Hadi’s Private Member’s Bill and its implications

Private Member’s Bill sought to be passed by PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang, which the government graciously allowed to jump queue in the list of matters to be debated in Parliament.

First is the political dimension where PAS is clearly trying to achieve a political score with the Malay voters.  It has been widely publicising it is willing to work with anyone to achieve its “Islamic goal”.  In this case, if the Bill succeeds, PAS will have the “glory” in political history as the party which was responsible for “enhancing the status of Shariah courts” and for paving the way for further implementation of  Islamic criminal law.

If it does not succeed in passing the Bill, Umno MPs will be accused of being insincere and “opposed to Islamic laws”.  Clearly, in this game, PAS gets the credit either way with the general Malay voters.

Politically, Umno therefore is “snookered” unless it can bring the issue up to another completely different intellectual and political level which I am afraid Umno is incapable of due to misconceived fear and other reasons.

Secondly, the Constitutional dimension.  As a matter of parliamentary courtesy, it is admirable the government has given way to a Private Member’s Bill from the Opposition to be heard before government business, which always takes precedence. I believe this is the first time and as the Parliament speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin repeatedly tried to educate the opposing members from the Opposition, this is a precedent.

I respect and admire Pandikar’s patience in educating the opposition members on the clear provisions of the Standing Orders. It really baffled me the opposition members are opposing their own Private Member’s Bills being heard first. Painfully amusing.

Constitutionally, any Act can be amended or even repealed by Parliament in accordance with the law and the Constitution. Hadi’s Bill ostensibly seeks to amend the Shariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 in relation to enhancing their punishment provisions.

Currently, under section 2 of the aforesaid Act, Shariah courts can only impose punishment with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or with any fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or with whipping not exceeding six strokes or with any combination thereof. This is the so-called “356” punishments which Hadi’s Bill hopes to enhance. Obviously Hadi wants to enhance the penal powers of the Shariah courts to be able to implement Kelantan’s Shariah Criminal Enactment Code of 1993, through which they hope to impose hudud punishments. 

Hence, we are back to PAS’s version of hudud which they want to compel Muslims to follow by force of law. Put it another way, PAS’s “noble aim” of “serving Islam” is to ensure Muslims are subjected to greater punishments and despite what is provided for under the civil law system.

The long-term effect of enhancing the penal punishments will be to allow more criminal offences perceived to be offences against the “precepts of Islam” and within List II of the State List of the Ninth Schedule to the Federal Constitution to be passed. Hence, we will see a situation where there will be two sets of criminal laws for Muslims — the Shariah and the civil law system. Obviously, this will give rise to various complex constitutional issues such as equality before the law and so on. I believe even a challenge under Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution may be mounted by a Muslim who does not want to be subjected to it though this would require a court which would decide without “fear or favour”.

I do not know why the government has never thought of evaluating whether the existing criminal laws under the federal laws are already consistent with the Quran and authentic Sunnah and hence “Islamic” or not. Surely, the federal government is not taking the position the existing criminal laws under the civil justice system do not achieve “justice” as enjoined by Islam and therefore, un-Islamic?

It truly baffles me why as a nation we are keen on creating two parallel legal systems in the country. Apart from the injustice which may ensue, aren’t the policy makers concerned this would lead to disunity and enmity between the Muslims and non-Muslims? I hope I am just being over worried about the fate of my country.

Thirdly, the faith and theological dimension.  Muslims, especially those who with knowledge and take their faith seriously, will not like imposition on their faith and servitude to Allah. There have been tremendous debate and differences of views, even among scholars, on what constitutes “hudud” and “takzeer”.  Despite the fact most scholars agree the term “hudud laws” refer to only those offences for which punishments are clearly prescribed for in the Quran, some other scholars and politicians insist on including various other offences as hudud offences even though they are not mentioned in the Quran. Furthermore the word “hudud” in the Quran does not even refer to any penal offences. It simply means “limit” and the relevant verses refer mostly to matrimonial matters.

Many notable scholars, including the renowned Prof Dr Hashim Kamali, are of the view for every punishment, the Quran also provides for forgiveness to the offender. However, this provision of forgiveness is absent in PAS’s version of hudud. There are many theological debates and issues concerning “hudud laws” that are still unsettled to this very day. I fear imposing such laws on Muslims, which are very tied to their faith and servitude to Allah, may give rise to disunity among the Muslims.

I would like to repeat my call to the government to seriously study the possibility of a “fused” legal system to maintain only one legal system in the country which can cater to the peculiar needs of each religious community while ensuring general justice for all Malaysians.

* An error in the print version of this article has since been rectified here.

** Jahaberdeen is 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.

- See more at: http://m.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/hadis-private-members-bill-and-its-implications-jaharberdeen-mohamed-yunoos#sthash.xwLVpfFI.dpuf

Perdebatan Hukum Hudud Di Dewan Rakyat 2014

Apa pandangan pembaca?

Ada kah isu2 yang relevan di bincang atau berkisar pada fahaman dan tetapan sarjana2 ?

Salam.

Masyarakat Muslim jangan emosi

Dua sistem kehakiman yang diguna pakai di Malaysia boleh mengancam kestabilan negara.

Pandangan berkenaan dibuat peguam, Datuk Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos yang menegaskan, pelaksanaan dwi sistem akan menimbulkan kekeliruan di kalangan masyarakat majmuk dan pelbagai agama di negara ini.

Baca selanjutnya disini - Rakyat Post

Salam !

Womens' breast and buttocks cause evil !!!

I made a mistake and switched on my TV at about 530 in the morning today. There was this religious program where the guest was a university lecturer.

He actually spend about 10 minutes on lecturing why breasts and buttocks of women should be covered up because that can be a cause of evil. I  have never advocated public nudity nor  "inappropriate" dressing for both men and women in public.  However, to think that this good professor and Islamic scholar found it to be his priority to speak about breast and buttocks of women ( yes it is always the Muslim womens' fault!) as a source of evil so early in the morning is both embarrassing and mind boggling. Is that the biggest problem faced by the Muslim community at the moment?

It is equally sad and disturbing that having uttered everything possible to make the women responsible for "sexual excitements", the good scholar omitted to state, as most of them often omit, that in the Quran Allah has also enjoined on men to lower their gaze if they find what they are seeing is morally objectionable or disturbing to them. Men too are under duty to maintain chastity and good moral behaviour. This, however, is often not quoted by the scholars who appear to have adopted a sexist interpretation of scriptures and " religious.

 Allah says in the Quran {Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty} (Surat Al Noor <24:30-31>)

Without the slightest of doubt, sex does play an important role in the relationship between man and women but certainly not all the time and neither is it the most important role. So why is it that I have this feeling that the sexual aspect of women are always highlighted by the religious scholars in this country and of course the advertisers.

Does not "lower your gaze" principle also teaches us that we do not have to look at women in sexual terms all the time? That they are also human beings like men with fears, hopes and aspirations  like men?  This morning's religious talk on the TV also annoyed me - I just could not empathise with the good professor's up skirt joke that he made.  It was in bad taste and if kids were watching it, he just introduced a deviant behaviour which probably was known to him alone!

Anyway, if these are the kind of thoughts and "ceramah agamas" that we deem important to be on national TV, it probably reflects on what we deem as "Islamic". The sad thing is that if these thoughts are the majority, then the minority will be oppressed by the majority's imposition of their understanding.  May Allah have mercy.

Peace.

Jangan Mempolitikkan Agama???

Ekoran daripada kenyataan Nurul Izzah baru-baru ini berkaitan dengan isu kebebasan beragama seperti yang dimaksudkan dalam Quran 2:256, kedengaran beberapa seruan supaya agama tidak dipolitikkan.  Saya amat “bersetuju” dengan seruan ini tertakluk kepada beberapa perkara.

Seharusnya kita tidak memperalatkan agama untuk tujuan politik mahupun untuk tujuan-tujuan dimana kita tergolong didalam golongan yang dimaksudkan oleh Allah didalam surah At-Taubah ayat 9:

“Mereka menjual ayat-ayat Allah dengan harga yang sedikit, lalu mereka menghalangi manusia dari jalan Allah; sesungguhnya amat buruklah apa yang mereka kerjakan” (Quran 9:9)

Saya percaya manusia yang berani memperalatkan ayat-ayat agama untuk tujuan kepentingan diri semata-mata adalah manusia yang tidak insaf akan azab yang boleh diturunkan oleh Allah kepadanya. Malangnya, ini adalah keadaan yang agak lazim kerana manusia sering tidak sedar kesakitan azab yang diundang olehnya. Maka, ia tidak berfikir panjang didalam memperalatkan agama untuk kepentingan peribadi semata-mata. Kita dapati pengajaran ketidaksedaran manusia terhadap azab Allah didalam cerita Firaun itu sendiri dimana FIraun hanya sedar pada saat yang paling akhir bahawa Allah lah yang Maha Pencipta.

Kita juga berharap mereka yang menyeru supaya “agama tidak dipolitikkan” tahu apa yang mereka maksudkan. Jangan pula seruan supaya “agama tidak dipolitikkan” bertukar menjadi satu lesen untuk menjauhkan Muslim daripada usaha mendekatkan diri mereka kepada Islam.  Politik mempunyai satu ciri yang amat merbahaya dan kejam - politik boleh mengwujudkan atau membenarkan kewujudan satu suasana dimana kebebasan seorang Muslim untuk mengamalkan Islam seikhlas mungkin dikawal sehingga berupa menindas.

Saya khuathir bahawa seruan “agama jangan dipolitikkan” dijadikan sebagai satu alasan untuk mempolitikkan agama oleh pihak-pihak berkepentingan.  PIhak-pihak berkepentingan ini termasuk mereka yang berada didalam arena politik, ekonomi dan juga yang berada didalam arena agama. Didalam sejarah manusia, memang sesuatu yang bukan baru bagi golongan berkepentingan dan munafik memperalatkan agama bagi tujuan kuasa, harta, atau kedudukan. Kita harus mahu faham perkara-perkara ini secara jelas sebelum menerima atau menolak ungkapan “agama jangan dipolitikkan” secara membuta tuli.

“Kemudian mereka menjualnya dengan harga yang murah, beberapa dirham yang dihitung, kerana mereka tidak menghargainya”. (Quran: 12:20)

 Apabila agama dipolitikkan oleh institusi-institusi politik pula, terutamanya yang mempunyai kuasa undang-undang, ia berupaya untuk menggangu kepertanggungjawapan individu (individual accountability) kepada Maha Penciptanya. Undang-undang yang tidak konsisten dengan ajaran Allah didalam Al-Quran mampu bersikap zalim dan memesong manusia daripada jalan yang dianjurkan oleh Allah.  Pada saya, apa-apa undang-undang dengan apa nama sekali pun tidak harus melanggar perintah Allah didalam surah Al An’Aam ayat 94:

“Dan sungguh kamu datang kepada Kami sendiri-sendiri sebagimana Kami jadikan kamu pada pertama kali, dan kamu tinggalkan dibelakang kamu(dunia) apa yang telah Kami kurniakan kepada kamu. Dan Kami tiada lihat berserta kamu penolong-penolongmuyang kamu anggap bahwa mereka itu di antara kamu sebagai sekutu-sekutu Allah. Sungguh telah putus (pertalian) antara kamu dan telah hilang daripadamu apa yang pernah kamu anggap (sebagi sekutu-sekutu Allah)”. (Quran 6:94)

Pada saya amat mustahak bagi seorang Muslim yang ikhlas dan mengambil berat pengabdiannya kepada Allah untuk memahami ayat diatas yang dengan jelas, yang anatara lain, memberi amaran bahawa kita sendirilah yang akan dipertanggungjawapkan diatas perlakuan kita, bukan orang lain. Ayat itu menjelaskan perkara-perkara berikut:-

1)      1) Seperti mana kita dilahirkan sendiri-sendiri, kita juga akan kembali kepada Allah seorang diri tanpa iringan;

2)      2) Segala-gala yang kita himpunkan dimuka bumi akan ditinggalkan

3)      3) Penolong-penolong, penasihat-penasihat yang kita gunakan dimuka bumi sebagai “sekutu-sekutu” Allah telah putus hubungan dengan kita apabila kita kembali kepada Allah. Pada saya maksud “sekutu-sekutu” ini boleh bermaksud sumber-sumber yang selain daripada Allah untuk mendapatkan ilmu berkaitan ajaran Nya.

Perkara ini perlu difikirkan secara mendalam dan teliti kerana mengambil sekutu-sekutu disamping Allah boleh menjurus kepada syirik. Sekutu-sekutu ini juga mampu memesongkan kita daripada jalan Allah jika kita tidak berawas dan leka dengan menganggap bahawa penolong-penolong ini akan mendekatkan kita dengan Allah. Allah yang Maha Mengetahui telah menjangka keadaan seperti ini berlaku didalam surah Az Zumar ayat 3:

“Ketahuilah hanya bagi Allah agama yang suci (diinul khaalishu). Dan orang-orang yang mengadakan pelindung-pelindung selain-Nya berkata - "Kami tidak menyembah mereka melainkan supaya mereka lebih mendekatkan kami kepada  Allah".  Sesungguhnya Allah akan memutuskan diantara mereka mengenai apa yang mereka memperselisihkan. Sesungguhnya Allah tidak memberi petunjuk kepada orang yang dusta, lagi sangat ingkar”. (Quran: 39:3)

Cuba fikirkan mengenai perkatan “menyembah” (“buduhum) yang digunakan didalam ayat diatas dan perkataan “hanyalah Engkau yang kami sembah” (Iyyaka na’budu) didalam surah Al-Fathihah.  Bukankah “menyembah” Allah bermaksud menuruti ajaran-ajarannya? Begitu juga menyembah (buduhum) pelindung-pelindung selain Allah bermakna kita menuruti ajaran pelindung-pelindung ini.  Didalam konteks ayat-ayat ini, tidakkah merbahaya jika seorang Muslim dipaksa menerima (menyembah) fahaman manusia-manusia lain dengan tujuan “untuk mendekatkan diri kepada Allah” tanpa kebebasan untuk menilai apa yang diajar? Kita telah pun lihat sebentar tadi bahawa manusia-manusia lain ini, sepandai mana pun mereka, tidak akan mengiringi kita apabila kita kembali kepada Allah nanti.

Bagaimanakah seorang Muslim dapat beriman kepada surah 17 ayat 36 jika ia tidak mempunyai kebebasan untuk menolak pandangan atau tafsiran manusia lain?

“Dan janganlah kamu turuti apa yang kamu tiada pengetahuan mengenainya; pendengaran, dan penglihatan, dan hati - semua itu dipertanggungjawapkan”. (Quran: 17:36)

4)      4) Quran 6:94 itu juga juga dengan jelas menekankan sifat kepertanggungjawapan diri (“self-accountability”), Ini bermakna kita sendirilah dan bukan orang lain yang akan dipertanggungjawapkan diatas kepercayaan dan tindak-tanduk kita diatas muka bumi. Kepertanggungjawapan adalah mustahil tanpa kebebasan untuk menilai, dan untuk membuat keputusan bagi diri sendiri. Masing-masing memikul dosa masing-masing and orang lain tidak dipertanggungjawapkan dalam hal ini. Fakta ini diulang beberapa kali didalam Al-Quran walaupun ada pihak-pihak berkepentingan seolah-olah tidak mahu mengakui perkara ini. Sebagai contoh, didalam surah Faathir ayat 18 yang bermaksud:

“Orang yang berdosa tidak akan memikul dosa orang lain; dan jika orang yang berat dosanya memanggil orang lain untuk memikul dosa itu tidak sedikit pun akan dipikulkan untuknya meskipun yang dipanggil itu adalah sanak saudaranya. Sesungguhnya yang kamu dapat memberi peringatan hanyalah kepada orang-orang yang takut kepada Tuhannya (sekalipun) mereka tidak melihat Nya, dan mereka mendirikan solat; dan sesiapa yang menyucikan dirinya, dia hanyalah menyucikan untuk dirinya sendiri. Kepada Allah lah tempat kembali. (Quran: 35:18)

Quran 35:18 amat jelas dalam beberapa perkara dan menjelaskan bahawa peringatan yang diberikan hanya boleh diterima oleh mereka yang takut kepada Tuhan walaupun tidak dapat melihatnya. Pada saya, ayat ini jelas menekankan kepentingan kerohanian atau spiritualism dan bukanlah kepatuhan jasmani atau superficial seperti mana yang dikehendaki melalui paksaan.  Apabila rohani itu betul, jasmani akan secara automtis turut serta. Sebaliknya, jika rohani tidak betul atau tidak yakin, yang tampak ialah jasmani yang munafik atau hipocrtite. Dimana Allah menekankan yang “isi” mengapa pula kita memesongkan manusia dengan menekankan hanya yang “kulit”?

(Begitu juga sila rujuk Quran 53:38 -39)

Berdasarkan latarbelakang ayat-ayat diatas, kita kembali kepada perbincangan proses mempolitikkan agama. Hakikat yang sebenarnya di Negara ini ialah, agama sudah pun dipolitikkan dari pelbagai segi, diantaranya seperti berikut:-

1) Parti politik PAS sendiri namanya adalah “Parti Islam SeMalaysia”. Parti ini meletakkan dasar perjuangannya berlandaskan agama. Bagaimana kita boleh katakan jangan mempolitikkan agama apabila pihak berkuasa telah membenarkan satu parti politik yang memilih agama sebagai dasar perjuangannya ditubuhkan? Undang-undang Negara sendiri telah membenarkan agama dibicarakan dan diperjuangan oeh parti politik didalam arena politik. How more political can religion be when it is already a political platform?

2) Parti politik UMNO pun sering membicarakan isu-isu agama dan sering pula bersaing dengan PAS dalam tafsiran, pendekatan serta program-program “agama”. Isu hudud, umpamanya kini dibicarakan dengan hebat didalam medan politik. Rakyat berpersepsi bahawa perbincangan hudud ini bagi PAS  ialah supaya ahli PAS yakin bahawa PAS masih berpegang kepada pelaksanaan hudud. Bagi UMNO-BN pula ialah untuk menakutkan orang yang bukan agama Islam terhadap hudud. Perbincangan-perbincangan ini langsung tidak akademik atau berilmiah dan tidak langsung dibincang dalam suasana untuk memahami apa itu “hukum hudud” serta nas-nasnya.

3) Berdasarkan kupasan diatas, menjadi kelakar apabila ada sesiapa yang mengatakan “jangan politikkan agama” tanpa memahami bahawa mempolitikkan agama sudah menjadi budaya dan institusi di Negara ini. The politicisation of religion is already a culture and an institution in this country. Disini lah cabarannya kepada individu Muslim dan rakyat apabila agama telah diambil alih oleh orang-orang politik sebagai senjata politik untuk meraih sokongan.

Apabila orang-orang politik mengambil alih sesuatu yang dianggap sensitif seperti agama, maka suara ulama-ulama agama yang jujur, lurus dan berilmu serta suara-suara mufakir-mufakir akan ditenggalamkan oleh tekanan politik.  Ini adalah kerana orang-orang politik akan menggunakan segala yang mungkin untuk mengekalkan monopoli mereka diatas senjata tersebut termasuk mengupah ulama-ulama agama yang berkepentingan dan cetek pemikiran (walaupun mempunyai pendidikan formal yang menarik daripada institusi pengajian tinggi yang dihormati).

Sepanjang kehidupan saya, saya sering mendengar beberapa ulama agama yang apabila ketandusan hujah bergantung kepada pembelaan seperti “aku fasih bahasa Arab dan aku professor yang dihormati” atau “aku adalah daripada Universiti ….”. Orang yang memahami ilmu “straight and crooked thinking” akan tahu bahawa ini adalah satu alat pemikiran songsang atau taktik yang dipanggil sebagai “appeal to authority” bagi mengabui mata sipendengar daripada isu sebenar. Orang ramai masih lagi terkeliru diantara orang yang bermaklumat atau berpendikian formal dengan orang yang mampu berfikir dan berilmu.  Pada saya, Al-Quran juga ada menyebut mengenai taktik-taktik seperti ini yang digunakan oleh orang yang dianggap “pakar” atau “terpelajar” bagi menyesatkan orang ramai.  Mereka yang mesra dengan Al-Quran akan ketahui amaran Allah untuk berwaspada terhadap golongan mengada-gada seperti ini:-

”Dan begitulah Kami mengadakan di tiap-tiap bandar raya, pembesar-pembesar yang berbuat jahat supaya mereka lakukan tipu daya  dalam negeri itu; Dan mereka memperdayakan melainkan dirinya sendiri sedang mereka tidak menyedarinya” (Quran: 6:123)

“Perumpamaan orang-orang yang dipikulkan Taurat kepadanya, kemudian mereka tidak memikulnya adalah ibarat seekor keledai yang memikul kitab-kitab yang tebal. (itulah) seburuk-buruk perumpamaan kaum yang mendustakan ayat-ayat Allah. Dan Allah tidak memberi petunjuk kepada kaum yang zalim”. (Quran: 62:5)

Amatlah salah jika kita berfikir bahawa semua yang berkelulusan daripada Universiti itu mampu berfikir dan berilmu dan sebaliknya semua yang tidak pernah masuk Universiti itu tidak mampu berfikir dan tidak berilmu. Saya sendiri pernah jumpa beberapa orang yang tidak pun lepas tingkatan lima tetapi adalah seorang genius manakala saya pernah temui beberapa professor berkelulusan PhD atau “pakar” tetapi bodoh macam keldai seperti yang digambarkan oleh Allah didalam Quran 62:5. Apatah lagi didalam bidang agama dimana Allah sahajalah yang mengetahui maksud sebenarnya dan Allah sahajalah yang memberi petunjuk kepada sesiapa yang Ia kehendaki.

Perbezaan pandangan dan pendapat semestinya berlaku kerana Allah lah yang telah membenarkannya berlaku (Quran 41:45). Pada saya, perbezaan pendapat ini merupakan satu lagi rahmat serta ujian kepada diri kita. Ia tidak harus dijadikan sebagai satu masalah atau alasan untuk bermusuhan atau menindas. Allah telah pun memberikan jalan keluar kepada kita apabila kita berhadapan dengan pandangan-pandangan yang berbeza, itu pun kalau kita mahu akur kepada firmanNya:-

“Yang mendengar perkataan, dan mengikuti yang paling baik diantaranya. Mereka itulah orang-orang yang diberi petunjuk oleh Allah dan mereka itu lah orang-orang yang berakal”. (Quran: 39:18.

Maka jelas bahawa bila ada perbezaan pandangan, gunakanlah akal untuk berifkir dan menilai dan jangan pula kita berkelakuan seperti jahiliah dengan bergaduh atau bermusuhan dengan orang yang berbeza pandangan dengan kita. Kita dapati pada hari ini permusuhan yang amat ketera didalam dunia Islam dikalangan mereka yang berlainan mazhab dan fahaman seperti Sunnah wal Jamaah dan Syiah.

Apakah politik yang mengakibatkan permusuhan sengit itu berlaku apabila tafsiran agama diangkat sebagai monopoli satu pihak?

Salam.

NOTA: Harap pembaca merujuk kepada naskah Al-Quran masing-masing dan penulis tidak mengkehendaki sesiapa pun bersetuju dengan pandangan penulis diatas. Sebaliknya, penulis berterima kasih sekiranya ada sebarang maklum balas dan pandangan berbeza. Ilmu Allah itu teramat luas untuk dimiliki oleh seorang atau sekumpulan manusia betapa berilmu pun orang itu diiktiraf. Saya sendiri adalah seorang pelajar kehidupan sehingga keakhir hayat saya.

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.

Ustazah Tak Nak Jawab Budak2 ni ke?

Memang mengelirukan lagi memeningkan. Ustazah dah lah dijemput hadir ke forum. Ramai "kanak-kanak" bila tengok Ustazah bertudung dan bercakap dengan yakin mengenai apa yang dicakap...mudah orang percaya. Itu lah di forum "Islam" (dalam negara kita ni ada yang Islam dan ada yang bukan Islam sebagai contoh garpu Islam dan bukan Islam, kedai islam dan bukan Islam, dsb.

Ni pulak budak-budak daripada Effing Show kat Ustazah silap dari segi sejarah. HAH! Macam mana ni? Kalau Ustazah betul, kena pertahankan supaya "budak-budak" tak keliru. Kalau Ustazah salah, baik betulkan...nanti berdosa pula memesongkan fakta.

Saya ni loyar saja, seorang Muslim yang masih belajar Quran sampai dipanggil balik ke rahmatullah..bukan nya "pakar agama". Saya pun nak tau jugak pandangan "orang agama" macam Ustazah. Maklum lah, kita kan dah dibiasakan kena tanya Ustad dan Ustazah dalam semua perkara berkaitan dengan agama.



Datuk Prof Dr Maza,pula berpendapat sebegini:-



Here is another interesting video on Valentine's history:



Phew !!! Talk about going into history!!! Even these, you have to check out the facts for yourselves.

Peace !

Being Muslim in Malaysia is so wonderful!

Someone told me I was wrong in thinking that it is difficult being a Muslim in Malaysia.  So, I thought about it. He is right. It is wonderful being Muslim in Malaysia.

I realized that we are the only country in the world where we have 13 Muftis! Other countries have only ONE Mufti per country but we have 13 which mean we Muslims are lucky. We are lucky because more heads are better than one right? We can get more Islamic knowledge and input. Is that not wonderful?

Furthermore, with more heads, we do not have to use our head to think about all the ‘difficult and complex’ shariah laws, rules, exegesis, etc. We can just leave it to the experts and we are left with more time for our lives. Is that not wonderful?

Is it not wonderful that we also have 13 Religious Departments in every state to constantly remind us of what is Islamic and what is not? This shows how seriously we take our religion compared to other countries that do not have this many religious departments. Can you imagine the number of labour force we come up with when we total up all the officers and staff in the various religious departments? All this is a worthwhile investment on earth to save our souls in the hereafter.

Thanks to all these religious officers who spend their life to make sure we do not go astray. Is that not wonderful that we have officers that make sure we behave the Muslim way? This will even free our parents! My faith is forever protected by these officers.

Let us not forget – we also have many other Islamic religious institutions at the federal Government. This is important. We must give meaning to the Constitution that guarantees Islam as the official religion. It is OFFICIAL ok? Is that not wonderful to be officially recognized? This will go a long way in strengthening our faith and reminding us that we are Muslims.

Being a Malay is almost like being saved from the hellfire in the hereafter. The drafters of our constitution have the foresight to make sure Malays are Muslims. Article 160 defines that a Malay, among other things, is a person who practices and professes the religion of Islam ie a Muslim. I am so proud to say that no other country in the world has the vision to define a race in terms of its religion. They did not have the “religious vision” but we did! Isnt this wonderful, my Muslim friend?

In Malaysia we have a political party whose objective is to set up an Islamic State. We also have another major political party that does all it can to “protect Islam”. Recently we have a group of religious scholars entering politics. Isnt that wonderful? I think we should encourage more and more our young Muslims to forget all other secular courses and take up Islamic studies. That is so important. Hopefully, we can become a nation of ulamas! Would that not be wonderful? We will all be sound and knowledgeable Muslims then.  If we achieve this, we can be the main exporter of religious teachings in the world. Wow, we can save many souls!

I love that fact that being a Muslim allows any other stranger in a skull cap or a goatee to advise me unasked. That’s the generosity you enjoy being a Muslim. No where else can you find such generosity and abundance of advise except in the Muslim world in this country. Is that not so selflessly wonderful?

Malaysian Muslims are sensitive people. That is because they care about their religion and respect the religious scholars. Whenever we have a doubt or need an answer, we check with the scholars. When we want to say or write something on Islam, we check with the scholars. We have so many of them in our country. Is it not wonderful to be able to check with experts before you say something?

Lastly, it is wonderful being a Muslim in Malaysia because my identification card says that I am one. So, no one, let me repeat, no one can dispute that!

Peace !

40 Ulamas into UMNO

1. With the entry of 40 religious scholars into UMNO, how does this impact on the pattern of politics which is evolving in this country?

2. More to home would be the question: how it will affect the evolvement of UMNO itself – will it gradually metamorphose into a theologically inclined party like PAS?

3. How will it impact on practice and understanding of Islam in this country?

4. Will these kind of moves lead to the “theocratization” of politics in the future?

5. How will the perception of the general public towards religious scholars be affected when they enter into politics?

6. Are we going to witness religion, in particular Islam being further institutionalized?

God willing, will write on these soon if time permits!

Peace !

Is “politico-Islamisation” a threat to the Muslim Faith? – Part 4 and Final:

In the last posting, I concluded by stating that it is important to understand the link between the religious laws – politics – Islamic scholars. Each of these factors need in-depth study and analysis in order to fully understand how it impacts on the personal liberty of the Muslim citizen to practice and profess his faith of Islam.

Briefly on the issue of “religious laws” – questions such as why certain laws are passed (in the light of the diverse opinion on these laws in Islamic jurisprudence and opinion of scholars), why the diversity of sentences, is there unanimity of consensus on these laws, how is unanimity defined and the basis thereof, how does it impact on personal accountability principle enshrined in the Quran, are they consistent with the principles in the Quran and authentic Sunnah or are they customized Arabian and Persian laws derived from their respective law makers or jurists, etc, etc. All these questions and more need to be asked.

Briefly on the political aspect – should political parties be allowed to claim for themselves to be the champions of Islam and hence position themselves as the sole interpreter of Islam, should Islam be politicized at all or would a “secular situation” be more feasible for a Muslim to practice his faith without political interference, does the political climate favour a “certain flavour of Islam” as opposed to another, are we not concerned that “political Islam” will, one day create the kind of “intra-religious tensions” that is seen happening in the Middle East, Pakistan and elsewhere, etc etc

Briefly on the “Islamic scholars” – Should Islamic scholars opinions be regarded as infallible and hence cast in stone, which school of thought does the scholar belong to and does the ordinary citizen have the constitutional right to evaluate which scholar he agrees with, political participation of Islamic scholars and their objectivity, “competition” between Islamic scholars of differing views, “Non-Islamic” scholars are allowed to express their views in any State in their respective field of study, does the Islamic scholar has this same right, etc, etc.

As I had observed earlier, it is indeed a complex web beyond the imagination of the ordinary Muslim citizen who unsuspectingly often accepts matters at face value, especially those that are deemed “official” or “normal”.

The web becomes more complex to the point of being confusing to many because of other factors. In this politico-Islamisation process, there are also other “political” units involved as shown in the diagram below. Each of them impact upon the Muslim citizen’s right to practice and profess his faith. If you study the diagram, you will see clearly that the political framework in Malaysia is designed to exert control over the Muslim citizen in a way that that does not affect the Non-Muslim citizens.

Politico-Islamisation Process in Malaysia

!

1.   Politicians & Ngos      2. State Religious Council     3.Federal “Islamic Institutions    4.. State Religious Authorities  5. Religious Scholars 6.????   

                         
Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution provides that ‘Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it”.

Since a Muslim citizen is subjected to the many units discussed above, it would appear that Article 11(1) is not available to the Muslim citizen. This is because the right of the Muslim citizen to practice and profess his faith is subjected to the control of the above units. These units have the force of law and hence, Muslim citizens’ rights to avail themselves of the right provided under Article 11(a) are illusory. His faith is therefore curbed by man-made laws.

It is a also a sad fact that many Judges, nothing less than Federal Court Judges have shyed away from their responsibility to interpret Article 11(1) vis-à-vis the Muslim citizen’s right though they had ample opportunity. This is something they have to answer to their own conscience and to the Maker when they ultimately face Him. When such judges refuse to undertake their responsibility in matters that concerns one’s faith, how difficult it will be for a Muslim to respect such judges (not all of them)? If my reasoning is correct (and I stand to be corrected), they are part of the oppression of faith.

As it stands, realistically Article 11(1) is not applicable to the Muslim citizen while it is applicable to the non-Muslim citizen. This brings about another constitutional discrimination against the Muslim citizen.

Article 8 of the Federal Constitution provides that:

8(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
8(2) Except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.

In the light of the political structure of our country in terms of the religious institutions, not all persons are equal before the law. Since, Article 11(1) is available to the non-Muslim citizen and not the Muslim citizen; it would appear that the non-Muslims have more rights than the non-Muslims with regards to how they practice their faith.

Furthermore, it is arguable that the Muslims are being discriminated against in contravention of Article 8(2) because there is nothing in the constitution that allows any authority to curb the freedom of a Muslim to practice and profess his faith.

Article 11 (4) states the following:

“State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam”.

Article11(4), on the face of it applies to every citizen, whether Muslim or non-Muslim. This means that laws can be enacted to curb the Muslim’s duty to “propagate” Islam to others, including his own family. This article may be troublesome, unless properly clarified, because there are just too many injunctions in the Quran that places a divine duty to share Allah’s message with anyone who is willing. One such verse is very clear as follows:

"Call them to the path of your Lord through wisdom and good advice and argue with them in the best manner. God knows well about those who stray from His path and those who seek guidance". (Quran 16:125)

How does a Muslim call others to the path of Allah if his divine right and duty to share the verses from the Quran (and his understanding thereof) can be curbed by law? This is a serious matter which the law-makers must address.

I believe everyone, when they are alone, knows the answer. God “speaks” to all and has given each a conscience – but politics has become god.

END.

Peace.

[I appreciate alternative views and comments as my concern is sincere]

Is “politico-Islamisation” a threat to the Muslim Faith? – Part 3: Gradual maturing of the ordinary Muslim hindered?

The politicization of Islam in the country has actually taken away the liberty of the ordinary Muslim citizen to practice the faith peacefully and as he understands it. The demands of politico-Islamisation on the ordinary Muslim is not only onerous but even to the point of being oppressive.

Islam is not a law that can to be imposed by compulsion (I will touch on the effect of fiqh subsequently). Islam may also be looked upon as a “religion”, a faith, a “spirituality”, an all “encompassing way of Life ordained by the Maker”. The foundation of acceptance of Islam is faith and not mere physical submission. . Once there is faith founded on the knowledge from the Maker, that is the Quran, then the person considers himself as a Muslim. This is a stage by stage process that the person will have to go through all his life and not something that can be manufactured overnight like mass producing products from a factory. That is how faith works.

“Those who reject Faith say: "Why is not the Qur'an revealed to him all at once? Thus (is it revealed), that We may strengthen your heart thereby, and We have rehearsed it to you in slow, well-arranged stages, gradually”. (Quran: 25:32)

No laws can make a person believe something that he does not believe. Compelling someone to believe something is indoctrination or the encouragement of hypocrisy and not education of the soul. It may even turn the ignorant, impatient persons away from the faith.

“As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe”. (Quran: 2:6)

Politico-Islamisation requires every State defined Muslim to submit to the State defined religious laws under pain of punishment. In Malaysia, a person is a Muslim as defined by each of the State as “Islam” is a State matter with each of the Malay Ruler as the “Head of Islam”.

Hence, the practice of Islam in Malaysia is not simply a private matter of faith between him and God but a legal matter between him and the State in which he lives. It is for this reason that each State has its own religious authorities to regulate and control “religious behaviour” as provided for by the respective State Syariah enactments. For example, while fasting is one of the important articles of faith in Islam, it is equally an offence for a State defined Muslim to eat in public during the fasting months. The law prohibits a public display of non-fasting and ignores the fact of God’s omnipresence which can only be inculcated through education and faith.

Since Islam in Malaysia is so much identified with law or shariah due to the fact that most of the Islamic scholars in the country are juristic or fiqhi, it is not surprising that there has been very little emphasis on the greater aspects of the Islamic teachings, including its values.

Since the religious laws are passed by Assemblymen who are politicians, politics play a vital role. Politics has to do with the pursuance of power by pandering to the sentiments of the voters. In Malaysia, the voters are largely Malays and who vide Article 160 of the Federal Constitution, are automatically legal Muslims. Malays have high sentiments towards their religion like most others have towards theirs. (In India, the RSS politicizes Hinduism and panders to the Hindu sentiments for votes).

Each State also has its own religious council and this is where the role of the Islamic scholars appointed or employed by the State in the politico-Islamisation process comes into play.

It is important to understand the equation or link between religious laws-politics-Islamic scholars in order to properly analyse the politico-Islamisation process and how it impacts on the Muslim’s personal liberty to practice and profess his faith as he understands it. It is a complex web.

TO be continued….Peace !

Is “politico-Islamisation” a threat to the Muslim Faith? – Part 2

While I understand and accept that every community must have laws to govern the conduct of its members, the question always is:

- which conduct, to what extent, who decides and what mechanism?

This question arises because there is a big difference when you legislate on matters relating to faith and non-faith matters. Let me make this point clear by an example.

If someone tell me to obey the red-yellow-green traffic light system because it facilitates traffic movement and that the Road Transport Act provides for penalties if I transgress it, then it is simply an issue of traffic regulation and the effectiveness of the law. I may evaluate its effectiveness and probably agree it is good or suggest improvements. Either way, I will obey it since I can see for myself it is good and I also want to avoid being penalized.

On the other hand, If someone tells me that the traffic light system of red-yellow-green is ordained by Allah, and if one disputes it, one will go to hell, then it is a matter of faith. If this traffic regulation is further legislated as “syariah law” and the State tells me I have to adhere to it NOT because I am a citizen but a MUSLIM citizen, then my Muslim consciousness gets triggered to verify whether it is indeed ordained by Allah or not. I simply cannot treat what people say in Allah’s name presumptuously, especially when they want to enforce it on me in His name. I have to check it with my Book of guidance, the Quran, and this is what it says:

“And do not accept that of which you have no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning)”. (Quran: 17:36)

The entire Quran puts a duty on me to verify whatever anyone (no matter how learned they claim to be on earth) says to me in His name with His Book of Gudiance. As a secondary source, I may refer to the Sunnah of the prophet IF there is no clear injunction in the Quran. If there is, there is no onus for me to check with the Sunnah (Today, however, many Muslims seem to refer more to the recorded Sunnah rather than the Quran).

Now assuming that I cannot find anywhere anything in the Quran or the Sunnah to say that the “syariah traffic” light system is not in the Quran and the Sunnah, I should be free to believe as such. However, when the State imposes it on me as a “divine commandment”, then it oppresses my freedom of faith to be the Muslim as I understand. The State “religious laws” become a threat to my faith and compels me to be a hypocrite

When someone, nothing less than an “Islamic scholar” tells me that it is part of the “Islamic fiqh” (Law) that married adulterers are to be stoned, my entire skin jumps out in revulsion and I pray in my heart “Allah please guide us”. I cannot find it in the Quran at all. In fact, in the entire Quran, all the stoning incidents narrated therein are done by pagans. Never by the Muslims.

Of course, many have tried to persuade me to accept the “knowledge” of the “learned ulamaks”. This is a feeble logic of persuasion for many reasons. First, there is a big difference being a person of information and a person of knowledge. Personally, I have known many scholars of being highly informative of the information that they have mastered without understanding or evaluating the basis of those information. Rarely, do you find the evaluative scholar in a discipline where uniformity of thought is highly encouraged for the “well being of the ummah” (sounds like a good excuse to dispense with thinking). Secondly, you only accept the views of anybody whose views are consistent with the Quran and the Sunnah. Thirdly, Allah has warned us to be wary of many unscrupulous and conmen “ulamaks” who cheat people of their wealth and lies in God’s name:

“O you who believe! there are indeed many among the priests and anchorites, who in Falsehood devour the substance of men and hinder (them) from the way of God. And there are those who bury gold and silver and spend it not in the way of God: announce unto them a most grievous penalty”- (Quran: 9:34)

“There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from God," but it is not from God: It is they who tell a lie against God, and (well) they know”. ( Quran: 3: 78)

To me Surah 3, verse 78 above reminds me constantly to watch for those who try to beguile me with their “knowledge” of Arabic language but what they preach is actually : “sounds like Islam, smells like Islam, looks like Islam but is not Islam!”

Fourthly, I have yet to met a “learned scholar” who can give me the guarantee that Allah has ordained me to ask from such people when they try to compel their views upon me:

“What is the matter with you? How judge you? Or have you a book through which you learn that you shall have, through it whatever you choose? Or have you Covenants with Us to oath, reaching to the Day of Judgment, (providing) that you shall have whatever you shall demand? Ask you of them, which of them will stand surety/guarantee for that!” (Quran: 68: 36- 40)

With the greatest of respect and with all humility, I dare say that the majority of the Assemblymen who legislate on my behalf do not know the above verses and commandments of Allah in the Quran. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong and I apologise. However, this is the impression I am left with after discussing with a bulk of them for more than 20 years! Much of the drafting and “selection” of what is “syariah law” is left to paid “religious” civil servants.

The reader must be clear that the purpose of this article is not to question the syariah laws. The evaluation of whether the existing syariah laws are consistent with the Quran and the Sunnah is another matter that should be dealt with. This article wishes to point out the problems that arise when you legislate faith, which, in essence, is a private and not a public matter.

From the above discussion, the mutation of the Government’s “Islamisation progamme” into politico-Islamisation can be further explained. Due to political expediency and the lack of true interest on behalf of the political law-makers, all drafting and selection of “syariah laws” is left to civil servants. Politics avoids controversy and hence there is a strong inclination and preference to lean towards what is popular and conservative.

Though Islam recognizes diversity of views and paths towards the God Al-Mighty, political expediency and the need for uniformity, control and administration results in one inevitable result – you believe as the State dictates. This is a threat to the Muslim who takes his faith seriously and not simply as a community culture to be adhered to.

Politico-Islamisation also places much power into the hands of politicians and opportunists who position themselves as “champions of Islam”. Not only is there “competition” between politicians but equally among “Islamic scholars” depending on which school of thought you belonged to. This will give rise to immense problems for our country in the future if it is not addressed now. This will be discussed in the next posting, God willing.

Peace !

Is “politico-Islamisation” a threat to the Muslim Faith? – Part 1

Twenty three years ago, Dr Chandra Muzaffar, the well respected social scientist and Muslim thinker, wrote in his book “Islamic resurgence in Malaysia” (Fajar Bakti Sdn Bhd, 1987) that the signs of “Islamic resurgence are everywhere”. In this excellent book, he analysed objectively and clearly the primary and secondary causes of the resurgence, the reaction of the political players (primarily PAS and UMNO) and the general reactions of the Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

It is interesting that he decided to explain in his book why he chose the term “Islamic resurgence”. I will like to quote one of the reasons he cited at page 2:

“…resurgence as a term embodies the notion of challenge, even a threat to those who adhere to other world-views. Many Muslims themselves would regard the espousal of an Islamic alternative as a challenge to the dominant social systems. Groups outside Islam, including those who are being challenged, would similarly perceive the rise of Islam as a threat to the position they hold.”

I recall as a young student in UKM in 1984, I was part of the “Islamic resurgence wave” with the determination that before I graduated I must organize at least one “Islamic programme”. I did manage to organize the first international seminar of its kind organized by a student body in the country then – “Seminar Sistem Kewangan Islam”. A seminar to discuss various “Islamic financial institutions”. That time, “Bank Islam” was still in its infancy and there were hardly any other “Islamic financial institutions”. The event was a success if measured by the attendance of international speakers and it was officiated by YM Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah who was then the Finance Minister. ( Of course I never realized then the metamorphosis of such institutions today labeled “Islam”)

I recall too that the main challenge in making the seminar a success was the management of my project committee. In UKM then, the student body was divided into two – one pro-PAS and the other pro-UMNO. The Economics Society was controlled by the pro-UMNO group. Normally, whenever any project is carried out by pro-UMNO, they will only select their own kind. Likewise with pro-PAS, they will also select their own kind. When my proposal for the project was accepted, I had insisted that I had the sole discretion to select my committee without any interference from the Economics Society exco which they agreed.

My committee was made up equally of pro-UMNO, pro-PAS and non-Muslims! Though I am considered to be part of the pro-UMNO group, but I was among the rare ones who could mingle easily with the pro-PAS group. However, in the eyes of the pro-PAS group, I was considered “dangerous” because while my dressing is western (shirt tucked in, belt, long pants and black shoes!) I could debate and argue with them. Those were the days when even UMNO leaders (with the exception of Dr Mahathir) would not dare to argue about Islam with PAS or pro-PAS groups.

Hence, some of the pro-PAS members of my committee were actually trying to scuttle the project. Student leaders like me should not be allowed to succeed because that would give me an “Islamic credential” when in some of their eyes, I do not deserve that. That was my first lesson of “religion being a tool of politics”. Some groups feel that Islam is their sole property and only they can dictate what is and who should talk about it. As a young student of course I was shocked that a “noble intention” and the willingness to work towards the success of the project was insufficient. I had to look and talk like them.

I had to make a decision because there were real sabotages done that could actually derail the seminar. That’s when I decided a few things in my life:

1) I will forever refuse to look like an Islamist (not “Islamic”). I do not live this life for fools/hypocrites who conjecture and treat God’s religion as a club membership. My life is Allah’s.

2) I will maintain the members and will not sack them unless they themselves do not want to be part of the seminar. They will be my test of fairness.

3) The non-Muslim members will remain unless they too do not want to (there was opposition to their inclusion too.) I am a Muslim and no one will convert me into a racist.

Finally, I called a meeting and spoke at length about the importance of the seminar, asked everyone to cooperate, those who want to leave can leave but I prefer them to stay and help. They who want to stay and try to scuttle the project too are also welcome to remain behind because I too want to know what was God’s ultimate plan for the seminar. I told them that I hold no grudges against any of the scuttlers and that they are a test to us and to themselves. I told them each of them are answerable to God, not to me. By the end of the meeting, some of the committee members cried and from that day on, generally, we were “smooth sailing”. Generally.

I read Dr Chandra’s book in 1988 because I was amazed how accurately he analysed the events that I saw then in UKM. He was talking about Malaysia and I was thinking that UKM in 1982 is the future Malaysia. Today, I think I am correct.

While I too was very happy with the rise in “Islamic consciousness”, I cannot help worrying about mass hypnosis and indoctrination, preoccupation with form rather than substance and the political “hijacking” of faith which to me is personal. It worried me that we may become a society where there is “religious oppression” and in the process, we are left with the “Law” but the death of “the spirit of Islam” in our society.

In 1984, the wave of “Islamisation” was strong for both the “right and wrong reasons”. The reactions to this wave were both “right and wrong”. My own impression was that the “embracing” of the resurgence was not altogether due to the love of God but other factors too, including the need for identity. However, while everyone was espousing the “Islamic” nature of UKM, I was seeing something else.

I saw that there was a rise of racism under the guise of “Islam”. For instance, until 1985, if I recall correctly, there were no non-Malay students who stood as candidates in the University elections. The logic then (and am sure still now among the conservative quarters) was that non-Muslims cannot be leaders for Muslims. Hence a Muslim should not vote for non-Muslims. You may recall that at one time, PAS was criticizing the Barisan Nasional for working with MCA and MIC. Heavens! This is not the mercy to humankind called “Islam” that I understand.

As a senior student in UKM, when I was put in charge of the campus election machinery, I argued along Quranic principles why we must field non-Muslim candidates too. For the first time, one Chinese and one Indian student stood for elections in UKM. This is Islam as I understand from the Quran. There also I learnt that I will have to prepare myself for the conflict between those conservative groups who want to impose their views on me and my own understanding from the Quran. I am, at the end of the day, accountable to Allah for my deeds. No one will be my advocate.

From UKM in 1984 to this day, “the conservative outlook of Islam” is the dominant outlook in our society. This is largely due to the political positioning and competition between PAS and UMNO as both try very hard to get into the hearts of the Malay voters. This I call the “politico-Islamisation process’ – where political considerations determine the “type of Islam” in the country. Political considerations usually consider what is pragmatic, popular and expedient – not necessarily what is “right and correct”.

The politico-Islamisation process in this country took on a serious evolutionary process because both PAS and UMNO seem to want out to each other with who is more “Islamic”. In the process, the UMNO led government is the one that gave momentum and force to this process, albeit unsuspectingly, by its Islamisation programme in 1982 with the subsequent sprouting of many institutions “Islamic”.

I think somewhere along the way, everything got out of hand. The man or the group of men who started the “Islamisation programme” were not there forever to control or manage it. It began to have a life of its own and began to mutate into something else altogether. Politics and the fight for prominence in matters “Islamic” took precedence over the education, discussion and understanding of Islam by Muslims themselves. The very political structure of our society seem to make the State and its apparatus the sole decider of what is “Islamic and what is not”. For example, there are set syllabuses in primary schools which are compulsory for all Muslim students to attend. All these which involves matters of faith and personal accountability to God are decided by a group of paid civil servants and politicians for the rest of the Muslim populace.

The rest of us will simply have to submit to them. This is a point which I have to return to later.

Peace !