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

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

Penghinaan Terhadap Orang Islam harus berhenti !!!

(image thanks to http://wellcomehistory.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/anger.jpg)


Sejak kebelakangan ini terlalu banyak penghinaan terhadap umat Muslim yang berlaku. Sebenarnya, dalam negara ini, penghinaan demi penghinaan terhadap minda dan imej orang Islam berlaku sejak 9 tahun yang lalu.

Yang menyedihkan ialah penghinaan ini dilakukan oleh..........................orang-orang yang mengaku orang Islam !

Penghinaan-penghinaan ini amat dahsyat sekali sehingga sekumpulan kecil dominan yang kuat bersuara ini cuba untuk menampilkan orang Islam sebagai bodoh, percaya tahyul dan fantasi, tidak berkeyakinan diri, pak turut yang tidak tahu untuk menilai, tidak ada jati diri, pengacau keamanan, rasis, hipokit, dogmatik dan "sexist" (kalau tak faham tengok kamus), ritualistik semata-mata dan sebagainya yang negatif.

Oleh kerana kumpulan dominan ini kuat bersuara tanpa malu dan harga diri serta tanpa menilai tahap ilmu dan tahap pemikirannya, maka penghinaan bertubi-tubi diteruskan teradap umat Muslim.

Awal sekali saya ingin nyatakan bahawa "Islam" itu adalah Adeen atau "Cara HIdup" atau "The Way" yang amat rasional, yang galakkan pemikiran, penilaian dan kajiselidik, syumul dan bertepatan uttuk semua masa serta relevan kepada yang percaya dan yang tidak percaya. Ia adalah Adeen yang inklusif (kalau tak faham, tengok kamus) dan bukan agama yang eksklusif seperti kebanyakkan agama. Ini lah diantara rahmah, mukjizat dan barakah Adeen Allah yang mungkin ramai Muslim sendiri tidak sedar,

Diantara penghinaan-penghinaan ialah seperti berikut:-

(image thanks to http://www.mauroferrario.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/dontThink.jpg)

1) Orang Islam begitu lemah dengan "aqidah" mereka sehingga begitu mudah terpengaruh dengan simbol-simbol agama lain seperti "salib" tokong, gereja, dan lain-lain.

2) Orang Islam begitu lemah mnda sehingga kehadiran buku-buku "suci" agama lain boleh memesongkan mereka - ini pula di Negara kita dimana setiap ceruk negara terdapat "ceramah agama" yang begitu banyak!

(image thanks to http://godspeaksilisten.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/stupid-best.jpg)

3) Orang Islam tidak pandai menilai, tidak pandai berfikir sehingga terpaksa setiap kali dalam semua hal "agama" merujuk" kepada "ustad", "tok/tuan guru", "ulamak", "Sheikh" dan sebagainya.  Pandangan-pandangan "orang agama" ini pula harus di terima bulat-bulat seolah-olah ianya firman Allah tanpa pertikaian. Seolah-olah orang-orang Islam tidak mampu bertanggungjawap terhadap ubudiyyah nya sendiri kepada Allah !

(image thanks to http://cookouteveryday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ScreenHunter_29-Jun.-09-12.24.jpg)

4) Orang Islam tidak mampu menghadapi kepelbagaian tafsiran dan fahaman sehingga mudah menjadi ganas atau emosi jika orang lain yang berilmu mempersembahkan tafsiran berbeza. Cara paling mudah untuk membela fahaman sendiri ialah dengan menidakkan hak orang lain untuk menyuarakan fahaman dan hujahnya! "Adabal Khilafiah" yang di ajar oleh Allah dalam Al-Quran diketepikan

(image thanks to http://www.lovelifelivenow.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Anger_2.jpg}

5) Digambarkan Islam sebagai agama yang suka melarang, mengharamkan segala, tidak ada kerasionalan dalan tindakan, yang mengekalkan dirinya dengan kuasa dan bukan pengajaran dan hujah. Ini disebabkan orang-orang agama yang suka menunjukkan kuasa melalui melarang itu dan ini, dan sebagainya. Walhal Adden Allah adalah berdasarkan hujah, nas, pelawaan dan tiada paksaan langsung.

(image thanks to: http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fGR-adEEkNg/0.jpg

6) Digambarkan Agama sebagai penuh dengan kerahiban dalan pelbagai segi dimana orang agama diangkat ketahap tuhan sehingga pendangan dan tafsiran mereka tidak boleh di cabar atau dipertikai oleh Muslim2 lain yang mungkin lebih pandai, berilmu daripada mereka walaupun tidak khusus pada agama secara formal atau rasmi.












(image thanks to https://chloeannjacobs.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/sexism2.jpg)


7) Baru-baru ini saya diberitahu oleh seorang pelajar kolej bahawa guru agama mereka mengajar bahawa "Islam tidak mengalak wanita berkerja tetapi harus duduk di rumah dan lelakilah yang harus buat segala sesuatu".  Kononnya menurut beliau "wanita adalah bunga yang harus dijaga lelaki supaya berseri di rumah untuk menyejukkan hati lelaki" ! Kalau ini bukan ajaran yang menjadikan wanita sebagai simbol seks semata-mata, saya tidak tahu apa yang nak digelarkan ajaran sedemikian!

8) Digambarkan sebagai wanita lah sumber maksiat dan lelaki Muslim amat rendah kawalan mereka terhadap nafsu sehingga mudah goncang dengan kehadiran wanita. Bentuk badan wanita dijadikan isu. Tidak kah tension bila orang-orang ini mengambarkan masalah peribadi dan kelemahan mereka sendiri sebagai ciri manusia?? Tidak kah ini penghinaan pada minda Muslim yang beretika dan boleh mengawal diri?

(image thanks to https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJbH6TEGtYGhId3cQEfRlmQdGB8WtU9RQqqkb-EFExHFbzH0KG6X2nnaZHkSRYFfwEF5hm5RdfrRZtJLh3ULlPpBAW16FjB5k88d46qb_Bs3X4zDz1nnvOoIvNphRppQKcXu5OcDfck62p/s1600/Is+SWTOR+Bringing+Back+Retro+Sexism+Issues+for+Women+Gamers.gif)

9) Di satu sekolah rendah, guru agama mengajar bahawa orang Islam tidak boleh merayakan Hari raya Cina sebab "cina makan babi dan ini adalah perayaan orang kafir". Perkara ini saya telah seselaikan sendiri dimana ustazah itu ikhlas mengaku tersilap kerana tidak faham sebelum ini perkara-perkara yang saya jelaskan pada nya. Namun, amat menakutkan berapa sekolah lagi ada orang-orang agama sedemikian???

9) Keganasan di "halalkan" atas nama agama walhal amat jelas Islam mengharamkan mengambil nyawa manusia yang tidak bersalah.

Saya juga tertanya-tanya, tidak mampu ke "orang agama" berdebat dengan mufakkir dan Muslim-muslim yang jauh lebih pandai daripada mereka walaupun tidak berkelulusan formal agama secara rasional dan beradab?

Tidak malu kah kita sebagai Muslim bila ada orang-orang Islam yang bercakap bodoh dikhalayak ramai atas nama Islam?

Kadang-kadang saya rasa lucu bilamana seorang yang tidak berkemampuan untuk berhujah secara logik dan berdasarkan Al-Quran mengambil jalan keluar dengan membunyikan beberapa bahasa Arab yang ia sendiri tidak faham tetapi popular dikalangan mereka.

Masalah lah masyarakat bila ianya didominasi oleh orang-orang yang lemah daya pemikiran, bersikap burung kakak tua, tidak berani berhujah berdaarkan ilmu dan nas, dan paling sedih ialah ia begitu tidak berkeyakinan diri sehingga marah bila orang berlainan pendapat !!!

(Image thanks to: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/0d/80/74/0d80746b5ae6ff2d867d002a43cef30a.jpg)

Muslim harus bangkit untuk mengembalikan maruah dan berhenti dihina oleh orang-orang "Islam" yang bodoh dan jahil atau yang tampak berpendidikan tetapi sijahil terdidik.

Salam.

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.