Stop the Political Madness !!!

by Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos

 Oftentimes, it is necessary to remind yourself that though you may have collective responsibility in society, you are not the collective but an individual.

This becomes essential in maintaining mental and emotional stability, a sense of morality and ethics and personal direction, especially in a society that has become characterized by confusion and disorder. As an individual, you certainly do not wish to identify with the chaotic society, assuming of course that you had not actively contributed to it.

Our contemporary society, with respect, has become chaotic as it is seen to manifest confusion and disorder at many levels.

Let us look at the political situation in Malaysia.

The society is still, with the puerile belief, that politics alone will solve our fundamental problems. Hence, the media and our entire life is largely bombarded with political news.

continue reading by clicking here ---> HERE

Towards a PAS religious State after PRU14 ?

The heat seems to be on this election, especially on the social media.

There are all sorts of predictions as to who will win, how many seats and in which constituencies.

Some say that BN will win bigger and some say that Pakatan Harapan will win by a small margin. Has anyone thought of a big win by Pakatan?

If Pakatan Harapan wins, it raises many issues especially since Pakatan Harapan does not appear to have a single direction or agreement on policies to follow. What they have are general statements. There is also the concern that if Pakatan Harapan wins, there will be instability in the formation of the government,

ON the other hand, if BN only wins narrowly, then it is likely that it may form a coalition with PAS. The entry of PAS would most certainly change the political landscape into much more religious (not necessarily Islamic).  You may see greater religious control over Muslims. In the process, the non-Muslims too will be affected.

Let’s see.

END.

Ramadan reflections: Do Not Insult The religion of Others

Quran: Surah Al Anaam (6) Verse 108:

And do not insult those that they invoke other than Allah, lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge. Thus we have made pleasing to every community their deeds. Then to their Lord is thier return and He will inform them about what they used to do".

The Muslim is taught by Allah not to insult the gods that others may worship. 

Peace/Salam.

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

Rakyat, Jangan Terpedaya Permainan Politikus

Saya amat khuatir bahawa rakyat tampak mudah terpengaruh dengan permainan politik dalam Negara sehingga hilang pertimbangan dari pelbagai aspek.

Pertama, kita jangan lupa bahawa untuk Malaysia maju dan jaya, kita perlukan perpaduan yang jitu diantara kita bersama. Kita tidak boleh dipecah belahkan dengan isu-isu perkauman atau agama.  Muslim yang mengetahui Al_Quran nya akan sedar bahawa Allah telah memberi tunjuk ajar dalam Kitab nya bahawa akan ada manusia yang akan gunakan perkauman dan agama untuk memecahbelahkan manusia. Apabila Rakyat bercakaran bersama mereka, mudah lah bagi politikus yang tidak bertanggungjawap serta rakus kuasa menjalankan ajenda jahatnya.

Keduanya, Rakyat wajib sedar bahawa kekuatan mereka ialah kerjasama diantara mereka untuk kebaikan bersama Rakyat dan Negara. Didalam konteks ini, jangan lah Rakyat yang sudah pun lemah melemahkan lagi diri sendiri dengan melebelkan rakyat-rakyat dengan meletakkan mereka dalam kotak-kotak permusuhan. Sebagai contoh, jangan kita mudah terpedaya bahawa mereka yang sokong dasar atau kerja kerajaan semestinya tidak baik atau yang menyokong pembangkang semestinya baik. Jelas, sebahagian pembangkang hari ini pun tidak semestinya bermatlamatkan kesejahteraan Rakyat. Kita harus lihat pada apa kah yang di sokong dan apakah kerja yang di buat.  Saya percaya rakyat yang ikhlas boleh menyumbang kepada kebaikan bersama dan Negara, dimana sahaja ia berada, tanpa di kotori oleh proses politik ekstrim.

Ketiga, Rakyat harus mahu belajar berfikir secara objektif dan tidak mudah di tarik ke hulu atau ke hilir melalui emosi mereka. Jangan yang dewasa di kanak kanakkan kerana malas untuk berfikir atau cenderung kepada semangat kosong. Pihak rakus kuasa tahu bahawa kelemahan manusia ialah ketiadaan kepakaran mengawal emosi. Rakyat harus sentiasa berwaspada supaya kita tidak membakar kelambu kerana marahkan nyamuk, apatah lagi apabila kemarahan kita kepada nyamuk itu tidak bertempat dan telah drancang dengan licik oleh puak rakus kuasa.

Keempat, walau apa pun kaum atau agama kita, jangan kita lupa bahawa kita ada lah manusia yang tertakluk kepada hukum atau undang-undang alam. Dalam bahasa Al Quran, di sebut sebagai Sunnah Allah. Setiap tindakan kita akan memberi kesan kepada keseluruhan masyarakat atau Negara kita. Ini bermakna jika kita mencetuskan tindakan-tindakan, perbicaraan atau fahaman-fahaman negatif, seluruh Negara akan tercalit dengan kenegatifan ini. Lebih baik kita awas, muhasabah diri dan sabar dahulu sebelum membuat sesuatu secara melulu.

Salam.

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

Because The Clergy Cannot Be Sued For Ngeligence ......

There is an argument that is often canvassed by those who insist on absolute acceptance of the views and opinions of clergy - whether they are called priests, samiyars, ulamaks, ustads, fathers, sisters or brothers, gurus and so on - that these are experts.

The argument is since they are the experts, you have to accept their views unquestioningly. They further argue that when you are sick, you see the medical expert (doctor), when you have a legal problem, you see the legal expert (lawyer), when you car breaks down, you see the mechanic and therefore, on religious issues, you see the religious expert. Sounds logical ? No, actually. Consider the following reasons why I say such an argument is without basis and full of holes.

Firstly, every religion have their experts. If you are required to absolutely follow the views of the experts...then which expert do you follow? The Christian expert, the Hindu expert, the Judaist expert, the Islamic expert ? Which expert ? Each of these experts have completely different understanding on the path to the same God.  So, the argument that you accept what a religious expert tells you unquestioningly crumbles!

Secondly, even within the same religion, their own experts have diverse views on the same topic. So, again which expert does one follow unquestioningly ?

Thirdly, the comparison with non-religious experts such as doctors and lawyers to religious experts such as ulamaks or priests is inaccurate and misleading. Doctors and lawyers have no problems at all if you seek the advice and services of other doctors and lawyers. In fact in many instances, they insist you do so. They do not pretend to be the absolute authority in their field and will not in a frenzy condemn you to eternal hell fire if you reject their views. Their attitude is simple - they share their knowledge and expertise with you and seek you to make up your own mind, even if it's on a matter of your life and death.

This is not the case with most religious experts - they hold themselves out as the absolute authority and will seek to IMPOSE on you their views and understanding. They may even condemn you to hell fire or decreed that you have lost your soul or that you are a disbeliever of God simply because you disbelieve their understanding.

Lastly, which is very important is this: you can sue the non-religious experts like doctor and lawyer for negligent advice. How in the world do you sue the priest or the ustad or the samiyar if he had given you "negligent" advice. How do you sue him if his views had been completely wrong?

So - why do most of these people have a fetish for compelling others to accept their views unquestioningly ? Think about it....that is if you want to and capable of independent thinking.

Peace. 

You know what has annoyed and saddened me all my life???

Actually many things and I think many of these things are not my doing....

Let me list down some of them...

1) When I was a kid, I looked up to adults because they seemed confident, knowledgeable and always spoke with authority. Whenever I asked questions or disagreed with them, I would be considered either as "rude" or 'speaking back".

But as I grow up, I realised that many of them are ignorant and pretending to know life when actually they too are trying to figure out what life is all about. Of course later I knew that most people do not think nor have the willingness to think....but certainly there is no reason to be dishonest with kids and worse to impose your unchecked, unverified beliefs on to them.

2) When I lost a class mate of mine in Form 5 in an accident, it really dawned upon me that we will for a certainty die one day. Life on earth will be meaningless if we do not make full use of it for the betterment of ourselves, our families, our friends, our society and our world.

Since we are all going to die, it makes sense to make this life as liveable as possible for all of us. Meaning - do not  make life too complicated. But it annoys me that we have made life so unnecessarily complicated due to various labels - culture, religion, protocol, ethnicity, economics, politics and so and so on.


3) It annoys me that some people make it their purpose in life to divide people according to religion and race. In fact they make money from this ignoble puropose. What is even more annoying is that they do this division of human beings by anointing themselves with fanciful and honourable titles and honorifics. .

It annoys me that some people have seminars, forums and even write so called "academic papers" to further dvide human beings. The heights of annoyance is when they speak in the name of God to divide people and make other people's lives as miserable as possible.

4) It annoys me that the masses allow their lives to be determined by the elitist few and keep honouring the masters who treat them and their children as slaves and tools for their own glory and power. It annoys me that masses live an automated life defined by the system which they did not create.

5) It annoys me that the masses do not want to support true reformers in society and recognise true thinkers.

6) It annoys me that powerful evil will get more powerful because they have all the resources to perpetuate their power.

7) It annoys me that the ordinary citizen in position of authority do not want to cooperate with another ordinary citizen and make the system pro ordinary citizen instead of being slavish enforcers for the elitists...and they grow old, retire and their children suffer from the corrupt system they created.

8) It annoys me that some men have the audacity to speak in the name of God and are brave to impose on you when they either have the power of authority or the power of violence.

9) It annoys me that the thinking ordinary masses do not translate their annoyance into something collectively useful to make our system better so that we can live better and happier.

What annoys you ???

Slaves of Men in the name of God

This is nothing new. All through the history of humankind, there are many who are willing to become slaves of men in the name of God.

A belief in God is supposed to give a sense of confidence in existence, a sense of being free from the tyranny of men, a sense of gratitude for life and a sense of being good. These are some of the values and aspirations of most religions. It is equally supposed to bring inner peace to humans through the special and personal relationship with their creator/God.

In the realm of faith however, logic and rational thinking often takes a back seat as opposed to the mysterious "heart". Hence, not every conduct that is carried out in the name of religion can be explained logically. Emotions tend to be stronger than rational or scientific thought and therefore the need for proof is often dispensed with. It is almost impossible to debate with emotions.

Slavery can take many forms. One of the highest level of slavery to me is when a person gives up his thinking and his right to mould his life to someone else or a group of others.  This often happens in religion.

All forms of conduct and living which in a civilised society may be considered as primarily a private matter becomes the subject of control in a religious society . Most of these restrictions on speech, dressing, diet, thought, general behaviour and socialisation are often determined exclusively by a few men in the name of God for the vast ignorant majority. 

These few elitist men, often portrayed as knowledgable due to their attendance at certain universities or mastery of certain information and language are held in high regard almost to the level of a god when it comes to the force with which thier views are expected to be complied with. 

Often any dissent against the views of these select elitist religious groups are met with a finality of punishment including the cruel method of social and legal ostracisation.  Increasingly, due to fear of being ostracised and the unpleasant repercussions that may follow, these elitist group solidify their position as controllers of human behaviour in the name of God. People relent because they want to get on with their lives not realising that they have become slaves to a few human masters.

The position of the elitist groups as the only spokesman for all things Godly often begins with the indoctrination of children - either at home or in schools. These children are taught that there are certain "knowledgable religious persons" whose views are never to be questioned.  These children also are taught that in matters of religion, many things can be imposed or forced upon them without the need for explanation or acceptance.  

Religion hence becomes a powerful tool to control humans.

It has the power to make slaves of men to other men who speak in the name of God.

Peace !reli

No Draft Hudud Bill Yet By PAS ????

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

068.037  Or have you a book through which you learn-

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

068.039  Or have you Covenants with Us to oath, reaching to the Day of Judgement,

(providing) that you shall have whatever you shall demand?

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

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

"partners", if they are truthful!"

(Yusuf Ali translation).

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

Peace !

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

What does “protecting Islam” mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, maybe it becomes clearer if the caller was to say “protect the Shafie views of Islam” and so on.

However, do we see this manner of calls as promoting unity among the Muslims? What then will those adhere to the Maliki or Hanafi view do? If you say accept all, then what do you do when there is a conflict of views?

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

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

Peace !

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

Are Muslims Really the Best of People ???

1.      Every Muslim is taught that they are the best of peoples that has evolved for mankind. That they have the Truth with them and that they are on the “right path of God”.

2.      Every Muslim believes that “Islam” is the answer to all of human ills and sufferings and the Muslim through “God’s teachings” will be able to guide human beings to a better life here and in the herefater. Hence, many Muslim today wants to implement the “syariah law” which has been touted as “divine laws” by the Muslim clerics especially the “hudud laws” which is considered sacrosanct and deemed beyond any discussion.

Indeed the Quran does in surah 3 verse 110 state the following:

“You are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in God. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors”.

3.      Yes, the Quran says that the Muslims are the best of peoples. But who are these Muslims and where are they? Let Muslims not forget that Allah also speaks well of the people of the Book in surah 3 verse 113 to 114:

“Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of God all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration”. (Q3:113)

“They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous”. (Q3:114)

4.      Q3:113-114 clearly says that among the people of the book (the Jews and the Christians) there are those who enjoin what is right, forbid what is wrong and do good works like some Muslims do. The Quran is equally clear that in the Muslim community itself there are hypocrites (Q4;142, 63:1) who cause mischief within the community and spread false teachings in the name of Allah with their tongue and for wealth (Q2:41, 77; Q3:77-78, Q9:009)

From the discussion above, is it not a reasonable conclusion to make that a righteous Christian and Jew who forbids wrong and enjoins what is right is better than a hypocrite who pretends to be a Muslim? Q5:69 even states “any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve”.

5.      As a matter of clarity, it is important to note that all beautiful names belong to God and “Allah” is just one name ordinarily used by Muslims to refer to God the One and Only. 

“Say: "Call upon God, or call upon Rahman: by whatever name you call upon Him, (it is well): for to Him belong the Most Beautiful Names. Neither speak your Prayer aloud, nor speak it in a low tone, but seek a middle course between." (Q17:110)

6.      So, back to the question – are Muslims indeed the best of peoples evolved for mankind? I sincerely believe that those Muslims who adhere to the Quran and study it as it should be studied (Q2:121) and take the best meaning/interpretation from it are indeed useful for the world (Q39:18). These are people of peace (aslama), who are able to co-exist with compassion and understanding with people who have completely different belief systems or even an atheist, are diligent, productive, self-accountable and responsible, and able to engage in any discourse in an intelligent way as best as they can. In short, the best possible of a “civilized” person.

7.      Is that the image that Muslims portray today? I am sad to say that the general perception is completely the opposite.

8.      A general analysis of all the so-called “Muslim countries” shows backwardness in many ways – economically, politically and socially. They paint a gloomy and embarrassing picture of communities with poverty, abysmal record of human and women’s rights, constant civil wars, religious persecution often by the state itself, increasing lack of tolerance for other communities, overbearing sense of self righteousness, lack of respect for human privacy and freedom of thought, and most shockingly in this era of knowledge explosion, state sanctioned faith.

9.      Saudi Arabia for example, where the Quran was first revealed is a nation which has trapped its ordinary people in a time wrap completely excluded from the realities of the rest of the world. Many have noted that there is “so much religion and very little Islam” in that country. The reader can easily do further research to understand what I mean.

10.   Look at the “Muslim majority” countries in the African continent, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Libya, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Mali, Gambia, Kyrgyzstan and so on. Honestly, do these countries give meaning to the “best peoples evolved for mankind”?

11.  What have these “muslim majority” countries contributed to the betterment of the 7 billion over people living on earth in just the past 100 years that they deserve to be called the “best peoples evolved for mankind?”

12.  Muslims appear to be fond of blaming the whole world except themselves for whatever weaknesses, lackings, unhappiness or misery they suffer. When they cannot blame others, they break up into groups and sects and blame each other and often times ending up in bloodshed or persecution.

13.  How can we expect non-Muslims to have high regards for us when the perception globally is that we are intolerant, self-centered, unable to think for ourselves but completely dependent on the priests/clerics, over-sensitive to differing ideas and criticisms and hence lacking in self confidence, aggressive to the point of screaming Allah’s name in the streets and engaging in suicide bombings, that Islam is more politics and law rather than a spiritual guidance from the Creator and so on?

14.  It is also perceived that some of their ulamaks are of no help but only seek to put their followers further in a defensive position and angry position for what they lack in life. Not for a second are they encouraged or motivated to progress from whatever resources that have nor are they encouraged to use their creative minds to reap Allah’s mercy. You reap what you sow is a universal truth.

15.  All these extremely negative perceptions of Islam hurts me as a Muslim but I cannot simply get angry with them. This is a perception that my Muslim community has allowed to evolve. This is a perception that my Muslim community has failed to address because, I humbly believe, we have forsaken the teachings of the Quran (Q25:30) and gone on a frolic of our own following the teachings of men. We seem to have abandoned our God given common sense, thinking skills and compassion given by the Merciful and Compassionate Creator.

16.  Even in my own beloved country Malaysia, we witness some people abusing and subverting Islam to promote exclusivism, fascism and racism of the worst kind and in the process trying to create division, distrust, hatred and chaos among the peaceful people of Malaysia. Are these the “best of peoples evolved for mankind” as stated by Allah in the Quran? Surely not.

17.  I sincerely pray to Allah that in 2015, Muslims begin to sincerely indulge in their own soul searching and are courageous enough to be self critical (Q17:36, Q2:44), so that they can conclude for themselves whether they have indeed became the “best of peoples evolved for mankind” as stated by Allah in the Quran.

18.  Peace and Happy New Year.

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

17 year old forced into sex in the name of religion?

What if this was your daughter?

This can never be what Allah teaches.

Peace !

About Shia

In the name of Allah Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

068.037  Or have you a book through which you learn-

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

068.039  Or have you Covenants with Us to oath, reaching to the Day of Judgment,

(providing) that you shall have whatever you shall demand?

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

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

"partners", if they are truthful!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I leave that question for you to ponder.

Peace !

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