The Soap

If you are a Muslim and wish to buy a "halal" soap at a big supermarket like Tesco, Giant or Carrefour, chances are that you won't find it or would have some difficulties locating it. This is because most soap brands contain glycerine, which is chemically derived from animal fats.

Last week I went to a large supermarket at Mutiara Damansara for my grocery requirement. One of the items that I wanted to buy was soap with the "halal" label, as the one left in my bathroom had dwindled down to an insignificant size.

As usual, I went to the toiletries section of the supermarket, to look for the soap. I selected each brand of soap one by one to look for the "halal" sign on the cover. I found to my disaapointment that all of them contained "glycerine" and there was no "halal" sign whenever the soap had glycerine as one of its components.

There was one brand of soap which was supposed to contain vegetable oil. But this brand had no "halal" label on it and comparatively more expensive than the others. Therefore, I didn't buy it.

I was about to give up when I instinctively bent down to reach for a brand of soap that was placed among a row at the lowest rung corner of the shelf. "Alhamdulillah," the soap had a "halal" logo sign on it and upon reading the ingredients written on the cover it did not mention "glycerine". The soap's brand was "Fruitale - Nutrient" and produced by Lam Soon Group of Companies. One pack contained 3 bars of soap and cost only RM1.98 and that was considered as cheap.

This brand of soap was placed at an insignficant part of the shelves - I wondered why. Was it because it was cheaper and therefore made less conspicous? I guess the supermarket people knew better ;)

Some of you who may be wondering what the fuss is all about. Let me inform you about "glycerine". The Wikipedia defines it as a translucent, colorless, odorless, brittle, nearly tasteless solid substance, derived from the collagen inside animals' skin and bones. It is commonly used as a gelling agent in food, pharmaceuticals, photography, and cosmetic manufacturing. Gelatin is a protein produced by partial hydrolysis of collagen extracted from the bones, connective tissues, organs and some intestines of animals such as domesticated cattle, pigs and horses.

It was narrated by Abu Muhammad Al-Hassan Bin Ali Bin Abi Thalib, grandson of the Prophet (Prayers and Peace be upon him) who said,"I have memorised from the Prophet (PPBUH) who said,"Leave the things that are doubtful to things that are not doubtful to you."" (From Termizi)

Thus, if glycerine is obtained from the animals, then it becomes a doubtful ingredients for the Muslims as it is very difficult to know what type of animal it was obtained from. Even if it comes from animals other then pigs, we don't know whether these animals were slaughtered in the correct Islamic way. As such, glycerine is doubtful unless we know from which source it was obtained.

Now, my question is, if the other brands of soap contained glycerine which comes from "halal" animal fat, then why didn't they put the "halal" logo on the packet? Makes one wonder, right?

We take our bath before a solat or wash our hands before a meal with soap. Now instead of cleaning our body and hands, we in fact rub the "haram" g;ycerine onto them. Now, does that make us clean? Think about it. :roll:

The Bridge that collapsed

About a month ago, I wrote in my blog "Are we building a "reban ayam" here?" about how irresponsible was the developer of the bridge at Dipang that collapsed and claimed the lives of the three (3) schoolchildren. By "developer" I mean the owner of the bridge, the one for whom the Contractor built and handed over the bridge after it was completed. Until now, I don't know who the owner is. Since the bridge was used by the students for the "1Malaysia" activities, I suppose the owner was the Ministry of Education. Otherwise it could be the local Municipal Council, Public Works Department or other Government Department.

It is a normal construction practice that after a building or structure is completed, the Owner takes over and consequently maintains the building or structure after the Defects Liability Period is over. In the case of the bridge, the Owner should also take over and maintain the bridge after it is completed. Certainly the Contractor is not going to do that - he just wants to be paid for the work already done and moves on to another construction job.

It was reported earlier after the collapse-bridge incidence that no plans were submitted by the Contractor to the Authorities for approval before the bridge was constructed.

This report regarding "submission of plans" sounded a bit funny to me now. "Funny" because normally it is the responsibility of the Owner and not the Contractor to submit the plans for approval. The Contractor only constructs what are shown on the plans given to him. The design of the bridge or any structure for that matter is usually undertaken by a registered Professional Engineer. Thus, it was not a Contractor's job to do the design unless of course, the Contractor was apointed on a "design-and-build" basis. Nevertheless, the onus was on the Owner to submit the plans, even if the Contractor that he employed was a "design-and-build" Contractor.

The Star on 2nd December 2009 reported the Director-General of the Ministry Of Education having said "that the bridge did not meet the required engineering codes and specifications."

Now, this is also another funny statement to me because if there were no plans being submitted, where did the Education DG get his information that the bridge did not meet the required engineering codes and specifications?

It was further reported that, "The suspension bridge which collapsed near SK Kuala Dipang in Kampar was capable of taking the weight of eight (8) pupils, each weighing 35kg. There were about 15 pupils on the bridge when it collapsed."

Again, if there were no plans submitted, how did the DG know that the bridge was designed to take the weight of eight pupils, each weighing 35kg?

Even if the Owner of the bridge knew that the bridge was designed to take only eight 35-kg-each students, he would have ensured that a big signboard would be placed at strategic locations at each end of the bridge to warn the students and the teachers especially, not to use the bridge with more than seven or eight students at any one time. Of course, the Owner would only do this if he had the civic-mindedness or concern for the safety of the others.

The DG further stated, “The investigation committee found that the concrete block connection in Pylon A could not handle the uplift force from the back-stayed cable."

Of course, when a structure is subjected to a force greater than what it can take, it will eventually give way or fail.

Finally, the DG stated, "The Education Ministry, he said, will take into account the views of the Public Works Ministry and Department, the Construction Industry Development Board, and the Attorney-General’s Chambers in deciding the appropriate measures to be taken against the involved parties."

Who were the "involved parties?" No doubt it was convenient to blame the Contractor who built the bridge, but he would not have gone ahead and built the bridge if he had not got the approval from the Owner.

The Bernama reported on the same day that the bridge was built "hasil sumbangan pihak swasta" (as a contribution from the private sector). I wonder whether it meant that the Contractor built the bridge for "free" or was paid from the contributions obtained from the private sector. Either way it did not mean that the Owner could forego or ignore the requirement of getting approval for the plans from the relevant authorities.

Whether the bridge was built by the Contractor for free or for a certain sum of money, he would not have gone ahead with the construction of the bridge if he had not received the "blessings" or approval from the Owner himself.