Someone called Ranjin, I met from India told me this last year. Do not know how far it is true.. I’ll share with you the conversation I had with him anyway (as much as I can remember).
Ranjin: Brother, do you know that there is a unique village in India called Injapuram? It has a population of about 500,000 people. It is a very stable village and everything is organised. They believe in a religion called Marasmas. They have a holy book which they believe is divine originated called Marashgi and worship a god called Devadassi. They have a religious head called the MaraGuru whose word is law. Even the village committee which is elected every 3 years by the village has to get his approval on important things.
Me: Wow…never heard of Marasmas before. Where can I get a copy of the Marashgi? I am into inter-religious studies.
Ranjin: Well…I’ll try to get a copy of it when I get back to India. It is difficult to find a translation of it in English as the religion is limited to the village. The original Marasghi is written in a language called Sanurdu .. a mixture of Sanskrit and Urdu. In fact this language is no longer spoken anymore.
Me: Then how do the followers understand their holy book?
Ranjin: Well, the Marasmis, followers of the Marasmas religion, depend on their priests for the understanding of their book. You see, the MaraGuru is the head of a religious order made up of priests. These priests are experts in the religion of Marasmas and are in charge of all religious affairs from rituals to daily living rules. All the Maramis must follow everything that the priests say and whatever decrees that the MaraGuru may pronounce from time to time.
Me: You say must…what happens if a Maramis does not follow the decree? Ostracised..or pay a penalty or do penance?
Ranjin: No..no. In Injapuram, all the village laws are derived from the Marashgi. They are religious laws. If you stay and live in the village, you are subjected to it. If you do not like it, you have to migrate somewhere else. You can be punished if you break the religious law.
Me: Wow…a very religious village who takes Devadassi seriously. Can you give me an example of a punishment?
Ranjin: Well, blue and green is a holy color for the Marasmis as it represents heaven and earth. Every Thursday is their holy day where every Marasmis is obligated by law to wear only blue and green colours and drink only water until 9pm. If anyone wears any other colour, that is not only a sin but an offence as well. It is considered an insult to Devadassi.
Me: Really?? And what happens?
Ranjin: The offender may be flogged in public between 5 to 25 strokes depending on the frequency of the offence.
Me: For wearing the wrong colour???
Ranjin: No my friend…. for going against the religious teaching.
Me; You mean..all these years..no one has ever questioned that practice?
Ranjin: Uh uh. These are village idiots. Further more, it will be suicidal to do so.
Me: Name calling is not nice! But yes…I suppose…religion is a sensitive issue.
Ranjin: Yes my friend…sensitive to the position of the Marasmas priests and the politicians. The status quo has worked for years, so why rock it?
Me: But tell me….doesn’t the village committee and the religious group run into problems with each other?
Ranjin: Well..it has happened several times..but confined to small issues only. You cannot make it in the village politics if you do not agree with the MaraGuru. So, because of this, the village politicians who make it are those who say that they will protect the religion of Marasmas.
Me; Oh…I see..so the politicians know how to read the holy book..the Marashgi?
Ranjin: I just told you…no one but only the MaraGuru and holy priests know how to read the holy book.
Me: But..but how can they protect something when they do not know the contents of the holy book???
Ranjin: Well, the MaraGuru educates them. You see, the MaraGuru can read by inspiration. The messages from the book can keep expanding when he reads it. That’s the divine power that he has.
Me: Wait a minute….how thick is the holy book?
Ranjin: Well….it is about 500 pages.
Me: That’s all??? That’s not a thick book to read to understand the religion of Marasmas!
Ranjin: That’s where you are wrong. To be a Marasmis, you not only believe in the Marashgi but also all the holy inspirations of all the MaraGurus. This religion is claimed to be 850 years old. There has been many MaraGurus….and by now, there is a huge library full of their holy writings.
Me: Wow! Will take a lifetime to read.
Ranjin: Exactly! So, they just follow the experts. Furthermore, these are village idiots who cannot think beyond their own basic survival.
I hope this is just fiction!!!
Thank God, I am not in Injapuram but in wonderful thinking Malaysia!
A: But..but...I do want to eat Loh Shee Fun. You can eat whatever you all want ok?
B: Ahh..but you mentioned Loh Shee Fun didn’t you? That reflects your mindset!
A: Wow o..ok..ok…lets have pizza then.
B: Cheezh! Now you are worse..penjajah mentality!
A: Hello..pizza is Italian, not British!
B: doesn’t matter..they aare orang putih food.
C tried to mediate between his friends.
C: Guys. Guys relax. Its just food. Can we just see that Loh Shee Fun is food first and Chinese origin second? Pizza is food first and Italian origin second?
B; Ok A..tell me. To you..is Loh Shee Fun Food first or Chinese First?
A: Er…well…it is Chinese food?
B: See you are a bigoted racist! Why cannot you say it is food of Chinese origin? Why do you say Chinese first, then food - Chinese Food??
C: Guys..can I suggest….
Both A and B snapped at him and said together:
A & B: C, you stay out of this. You are a liberalist with no Asian values!
Though I was very happy when Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak announced the 1Malaysia policy, I did expect diverse reactions to it, particularly from within UMNO. In fact, I believe I was probably the earliest blogger to “expand” and try to give meaning to the policy with the first posting on April 8, 2009 (I believe too that even then, Najib did not yet outline his concept!). Since then, there has been more than 10 postings on the subject.
I truly believe that 1Malaysia concept is relevant, and the way forward. It is a good start and a bold one by an UMNO President considering that it could easily turn out to be a major political risk for him. I knew then that it will be misunderstood by some people in UMNO as abandoning the main objective of UMNO – ie protecting Malay rights. While UMNO’s stated objective of “protecting Malay rights” is exclusive, 1Malaysia policy promotes inclusiveness – every citizen’s rights. Such a shift will certainly require time for UMNO leaders in general to understand and to subsequently embrace it.
1Malaysia calls for a paradigm shift - away from the used way of doing things to looking at the same things with fresh eyes and new approaches. Changing habits is never easy but 1Malaysia motivates the need to change for the better – for the general good. The Nation itself is still on the learning curve and we are learning that the way we are used to is not necessarily the best way to achieve positive results. Admission of past failures and our collective weaknesses is the first step towards realigning the Nation towards greater things. 1Malaysia, I believe provides us the channel to do this. In this regard, the Quran itself challenges us to reevaluate ourselves:
“Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you. But God knows, and you know not” (Quran: 2.216)
Confused apprehension of 1Malaysia coupled with engineered ignorance
As I expected, there were sections of the Malay community that were anxious that 1Malaysia will erode their special position that are enshrined in the Constitution. Not surprisingly, NGOs like Perkasa came into being to act as some sort of a pressure group to “remind” the Government not to “sideline the Malays”. While I respect the democratic rights of these NGOs to freely express their concerns, I must state that their “fears” are actually unfounded. I presume that their unfounded fears arose because of several factors, including confusion, ignorance of the Constitution and ignorance of the demographic facts. I shall explain below:
It is a fact that many UMNO members are also part of Perkasa. There has been an unhappy feeling among UMNO members since Tun Abdullah Badawi was UMNO President. There seems to be a perception that he has weakened UMNO and the unprecedented loss by BN in the 2008 general elections seems to have lent credence to that perception. Further, the unhappiness of UMNO with Abdullah Badawi resulted in him relinquishing both the offices of the Prime Minster and UMNO President. To be fair to Abdullah, he did introduce several liberal reforms or at least did give space for various “sensitive issues” to be publicly discussed. However, this liberalism was seen as his weakness rather than a result of his policy. This public discussion of “sensitive issues” were also seen by many UMNO leaders as UMNO becoming weak. This is a scenario which they have never seen before especially since some of the participants airing the issues were educated and young Malays! It was becoming a Malay-Malay dialogue on the reality of the multi-religious, multi-cultural and multi-ethnic Malaysia. You now have Malays championing not only Malay rights but also non-Malay rights – very Malaysian in perspective.
Further, the loss of 5 states to the opposition also seemed to have ‘embarrassed’ UMNO leaders/members. Malays, who are not UMNO members but UMNO sympathizers, also seemed to lose confidence in UMNO’s ability to look after Malay interest. Barisan Nasional’s (seen as UMNO’s) erosion of political power is confused with “erosion of Malay rights”.
All the above factors I believe caused confusion in the mind of some Malays. The confusion being between rapid phase of political changes, weak leadership, a bigger than usual opposition, and legitimate Malay interests. It is this confusion that led some people to wrongly saying that Malay political power has eroded when in actual fact, we have the biggest Malay representation in Parliament since merdeka!
It is also this confusion that led to some people wrongly saying that “Malay rights” in the Constitution are being challenged when in actual fact (a) the Constitution has always spoken about “Malay and natives special positions” and (b) there has never been any legal or Parliamentary challenge to Article 153. I have written about this in three parts here. http://jahaberdeen.blogspot.com/2010/02/hak-melayu-terhakis-bhg-satu.html)
It is noteworthy that these self-styled “champions of the Malays” have conveniently never taken the initiative to educate their Malay audience on the entrenched provisions in the Constitution. It is as if they want to perpetuate the ignorance of their audience on the said provisions so that they can “pump up the emotions” without putting the “brain in gear”.
Of course, as in any political community, there will always be vested interests who will take advantage of the existing confusion to promote their selfish interests at the expense of the majority. These are people who will pretend to care for the community but in actual fact, they do not care beyond the perpetuation of their own wealth, power and influence. Such a hypocritical behaviour has been pointed out in principle in the Quran:
“Ah! you are those who love them, but they love you not,- though you believe in the whole of the Book. When they meet you, they say, "We believe": But when they are alone, they bite off the very tips of their fingers at you in their rage. Say: "Perish in you rage; God knows well all the secrets of the heart." (Quran 3:119)
Inclusive or exclusive vision for the Nation?
Race based politics may have been relevant pre-Merdeka when possibly the diverse ethnic groups were unable to communicate with each other and lived in their own respective villages with very little inter-mingling. Race-based politics is certainly exclusive. It only promotes the well-being of one race to the exclusion of others. Such a political approach is bound to create conflicts and tension in the long run.
Today, the situation in Malaysia is completely different. People from diverse ethnic backgrounds inter-mingle freely on a daily basis – schools, places of work, neighbourhood, festivals, businesses, etc. Inter marriages are common. Bahasa Malaysia and English has enabled them to communicate with each other and allowed them to understand that they have common fears and hopes. Malaysia is the only home that most common Malaysians have though the elitists may have alternative homes in other countries.
There is a real bond between common Malaysians with the “soil of Malaysia”. In this sense, all Malaysians are “sons of the soil” or “bumiputra”. The term actually is unimportant compared to what it entails to be a Malaysian in reality. In the final analysis, it is they who have to collectively defend Malaysia if it is under attack from external or internal enemies of the Nation. It is they who have to collectively develop this Nation. Malaysians know and realize that if any Malaysian in suffering it will subsequently affect the well being of the others.
You cannot have what you want for yourselves and yet deny the very same for others. Such an approach is primitive, unjust and is a recipe for long term social conflict, strife and disaster. Denying others the equal and legitimate right to available resources is oppressive. I believe the right to God’s resources cannot legitimately be denied by man made laws.
“We have honored (karamna) the children of Adam; provided them with transport on land and sea; given them for sustenance things good and pure; and conferred on them special favors, above a great part of Our creation.” (Quran: Al-Israa 17:70)
We are all children of Adam and as siblings we are required to share the resources that God has given us. We are required to care for each other regardless of ethnic, cultural or religious differences. By now, we should have evolved into thinking beings who know that one of the biggest myth is that tribalism is security for the members of the tribe. Good and bad people are sprinkled into every tribe.Our diversity is not a weakness but a strength that we should collectively draw upon. The Quran lucidly refers to the strength of diversity as such:
“O humanity! We have created you from a single male and female and have made you into nations and tribes that you may know one another (not that you have pride over one another). Verily, the most honorable (أَكْرَمَكُمْ ) of you in the God’s Sight is the one most righteous. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).” (Quran: Al-Hujraat”, 49:13)
The mark of a civilized society is that which takes an inclusive attitude towards each other. I believe 1Malaysia contains this very important ingredient of inclusiveness. As Najib himself has frequently pointed out, 1Malaysia is not a new phenomenon in Malaysia. We have been living peacefully developing this Nation together. 1Malaysia policy however puts into motion a vision for us to focus and to work out tangible reforms that will entrench this idea into the system.
Incidentally, last week I met Bassam Abu Ali, a Palestinian who is residing in Athens. He is here on a short trip and we exchanged notes. He strongly expressed his view that he is proud of the 1Malaysia concept being put forward by a Muslim majority country. He felt that Malaysia is an outstanding example of a Muslim majority country that lives peacefully with others. He also felt that this concept should be brought to other Muslim countries so that they can learn.
Anyway, back to us, I believe each of us should give meaning to this 1Malaysia concept and make it the foundation of our Nation. Any attempts by vested groups to thwart this vision should be opposed.
This book seems to destroy the myth that it is the morally corrupt western sex tourists that led to the development of the sex trade in Asia. While they certainly have played a vital part in the growth of the sex industry, Louise Brown puts forward evidence to show that the primary customers of sex workers are essentially Asian men. She also persuasively argues that the "Asian hypocrisy" towards moral values, the fact of a male dominated Asian society, repressive attitudes towards women by Asian men and such have actually encouraged and developed the sex trade in Asian countries.
She records many of the real instances of young girls and women who have been cheated into prostitution or worse sold off by their parents to brothels or "sex agents" who traffic "sex products" across borders. These are disturbing and heart wrenching accounts to read.
Her research covers, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Malaysia, Cambodia, Singapore,Vietnam, Philippines, etc.
This is a good book to read by almost everyone who is concerned about girls and women who are caught up in sexual slavery. I would particularly recommend this book to be read by all social workers, activists, and the religious clergy whether they are called priests, rabbis, fathers or ulamak. As they say, with knowledge of the facts, remedial actions may be taken.
Be prepared to cry or to be angry or to be sad when you read the book...but be prepared also to something or anything you can.
[Book is published by Virago Press, London]
Peace.
Matthias Chang, the former political secretary to the former Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad jailed for contempt of Court. You may read further in the Malay Mail, the Star and ANotherBrickInTheWall.
It had been an extremely busy two weeks for me but I am so glad we all made time to have dinner and teh tarik last night. I am referring to the seven of us who met up last night because of our common interest in the Rapera concept. Two of them actually drove up from Pahang, one from Perak, one from Kelantan and the rest of us from Kuala Lumpur. It was also nicely mixed in terms of age ranging from 20s to 50s so we were able to get different age perspectives on the same issues that we discussed.
For me it was heartening to note that the message of “People Power” is slowly shaping into “People responsibility”. We all agreed that we deserve the leaders that we get either because we voted them in irresponsibly or we were indifferent enough not to vote. In any case, even if most of the population may be indifferent to what is happening in the country, the Raperas must be vigilant and be forever contributive to the extent possible.
We reminded each other that any change can only occur if you are willing to honestly and courageously revisit and rethink current modes of thinking, norms, culture, etc. It seems that technology has advanced drastically into the 21st century but human beings are still stuck in the dark age’s attitude –tribal, parochial, superstitious, feudal, etc.
There still seems to be a major reluctance to evolve into human beings.
Various systems, structure and superstructures are set up by the powerful (political and religious) to ensure that the majority of the citizenry remain primitive in thinking though living in up- to-date physical surroundings. Many of these systems and structures have existed for years to sustain the powerful and the elites and the ordinary citizen has become so used to it.
Being oppressed and being undignified as a human being appears to have become as common as breathing. They have become blind or numbed to the extent that they ignorantly say thanks to the oppressors. Like the cattle that is well-fed and kept at the master’s feet completely unmindful of the slaughter house that awaits it. Even when the cow is led to the slaughter house, the other cows just look the other way thinking that they will be the exception to the fate.
It is Raperas that must continue to educate themselves and others who are willing to listen that we all have the right and responsibility to live as human beings on this earth.
Thanks guys and girl for the “Rapera catching up” last night. We should do that more often.
Syed Akbar Ali in the comments section of his article “India Mari Pula” on his blog replies to one Khairudin in the following manner:
“To answer u straight from the Quran, no there is no evidence in the Quran that the Book is from God. The question u r asking is hinted at and the answer (only) is already given. Here it is from Surah 41:52”
Akbar Ali says that there is NO evidence IN the QURAN that that Book is from God. Then he goes on to quote FROM the Quran the verse 41:52 and alludes that the Quran only HINTS that it is from God.
I had posted on his comment section that there are evidences in the Quran that the Quran is from God and that he should correct his error. This comment of mine was not published (censored) by him. I just called him requesting him on the phone to correct his error (inadvertent, I am sure) and he replied that he did not like my describing it as an error. He is a dear friend of mine and I have known him for more than 10 years. We actually came to know each other because of our respective interest in the Quran.
Friends though we may be, an error of such nature need to be corrected in the spirit of mutual learning and mutual reminders. Hence this article. I am mindful of what Allah says in the Quran:
“And remember God took a covenant from the People of the Book,to make it known and clear to mankind, and not to hide it; but they threw it away behind their backs, and purchased with it some miserable gain! And vile was the bargain they made! (Quran: 3.187)
I will be guilty of hiding the verses from the Quran if I refrain from writing this article in the name of friendship.
Any student of usul-al-fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) will know that generally there are two kinds of dalil (proofs/evidence) internal or textual evidence and external evidence. This means that there are evidence in the Quran (internal) and evidence extrinsic to it (external). For example, when someone asks you the question, is there any evidence from the Quran that the Quran is from God? Our answer is, yes and we can refer him to any one of the following internal or textual evidence from the Quran:
“It is He Who sent down to you (gradually), in truth, the Book, confirmingwhat went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)”.(Quran: 3.3)
“And this is a Book which We have sent down, bringing blessings, and confirming (the revelations) which came before it: that you may warn the motherof cities and all around her. Those who believe in the Hereafter believe in this (Book),and they are constant in guarding their prayers”. (Quran: 6:92)
“Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than God? - when He it is Who has sent to you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We havegiven the Book, that it has been sent down from your Lord in truth. Never be then ofthose who doubt”. (Quran: 6:114)
“And this is a Book which We have revealed as a blessing: so follow it and be righteous, that you may receive mercy” (Quran: 6:155)
There are many more such textual evidence (dalil) IN the Quran that says that the Quran is from God.
Whether a person believes in them or not is a separate matter (which can be addressed) but this is nevertheless evidence from the Quran about itself. Like every other evidence, it can be tested, challenged or cross examined by the doubter or cynic. To me, this possibility of cynicism is addressed by God in the following verse:
“Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other than God, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy”. (Quran: 4:82)
There you go. That is another evidence from the Quran requiring the skeptic to examine the Quran. It simply challenges the reader to find contradictions in the Quran. I also understand this verse to mean this: that whatever the Quran says about nature or the world should not contradict the scientific reality. For example, if the Quran says that there is no such thing as gravity or that human beings do not need to eat in order to live – if so, then there are discrepancies. In fact, in my evaluation and assessment of the Quran more than 25 years ago, I even sought to find out, inter alia, if there are any inconsistencies as to what the Quran says about the psyche and what expert findings confirm. I was very interested in human psychology then. To do these things, you have to look at the external evidence or the signs of God. It is a gross error to confuse the internal evidence (or worse, denying its existence) with the external evidence.
Further, the Quran itself requires the person to inquire, analyse, verify and understand the facts before accepting them. This is lucidly clear from the following verse:
“And follow not 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)
Once again, you examine the signs of God (external evidence) and what the Quran says and try to arrive at a conclusion as objectively as possible. In this regard, Syed Akbar Ali correctly quoted a verse from the Quran that asks us to look at the external evidence or the signs of God.
"We will show them our proofs in the horizons, and within themselves, until they realize that this is the truth.* Is your Lord not sufficient as a witness of all things?" (Quran: 41:53).
In conclusion, it is my understanding (and I believe the understanding of learned jurists) that there is evidence IN the Quran that the Book is from God.
If I have erred in my understanding or reasoning, please point it out. I have absolutely no problems in accepting an error that I may have made. More important than me or Syed Akbar Ali is the true verses of Allah.
(Syed Akbar Ali, I hope this will bring our friendship closer to the love of Allah).
I think it is just bad taste to keep on criticizing those politicians in power. Serving the People's interest is not easy. The leaders have to sacrifice a lot in terms of their time, money and family. In fact if not for the People's contribution, it would have been impossible for these political powerful leaders to even support their family because they do not have the time to earn a living like you and me.
At least we have our family members and relatives who are clerks, officers in civil service, even some lawyers and doctors...but they....none whatsoever. It is so difficult even for their capable relatives to become successful businessmen due to the fear that People may misunderstand that all their relatives made it because they were in power.
This is the reason why most of their immediate families and close relatives are just middle income like you and me. Anyway to prove my case that our politicians in power are a self-sacrificing lot, I will list below just 25 names as starters:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
That is how I have always thought of you, my friend and my professor. I know that you never considered yourself as anyone’s teacher and always cautioned me to think for my self.
I knew the inevitable moment will come and it did in the form of your daughter’s sms on 6.3.2010 saying that “Pak Lah meninggal jam 11.05pm”. The only thought that came to my mind at that moment was the fact that I could not bear to see you in the weak state that you were in when I last met you. I am just too used to listening to what you have to say. I always have to listen to every single word that you utter because it was too important for me. I am not used to seeing you silent.
I will always remember you as the true professor who professes faith based on reason and knowledge. Your life long dedication to the study and discussion of Quran has touched many people’s lives. You were the first to convincingly demonstrate to me the practical and applicative nature of the Quran in every sphere and aspect of life.
You have always maintained that a truly God-fearing person is a thinking person and that the Setan will always persuade humans to look upon thinking as a burden or an obstacle to faith.
I have learnt so much from you and much more that I wish I could have learnt from you. Your mastery of logic and thought processes baffles me considering the fact that you never went to university. I have met and discussed with many learned academics and as I have told the late Professor Syed Hussein Al-Attas, you are still number one as a thinker. You are proof that formal education is but a myth and academic qualifications are no guarantee of a person’s ability to think deeply. You are a genius Pak Lah and I could never tell you that personally because you told me that praises can be the devil’s workshop.
You have been very generous with your life, meeting many young people, academics, politicians and just about anybody who wants to share your knowledge and you gave it willingly. You shared great knowledge without charging a single cent while I know of many who pretend to teach and yet charge hefty fees. It did not even bother you that many academics took your ideas and did not even acknowledge you. I know Pak Lah, you have taught me that true knowledge belongs to God and it is never for sale. Everyone who is willing can partake of it.
So many things that I have learnt from you rushes through my mind and I just do not know which to focus on at this moment. You so accurately distinguished between the “collectuals” and the intellectuals. One who collects information and the other who thinks. Though it does not matter to you at all, I cannot help but feel sad that society has never bestowed upon you the honour that you truly deserve when lesser mortals are held up in high esteem. We live in a society that only recognises superficialities, paper qualifications and honorary titles.
I have always admired how you use the Malay language so precisely and I will remember that the choice and proper use of words is very important for clarity of thought. You have often pointed out that much of the confusion in people’s minds emanates from the misuse and careless use of words.
I suppose you were a great thinker because you felt it was a divine duty and gift to think and was not trapped by man-made parameters which many academics and people have trapped themselves into. You had no one to serve except God. This I remember Pak Lah and I have been trying hard to emulate. I also learnt from you never to impose our own views on others even though we are passionate about ours. You were a living example of what “redha” means though you never ceased to be active till your last day.
I have always been humbled by your humility and the one other thinker who humbles me with his humility is the Late Prof Syed Hussein Al-Attas. I love both of you very much though I have never expressed it in in the normal way that normal people do. Now, I no longer have the luxury of “harassing” two great thinkers and friends who will oblige me late into the wee hours of the morning. I feel emptiness and I cannot help it. I just do not know with whom I can talk to anymore. In this very mundane, almost predictable and repetitious life, both of you were my strength and source of joyous “entertainment”. I felt alive.
Now I feel I have no one. You have retired from life and I should feel happy for you…but I still feel choked. I would have felt lost if not for your constant reminder that as long as we are alive, that means that our work on earth is not done.
I am eternally grateful to my dear friend, Ramlan for having introduced you to me. That first meeting with you changed my life dramatically. I was stunned by your brilliance, sincerity in pursuit of knowledge and your remarkable clarity of thought.
As you have pointed out, all people die one day but ideas live on. It is your ideas that make me feel that you are still alive. You have lived a path of righteousness and now you have returned to your Maker.
From Allah we come, to Allah we all must surely return.
I bid your farewell and May God bless you, my friend, my professor.
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
!
Politicians & Ngos 2. State Religious Council 3.Federal “IslamicInstitutions 4.. State ReligiousAuthorities 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]
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.
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.
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.
Let’s take ten of you. 5 years ago you were earning RM1,000.00 a month. So, per month all 10 of you were earning RM10,000.00 per month or RM120,000.00 per year. Taking this 10 only, the national income (GDI) is RM120,000.00
Then what happened was, 4 of you lost your job and the remaining 6 of you got an income increase to RM2,000.00 each. Since the 6 got a doubled pay increase, therefore the GDI has increased to RM 144,000.00 per year.
Now, the politicians and “experts” will boast that the economy has improved! There has been an increase in income in the country of RM24,000.00. The income levels in the economy has improved by 20% !!!
Everyone "forgets" that there are still 4 persons unemployed!
Many people seem to forget that Malaysia has syariah laws in place in every state. I say “forget” because every time the relevant syariah enforcement officers act according to the Syariah enactments in the respective states, quite a number of people raise an alarm and cry “That cannot be done!” But the officers are only acting within the powers given to them by the respective syariah enactments.
Whenever the syariah courts sentence someone according to the provisions of the respective State Syariah laws, even more people protest and start saying that cannot be done. But the syariah courts are only exercising the powers given to them by the respective syariah enactments.
When Hishamuddin Hussein Onn announced that 3 women were caned, some quarters raised an alarm. When Kartika voluntarily subjected herself to the existing syariah law and the presiding Judge sentenced her according to the existing syariah law, many protested.
If it was just the ordinary citizen, then it is understandable. They do not what laws has been passed as “syariah” and when.
What is mind boggling is that the sounds of protest come from those who are in the government, even Minister. It is ironical that Ministers do know or forget that there are Syriah laws in place.
I was shocked long time ago when Tun Dr Mahathir, being Prime Minster then voiced his displeasure when three girls who took part in a beauty pageant was arrested. What? He is the Prime Minister. Why didn’t he start a reform of the syariah laws if he felt strongly about it? He didn’t, therefore it must mean that the Barisan Nasional Government is very happy with the existing syariah laws.
Let me point out some basic facts:
1. Every State has its own Syariah Laws – meaning one offence in one state may not be an offence in another state. Punishments for the same offence may be different.
2. These Syariah laws are passed by the State Assembly of each State – that means the credit for all these laws must go to the Barisan Nasional State Assemblymen because they were mostly in power since merdeka until now.
3. Each ruler of each state is the head of the religion of Islam in the respective State and they must give their assent to the laws passed.
4. Each ruler has advisers on Islam who advise them.
5. Non-Muslims are not subjected to these laws. Muslims, therefore are privileged to be subjected to two laws – the “civil law” and the “syariah laws”.
6. Generally, the Syariah laws regulate how the Muslims in this country must practice their religion. If you are a Muslim citizen, you are bound by it.
I have spoken about the impact, legality, content and importance of the Syariah laws to various MPs, including Ministers over the past 10 years. The impression that I was left with is: they do not understand the true impact of it in the long run. In fact, they do not really want to know as they have the mindset (seems to me), that it is best left to the “experts”. They “fear to touch the subject”. Politics again.
I do not know whether the time will come when concerned Muslims who take their belief seriously will also want to take active part in evaluating the syariah laws to determine if it is consistent with the teachings of the Quran and the Sunnah. After all, Muslims believe that each of us will be solely responsible for our own deeds in the hereafter.
In the meantime, Barisan Nasional MPs and State Assemblymen should not complain about the implementation of the syariah laws that they helped to pass and exist.
