Followers

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

No Draft Hudud Bill Yet By PAS ????

I read this report in the malaymailonline with total surpirse !!!

I thought that PAS was still hanging on to its controversial 1993 Draft Bill which had received much opposition, even from Muslims.

If the Malay Mail report is true, why is PAS not letting the Muslim Public view its draft Hudud Bill which it wants to implement as "Islamic Law". It is so easy - just upload it on their website and make and announcement. Why hide? If it is already there, can someone point out the link to me?

I want to support it if it is consistent with the justice element as ordained by Allah. Otherwise, how can I determine if I am being led astray or not ???

Don't the Muslim have a Allah given right to determine whether it is consistent with the principles of the Quran and the most authentic Sunnah ???

Or is PAS expecting the ordinary Muslims to just accept everything that PAS claims to be Islamic and reject surah 17 verse 36?

 I recall reading parts of the 1993 Hudud Bill where PAS placed six offences as hudud completely contrary to even the jurists understanding of what "hudud laws" mean.

PAS categorised six as "hudud" while the juristic definition what "hudud" means only admits four.

I recall that PAS even put irrtidad or ridddah (apostasy) as a hudud offence despite the clear evidence in the Quran that there is no temporal punishment for apostasy. Also, the Quran is as clear as daylight that there is absolutely no compulsion in faith. All you have to do is study the Quran and you will know this. There are so many verses to this effect ( see also 10:99).

I recall clearly that the only character that imposes punishment for change of faith in the Quran is Firaun.

However, I stand to be corrected whether PAS has made amendments to its 1993 Bill.

I support completely Allah's will but not man made designs masquerading as Allah's will.

I am sure (hope) PAS leaders must have read the following verses:

"068.036  What is the matter with you? How judge you?

068.037  Or have you a book through which you learn-

068.038  That you shall have, through it whatever you choose?

068.039  Or have you Covenants with Us to oath, reaching to the Day of Judgement,
(providing) that you shall have whatever you shall demand?

068.040  Ask you of them, which of them will stand surety for that!

068.041  Or have they some "Partners" (in Godhead)? Then let them produce their

"partners", if they are truthful!"

(Yusuf Ali translation).

So are PAS leaders giving the guarantee that they know what is Allah's will and they stand guarantee that their "Islamic Law" is Allah's will - or should I not ask that question and just accept?

Peace !

NOTE' NO ONE INCLUDING PAS LEADERS ARE EXPECTED TO AGREE WITH THE VIEWS ABOVE. I WISH NOT TO, (FOR I CANNOT) PLAY GOD ON EARTH WITH THE FAITH OF OTHERS BECAUSE THAT IS CLEARLY ALLAH'S JURISDICTION. ALSO,  PLEASE REFER TO YOUR OWN COPY OF THE QURAN TO ASCERTAIN WHAT VIEWS YOU HEAR OR READ.

Saturday, January 31, 2015

What does “protecting Islam” mean?

(This article was inspired by Kadir Jasin’s latest posting where he mentioned what is important is to “protect the future of UMNO. Malays and Islam..”  No fault of his.)

We often hear this phrase “protecting Islam”, “protecting the sanctity of Islam”, “memartabatkan kedudukan Islam”, “mempertahankan Islam” and so on. What do they exactly mean when they say that?

Firstly, I must confess that I as a Muslim do not know exactly which interpretation of “Islam” they are referring to though I know that there is no single interpretation. All the evidence is out there and in particular, globally, the Muslim world is theologically and politically divided in two major denominations - the “Sunni” and “Shia” Islam world.  The Shias and the Sunnis do not accept each other’s collection of hadiths (“saying of the Prophet”), notwithstanding the fact that each claims “authenticity” and academic verification of the same .

Even within the said denominations, there are diverse sects with their own interpretation of what constitutes “Islam”. In the Sunni world itself there are four main schools of thought namely, Maliki, Shafie, Hanbali and Hanafi equally diverse in views on many topics including those related to pure faith issues.

Fundamentally the divisions in the “Islamic” world arises due to the differences in the sources relied upon to build the structure of Islam.  While all of them claim to accept the Quran, much of the structure of Islam today is build not necessarily from the explicit injunctions of the Quran per se but mostly from the jurists or fuqahas efforts of exegesis. In simple words, derived from the reasoning and interpretation of the jurists.

In the Sunni world, it is “accepted” by their collective mainstream clergy that the sources of Islam in Islamic jurisprudence or usul al-fiqh is primarily the Quran, the Sunnah and hadith, Ijma’ (consensus of the scholars) and Qias (anology).  There are many other sources of islam that have been created to assist in addressing a particular issue such as istihsan, urf and so on.

Even the idea of maqasid al-syariah (objectives of the shariah) is a concept created by the jurists or religious scholars/clergy by way of deducing and inferring from the “accepted” sources aforementioned.

It is understandable that human beings will have to interpret, deduce, and infer from facts and evidence to arrive at a conclusion or to create a concept from which everything else is build. There is nothing unique about this process of thinking and is common to all aspects of our life. This is how values and systems of beliefs and behaviour evolve in societies.

The problem only arises when we deny our interpretative role and equate our ideas, concepts and conclusions to that of the Divine or God. Hence, criticisms and alternative interpretations become impossible and would immediately be cast as blasphemous or unthinkable.

This is what I call the confusion between the views of the Interpreter (“the clergy or anyone) and the actual intent of  the Giver of the Text (“Divine/God”).  Would not equating the views of the interpreter (clergy) absolutely with the intent of the Giver of the Text (“God”) equate the position of the clergy with the position of God?

So back to the question of “protecting Islam”, those who say this cannot and should not assume the serious reader or serious audience knows what they are talking about. They must specify which “Islam” they are talking about.  A generalisation in matters pertaining to Islam is completely unhelpful if they understand the realities of the situation and the diverse academic discussions on Islam and most importantly, the contents of the Quran itself.

Say for example, they were to say “protect the Shia Islam”, then it will be easy to make a choice whereby those who prefer the Sunni version can reject that call. And similarly if one was to say “protect the Sunni version”, then those in favour can support that call.  Even this however may pose a problem in a seemingly Sunni society because of the differences in the opinions of the four schools of thought.  

So, maybe it becomes clearer if the caller was to say “protect the Shafie views of Islam” and so on.
However, do we see this manner of calls as promoting unity among the Muslims? What then will those adhere to the Maliki or Hanafi view do? If you say accept all, then what do you do when there is a conflict of views?

Would it not be easier and more efficient for Muslims to make the call from one book which all of them do not dispute – the Quran?  And mean it too when the call is made and Muslims heed the call by adhering to the Quran. Otherwise, you will be guilty of causing further disunity among the Muslims.

Hence, be careful when you say you want to “protect Islam” for you may be doing the exact reverse by your futile call due to your ignorance of the complexities and the Quran.

Peace !


NOTE: THE AUTHOR DOES NOT REQUIRE NOR EXPECT ANYONE TO ACCEPT OR AGREE WITH HIS VIEWS STATED HEREIN. IN MATTERS OF ISLAM, THE AUTHOR WARNS THAT THE READER SHOULD CHECK WITH HIS OWN COPY OF THE QURAN AND MAKE UP HIS OWN MIND.

Sunday, January 11, 2015

Ok, If I am Ok !!!

By: ASP Nik Ezanee

 1. When the topic of corruption comes up, people are quick to point
fingers and the usual suspects are the politicians and the police.

2. There are probably many good reasons why most fingers are pointed
to that few direction. Some may agree, some not. However, we can agree
that many people want this to change.

3. Have we checked in with ourselves lately? What I have notice is
that people are quick to point the mistakes of others, while condone
the very same mistake if it benefits them personally. Hence, "It is ok
if I am ok with it."

4. It is NOT ok for Officials to accept gifts. But it is OK for me to
buy the Officials the latest Iphone 5 each to maintain good rapport
with them. Dinner, overseas trips, golf? karaoke sessions?

5. It is NOT ok for Police to accept bribe. But it is OK for me to
offer it to them to save my neck. (and later brag about it to friends
and family, "they even settled for $50", "oh I paid $100, rather than
getting $300 ticket")

6. It is NOT ok for ME to take bribes, but it is OK to ask my staff to
find sponsors for golf games, company events, overseas trips, birthday
gifts for bosses. "Sponsors" ??

7. It is NOT ok to take $100 from contractors like the previous guy!!
That is Corrupt and Arrogant! But it is OK to take $60.

8. It is NOT ok to ask for $100, but it is OK to receive $100 since it
was offered and not demanded.

9. It is NOT ok to accept bribe but it is OK to add extra milage on
that claim. How about that extra hours or 'business lunch with
friends' claim? How about using company's property for personal use?
Car, helicopter, jets? Stationaries maybe?

10. It is NOT ok that politicians live lavishly but it is definitely
OK to hide some amount of my income from the IRB.

11. It is NOT ok for everyone else to do it.. But it is definitely OK
FOR ME to do it.

12. Change doesn't mean you have go out there condemning everything
about our country.

13. Change starts from you and me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------




Thursday, January 8, 2015

ApabIla bencana Berlaku


Apabila suatu bencana berlaku dia tidak memilih samada orang dan keluarga yang alaminya adalah berbangsa Melayu, CIna, India, Jepun, Indonesia, Pakistan, British atau apa-apa bangsa.

Begitu juga bencana tidak memilih agama seseorang.

Apabila bencana berlaku, mangsa-mangsa bencana mengharapkan sesiapa sahaja untuk membantunya tanpa mengira bangsa, agama mahupun keturunan.

Mangsa-mangsa bencana yang dibantu oleh manusia-manusia yang berperikemanusiaan dan yang ada kemampuan untuk membantu.

Banjir, kehilangan pesawat MH370, penembakkan MH17 dan kemalangan yang menimpa Airasia 8501 tahun lalu adalah melibatkan manusia-manusia dan bukanlah disengajakan terhadap satu bangsa atau agama yang khusus.

Semua manusia yang kehilangan adik beradik yang tersayang akan sama-sama pilu dan kehilangan kerana kita sama-sama manusia.

Kita adalah insan yang sama darah merah, sama ketakutan, sama harapan.

Saya berdoa pada tahun 2015 ini kita kembali ingatkan diri bahawa kita sama-sama insan dan tidak takkabur atau sombong dengan agama, keturunan, kedudukan atau bangsa kita.

Jangan lah kita diuji dengan lebih dahsyat lagi bagi diingati bahawa kita sama-sama insan.

Salam.