What in the world is “liberal Islam” ???

Image thanks to here

This is one of the “latest” terms being bandied about in our society – some use it in a positive way and some use it in a negative way.  In most cases, most people use this term so carelessly in any way that they please which serves to demonstrate the mental confusion.

Any discussion of “Liberal Islam” is always liked to the criticism of “liberalism” by the critics. This is yet another term that has many meanings and being used by many in different ways. At the end of the day, the discussion descends into how the term is being used rather than the substance of the argument.

Liberalism is not necessarily a “bad thing”. The Latin word “liber” itself means “free” and what is wrong with the “soul” being free? Surely we do not support the opposite of being free which is being enslaved? 

The online Encyclopaedia Britannica defines Liberalism as follows:

“liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in “Common Sense” (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him. The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power”.  

Looking at the definition above, one can agree that Liberalism is not “bad” after all. It is true that one of the major roles of governments is to protect individuals from being harmed by others. However, governments themselves may exert harm on its citizens through abuse of power. Another philosophy central to Liberalism is the upholding of the human dignity and this is characterised by the notion that human beings are inherently good and hence they should generally have the freedom to decide for themselves on various aspects of their lives. There is of course a balance of “freedom” that is sought to be achieved and not as the critics suggest that Liberalism seeks absolute freedom for the individual.

On another note, the word “liberal” itself has both positive and negative connotations. Generally, in the first world and progressive countries, it is seen as a positive trait while in the third world and so-called “Islamic countries” it is seen in a negative light. One wonders why this is so – is it because of the differences in educational levels and economic levels or due cultural and religious factors?

In third world and “so called Islamic” countries, the word “Liberal” appears to mean “doing as you wish, being free without basis or deviating from a set of established fundamental understandings or behaviours”.

What has all the discussion above has to do with “liberal Islam”? Once again, even this term seems to have different meanings to different people.

In Malaysia, the term “Liberal Islam” has a very negative meaning among the mainstream conservative Muslims. They see “Liberal Islam” as a “deviationist” movement away from “true” and “accepted” understanding of what Islam is. Such general accusations without going into the substance of what the proponents of so called “Muslim Liberalists” are arguing does not augur well for the maturity of the Muslim population.

I want to digress a bit and take up a different argument. For the sake of argument let’s say we use the word “liberal” to mean the “act of departing from the original principles or the fundamental of something” and apply this to how Islam is being understood. Based on this understanding, we may have the following scenarios:

1)      No one can deny that the first and fundamental source of Islam is the Quran.  This was the revelation to the Prophet Muhammad who himself would have been guided by it and not his own personal whims and fancies. In this scenario, would not any references to his so-called acts and utterances (collectively called the “hadiths and/or sunnah of the Prophet”) to shape the understanding of Islam be considered a “liberal act” especially if the “Islam” that emerges is different as contained in the Quran?

For the sake of argument, it would appear that the Muslim who sticks only to the Quran to get his understanding of Islam is a “fundamentalist” but the one who seeks extra sources is a “liberal”. However, in today’s mainstream Muslim community, a Muslim who primarily wants to be guided by the Quran alone is labelled as “anti-hadith”, “anti-prophet” and even a deviant in law. The fact that the world of hadith is replete with debate seems irrelevant to the ostracisation of the “Quran alone” group either by societal pressure of by State laws.

In other words, the Muslim who wants to stick only to the Quran either has to be “closet Quranist” or he is compelled by law and society to adjust his behaviour and belief to that of the mainstream belief. Otherwise, he has to be prepared to suffer for his beliefs – imposition by coercion and possible oppression.

2)      It is generally accepted that the main source of Islam is both the Quran and the Hadith/Sunnah of the Prophet. However, even this scenario also seems to pose problems because many also insist that while the hadith explains the Quran, the clergy is the expert group that explains both the Quran and the Hadith. Hence, they come up with a third category called the “consensus of the ulema” or “ijmak” ulema. The consensus of the ulema is actually the juristic reasoning and exposition of many things today that represents and shapes what Islam is. In this type of thinking, it becomes almost mandatory of the ordinary Muslims to accept unquestionably the “collective views” of the clergy as part of their faith.

Again for the sake of argument, if we take the position that Quran and Sunnah are the two fundamental sources of what Islam is, then would not the mandatory acceptance of clergy views be an act of being “liberal”?

3)      If one studies Islamic jurisprudence or usul al fiqh as it is called in Arabic, one will find that there are many other “sources” which the clergy or jurists rely on to arrive at an understanding of “what Islam is”. This is the juridical process of exegesis and reasoning which in reality shapes mainstream Islam. Would this be argued as being "liberal"?

From the above discussion, it should be clear that it is pointless to hurl and be influenced by labels such as “anti-hadith”, “liberalists” and so on without understanding the substance of the argument or philosophy. It is even worse when one has the subservient attitude of accepting what the clergy, however learned and sincere they are, as the absolute truth without cross referencing with the Quran itself or without examining the thought processes of the clergy or the ulema.

The end question is – does the society itself allow the Muslim to seek out the answer for himself or is he expected to be a blind follower since it has all been decided by “some learned folks”?

Peace.

NOTE: This article is not an indication that the author supports “liberal Islam” or “anti hadith”. No one is expected to agree with the views of the author and this article is intended to raise questions rather than to formulate conclusions. You make your own conclusions based on the level of passion you have for the truth and facts.

In the name of Allah Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

image thanks to http://www.dancingwithhappiness.com/

1.         Every Muslim since a child is taught to begin with the utterance of bismillah hirrahman nirrahim before he does anything. It means "In the name of Allah Most Gracious, Most Merciful".

2.         This is a constant reminder of the grace and mercy of Allah on his creations. It is a statement of His infinite compassion and forgiveness. In fact Allah describes Himself as “one who forgives again and again" (see Quran 20:82)

3.         A true mukmin or believer of Allah will have compassion, grace and mercy within him when he deals with the creations of Allah which includes his dealings with fellow human beings - whether believers or otherwise.  A true believer does not insult the gods of others or poke fun at their beliefs degradingly . Can a person who goes around with his skull cap on his head, projects himself to be a Muslim political leader be anything more than a hypocrite when he consistently and deliberately goes against the following commandment from Allah?;

“Revile not you those whom they call upon besides God, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance. Thus have We made alluring to each people its own doings. In the end will they return to their Lord, and We shall then tell them the truth of all that they did”. (Q 6:108)

4.         Believers are taught by Allah to debate, argue or discuss with others with differing views in the most intelligent, wise and polite ways possible. There is nothing in the Quran at all where believers are ever enjoined to be harsh with others in matters of faith or to exercise oppression or compulsion to bring others to the path of Allah.

“Invite (all) to the Way of your  Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for your Lord knows best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance”. (Q 16:125)

5.         Today we witness persons speaking in the name of Allah with total arrogance, impunity, harshness towards fellow human beings and completely without compassion even to fellow believers who may have differing views. Some of these persons are termed as "scholars" simply by virtue of the fact that they were fortunate to obtain papers of qualifications from Universities.  They either forget or do not want to remember that any sincere ordinary Muslim with differing views from them may ask them the following question taught by Allah in the Quran:

“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 Judgment,

(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!”

6          But they lack compassion, politeness, mercy and forgiveness in their speech and their actions - all these being virtues of a true Muslim as explained in the Quran, the revelation from Allah. Lacking all these, they exhibit "pharaonic" characteristics of oppression by compelling others to submit to their views of what the teachings of Allah are.  No one is allowed to hold a different view or interpretation of how to submit to Allah without their approval and consent. Does this not remind those who believe in the Quran of the meeting between Firaun and  Prophet Moses:

 a) “Said Pharaoh: "Believe you in Him before I give you permission? Surely this is a trick which ye have planned in the city to drive out its people: but soon shall you know (the consequences). ( Q: 7:123) 

"Be sure I will cut off your hands and your feet on apposite sides, and I will

cause you all to die on the cross." (Q: 7:124) 

b) “Said Pharaoh: "Leave me to slay Moses; and let him call on his Lord! What I fear is lest he should change your religion, or lest he should cause mischief to appear in the land!" )          (Q  40.026) 

                   
7.                 Efforts to be on the straight path ordained by Allah is being hindered by people who lack compassion, arrogant and who place themselves as the sole interpreter of Allah's verses in the Quran. They have absolutely no shame or fear of Allah in compelling on you their version of religion that you must follow completely unmindful of the following verses from the Quran:

“Say: "What! Will you instruct God about your religion? But God knows all

that is in the heavens and on earth: He has full knowledge of all things”. (Q49:16) 

Can those who are oppressive, unforgiving, arrogant and totally lack compassion be servants of Allah or true believers (mukmin) ? Or are they hypocrites out to cause mischief and hinder human beings from the path of Allah for self-glory and wealth?

I leave that question for you to ponder.

Peace !

NOTE: The above views are entirely my understanding and no one is required to agree with them. Kindly check with your own copy of the Quran and make up your own minds and thoughts. If I have erred in my facts, kindly highlight to me.

Melayu di hina lagi? Kata Siapa?

Kalau betullah lapuran Utusan Online yang dipetik dari sini yang juga melapurkan seperti berikut:-

“Azran menerusi akaun Facebook dan Twitternya baru-baru ini bertindak mencerca Utusan Malaysia sebagai sebuah akhbar rasis hanya kerana menyiarkan artikel berbentuk pertanyaan bertajuk 'Apa lagi Cina mahu' pada 7 Mei lalu.

Menerusi akaun Facebook beliau, Azran menulis: "I am Malaysian. I am anti-racism. I am disgusted by Utusan's editorial stance. (Saya rakyat Malaysia. Saya antiperkauman. Saya meluat dengan pendirian pengarang Utusan),"

UMNO Veteran marah dengan pandangan dan kritikan Azran terhadap artikel yang dimuatkan dalam Utusan Malaysia. Kritikan ini dianggap sebagai satu tindakan biadab oleh Azran. Pendekata, bagi Veteran UMNO, mengeritik Utusan Malaysia adalah satu tindakan biadab.

Bukan itu sahaja, tindakan Azran mengeritik Utusan Malaysia juga dianggap sebagai “perbuatan Azran mencerca Utusan Malaysia bermakna beliau menghina kaumnya sendiri ketika kaum Melayu turut ditekan dari pelbagai sudut”.

Dari pemahaman minda Veteran UMNO, kritikan terhadap Utusan Melayu disamakan dengan penghinaan terhadap kaumnya sendiri. Disini lah cabaran untuk memahami lonjakan logik bagaimana kritikan terhadap satu artikel yang ditulis didalam satu surat khabar boleh dirumuskan sebagai satu peghinaan kepada satu kaum yang besar yang semestinya terdiri daripada anggota yang berlainan tahap pemikiran (dan pemahaman) serta pelbagai pandangan yang berbeza.

Bukankah kepelbagaian pandangan terhadap satu isu itu melambangkan kematangan satu kaum dan ekoran itu memuliakan kaum tersebut? Ini menunjukkan bahawa Melayu berupaya untuk melihat kepada satu artikel atau satu isu dengan pandangan dan kupasan yang berbeza.  Pada masa yang sama, keupayaan anggota dalam kaum itu untuk menerima dan berhujah berkaitan dengan pandangan yang berbeza secara berilmiah dan berasaskan fakta juga melambangkan peningkatan ketamadunan kaum itu. Mustahil satu kaum itu boleh maju kalau masih bergantung pada satu pendirian, atau fahaman atau kaedah yang telah ketinggalan zaman.

Didalam dunia keintelektualan, ada satu ungkapan yang sering diutarakan iaitu “those with brains can argue in a civilised manner but those with brawn will just flex their muscles”. Orang atau kumpulan yang yakin diri serta mampu berhujah balas tidak pernah gentar dengan pendirian orang lain yang berbeza, apatah lagi menggunakan kaedah pemikiran songsang dimana direspon balik dengan menggunakan taktik sentimen perkauman dan tunjuk kuasa. JIka ada pandangan yang berbeza, haruslah kumpulan itu memberi hujah balas yang boleh direnungi dengan akal. 

Veteran UMNO harus berhujah dengan fakta dan logik mengapa pendirian Azran terhadap Utusan Malaysia itu dikatakan sebagai “menghina Melayu”. Kalau pun kita andaikan dia menghina Utusan, bagaimana ianya boleh ditafsirkan sebagai menghina Melayu?

Jika benar Azran telah “menerusi akaun Facebook dan Twitternya baru-baru ini bertindak mencerca Utusan Malaysia sebagai sebuah akhbar rasis hanya kerana menyiarkan artikel berbentuk pertanyaan bertajuk 'Apa lagi Cina mahu' pada 7 Mei lalu” dan jika ini dianggap sebagai satu tindakan memfitnah, maka Utusanlah yang seharusnya mengambil tindakan undang-undang terhadap Azran.  Undang-undang Negara kita mantap dan jelas dalam hal ini. Dimana pula peranan Veteran UMNO dalam hal ini dan apakah locus mereka bercakap bagi pihak Utusan kecuali mereka sekadar melaksanakan hak bersuara mereka?

Ini yang saya kerap tidak faham dengan ”perjuangan” beberapa kumpulan dalam Negara ini. Utusan tidak mengambil sebarang tindakan undang-undang. Lembaga Utusan tidak berkata apa-apa namun Veteran UMNO yang tidak ada kaitan korporat atau undang-undang atau moral pula bertindak sebagai pelindung Utusan!

Memang pihak-pihak tertentu boleh berhujah bagi pihak lain yang dianiayai. Namun pembelaan haruslah berdasarkan hujah-hujah bernas, munasabah dan yang tidak menghina akal orang yang mendengarnya. Dizaman ini, ramai sudah kurang sabar dengan taktik-taktik yang menggunakan ungkapan sebagai “Melayu dihina”, “tidak kompromi dalam isu Melayu” dan ungkapan-unkapan yang seangkatannya yang tidak diiringi dengan hujah bernas atau fakta.

We have to evolve and therefore we have to learn to present our case. It is becoming embarrassing to use sentiments and superlatives to cover up our lack of thinking ability.

Saya berpendirian Veteran UMNO tidak perlu gusar. Melayu hari ini tidak mudah latah atau mudah terasa terhina dengan pandangan orang lain apatah lagi pandangan berbza daripada ahli kaumnya sendiri. Melayu hari ini lebih bersenjatakan maklumat dan fakta serta mempunyai keyakinan diri yang lebih tinggi. Mereka tidak perlu orang lain, apatah lagi orang-orang politik untuk melentur emosi mereka. Yakinlah kepada keupayaan Melayu untuk menilai sesuatu dan Insha Allah, mereka akan menilai dengan baik. Lagipun, kita bangga ada anak Melayu yang maju, kenapa pula kita nak taburkan pasir dalam periuk nasi Azran pulak kerana berbeza pendapat dengan dia?

Salam.

Listen Listen Listen !

THE ORIGINAL:

LISTEN LISTEN LISTEN NAMAWEE STYLE

THE PARODY SONG

THE DANCE  REMIX !!!!

MY VOTE GOES TO.....LISTEN BY BEYONCE !!!!

My comments : res ipsa loquitor. Dont understand? Well, as Sharifah says...I have a degree and you have O Levels! (reminded me of a Muslim Convert Academic who keeps reminding people that his ideas has to be accepted because he has a PH.D even when his arguments are all flawed !!!)  he he he

Salam @ Peace

You are only FREE to the extent of information MADE AVAILABLE to you !!!

Citizens live their lives unaware they are constantly short changed by those in power - both the political masters and the religious gurus.

Lets take a look at the political masters. They control the entire "infrastructure and the environment" under which you are allowed to live. They do this by the policies and the laws that they make, mostly without the knowledge of the majority, within the corridors of the select elite few. You only get to hear and most of the time, experience the policies and laws when you become aware that they are affecting you.

Whatever laws and policies that are announced are announced concisely enough so that not much information on the long term consequences are divulged to you. Much information is hidden from you so that you are not free enough to evaluate the policies and the laws passed.

Look at the mainstream news. Read the pronouncements of those in power. Do they divulge information that is useful to the well being of the Nation and the People?

Every piece of news is selected, edited and crafted to give you just the information that is required to shape the perception that they want you to have. Can you imagine what amount of information you have to form conclusions on important issues affecting the Nation through the main stream media.

The more information you have, the more freedom you have to decide on the fate of this Nation. The more information the People have, the less powerful the political masters become.

Freedom of information is power to the People and this is something no politician will like!

The internet has given much power to the People because to a very large extent, it still allows expression of facts and ideas without much control. But be warned - this may not be for long. It hurts the power of the political masters because it allows ideas and facts alternative to theirs.

Lets now look at the religious gurus or masters. Directly and indirectly this group has always presented themselves as the most knowledgeable and therefore most qualified to speak in God's name. They also present themselves as armed with the most authentic, unquestioning and accurate divine information. They equally uphold their understanding of the scriptures as the only possible understanding and infallible at that.

Once upon a time, the dissemination of religious information was by way of mouth and once again, through the mainstream media. Hence, the ordinary people only get the mainstream information as approved and agreed upon by a select elitist mainstream few. Any views opposing these views will never get the opportunity to be published.

Hence, the general public never knows that an equally plausible alternative understanding of the scripture is possible. Hence, the general public does not really have freedom of understanding their faith due to control of information available.

This monopoly over "religious information" is largely broken down by the internet. Again, internet poses a major obstacle to those who want to hoard information.

Study the history of human civilisation and you will find that mainstream politicians and mainstream religious gurus work hand in glove. It is the political and religious elite who decide what can be believed and what cannot. They decide what information can be made available and what cannot. During the course of time, the unthinking public assumes that the "norm" is the only and right thing to believe.

Guard your access to information or it will cost you your life !

Peace !!!

Citizens - Protect your Right To Express on the Internet !!!!

The ordinary citizen's voices never mattered for many, many decades in this country. Globally, the ordinary people's voices never mattered for centuries. The world was controlled and shaped by the elitists - whether political, corporate or religious.

Now that has changed. The INTERNET has given a platform to the ordinary citizen to voice his opinions, his views, his findings and his criticisms. He or she can express herself freely and present her ideas for others to share and benefit.

The Internet has also become a source of alternative news and alternative information. We are able to get the other picture and other perspectives. If once, the elitist and the politicians had the power to shape opinions and present "truths", now the "real" truth may be found on the internet. This is a big blow to the politicians and the religious elites because their power to influence has been reduced. Trust me, the politicians and the religious gurus do not take this lightly. 

They do not like this. They will find ways to restrict the common folks access to and use of the internet.

You have to guard this freedom for those in power will want to enslave you, your mind and your soul.

Peace !

MAIS, Khalid Samad and the right to speak on Islam

The recent spate of events concerning MAIS and YB Khalid Samad raises interesting and important issues. It is reported that MAIS is acting against Khalid Samad for "talking" on Islam in the mosque without permission from MAIS. 

The MalaysianInsider reports that "Khalid was charge under Section 119 of the Selangor Islamic Religious Administration Enactment for giving a sermon in a surau at Taman Seri Sementa, Kapar in Klang on August 16 without prior permission". Apparently Khalid Samad is going to challenge this on the basis that it is unconstitutional.

I can understand and support the fact that allowing politics to dominate "places of worship" can be dangerous and even develop into a security threat. In fact I strongly hold the view that there should not be any politicisation of any religion. In our conutry, I feel that there has been too much politicisation of Islam to the point that "true Islam" has been given a backseat. I have written on the politico-Islamisation process in Malaysia in my book "Rapera: Urgently wanted" .You only need to look around the world to see and appreciate the poisonous mix of religion and politics on society.

Having said the above, the right of a Muslim citizen to speak his views on his faith is another matter altogether. I have written on this quite comprehensively here when Datuk Dr Asri was faced with a similar predicament.

The issues will go back to the Federal Constitution, the State Laws on Syariah and the Quran. 

Article 11 (1) is often quoted by many Muslims to defend their right to practice and profess their religion as this article clearly gives them that freedom subject to artcile 11(4) of the Federal Constitution. 

Art 11 (4) provides that state and federal laws may control or restrict the propagation of any religious beliefs or doctrines among persons professing the religion of Islam. As I have written before, this could very well be interpreted to mean even a Muslim may be restricted to propagate Islamic doctrines and beliefs to another Muslim or group of Muslims? Possibly the “correct” interpretation is that only authorized persons can propagate “Islamic beliefs and doctrines” to Muslims citizens.

If this is the interpretation that the courts adopt, then, the State Laws that require anyone to obtain permission from them before "propagating" Islam to Muslims may very well be in line with the Constitution!

Think about it.

Peace.

Why don’t people just realize this?

When you are sick, you go and see a doctor. If it is a simple cold or fever, his medicine may help you recover. Actually, most of the time, we do not know whether the medicine actually helped us recover or merely expedited the recovery. In any event, the point is: if you or your child is sick or very sick, YOU or your immediate family or friends will have to take care of that – not some government authority.

When you become unemployed or have not found a job and worry about your 4 kids and your wife, it is you who will be making an effort to find the necessary money so that your family can sustain itself. There is a need to buy food, rents to pay, and other financial commitments to settle. This will be the time when the banks and the credit card companies will not only be unfriendly but downright cruel. No religious authority or cleric or any government authority will knock on your door to find our if your child has eaten last night. At the worst moment, you will have to swallow your pride and borrow from your friends or relatives. Bottom line – YOU and YOU ALONE will have to fend for and take care of your family’s safety and future. And of course, the direct assistance of God. Have you ever in your life called up any religious authority or any Ulama or cleric to come and help you?  DO you think they will come if you call them?

We all have personal problems. Life can be a roller coaster. There are times when life seems too unbearable and things around us simply disturbs us.  This is the time we need someone who we can talk too. Someone who can lift our spirits up or just to listen. Who do you call? The nearest Ustad? You ask him how to sort out your feelings? I am sure you talk to your good friends or maybe to someone in your family.

Who do you think is going to take care of you when you are very old, frail and worse very sick? While you are alive, it is most probably your family or your friends. Or for those without families, the old folks home. Do you find any religious authority there to help you through your old age? Do they come and wipe your buttocks when you shit in bed or change your adult diapers because you cannot move to the toilet? Be sure that they will be there only when you die – to pray for your dead body!

Think. Think.

All your life in all the vital moments, who is beside you and around you bearing and sharing the burden of life with you? Think. Talk to yourself and think about all the difficult times of your life. How did you face them? Who helped you to face them? Some stranger with a name tag saying that he is a religious authority?

Do you not realize that the so-called religious authorities are there only during the happy and safe moments in life to exert their power over you?

If I am wrong in this, please, please let me know and I will apologise for what I have written here.

If I am right, then what in God’s name makes you surrender to them?

Peace !

Peristiwa penuduhan Dr. Mohd. Asri Zainul Abidin: mencabar kewibawaan Mufti dan menimbulkan persoalan lain?

oleh: Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos

Kosmos online melapurkan bahawa:

“Mengikut pertuduhan, Asri didakwa mengajar agama Islam tanpa tauliah daripada JAIS di kediaman No. 2, Lorong 2C, Taman Sri Ukay, Ampang dekat sini antara pukul 8.10 malam dan 9.45 malam 1 November lalu.
Asri didakwa mengikut Seksyen 119(1) Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islam Selangor 2003 yang membawa hukuman denda maksimum RM3,000 atau penjara maksimum dua tahun atau kedua-duanya jika sabit kesalahan”.

Di dalam “sejarah agama Islam” di Malaysia, ini merupakan pertama kali seorang bekas Mufti di dakwa diatas pertuduhan mengajar tanpa bertauliah. Pada peringkat ini, memang terlalu awal untuk membuat sebarang komen terhadap inti pati pertuduhan kerana kes ini belum bermula lagi. Sepasti nya perjalanan kes ini akan melibatkan pelbagai perkara seperti takrif “mengajar”, “agama Islam” dan sebagai nya. Dari aspek ini, mungkin perjalanan kes ini akan meningkatkan kefahaman orang awam mengenai “pentadbiran agama Islam” oleh “ajensi agama” di Negara ini.

Memandangkan dewan Undangan Negri Selangor telah meluluskan Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islam Selangor 2003 dan kini sudah pun ada pertuduhan di bawah Enakmen ini di hadapkan teradap Dr Asri dalam Mahkamah Syariah, maka seelok nya kita biarkan proses undang-undang ini berjalan. Dalam konteks ini, tidak tepat juga seorang Ahli Parlimen yang tidak berparti (tetapi tidak jelas bebas) untuk mempersoalkan implementasi undang-undang ini yang di bawah kerajaan PKR. Ia seharusnya bertanya kepada kerajaan Selangor.

Namun, kita harus mengkaji nya dari aspek-aspek yang lain. Pertama, Peristiwa ini jelas menunjukkan bahawa pihak Jais berpendapat seorang Mufti itu sendiri perlu untuk mendapatkan tauliah apabila tempoh nya sebagai mufti habis. Seorang Mufti di anggap atau sekurang-kurang nya di ketengahkan kepada masyarakat sebagai seorang yang arif di dalam agama Islam. Mufti di anggap bukan sahaja sebagai seorang “jurist” atau ahlul fekah tetapi sebagai seorang “ulamak agama”. Hampir jarang atau tidak kedengaran seorang Melayu Muslim tidak setuju dengan pandangan seorang Mufti kalau dibandingkan sebagai contoh dengan Peguam Negara.

Ini adalah kerana seorang Mufti bukan sahaja di lihat sebagai pakar undang-undang syariah tetapi secara amnya sebagai seorang agama yang disegani. Persepsi am selama ini ialah: bercanggah pendapat dengan seorang Mufti samalah dengan bercanggah pendapat dengan ajaran Islam. Besar kemungkinan pertuduhan terhadap Dr Asri akan mengubah persepsi ini di kalangan masyarakat terhadap kumpulan orang agama. Kini jelas bahawa seolah-olah seorang Mufti hilang “kewibawaan” bercakap mengenai Islam apabila ia menjadi bekas Mufti.

Kalau kita ambil contoh Peguam Negara, satu jawatan yang di hormati oleh peguam-peguam di Negara ini, perkara sedemikian tidak timbul. Bagi Peguam Negara, sebarang pandangan yang bercangah dengan beliau tidak menjadi masalah langsung. Beliau tidak akan kecil hati serta tidak menjadi kesalahan di bawah “perundangan sibil”. Ini adalah kerana didalam disiplin perundangan sibil, perbezaan pandangan benar-benar dianggap sebagai memperkayakan sistem perundangan Negara. Kepelbagaian pandangan adalah suatu yang lazim dan tidak seorang peguam mahupun peguam Negara sendiri yang menekankan hanya pandangan nya diterima sebagai betul. Kesemua hujah-hujah adalah berasaskan nas dan kemunasabahan.

Kedua, faktor keperluan untuk mendapatkan tauliah untuk “mengajar Islam” juga mungkin menimbulkan pelbagai persepsi. Ia membawa implikasi bahawa amalan Islam di Negara ini terikat amat rapat dengan perundangan. Dalam ertikata lain, seorang Melayu Muslim dalam Negara ini tidak dapat mengamalkan Islam kecuali seperti mana yang ditentukan oleh perundangan syariah Negara ini iaitu pengubal-pengubal undang-undang tersebut. Adakah ini membawa maksud bahawa individu Muslim tidak mempunyai sebarang pemilihan dalam mengamalkan Islam seperti mana yang difahami oleh nya?

Walaupun perkara ini adalah berkaitan dengan “mengajar mengenai Islam”, namun rakyat Muslim akan bertanya samada wujud nya perundangan-perundangan lain yang tidak diketahui umum yang membatasi atau mengawal amalan Islam mereka. Tanda tanya ini menjadi serius apabila orang awam membandingkan diri mereka dengan seorang yang berstatus bekas mufti dan graduan universiti berkelulusan phd.

Ketiga, peristiwa ini juga akan mencetuskan perbincangan mengenai apakah yang dimaksudkan dengan istilah “undang-undang” syariah di Negara ini? Ahli akademik memang arif tentang maksud istilah ini dari aspek teori nya. Begitu juga orang awam sekian lama menganggap bahawa istilah ini merujuk kepada “undang-undang Islam” tanpa sebarang soal atau selidik. Namun, kini akan timbul apakah maksud istilah ini dari segi praktiknya?

Setiap orang Islam yang mengambil agama nya secara serius tahu bahawa amalan agama nya adalah bersumberkan Al-Quran dan Sunnah. Ramai yang tidak sedar bahawa perundangan syariah dalam praktis adalah juga bersumberkan ijma ulama dan kias. Kini, seolah-olah terdapat satu lagi kawalan terhadap amalan mereka dari segi praktik iaitu perundangan yang di istilahkan “syariah”. Adakah menjadi kesalahan dibawah perundangan syariah Negara ini sekiranya seorang rakyat Muslim ingin mengesahkan samada yang di istilahkan sebagai “undang-undang syariah” itu benar-benar bertepatan dengan Al-Quran dan Sunnah? Bagaimana jika seorang Muslim itu berpandangan bahawa suatu peruntukkan dibawah undang-undang syariah itu tidak bertepatan dengan AL-Quran dan Sunnah?

Persoalan-persoalan seperti diatas perlu diperjelaskan oleh kerajaan serta ajensi agama supaya Muslim yang ikhlas tidak terlanggar undang-undang syariah Negara ini.
Persoalan-persoalan ini juga penting supaya rakyat Muslim tahu tanggunjawap mereka dibawah undang-undang syariah di Negara ini. Pendekata, jika rakyat Muslim tahu bahawa Islam amalan Negara ini adalah seperti yang ditentukan oleh agensi-agensi agama, maka mudah bagi rakyat Muslim untuk merujuk kepada ajensi berkenaan mengenai sebarang kemusykilan agama.

Jika ini kedudukan nya, paling elok ialah sebuah buku diterbitkan untuk kegunaan rakyat Muslim supaya mereka tahu amalan Islam yang dibenarkan. Melalui cara ini, kita dapat mengelakkan perlanggaran undang-undang secara tidak sengaja.

Salam.

Sex and politics: Political Impotence in Malaysia.

Used in the sexual sense, impotence refers to the man’s consistent inability to sustain an erection sufficient for sexual intercourse or the inability to achieve ejaculation, or both. Impotence can vary. It can involve a total inability to achieve an erection or ejaculation, an inconsistent ability to do so, or a tendency to sustain only very brief erections.

Compare this with political impotence. Can we say that political impotence refers to “the politicians’ consistent inability to sustain the political will sufficient for holistic reforms or the inability to achieve holistic advancement of the Nation, or both. Impotence can vary. It can involve a total inability to achieve holistic advancement of the Nation or holistic reforms, an inconsistent ability to do so, or a tendency to sustain only very brief political will.

On the causes of impotence, it says that “The risk of impotence increases with age. Men with less education are also more likely to experience impotence, perhaps because they tend to have less healthy lifestyles, eat a less healthy diet, drink more and exercise less. Physical exercise tends to lessen the risk of impotence”.

Again, the risks of sexual impotence seem to be consistent with the risks of political impotence. The longer a politician is in power, he is at a higher risk of political impotence. Hence the need to shorten him term in power.

Politicians with less education (one should not confuse with the mere possession of a degree or masters and nowadays even with Phd.s with education), tend to suffer greater degree of political impotence. They have no vision, they are unable to recognize the changes in society (dinasourous attitude) and even when they speak, the thinking Rakyat feels offended or embarrassed. This probably explains why many politicians in Malaysia like to employ “school debate style” of making speeches. What is lacking in substance is desperately dressed in the form of theatrics, “jokes”, and often they seem to shout into the microphone. The worse form of offence is their presumption that merely because the audience cannot “switch them off” like a television, they think the audience enjoys the sound of their voice!

Don’t you yearn or fantasise for a speech of substance?

If you had mingled with those in power and politics, you will find that the last serious text book that they read was for their last examination paper in University. Since then, their information comes solely from the mainstream newspaper, their political cronies and flies constantly around them and the occasional photocopied section of a magazine prepared by their political secretaries whose discerning ability is equally in question.

In any event, it does not take a genius to figure out that with the number of publicity events, meeting their supporters, dinning, opening this and that, etc, etc…they have no time to read, reflect and think. Is it any wonder than that they scorn and ridicule the thinking section of the public? Is it also any wonder than that intellectuals and thinking people avoid political parties like a plague and even if they were a member of any party, they will remain in the far corner of party membership till their dying day.

You must and need to know this – the politicians are actually averse to any well-informed, critical and intelligent Rakyat. This is the reason why they, either directly or indirectly, play a critical role in the suppression of thoughts, ideas, books and knowledge in general. What they do not understand, they feel threatened and hence, surgical removal is their quick solution.

Back to sexual impotence which may be due to lack of physical exercise, political impotence occurs when there is a lack of mental exercise. When the mind is not properly utilized and challenged, it becomes dull and uncreative. When it is dull and uncreative, it regurgitates ideas that have outlived their shelf life. Hence, it should not be surprising at all that we find politicians across all divides speaking of the same things for decades and excuse it in the name of continuity!

I think we the Rakyat may be focusing on the wrong things for now in terms of political choice. Of course it will be easy to limit our choices to the existing parties. That seems to be what we are doing with our new clamour for a two party system. That’s fine. But we need to go further, the People have to find a way to increase the quality of politicians in our midst especially those who presumptuously become leaders upon being elected.

We have to somehow send a signal to the existing crop of politicians that if we want good quality drama or comedy we can either select from the cable channels or simply youtube. Maybe we should just get up and leave a speech if it gets rather unintelligent or comical? This may seem rude. Possibly we should hold a demonstration if a mainstream newspaper gives front page coverage to a really dumb statement from a clueless politician? Doesn’t help and I am merely kidding with this one.

I think we may start with this – insist that before any politician speaks, he must share with us in brief a good serious book that he has read that week – and understood. Hmm….


Peace !

Can Islamic issues be discussed without the permission of the religious authorities?

Dr Mohd Asri’s recent debacle with Jais has raised very pertinent questions for the Nation as a whole. Initially reports seem to suggest that his dramatic arrest (there were almost 30 police personnel and Jais officers) concerns him delivering a lecture on Islam without a “tauliah”. For all practical purposes, a “tauliah” will denote permission from the relevant religious authorities to lecture on “matters Islamic”. This need for permission from religious authorities before someone can speak on Islamic matters raises serious issues.

1. Firstly, the impact on an ordinary Muslim’s right and duty to share and exchange views on Islam. It is every Muslim’s duty to call people towards the performance of good deeds and the avoidance of evil deeds. This duty will necessarily involve a Muslim speaking from his Muslim perspective and from his understanding of the Quran and Sunnah. It will appear from the arrest of a former Mufti for purportedly giving his views on Islamic issues that prior permission must be obtained from the religious authority before any Muslim wants to express his views on Islam. There is now this confusion and concern among the Muslims in the country.

The ordinary Muslim is not aware that there is a need to obtain prior permission from the religious authorities before they can share their views on Islam or engage in a discussion on Islamic issues. If indeed this permission is required under the State syariah laws, several other questions may arise. What are the criteria of approval or is it merely arbitrary? Who decides the criteria on behalf of the millions of Muslims in this country? Will this impinge on the Muslim’s duty to practice his Muslim obligations without fear or favour? If at all the Muslims in this country feel that there must be control over the Muslim’s right of expression, then surely there must clear and publicized set of guidelines/rules?


2. Secondly, it also raises concerns whether academics, bloggers, columnists and such will now be subjected to the requirement that they must first obtain prior approval from the religious authorities before they can express their views and thoughts. Again, one needs to consider whether such a requirement will in the long run stifle academic and intellectual development in Islamic thought since the ones who are going to determine whether permission should be granted or not are paid civil servants. There is also the issue of mazhab preference and issue-centric preference. What will happen if the “approval person” of the day is not inclined to the thoughts of a particular mazhab? This will result in the general public not benefiting from the knowledge.

3. As a result of point (2) above, we have to seriously consider the impact on the growth and development of Islamic thought in the country. It is a real possibility that control over the expression and discussion of diverse views on Islam will lead to the existence of only one mode of thinking and state of mind which need not necessarily be consonant with the principles of the Quran and the Sunnah. If laws and state apparatus are used to control the ordinary Muslim’s mind, then who is to question whether what is stated is indeed consistent with the Quran and the Sunnah? Under such a regime, any sincere effort to invite alternative thinking and to consider alternative interpretations will become a state offence.

4. Thirdly, one has to ask what is the role of the Federal Constitution in all these. Article 10 (1) of the Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all the citizens subject only to such restrictions as Parliament may pass pursuant to Article 10(2). It is arguable that requiring a Muslim to seek permission from the State before he can speak or write on his own religion is an infringement of his constitutional rights so long as they do not offend the provisions under Article 10 (2).

5. Fourthly, Article 11 (1) guarantees that, subject to clause (4), every citizen has the right to practice and profess his religion. Surely this right must also extend to the Muslim citizen to profess and practice his religion. Surely the Muslim also has equal protection (Article 8) and rights under the law as the non-Muslims? However, while the non-Muslim does not have to seek prior approval to organize talks or seminars with regards to his religion, the Muslim citizen appears to have this added hurdle to cross in order to exercise his rights under Article 10 and Article 11 (1). Is this constitutional? Is this legal? I will not ask the question if this hurdle is consistent with the Quran since it is not (my humble view – stand to be corrected).

6. Fifthly, this Dr Asri episode also requires us to visit and understand article 11 (4) of the Federal Constitution. Art 11 (4) provides that state and federal laws may control or restrict the propagation of any religious beliefs or doctrines among persons professing the religion of Islam. All this while, many lawyers I have spoken to have usually interpreted this to refer to the propagation of other religions to Muslims. However, the word used in the constitution is “any” religion and in the “Islamic world” there are diverse views even though the basic belief is the same. Hence, on these two facts coupled with Dr Asri’s episode, will it not be correct to say that Article 11 (4) may be interpreted to mean that even a Muslim may be restricted to propagate Islamic doctrines and beliefs to another Muslim or group of Muslims? Possibly the “correct” interpretation is that only authorized persons can propagate “Islamic beliefs and doctrines” to Muslims citizens. In other words, “state determined Islam” which will therefore be largely dependant on “who (person/individuals) is the real ‘state’ at the particular time”. Mind boggling? Yes, this is what happens when you legislate faith!

I welcome comments on the above article as I think it has immense far reaching implications not only on the issues of law but also on the position of the Muslim as being a servant of Allah.

Peace !