Extremism: Between Wrong Policy and Corrupt Ideology (Dr. Maher Hathout)

 

Are we making fun of Allah 17 times a day ?

POLITICAL DISTANCING THIS RAMADAN BENEFITS MUSLIMS

Ramadan is here – when Muslims fast for a month from dawn to dusk to fulfill one of the pillars of Islam. I believe it is spiritually uplifting for each with their own experience.

There are also many “non-spiritual” benefits such as discipline, dieting and self-awareness.

The Ramadan experience this year, however, will be dramatically different due to the Covid-19 pandemic. There will be no Ramadan buffets in hotels, which together with others in the food and beverage sector, will be badly hit.

The positive side in this whole episode is the reduced politicising of the religion which has unfortunately become accepted behaviour in Malaysia.

It is an open secret, in the capital city at least, that politicians often use the fasting month to further their political presence by organising “iftar“. Hopefully, in the absence of such politically motivated sessions, our attention can return to the actual spirit of Ramadan.

Furthermore, most of those invited to such Ramadan buffets can afford their own food. Maybe this time around, the money saved can be used to feed the poor and needy.

Also, since much time will be saved from not socialising or networking, hopefully there will more thinking and introspection by our leaders on how to improve the collective happiness in the country.

I often wonder if politicians have the time to think, reflect and read since they are often busy attending programmes.

Continue reading by clicking here.

Peace !

The compassionate face of Islam

MUSLIMS should welcome the announcement by Datuk Dr Mujahid Yusof Rawa, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of religious affairs, that it will be the government’s policy to promote compassionate Islam.

Actually, I believe there is only an “Islam” whose teachings are primarily compassionate, a blessing and merciful. Anyone who reads the Quran will know that it describes itself as a “healing and a mercy to those who believe” (Al Isra (17) verse 82).

In fact, the Holy Prophet Muhammad himself is described in the Quran as rahmatan lil Alamiin for the whole world and the creations (Al Anbiya (21): verse 107).

Essentially, rahmah means love or affection and is often understood to mean the love of God for mankind and His creations where He has provided everything they need to develop and live on this earth. In other words, the Quran guides mankind to understand and appreciate this rahmah through its guidance.



Dr Mujahid also pointed out the use of state resources to confront “public sins” and “private sins” to show, I believe, that any use of religious enforcement powers must be tampered with common sense and compassion.

I believe real scholars of Islam know that there is an abundance of literature that discourages the deliberate attempt to expose private sins.

For reasons which I cannot understand, Dr Mujahid has been exposed to irrelevant criticisms by some Muslim religious experts implicit within which is the assumption that he is ignorant of the discourse in these matters.


Read more at https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/through-many-windows/2018/10/14/the-compassionate-face-of-islam-it-should-never-be-the-states-role-to-merely-punish-the-offender-or#yJmObO1TVuz0wQfl.99

Be kind to parents, enjoins the Quran

How many of us Malaysians, both Muslim and non-Muslim, can say that we have heard about what the Quran and the Prophet say about our responsibility to our parents in most of the national discourse concerning Islam? 

In the past few decades, the national discourse about Islam by “Islamic” political parties and some non-governmental organisations (NGOs) has been about so-called criminal laws in Islam which the scholars choose to call as “hudud”. Granted there are a few criminal penalties that have been mentioned in the Quran. Sadly however, many other injunctions and commandments in the Quran that not only have a universal appeal but actually improve the quality of life of all human beings, both Muslim and non-Muslim, are hardly highlighted. 

With respect, the public may misperceive that only the enactment and implementation of these “hudud” punishments is what makes up an “Islamic” society. This cannot be so as the concept of Islamic justice is much more than that and goes beyond secular understanding of “criminal justice”. There are greater noble ideas of social, natural, economic and “human” justice in the Quran.

How much of justice have we done for the aged, the senior citizens, single mothers and the neglected parents in our society? Would it not be refreshing for Malaysians if some Islamist NGOs or political parties canvass these issues in the name of “Islamic mercy”?

Malaysia has long left being a dominant agricultural country. We have moved into modernised living and the functioning of the family unit as we knew many decades ago has considerably altered. The nature of economic activities that citizens indulge in has changed, cost of living has gone up and in turn family values too have changed. In fact, the occupational circumstances of our capitalist economy bring forth realistic challenges to take care of parents especially those who require constant care and attention.

If we were to honestly appraise the development of our towns, cities, buildings and roads, can we say that we have made it user-friendly to the older folks? I humbly state that much of our town planning and construction efforts, whether residential or commercial, does not express the compassion factor the Quran repeatedly emphasises. Even in China you can find parks and places specially built for senior citizens to mingle and exercise. 

Our economy is very much biased towards the youth and in the process, the value of senior citizens has diminished. I am afraid that our national policymakers have not given proper attention to the maintenance of the family unit, especially the care and respect for senior citizens and parents. 

We have simply left it to the individuals and communities to sort it out according to their own values. However, this overlooks the fact that drastic transformation of the economy has changed our values. The State has a duty to balance this anomaly because much of the economic and social changes are brought about by the State’s approval and many times, by its designs.

The Quran explicitly places great importance of being good to parents. In fact in surah Al Baqarah verse 83 (Quran 2:83), the Quran says, among other things, “worship none save Allah and be good to parents”. 

There are many other verses in the Quran with the same theme of being kind and caring of one’s parents. Furthermore, the Quran in many instances also appeals to logic as to why we have to be kind to them. One reason being that it was our parents that have taken care of us and dedicated parts of their life to raise us. 

While the Quran speaks of kindness to both parents, it gives special attention to mothers. Every time I read these verses, I ask myself: What have we done for the single mothers who are fated to live the life they never chose? Why are the Islamist political parties and contemporary Muslim scholars not championing their plight? 

When parents reach old age, this presents the greatest opportunity to the Muslim to care for his parents to earn the pleasure of Allah (Quran 17: 23-24). 

Muslims are reminded that parents have a right over their children for care and love as they have been showered with when they were children. The love, care and respect for parents specifically and aged citizens generally ought to be evolved into a natural, national value until it becomes a norm. 

It is with shame that I see many parts of England are more senior citizen-friendly than Malaysian economic development! And yet, political Islamists unashamedly keep giving sermons on the “mercy of Allah” while not choosing to champion the same injunctions in the Quran.

I do hope that Islamists will be in the forefront to champion the cause of senior citizens’ care and push for legislation and State assistance for children who are unable to provide for their parents. These are the good things that I want political parties that claim to represent Islam to do. 

I can understand the challenges, financial, psychological and physical, faced by children who have to care for their aged parents. I have a sister who has been caring for my very old mother for years and I simply am moved by her love, patience and dedication. 

However, I also know some children who are unable to do so or cannot provide the quality care due to various constraints. I urge the contemporary Islamic scholars to debate on how best the individual citizen together with the State can provide for quality care for old folks and parents. 

If there is a need for legislation and policies to be made, then it needs to be done if we call ourselves a caring society, what more some claim that we are an “Islamic State”.  

I believe such a move, even in the name of Islam will be supported by the non-Muslims as it will provide benefit to all, irrespective of religious differences.

* Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos is a senior lawyer and founder of Rapera, a movement which encourages thinking and compassionate citizens. He can be reached at rapera.jay@gmail.com

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/be-kind-to-parents-enjoins-the-quranjahaberdeen-mohamed-yunoos#sthash.ZnyeXAGN.dpuf

Finding middle ground between secularists and theocrats?

MAY 29 — It is not only in Malaysia but in many parts of the world where there is a contest between the secularist and the religionists with regards to shaping the nature of society. There are many academic discussions on secularism and theocracy.

Essentially, secularism does not want any one scripture to be the sole determinant or source of laws in the nation. On the other hand, theocrats believe that scriptures or religious sources should be the primary source of laws and conduct in society because they believe it is divine.

Putting aside the opportunists on both side of the divide, I try to understand with compassion, giving the benefit of the doubt and emphatically as possible their respective objectives and positions. One thing becomes clear: Both mean well and believe that their respective positions will serve humanity well.

If we are willing to move away, at least for the sake of deliberation, from our dogmatic or fixed positions, we might be able to see the picture and debate more clearly.

I believe the secularists’ greatest fear with a theocratic government is the loss of human being’s free will in the general sense. They imagine a government that is ostensibly speaking, not in the name of the people, but in the name of God. Hence, they fear that any dissent of government’s policy or implementation of laws will be construed as an opposition to God’s will.

If this happens, their “crime” of opposition becomes not only a state offence but a religious offence which may be severely dealt with because of the emotive element attached to it. In a secular state, legitimate opposition to government views are welcomed as an act of citizen contribution to the betterment of the state.

On the other hand, theocrats believe that the will of human beings must be subjected to the will of God as evidenced in the respective scriptures. They fear that if human beings’ will is not controlled by God’s will, society may, in the long run, be subsumed by values that are contrary to the scriptures.

It is clearly the priority of theocrats that religious considerations precedes any other considerations in the functioning of the state.

Secularists, I believe want to uphold and protect what they see as the inherent right of citizens to shape the destiny of the state as they deem fit. They do not want this right to be limited purely by religious dogmas especially those that they consider personal.

In fact, secularists believe that religion is a purely private matter which the citizens should be allowed to practice without imposing the same publicly on others. This position will understandably collide with the stand of the theocrats, especially the Islamists.

This is because to every mainstream Islamist there is no division of religion and life on earth. Every single act, thought and behaviour is a religious act to them. Islam is both a personal and a community religion and therefore, the Islamists will want to redesign the community into the “Islamic mould.”

It is therefore clear that this mindset will move the Islamist to influence and shape society to adhere to the “Islamic parameters” when he has the opportunity to do so.

While the secularists, for example, may be shocked to view Muslim adults being “compelled” into certain kinds of religious behaviour, these very same Muslim adults view it as voluntary adherence to an “Islamic government”! Clearly, therefore, the same act has two complexity opposing perceptive.

With respect, I humbly view the matter rather differently. I believe that both a secular and an “Islamic” government has its own set of problems. This is largely because it is interpreted and implemented by men with power and wealth.

We are not living in the age of the righteous, wise, compassionate, and humble sage who runs the state for the pure benefit of the greater good of the citizens.

If I am correct, then I believe that we have to move away from being trapped by the labels of “secularism” and “Islamism” when we want to deliberate on what is beneficial for the greater good of society. We have to now learn to embrace the substance of the matter rather than be caged within dogmatic egoism or sense of piety.

I know that this a tough call for me to make as both sides, especially the elites among them, may be resistant and adamant in their positions.

Therefore, I see that the change that can occur in this regard, if we want the change, is for ordinary citizens to start thinking about the nature, situation and future of their lives. It must be a bottom-up kind of change and I have long given up in believing that changes will come top-down.

I repeat: We have to learn to start the culture of discussing the substance of things — such as employment opportunities, ability to live as a dignified human being, responsible freedom, just laws that do not dishonour the human, equality as God’s children and citizens of one state and so on.

Really, it is pointless for the ordinary citizen to be caught up with the elitist arguments of secularism or Islamism. You are powerless in this regard and you may only experience a momentary syok sendiri feeling. It is not going to put food on their table nor is it going to ensure that their children will have a good future.

The real power is to have a “look at the substance of the matter” mindset and hopefully, changes will happen bottom-up.

* Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos is a senior lawyer and founder of Rapera, a movement which encourages thinking and compassionate citizens. He can be reached at rapera.jay@gmail.com.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/finding-middle-ground-between-secularists-and-theocrats-jahaberdeen-mohamed#sthash.cE9wU555.dpuf

What is Islamic law?

It may sound ironical to ask the question what is “Islamic law” in the 21st century when it is generally thought that the body of what constitutes Islamic law has already been crystallised and settled.

If indeed it has crystallised into a recognisable and unchangeable body, then it is logical that there would only be one universal Islamic law. However, an observation of Islamic law between various countries and even between various states in Malaysia would evidence the fact that the laws are not uniform.

It would seem that what is Islamic law is still developing, in a state of flux and diverse. Shariah, on the other hand is a separate concept altogether.

Every Muslim would agree that Islam is a simple religion. The pillars of Islam are said to be only five that is, declaration of faith or the syahadah, the daily five times prayer, fasting in the month of Ramadan, payment of the zakat and the performance of the pilgrimage by those who can afford it.

However, Islam is seen not only as a religion in the typical sense but also as way of life that is complete and encompasses every aspect of our life.

In other words, Muslims believe and accept that Islam provides the necessary guidance and imposes certain obligatory behaviour in order to achieve the pleasure of God in this life and the next.

It is this belief that has lead the scholars of Islam to discern principles, precepts and law affecting life from the scriptures and the Sunnah of the Rasul.

Thus, began the role of the jurists or scholars of law in interpreting and developing various legal, social, economic and religious laws, conducts of behaviour and so on for the Muslim. These active role of the jurists began some many decades after the passing of the prophet.

I believe they reflected the intellectual response to the needs of a growing civilisation to derive various legal principles and codes of conduct necessary to create an orderly society consistent with the understood commandments of Allah in the Quran and the injunctions of the Sunnah.

It is from such need and environment that the development of usul al fiqh or Islamic jurisprudence took place.

In Islamic jurisprudence history, the al madhahib or schools of law that became famous are the Hanafite, the Malikite, the Shafi- ite and the Hanbalite though there were also other schools in the history of Muslim jurisprudence.

It is important to pause at this stage to reflect and note that prior to the development of these schools of jurisprudence, the primary source then for Muslims was simply the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet.

With the development of the schools of jurisprudence, therefore, the primary sources of Islamic law expanded to become the Quran, Sunnah, Ijma’ (consensus of the jurists) and Qias (judgement upon juristic anology).

Later, other secondary sources of Islamic jurisprudence were developed. Hence, there clearly was liberalisation of the sources from which Islamic jurisprudence began to expand and develop.

Any modern lawyer will appreciate this development as law is considered to be a “living creature” that develops as life and its circumstances change and develop.

However, it is worrisome whether some conservative scholars today are fully aware that no human being’s interpretation of Allah’s will can be absolute because only Allah alone is the Absolute Interpreter.

If this point is correct and properly understood then “Islamic law” as developed and developing can be relevant to contemporary situations and the very understanding of what embodies “Islamic law” can undergo fresh perspective without departing from its fundamental adherence to the Quran and most authentic Sunnah.

In the history of Muslim jurisprudence, a study and consideration of what are the objectives of the Shariah also too place. From a modern perspective, this would be an inevitable development.

The great university professor and scholar of Islam Imam Al Ghazali identified five essentials of the maqasid or the objectives of Syariah namely, preservation of religion, human life, the faculty of reason, progeny and material wealth.

As to whether or not the objectives or the maqasid should be limited to five is a subject of vigorous debate among the scholars.

Later scholars have added on to these five for example, the attainment of justice. This debate is understandable and in fact encouraging because life is constantly evolving with new experiences, new sets of circumstances, higher levels of knowledge, information and technology and discovery of new facts.

Hence, the perception and understanding of life today cannot be limited to the experiences and perception of life by previous scholars alone.

After all, Muslims believe that the law giver is Allah and any scholar cannot have a claim to monopoly of interpreting Allah’s intent, however knowledgeable he may be acclaimed to be.

It can, therefore, be seen from the discussion that “Islamic law” is in a state of development as is the case with many other aspects related to Muslim thinking such as political Islam, Islamic economics and so on.

The field of Islamic law and jurisprudence has become a complex discipline and Muslims must be careful that the legalistic aspect of Islam does not overshadow the spiritual and moral aspect of the religion such that it stifles faith or creativity of the individual Muslim in particular and the society in general.

In the context of Malaysia, as a Muslim, it is my hope that contemporary Muslim scholars maintain an open mind within the principles of the Quran and the most authentic Sunnah when they discuss and try to apply the Islamic law as developed by classical jurists who, without doubt has made great and laudable efforts.

There is sufficient evidence in Muslim jurisprudence history that the classical jurists never claimed their interpretations and their views to be beyond criticism or rejection if it is not consistent with the Quran, most authentic Sunnah or not relevant to the times.

In this regard it may be helpful to realign our Muslim outlook, for example, to evaluate whether some of the legislation that has been passed by our Parliament are in fact consistent with the primary sources of Islamic jurisprudence and hence “Islamic”.

This may be a better and useful approach than trying to impose classical formulation of laws in contemporary settings which are different.

If my argument is correct, this may lead to a more holistic understanding of what Shariah is unlike the current trend that what is defined as “shariah laws” are the only ones that are “shariah.” With this approach, probably large segments of what is now classified as “civil laws” may qualify as “shariah.”

I opine that the government’s effort to introduce the idea of Shariah compliance is a step towards this direction in the long run.

* Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos is a senior lawyer and founder of Rapera, a movement which encourages thinking and compassionate citizens. He can be reached at rapera.jay@gmail.com

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/what-is-islamic-law-jahaberdeen-mohamed-yunoos#sthash.ypBpogXI.dpuf

Bercakap mengenai agama, jangan lupakan kemanusiaan

Sekurang kurang nya lebih daripada 30 dekad yang lalu, perbualan, ceramah, diskusi, ucapan, tingkah laku dan pakaian semua nya semakin melambangkan "agama". Ini juga di ikuti dengan penggunaan bahasa Arab dalam banyak hal yang di anggap berkaitan dengan agama walaupun perkara yang sama boleh di perkatakan dalam bahasa Melayu.

Adakah ini menunjukkan bahawa kesedaran mengenai Islam semakin meningkat atau ianya hanya merupakan pencarian identiti oleh satu kumpulan yang kurang secure, kurang yakin diri dan merasakan perlu satu identiti "eksklusif"? Mungkin jawapan nya kedua-dua sekali bergantung kepada kecenderungan atau sifat kumpulan atau individu tertentu.

Perkara yang pasti ialah yang tampak tidak semestinya melambangkan diri atau keadaan yang sebenar. Baru-baru ini saya di perkenalkan dengan satu istilah baru iaitu "penunggang agama". Istilah ini merujuk kepada manusia yang memperalatkan agama untuk tujuan peribadi dan bukan nya beramal untuk mendapatkan keredhaan Allah. Kewujudan penunggang agama bukan lah perkara yang menghairankan kerana Al Quran pun sudah memberi amaran berkaitan dengan ini didalam Surah At Taubah ayat 9 (Q9:9)

"Mereka menukarkan ayat-ayat Allah dengan harga yang sedikit (dari faedah-faedah dunia), lalu mereka menghalangi (dirinya dan orang-orang lain) dari agama Allah; sesungguhnya amatlah buruknya apa yang mereka telah kerjakan".



Apa yang sepatutunya merisaukan Muslim yang benar-benar beriman kepada Allah ialah ucapan-ucapan penunggang agama yang lebih mencetusakn huru hara dalam masyarakat daripada melahirkan keehsaan sesama manusia mahupun sesama umat Muslim. Agama di gunakan sebagai landasan untuk melahirkan fahaman eksklusiviti seolah olah perpaduan diantara manusia adalah tidak perlu. Fahaman ini jelas akan mencetuskan permusuhan serta perpecahan umat manusia. Jika ini berlaku, akhirnya semua yang rugi dan jadi lah kita manusia yang tidak mensyukuri nikmat yang Allah bagi kerana kita telah membenarkan ego dan nafsu kita merosakkan perpaduan manusia yang wujud. 

Maka, dalam kita menjalankan kegiatan yang kita anggap sebagai dakwah Islam atau membicarakan hal-hal yang kita sangka berkaitan dengan agama, janganlah kita lupakan nilai2 kemanusiaan yang manusia sama-sama berkongsi.  Janganlah menjadi seperti manusia yang disebut didalam surah At Taubah ayat 107:

"Dan (di antara orang-orang munafik juga ialah) orang-orang yang membina masjid dengan tujuan membahayakan (keselamatan orang-orang Islam), dan (menguatkan) keingkaran (mereka sendiri) serta meme an-belahkan perpaduan orang-orang yang beriman, dan juga untuk (dijadikan tempat) intipan bagi orang yang telah memerangi Allah dan RasulNya sebelum itu. Dan (apabila tujuan mereka yang buruk itu ketara), mereka akan bersumpah dengan berkata:" Tidaklah yang kami kehendaki (dengan mendirikan masjid ini) melainkan untuk kebaikan semata-mata ". Padahal Allah menyaksikan, bahawa sesungguhnya mereka adalah berdusta ".

Salam

Why and what is opposition to Act 355?

There are many aspects of the Private Member’s Bill or Rang Undang-Undang Persendirian (RUU355/Act 355), brought by PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang in Parliament, that have interested me.

I have already written and spoken on different occasions on my views about the Act. I am now trying very hard to understand the crux of the opposition to the amendments sought. 

A few things are clear about the arguments by the proponents of the Act 355 if I understand them correctly. Firstly, they say that increasing the sentencing powers will empower the Shariah courts. Secondly, they feel that as Muslims the Shariah law must be implemented by all Muslims.

It is a must according to their understanding of being a good Muslim. Furthermore, they argue that the amendments will only affect three offences; namely that of zina, offence of falsely accusing someone of zina, and alcohol consumption, with their respective punishments of 100, 80 and 40 lashes. These are offences which are already part of the Shariah law in the country.

There is clearly support for the punishment of 100 lashes for the offence of zina in the Quran while the punishment of 80 and 40 lashes is found in other sources accepted by the majority of Muslim legalists. 

The indisputable fact is that the Act 355 itself concerns the jurisdiction of the Shariah courts and what is sought to amend is the sentencing powers of the Shariah courts. It is perfectly constitutional to seek to amend any Act. 

Then why are some Muslims opposing the amendments to increase the powers of the Shariah courts? Why are also non-Muslims opposing the amendments since Shariah laws will only affect the Muslims?

The simplistic response would be that these Muslims who are opposing are ignorant, liberalists, western influenced or agents of some anti-Islam force. I am not convinced by these simplistic responses. I believe the opposing Muslims are concerned whether or not such enhanced powers in the hands of the Shariah courts as existing today will be justly carried out. 

The other concern that I believe these opposing Muslims may have is their understanding of what is justice in Islam and priorities of the Shariah. If this is so, then they should come out more explicitly and clearly what their understanding is so that it can be the subject of useful dialogue with the view to develop Islamic understanding in the country. 

However, these opposing Muslims should not forget that much of the offences that they now appear to oppose are already part of the Shariah law in the country. Why then the opposition now? This is the part that is still unclear to many.

I doubt if these opposing Muslims oppose Shariah laws per se. I believe both sides will agree that the ultimate aim of Shariah must be justice. The proponents of Act 355 argue that justice can only be served when the Shariah as enshrined in the Quran and developed by the jurists are implemented. What is the counter argument, if any, that can be advanced by the opponents? 

I have also heard arguments that this is a backdoor to implement hudud laws in the future. It could very well be. However, what may happen in the future cannot be a valid objection to what is constitutionally permissible today. 

The other argument often heard is that this may give rise to a dual legal system. Such an argument is a separate matter altogether and cannot be a valid objection to the amendments sought.

I have often argued for a single Malaysian legal system but I do not position this argument as an objection to Act 355. What I envision is a total reform of the Shariah system in the country and a possible fusion with the civil law system. Admittedly, this will require a long-term reform of the justice system in the country.

I may have my own fundamental disagreements with the interpretation of what constitutes hudud and I have written elaborately on this on various occasions. I also disagree that merely increasing sentencing powers leads to empowering the courts. However, on the debate relating to the amendments to Act 355, I believe that constitutionally and on the basis of mainstream juristic views, the proponents of the Act have a stronger case. 

For the non-Muslims, as the law now stands, they have nothing to fear in terms of the application of Shariah laws on them. Hence, the opposition by some non-Muslims is difficult to fathom as it appears to be founded more on fear rather than facts. 

I would be surprised if the amendments sought are not passed in Parliament when they are debated.

END 

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/why-and-what-is-opposition-to-act-355-jahaberdeen-mohamed-yunoos#sthash.ks2okYlc.dpuf

What system of governance: Theocracy, democracy or secular?

SEPT 19 — To me, and I repeat, to me, it is not about being obsessed with the label of “secular” or “Islamic” country though I do not have serious problems with people using the term. I try to understand what they are actually saying as the substance is more important than the label. 

My position is clear: I do not support oppressive regimes or ideas whether they are labelled “secular” or “Islamic”. To be clear, I do not support a “secular system” that is anti religion as that is oppressive of a person’s faith. Likewise I do not support an “Islamic system” that takes away the professed Muslim’s inherent right to serve Allah as he understands it from the Quran as that is equally oppressive of faith. 

In any case, I believe the practice of one’s faith or religion should not be allowed to affect national security, general public order, peace and harmony in the country or deny the basic fundamental rights and liberties of other citizens guaranteed under our Federal Constitution. 

A theocratic state is often understood to be a political State which is founded on a particular religion. A theocracy may be defined as a form of government which defers not to civil development of law, but to an interpretation of the ‘will of a God’ as set out in religious scripture and authorities. 

In realistic terms, therefore, it will be ruled by a few men who will interpret the religious scriptures in the name of God for the rest of the populace. The clergy and religious leaders will be dominant under such a political structure. Human political history suggests the earliest forms of government are theocratic probably because a reference to a “divine” source was necessary to impose law and order then. 

Since theocrats believe they rule by divine sanction and are implementing the divine will, it is doubtful if they will brook any dissent to their views. 

Hence, any criticism of the government may be construed as criticising the religion and going against God. A study of the State-Church relationship in Christian political history will bear out this point. In other words, theocracy would naturally be anti-thesis to democracy which is a political structure that allows for consideration of diverse views and for leadership opportunities by ordinary citizens. Criticism of government policies in a democracy is considered a fundamental right and duty of a concerned citizen. Democrats welcome criticism, theocrats do not.

In modern times, the two ‘pure’ theocractic political structures are probably the Vatican and Iran though there are “quasi theocratic” states such as Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Afghanistan, Sudan and so on. 

Secularism, as I understand it, is a political system that is neutral to organised religion and it makes a conscious separation of those mandated to run the state from religious dignitaries and religious institutions. A secular state is not anti religion as is often misunderstood in our country — probably confused with the political system known as ‘State atheism” which promotes atheism as a state policy. I do not support state atheism because of its obvious denial of the freedom of faith as theocracy is equally guilty of.

Just as there are various degrees of democracies and theocracies, there too are various degrees of secularist political systems. Unlike theocracies which are dictated by religious personalities, the degree of democratic and secularist practices are determined by the people. It may be tweaked to adapt as situations changes.  

So, if we look at the substance beyond the labels, we see these are political systems and modes of governance with their own unique features, values and consequences on the governed. The real question that citizens ought to ask is: What degree of control and in what areas do they want the government to have on them? In other words, how much freedom are they willing or should give up for the greater good of the nation?

I believe our answer lies in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and in the interpretation of its articles. Clearly, we are not a theocratic state as the country has never been governed by clerics. We are a parliamentary democracy with many features of a secular state as is generally understood. Due to the political reality that the majority of the citizens (voters) are Muslims, there are attempts by several religious leaders and their supporters to gradually turn Malaysia into an “Islamic theocratic” state as understood by them. I hope I am wrong but I detect this trend is increasing.

Even though Article 3(1) provides that Islam is the religion of the Federation it also states that other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.  

The Federation is obviously made up of 13 states and three federal territories. How we interpret the words “Islam is the religion of the Federation” will determine to what extent religious dignitaries will influence the governance of the Federation and hence on the liberty of the people. 

I believe this point is very important to be remembered, especially by Judges when they are confronted with such an issue before them. To me, the wording of Article 3(1) is clear the constitution never intended for the country to evolve politically into an “Islamic theocratic State”. 

The Constitution also accords various fundamental liberties which I would argue generally supersedes religious positions. It is the duty of the government and the courts to uphold these fundamental rights despite any personal inclinations, if any. I admit this is a tricky and sensitive area but has to be addressed with courage, knowledge and sincerity, nevertheless. I have said many times before in certain cases where Muslim judges may find themselves in a conflict of conscience situation, then they should honourably recuse themselves from hearing the matter. 

With respect, I believe our courts have erred when they made an artificial distinction between faith and religion as if religion is completely independent of the requirement of faith. Such an artificial distinction is often made when Article 11(1) on the freedom to practise and profess a religion comes up for consideration. The other area which will determine the direction our political system of governance will be heading is on the interpretation of the word “precepts of Islam” as used in the Constitution.  I hope to touch on this area in the future, God willing. 

In the meantime I pray that our political leaders understand and are aware of these developments.

* Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos is a senior lawyer and founder of Rapera, a movement that encourages thinking  and compassionate citizens. He can be reached at rapera.jay@gmail.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/what-system-of-governance-theocracy-democracy-or-secular-jaharberdeen-moham#sthash.O7dXujaa.dpuf

Moving towards Muslim intra-faith tolerance

There has been much discussion and many conscious efforts to bring about inter-faith understanding and tolerance so that people from different religious backgrounds may learn to live together in peace and harmony in this country. 

The Federal Constitution itself was so drafted to enshrine this principle of religious tolerance while acknowledging Islam as the religion of the Federation.

Since Merdeka, we see there are mosques, gurdwaras, temples, churches and many other holy places belonging to diverse religions co-existing peacefully.

Malaysians celebrate each other’s religious festivities as an occasion to foster togetherness without the respective religious beliefs being threatened.

There is not only tolerance but acceptance of the fact that being from different religious backgrounds is not a deterrent to working and living together.

By and large, most Malaysians accept this diversity of religious beliefs as a rich feature of Malaysia.

Malaysian Muslims, too, accept this reality as a sign from Allah of His creativity, mercy and wisdom.

Hence, God willing, religious differences do not cause disunity or strife among Malaysians.

The situation, however, I am afraid is different when it comes to tolerance within the Muslim community itself. 

In the Middle East, Pakistan and many other countries, sectarian differences in the Muslim community is characterised by enmity, disunity and sometimes violent conflicts among themselves.

The Shia-Sunni conflict is historical and continues to undermine global Muslim unity.

Even within the Sunni community itself, various sub-sects and extremist groups seem to have sprouted creating conflict within its community. The Islamic State  is positioned as an offshoot of the Sunni community.

In Malaysia, I sadly note sectarian differences seem to be taking a stronger negative presence in our society, threatening to undermine Malaysian Muslim unity. I may be wrong and I hope to be wrong but I observe that intra faith conflicts in the Muslim community seem to be increasing as the number of graduates from religious studies increase. 

Compared to say, about 40 years ago,  there seems to be less tolerance in our society pertaining to differences in opinions, views and interpretation of aspects of Islam among Muslims themselves.

A clear disunity among the Malay Muslims occurred when the political contest between Umno and PAS escalated in the 80s right through the 90s.

PAS was projected as representing Allah’s will in the political arena while Umno was seen as a nationalistic party despite the fact Umno’s constitution also placed the protection of the Islamic faith as one of its main objectives. 

“Islamic politics” became a significant political behaviour in the quest to woo the Malay Muslim’s votes.

The political contest between Umno and PAS led to the unfortunate disunity among the Malay Muslims as a result of the kafir mengkafir phenomenon where PAS politicians labelled Umno as infidels.

Hence, from politics, it mutated to a choice between belief and disbelief. Thereafter, each party tried to be more Islamic than the other but perception-wise, Umno was lagging behind in the “Islamic” image department.

I recall even many Umno members secretly believed PAS was indeed more “correct” on the Islamic path. The upshot of it is that the use of “Islam” for political purposes had the unfortunate result of breaking up Malay Muslim unity. 

In this regard, Najib and Hadi’s efforts to bring together Umno and PAS is seen as a move to lessen this political disunity among the Malay Muslims.

Over the years, there is greater emphasis on matters Islamic or perceived to be Islamic due to the political realities of the country. Concurrent with this, there is also increasing conflict between the Muslim thinkers not formally trained in religious studies and the Muslim scholars formally trained in religious studies. I note there is also increasing conflict among the Muslim scholars themselves. 

If the “conflict” is merely a civilised academic contest of ideas and interpretations with the view to espouse and put forth the best interpretations for consideration and humble debate, it is laudable. Civilisations are built upon citizens who are willing to think and behave compassionately.

However, it appears the contest increasingly dominant in the public sphere is not one with a view to share ideas but seems to be a contest to monopolise religious discourses and interpretation of what “Islam” is.

I believe this trend is increasing in our country and is actuated by the quest for power, control, wealth and also religious arrogance. 

Such a contest for monopoly of religion, if not curtailed, may lead to serious fractures in the Muslim community.  It is therefore extremely important for Muslims who wish to stand united by the “rope of Allah’ to be wary of such mischief makers clothed in the robe of religion.

Furthermore, I believe also some (not all) religious “experts” have developed a sense of religious egoism where, unwittingly or otherwise, they have equated their understanding and their interpretation to that of Allah’s.

In other words, the interpreter of scripture has elevated himself to the status of the Giver of scripture. Such a mindset is almost narcissist in nature and is dangerous to society. Such religious leaders may also become the leaders of disunity among the Muslim community.

To foster unity among the Muslims, no amount of outward and superficial show of “Islamness” will help if the spirit of Islam is dead within them. The Quran is replete with advice, exhortations and guidance on how to deal with differences of views even among the Muslims. They have to learn to be more tolerant of each other’s differing views on Islam.

Allah has many times in the Quran said He will settle all differences in the hereafter and that our duty includes doing righteous deeds, be humble, be useful to mankind and His creations, be compassionate and be mindful of our own duties and responsibilities.

So long as we have a few but “powerful” men who want to behave like god on earth, our efforts towards a united Muslim community will still remain a challenge. It is this challenge that the majority spiritual Muslims and the many guided and learned scholars have to bravely and consistently address before matters get worse. Let us never turn Malaysia into another Middle East.

* Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos is a senior lawyer and founder of Rapera, a movement which encourages thinking and compassionate citizens. He can be reached at rapera.jay@gmail.com

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/moving-towards-muslim-intra-faith-understandingjahaberdeen-mohamed-yunoos#sthash.INIPjGiM.dpuf

I am a Muslim

JUNE 20 — The month of Ramadan and the abstinence from food does put you in a more self-reflective mood than other months. Of course, self-reflection should be a routine exercise as it spring cleans the mind and the heart.

I am a Muslim or, more accurately, I try to be as good a Muslim as I possibly can. It is both easy and difficult as all contest between good and evil is.

Though genealogically, I am supposed to be a seventh generation “born Muslim”, if there is such a thing. I like to think that I am a Muslim by my own choice from the age of 30 when I finally “came” to the Quran.  How God judges me is His prerogative.

I had a typical Malay upbringing where you are sent to Quran reading classes by the time you are five years old. By the time you are 10, you already know how to read the Quran, pray and fast. You know the basic five pillars of Islam.

However, when I was 12 years old, for an unknown reason, the question of God’s existence bothered me. I became increasingly bored with the sermons of hellfire in our neighbourhood mosque. 

Instead of frightening me into submission, it started to disgust me. The ustad around me also could not answer many of my teen questions and often I was scolded for asking blasphemous queries. But the yearning to know God was very strong in me and almost unstoppable.

This yearning led me to study various scriptures and even go into the church to learn the Bible, talk to Hindu priests about the Bhagavad Gita, and study some sudras of Buddhism. As a teenager, I spent a lot of time reading, debating and thinking about God and religion. I read and debated about atheism too.

I met as many priests, ulamak, swamis and atheists who would want to discuss and debate with me. It was not enough for me to just accept a religion or a scripture. Having come from Penang, I now recall Penang as a liberal and open-minded society, where such discussions are generally allowed or at least no one condemns you to immediate hellfire for enquiring.

That was my journey as a teenager throughout adulthood. I made a conscious decision to be a Muslim from my own evaluation of the Quran, Hadith and scholarly views. I am convinced that the Quran is the most reliable source of revealed scripture but I will not insist that anyone else must believe so too.

I am only too happy if someone wants to discuss the Quran with me because I want to share the wisdom and mercy of Allah with anyone who wants to. 

If someone disagrees with me, I am humble enough to know that my interpretation and understanding is not absolute. Furthermore, I have no wish to usurp the jurisdiction of Allah when it comes to guidance. I simply refuse to play the role of a demi god on earth though I know that many religious “leaders” and experts have absolutely no compunctions behaving so.

When I came to the Quran, I realise that the prophet Abraham also took the road of enquiry and seeking. His own father excommunicated him merely for enquiring. There are many instances of prophets reflecting and meditating to understand the world.

I am happy that today there are more and more Muslims beginning to make an effort to understand the Quran instead of merely reciting it. However, it saddens me too that there is also an increasing trend towards coercion by a minority but dominant and loud groups.

This religious coercion takes various forms from extremist statements, extremist and fascist behaviours and to even legalising certain “religious laws” on the sly. I say on the sly because these laws are enacted without my actual consent. Thus, being legally a Muslim, I am compelled to be subjected to it. 

However, those that impose those laws will not be present before Allah with me to defend me if they are wrong.

Does not this compulsion, to accept the views of others regardless of how learned they claim to be, an oppression? 

Muslims may, sooner or later, ask how do they reconcile the Quran’s clear principle that no one else is responsible for our actions and belief except ourselves with the insistence on forcibly accepting so called learned views?

Feelings of guilt or deluded sense of piety does not help to resolve the conflict between compulsion and personal responsibility in matters of faith. I may be wrong but the problem could very well be in the fact that being a Muslim, which is a journey, had been turned into a set of behaviours which is forced upon you even if you are not spiritually ready. 

In other words, in the interest of uniformity, you are compelled to be a hypocrite to avoid worldly punishments. Administrative and political expediency seems to override the individual’s right to have a personal relationship with his Creator.

Muslims attend prayers at Masjid Wilayah in Kuala Lumpur. The writer says compulsion to accept the views of others could be regarded as oppression. — Picture by Azneal IshakI also note that politics cannot seem to keep away from the religion of any majority in any country. In India, for example, Hinduism seems to creep in and in Malaysia, Islam. The Christian world had already undergone its share in political history. This is actually a malady because politics being what it is, may very well interfere with the free practise of one’s faith as he deems fit.

This interference becomes effective with the cooperation of some of the religious class who likes the power that comes with cooperating with politicians.

As a Muslim, I believe that so long as there are mere humans who insist on monopolising the interpretation of Allah’s words, there will be strife, tension, disunity and oppression in the name of Islam. 

I pray that the Muslim spirit is allowed to be developed as enjoined in the Quran through beautiful preaching and polite discussions and not by coercion or force. Happy Ramadan.

* Jahaberdeen is a senior lawyer and founder of Rapera, a movement that encourages thinking and compassionate citizens. He can be reached at
rapera.jay@gmail.com

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.

Ramadan a month of self reflection

June 6 — The Ramadan month is here again as it does every year. Every Sunni Muslim knows that fasting is required during the month of Ramadan, it is one of the five pillars of his faith. He knows how to fast, when to break fast and what to do during the fasting month so that his fast fulfils the requirements of the fast.

This is the time when Muslims undergo disciplinary training of abstinence from food, drinks, lust and management of emotions for the love of Allah. The month is also filled with nightly ritual prayer of terawih, a special prayer which is much longer than the normal five times per day prayers.

Correctly practised, Ramadan is capable of being a month that transforms the caterpillar into a butterfly, change of bad habits into good ones. It can cause the hijrah or migration of  a person from a lower state into a higher state, a poor character into an exemplary one.

Whether Ramadan serves the purpose of transforming a person into a better human being or it only serves as a mere religious ritual depends on many factors, primarily how the individual Muslim sees it. It will be a sad state if good character emerges only for one month to be replaced by poor character for the next 11 months.

One of the significance of the Ramadan month is that Muslims believe the Quran was first revealed during this month. The first verse revealed was said to be the following in Surah Al Alaq: Read (O Muhammad!) in the name of your Lord who created (96.1). He created man from a clot (96.2). 

“Read, and your Lord is the Most Honorable (96.3) who taught with the pen, (96.4) taught man what he did not know.’’

Hence, the month of Ramadan is also a month of learning and relearning. In line with the first verse of the Quran, Muslims can use this month to revisit the contents of the Quran and to reach out to its messages. To read in the name of the Lord who teaches humans what they know not. This will be the best opportunity to evaluate how far we may have moved away from the teachings in the Quran and accepted other teachings of men as divine.

To the believer, there are many pearls of wisdom in the Quran and guidance for mankind in many areas of our life, particularly how to be a human being useful to His creations and to ourselves. The most basic and fundamental teachings of Islam comes from the Quran.

If a Muslim takes the trouble to allocate a mere one hour a day in the month of Ramadan to study the Quran, he may emerge more knowledgeable about Islam as contained in the Quran at the end of the Ramadan month.

Reading sincerely leads to self-reflection and hopefully, leads us nearer to Allah in our actions and we become useful human beings on earth so that those who do have the benefit of the Quran can see its mercy through our actions of kindness and industry. 

Reading the Quran will make us aware that there are many approaches of peace that Allah has taught us when we are faced with potentially hostile situations.

Reading the Quran also teaches us to preempt potentially aggressive or hostile situations in our dealings with other fellow human beings. As I mentioned earlier, reading the Quran will lead to self-reflection which is very important in life, like spring- cleaning our house or our cupboard. There could have been many mental cobwebs and dirt that may need to be dusted in our minds and our hearts.

Allah has clearly stated in the Quran that he will not change our state until we change what is within us. In other words, He requires those who want to improve to take stock of themselves — their diligence level, their mindsets, their thirst and quest for knowledge and so on.

I would invite my Muslim brothers and sisters to look inwards at ourselves during this Ramadan and see whether we are responsible for the state and condition that we are in. I find that too often we are busy blaming everyone from the Jews to anyone else who does not sound like us for our woes.

The story of Prophet Yunus in the Quran is an excellent example to critically evaluate myself when things go wrong. More likely than not, I must have erred in some way for me to receive “negative” response from the world.

“And remember Zun-nun (Yunus), when he departed in wrath: He imagined that We had no power over him! But he cried through the depths of darkness. There is no God but You: glory to You: I was indeed wrong! 021.088. So We listened to him: and delivered him from distress: and thus do We deliver those who have faith.” (Al Anbiya 87 – 88).

Salam Ramadan to all and may you each be blessed with what you sow.

*Jahaberdeen is a senior lawyer and founder of Rapera, a movement that encourages thinking and compassionate citizens. He can be reached at rapera.jay@gmail.com.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Malay Mail Online.

- See more at: http://m.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/ramadan-a-month-of-self-reflection-jahaberdeen-mohamed-yunoos#sthash.TfLX3UGg.dpuf