut membela negaranya pada Piala Dunia 2010 di Afrika Selatan.

Sebelumnya, Lee pernah mengikuti Piala Dunia 1994, 2002 dan 2006. Pria kelahiran Cheongju, Chungbuk, Korea Selatan tanggal 26 April 1973 ini memang selalu dipercaya menjadi kiper nomor satu di timnas Korsel.

Karir internasional Lee dimulai ketika ia dipercaya untuk memperkuat tim nasional Korsel pada ajang Olympiade 1992 di Barcelona. Karirnya makin meroket ketika dia berhasil mementahkan tendangan penalti pemain sayap Spanyol, Joaquin, di perempat final Piala Dunia 2002. Tendangan tersebut merupakan tendangan pinalti keempat Spanyol.

Keberhasilan Lee menahan bola yang dilayangkan Joaquin ini membuat Korea Selatan lolos ke semifinal, untuk pertama kalinya dalam sejarah sepakbola mereka. Kala itu, Korsel mengalahkan La Furia Roja 5-3 dalam drama adu pinalti, Namun, langkah tim nasional Korsel berhasil dihadang oleh Jerman di babak semifinal dengan skor 0-1.

Terpikat Islam
Namun tidak banyak yang tahu jika sosok kiper senior tim nasional Korsel yang mendapat julukan 'Si Tangan Laba-Laba' ini adalah seorang Muslim. Ya, dalam skuad tim negeri ginseng yang berlaga dalam Piala Dunia 2010 yang baru saja berakhir, Lee boleh dibilang satu-satunya pemain sepakbola Muslim.

Perihal keislaman Lee ini memang belum diketahui banyak pihak. Maklum, di Korsel mayoritas penduduknya beragama Buddha dan Kristen. Jadi, tak mengherankan, jika sosok Lee sebagai Muslim jarang diekspos. Meskipun begitu, di kalangan muslim pencinta sepakbola, Lee lumayan dikenal. Lee adalah seorang mualaf sejak tahun 2004. Jadi, ketika dia menyandang predikat Muslim sebagai pemain Korsel di Piala Dunia adalah sejak Piala Dunia 2006 di Jerman.

Perkenalan Lee dengan Islam terjadi di tahun 2004 silam. Sebelum memeluk Islam, Lee adalah penganut Kristen yang terbilang taat. Namun, perkembangan Islam yang cukup pesat di negaranya membuat dia tertarik dengan ajaran Islam. Lee pun akhirnya memutuskan menjadi Muslim. Dan, sejak saat itu ia taat menjalankan shalat dan puasa.

Saat Ramadhan tiba, Lee tetap berpuasa meski kompetisi sepakbola tengah berlangsung. Setiap harinya, Lee pun seperti biasa menjalankan shalat lima waktu dan sesekali ke masjid kalau pulang latihan atau menuju rumahnya. Lelaki berusia 37 tahun ini menikmati hari-harinya dengan tenang meskipun orang-orang di lingkungan sekitarnya kebanyakan non-Muslim.

Lee pun merasakan tolerasi beragama di tim nasional Korea Selatan dan di klubnya sehingga dia tidak merasa rikuh dengan predikat Muslim yang disandangnya.

Sepanjang karirnya, Lee tercatat sudah mengikuti empat Piala Dunia, dan ini membuat namanya masuk dalam dafrtar salah satu dari tujuh pemain Asia yang pernah bermain di empat Piala Dunia yang berbeda. Namun, pada ajang Piala Dunia 2010 lalu ia hanya menjadi pemain cadangan. Pelatih kepala Korsel Huh Jung-moo lebih memercayakan posisi kiper nomor satu kepada Jung Sung-ryong.

Posisinya yang hanya menjadi pemanas bangku cadangan selama Piala Dunia 2010 lalu ini agaknya yang membuat Lee akhirnya memutuskan untuk pensiun sebagai pemain nasional. Pertandingan persahabatan melawan Nigeria pada 11 Agustus 2010 lalu dengan kemenangan 2-1 menjadi penampilan Lee yang terakhir di tim nasional Korea Selatan. Lee telah menjadi bagian dari skuad Ksatria Taeguk dalam 130 pertandingan sejak 1994.

Red: Budi Raharjo
Rep: Nidia Zuraya

Sumber: Republika OnLine » Dunia Islam » Mualaf

Baca lagi...