Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Censuring the confused in their erroneous reading of verse (2:256) in the Holy Qurʾān
- Bruno Manser Fund takes Malaysian money-laundering case to the Swiss Federal Criminal Court
- Stemming the incoherence of misguided Muslim pundits
- U. S. Constitution Is A Secular Document
- Dark (K)Nights in Malaysia, Part 2
- Who instructed the initiation?
- BOMBA should go back to school
- An honest discourse between two Malaysians
| Censuring the confused in their erroneous reading of verse (2:256) in the Holy Qurʾān Posted: 11 Nov 2012 12:50 PM PST
Wan Ahmad Fayhsal bin Wan Ahmad Kamal It is important to note that the true scholars of Islām (ʿulamāʾ, sing. ʿalīm) who are experts in the exegesis (tafsīr) of Qurʿān are ever consistent in their interpretation and understanding on the meaning "there is no compulsion in religion" (Q2: 256). One must be aware that such command by God in His Own Words in the Qurʾān does not apply with regard to the Muslims who are already in the state of submission (hence the very meaning of the name Muslim is total and willing submission based on the correct way as decreed by Him through His Last Messenger – Prophet Muhammad) in the religion of Islām. Instead the verse is informing the Muslims not to coerce people from other religions to be submitted into Islām and becoming Muslim unwillingly. To make it clearer, this particular verse is intended to uphold the sanctity of Islamic missionary (daʿwah: literally means "making an invitation) and has proven to be imbued in the central tenets of Muslim ethics in conducting their missionary works for ages till present times – unlike, in contrast to the notorious Spanish Inquisition of the medieval time. The myth of Islam spread by the sword has long been dispelled even by the respected Orientalist – Sir Thomas Arnold (1864-1930) in his work "The Preaching of Islam: A History of the Propagation of the Muslim faith" (1896). Any attempt to invoke the notion of "intolerant" has no relevance whatsoever with regard to the verse above. From the authoritative exegesis attributed to Prophet Muhammad's Companion – Abdullāh b. Ibn ʿAbbās, who is considered to be the most knowledgeable of the Companions in tafsīr, as narrated by al-Fīrūzabādī (1329–1414) in Tanwīr al-Miqbās min Tafsīr Ibn ʿAbbās in which the phrase "there is no compulsion in religion" (Q2: 256) is understood to be referring upon the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) and the Magians after the Arabs submitted themselves into Islām. The scholars of tafsīr clearly indicated that it is addressed to the Muslims with regard to their treatment upon the non-Muslims in matters of conversion to Islām. These views are resonated in many authoritative tafāsīr (plural of tafsīr – exegeses of Qurʾān). And it has never ever being rendered in the opposite direction as pandered by certain quarters of confused Muslims – the likes of Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF) and Sisters in Islam (SIS) – that merely bantering upon uncouth slogans of enlightenment and reason in providing so-called alternative reading and understanding of the verse mentioned. Furthermore many confused Muslims have distorted the established understanding of this verse as explained by authoritative exegetes of Qurʾān (mufassirūn, sing. mufassir) by reading it in piecemeal basis without having a recourse of reading the verse in its totality and organic whole via linking the verse with its precedents verses and the following verses which carrying the same theme of "truth and falsehood is clearly manifested." They tend to essentialise the command of God as rendered in Qurʾān – meaning to divorce the Qurʾānic injunctions and exhortations from its existential realities. This is wrong, as Islām is a religion that comprises both ideals and realities in which both are harmoniously linked in projecting the true image of the religion of Islam as perfectly exemplified in the living tradition of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him!) and the heirs of Prophetic knowledge and duties - the true scholars of Islam. This worthy heir of Prophets (peace be upon them all) has been guaranteed by himself in his saying: al-ʿulamāʾ warith al-ānbiyāʾ - "Scholars (of Islām) are heir of Prophets". Such endeavor of interpreting and rendering the best meaning of religious injunctions was first completed by the Prophet Muhmmad himself and followed through now by his apparent heir – the competent scholars of Islamic sciences who always ensure their efforts, to the best of their abilities, are complying to the basics of epistemology in Islām. It is not and can never be based upon mere personal speculations and conjectures that sprung out from the whims and fancy of its learned adherents i.e. Muslim scholars, what more from the laity Muslims like the confused lot of IRF and SIS. True Muslims – that is true to its namesake of 'being a Muslim' – are conscious enough, furthermore willingly submit themselves under the established religious injunctions and will know his or her limits in negotiating the boundaries without ever transgressing the extremities or coming up short in fulfilling their religious obligations as what have been delineated by the Muslim scholars which have been deduced from and originally based on the established knowledge and perfect practices of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him!) Such religious rulings and injunctions (aḥkām, sing. ḥukm) could only be derived by the able and eligible scholars that have fulfilled the fundamental and necessary requirements to perform what technically is termed as ijtihād (deriving the injunctions from established sources of knowledge in Islam) – or issuing legal opinions (fatwā), as outlined in the pristine tradition of religious sciences in Islām. Qurʾān is not a book of quotations that simply can be cherry-picked by any Muslims to form their own personal interpretation on religious rulings and injunctions. Laymen that have not possessed the right knowledge, mental and spiritual aptitude are not adept to put forth their views (in truth it is just their personal conjecture) without having recourse to the previous scholarships on the exegeses of Qurʿān. To the inept – especially current politicians and poser-Muslim scholars who have not endured rigorous and specialized training of issuing Islamic legal opinions and interpretations – the depth and systematic intricacies of Quran will never be manifested upon them as God the Almighty have said in the the Qurʾān: "But none knows its true interpretation, save only God and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge (rāsikhūn fī'l-ʿilm)." (Q3:7) Of course such exhortations above are not binding upon non-Muslims and they have total freedom in relation to the general precepts of the established Muslim scholarship with regard to the verse discussed here but it is a different case altogether for Muslims, as they must have recourse upon proper authorities in knowledge pertaining to it. One of the authorities that have untangled this confusion was Shāykh Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī (1904-1997), the celebrated author of Tadabbur-e-Qurʾān ("Pondering over the Qurʾān"), which made use of his late teacher Mawlānā Ḥamīduddīn Farāhī's (1863-1930) scholarship on the idea of thematic and structural coherence in Qurʾān. Referring to the verse 256 in chapter 2 of the Qurʾān, Iṣlāḥī is fully aware of the tendency for confused Muslims throughout the ages of using the notion of "there is no compulsion in religion" in making the religion of Islām conform to their fancy, whims and desires: "Some people unfortunately take this verse away from this sense and try to use it for rejecting all legal constraints. They argue that since there is no compulsion in Islām, any attempts to invoke punishments for certain acts are invalid in Islām and are, moreover, mere fabrications on the part of 'mullahs' (note: Muslim scholar title that is widely used in India and Pakistan). If this line of argument is accepted as valid, it would mean that the Islamic Sharīʿah (i.e. Law) is without any prescribed punishments and penalties and that it allows people to behave and act as they please without imposing any restrains on them." (pg. 601-602. Iṣlāḥī, Amīn Aḥsan, Tadabbur-e-Qurʾān, "Pondering over the Qurʾān", trans. Mohammad Saleem Kayani, Kuala Lumpur: IBT, 2007) Iṣlāḥī further explains such understanding is totally unfounded in Islamic tradition: "This is a fallacious argument, because we all know that Islām has a whole system and a penal code of its own, the implementation of which is a most important and basic Islamic obligation. An Islamic government can punish a Muslim if he fails to observe Prayer (note: especially the obligatory communal Friday prayer for men) or fasting. And this does not at all contravene the principle that "there is no compulsion in religion". Undoubtedly, Islām does not sanction the use of any compulsion to convert others. At the same time, however, it does not allow anyone entering its fold to behave in any manner they fancy without being questioned or held accountable for their conduct." (pg. 602. Iṣlāḥī, Amīn Aḥsan, Tadabbur-e-Qurʾān, "Pondering over the Qurʾān", trans. Mohammad Saleem Kayani, Kuala Lumpur: IBT, 2007) This observation by Iṣlāḥī is not a mere theoretical exegesis but can be further corroborated with ample historical evidences on the real practices of the Muslim throughout the ages – especially in the past where Islamic government was firmly established. This legal injunction of delivering and maintaining religious practices falls under the rubric of maintaining public duties in Islām or technically called "Ḥisba". Such acts that falls under the rubric of ḥisba has strong Qurʿānic bases (Q3:104, Q3:110, Q3:114, Q7:157, Q9:71, Q9:112, Q22:41, Q31:17) and is considered to be one of the most important tenets after the Five Pillars of Islām (arkān al-Islām) and Six Pillars of Faith (arkān al-Imān) in Islām which is called "enjoining good and forbidding evil" (al-amr bi'l-maʿrūf wa'l-nahy ʿan al-munkar). It is safer for us not to digress from our real discussion above on the issue of "there is no compulsion in religion". For thorough reading on ḥisba, please refer to Muhtar Holland's "Public Duties in Islam" (Leicester: Islamic Foundation, 1982) a translation of a legal treatise entitled al-Ḥisba fī al-Islām by the famed Muslim jurist of 13th century – Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Taymīyah. Alas suffice here for us to be really aware that interpretations made on the discussed verse "there is no compulsion in religion" by certain quarters of the confused Muslim is not as simple as they think, especially when it comes to really grasping the understanding of a particular verse in relation to other preceding and posterior verses, what more reading that particular verse in the light of the gestalt of Qurʾān where the dictum "the whole is larger than the sum of its part" rings louder than any kind of book ever existed in the history of man – be it religious or secular. If we want to understand Qur'ān correctly, one must resort to various other analytical tools not just limiting it to plain-dry modern notions of "analysis" that dicing things out beforehand in order to examine and arrive at the crux of the matter. Some of the analytical tools that are firmly established since day immemorial of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him!) resided in the science of interpretation (tafsīr) of Qurʾān. Such analytical and exegetical devices, the likes of the reasons of revelation (asbāb al-nuzūl) and abrogations (nasikh wa al-mansūkh) are strictly unique in the religion of Islām. Those devices (some became science of itself, e.g. ʿilm al-rijāl - knowledge on evaluating the credibility of narrators of the hadīth) have been laboriously refined by Muslim scholars via countless numbers of commentaries (shurūh, sing. sharḥ), super-commentaries and glosses (ḥawāshī, sing. ḥāshīah) and the findings have been infused into many other Islamic sciences notably jurisprudence (fiqh). That is why the learned scholar of Islām, Professor Syed Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas keeps emphasizing that the science of tafsīr is based on established knowledge not conjecture and it is not the same as hermeneutics; which means only the competent – not just among the lay Muslims but moreover among the Learned Muslim (ʿulamāʾ) whom themselves have mastered various branches of Islamic sciences – have the rights to deliver their interpretation upon such verses, especially on the subject of this discussion that falls under one of the most basic tenets of faith (imān) and deemed to be unclear to many especially in these modern times. It is best for all Muslims especially the confused lot to pay heed to Prophet Muhammad's (peace be upon him!) saying (ḥadīth) – which is the second most important source of knowledge in Islamic sciences after Qur'ān – as narrated by al-Bayhaqī: "This knowledge (the religious) will be held in every generation by those who are just (meaning – the Learned [ʿulamāʾ]) and they shall protect it against the falsification of the extremists (taḥrīf al-ghālīn), the fabrication of the deceivers (intiḥāl al-mubṭilīn) and the misinterpretation of the ignorant (taʾwīl al-jāhilīn). If the confused Muslims keep railing about this despite umpteenth times being censured by authoritative Muslim scholars on their reckless and half-truths (which is more dangerous than plain error!) interpretations, then they are no better than the extremists who took the verse: "kill the idolaters wherever you find them" (Q9:5) by decontextualizing and accepting it based on mere face value in order to justify their anger and the continuance of their act of manslaughter in the name of religion (God forbid!). Indeed, if they continue to affirm and latch upon errors without having any thought to relinquish them and seeking the truth of the matter through proper ways and means – as explained above – they will go astray from the consensus (ijmāʿ) of the Muslim scholars in matters of creed (ʿaqīdah) where there has never been disagreement and indulgence whatsoever in matters of distinguishing and affirming the truth from the error. Verily Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him!) has stated, as narrated by Ibn Majāh: "My Community shall never agree upon misguidance, therefore, if you see divergences, you must follow the overwhelming majority of Believers (al-sawwād al-āʿẓam)" The writer is a research fellow at Himpunan Keilmuan Muslim (HAKIM). He currently reads Islamic Thought and Civilization at Centre for Advanced Studies on Islam, Science and Civilization (CASIS-UTM) as well a lecturer at Kolej Universiti Islam Selangor (KUIS).
|
| Bruno Manser Fund takes Malaysian money-laundering case to the Swiss Federal Criminal Court Posted: 11 Nov 2012 12:46 PM PST
The Bruno Manser Fund (BMF) and 255 Malaysian citizens ask to be admitted as private plaintiffs to an ongoing money-laundering case against Swiss bank UBS – Malaysian government and judiciary accused of "state failure" and "collusion" with UBS customers Musa bin Aman and Michael Chia (BELLINZONA, SWITZERLAND) Swiss NGO, the Bruno Manser Fund (BMF), and 255 citizens from the Malaysian state of Sabah are asking the Swiss Federal Criminal Court in Bellinzona to be admitted as private plaintiffs in an ongoing criminal case against Swiss bank UBS. The case has been opened by the Swiss Attorney General on 29 August 2012, following a criminal complaint by the Bruno Manser Fund. UBS is accused of having laundered over 90 million US dollars on behalf of Musa bin Aman, Chief Minister of the Malaysian state of Sabah, and his nominee Michael Chia.Musa bin Aman is accused of having raised these funds illegally from local businessmen in return for granting logging concessions and timber export permits. The rainforests in the East Malaysian state of Sabah, located on the island of Borneo, are one of the world's biodiversity centers. They have been gravely damaged by excessive logging and the massive conversion of forests into oil palm plantations. On 26 October 2012, the Swiss Attorney General ruled that BMF should be excluded from the ongoing UBS/Musa case as the NGO had not been directly damaged by the bank's laundering of Malaysian timber corruption proceeds through UBS accounts in Hong Kong, Singapore and Zurich. "State failure" and "collusion" of Malaysia's highest authorities In a complaint lodged last week by the Bruno Manser Fund against the Attorney General's decision, the NGO argues it should be admitted as a plaintiff to the case in order to represent 255 citizens from Sabah and the Malaysian public. The NGO's lawyers are arguing that the Malaysian authorities, who would have had the right to be heard in the case, are „incapable of action" in the matter due to „state failure" and „collusion" of the country's highest political representatives and its judiciary with the alleged money-launderers. Due to the authorities' failure to represent the interest of the Malaysian public, BMF and Malaysian citizens represented by the NGO should be admitted as plaintiffs to the case in order to guarantee fair procedures. BMF's submission to the Swiss Federal Criminal Court underlines that Malaysia's de-facto law minister, Nazri bin Abdul Aziz, stated in Parliament in Kuala Lumpur that UBS customer and suspected money-launderer Michael Chia was carrying 13 million Singapore dollars in donations for Sabah UMNO, Malaysia's ruling party, and that Mr. Nazri's son is driving a car registered under the name of Michael Chia. Furthermore, the Swiss court has been made aware of the fact that UBS customer and suspected money-launderer, Musa bin Aman, is the brother of the Malaysian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Anifah bin Aman, and that Musa's wife is a relative of the wife of Malaysia's Attorney General, Abdul Gani Patail. „Therefore, Musa bin Aman is not only the dominant political player in Sabah but also enjoys protection from the highest political and judicial authorities in autocratically-ruled Malaysia", the complaint concludes. It is expected that the Swiss court will decide on the admission of BMF and the private plaintiffs from Sabah to the case within two to three months. Under Switzerland's tough anti-money-laundering laws, it is forbidden for Swiss companies to be involved in corruption and money-laundering in their worldwide operations. However, only rarely have companies been held responsible for such crimes.
|
| Stemming the incoherence of misguided Muslim pundits Posted: 11 Nov 2012 12:25 AM PST Indeed, it is most peculiar while Muslim pundits especially in IRF and SIS prefer to chastise people for not looking at the context of the verse but in this case, it is they who remain blind to the context. If we allow the promissory note for such literal interpretation of the verse devoid of scholarly consensus and right guidance, then there would be nothing left to prevent the likes of fanatics, demagogues and even militant extremists from appropriating Islām in order to justify atrocities and perpetuate even further injustices. Muhammad Husni Mohd Amin, Wan Mohd Aimran Wan Mohd Kamil, Muhammad Syukri Rosli and Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal We are gravely concerned with the recent development in the aftermath of forum "Islamic State: Which version? Whose responsibility?" which was held at Full Gospel Tabernacle. It is truly shameful that the affairs of Muslims were being discussed without the guidance of scholars of Islām possessing true and correct knowledge of the religion. What is even more disconcerting is that the so-called representatives who were invited to speak on behalf of Islām at the forum appeared to be allow their political expediency to colour the content and tone of their presentation. How can one even be sure that they are speaking earnestly and truthfully on behalf of Islām? To begin, let us return to the original controversial statement made by a certain politician at the forum pertaining to religious freedom and Islam as recorded in the transcript produced after the event: Nurul Izzah: Yes, umm, but the idea itself, I think, goes back. And when you ask me, there is no compulsion in religion, even Dr (Ahmad) Farouk (Musa) quoted that verse in the Quran. How can you ask me or anyone, how can anyone really say, 'Sorry, this only apply to non-Malays.' It has to apply equally… apply equally. The audience applauds. Nurul Izzah: In the Quran, there is no specific terms for the Malays. This is how it should be done. So I am tied, of course, to the prevailing views but I would say that. - Transcript produced by Malaysiakini Before we delve into the merits of her statement, let us address the oft-repeated defence made on her behalf that she was unfairly and grossly misquoted by a biased press as part of a widespread 'smear campaign' against her. Our reply to this facile objection is that even if she was misquoted, one can view and read her actual recorded statements on YouTube without the mediation of a so-called biased press and thus come to one's own free judgment regarding what she has said and how she said what she said. Hence, to absolve oneself from passing correct judgment on the merits of what she has said on the excuse that she was misquoted by a biased press does not and cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged, especially if such a position is stubbornly held by those who make Islam their political raison d'etre. If such groups persist in holding on to such a position, then it represents a cover up of one's political bias and one-sidedness. Furthermore, a non-Muslim making ignorant statements about Islām may be excused on the basis of not himself being a Muslim and of being obstinate. Yet, a greater cause for concern is when a ignorant Muslim makes ambivalent declarations about the nature of Islām as a religion. With this in mind, we should ask the important question, which is worse: somebody making untrue statements about other people's religions, or somebody making indefensible and unsound statements about his or her own religion? In her effort to salvage the situation, Nurul Izzah brought up the following argument that she posted on her blog, "Namun ditambah, saya berpegang pada pendirian umum sedia ada, iaitu setelah memeluk Islam, seorang Muslim tertakluk dengan Syariat Islam; sebagaimana seorang warganegara tertakluk dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan." It is incorrect for Nurul Izzah to clarify her stand by equating, if not denigrating, a Muslim's being subject to the laws of Shari'ah with a citizen's being subject to the Federal Constitution. In fact, this betrays a categorical confusion on her part because from the Muslim understanding, Islām is the true revealed religion, and the affirmation of this fact has consequences both in this world and in the hereafter. In contrast, a legal document, which is man-made, is subject to societal conventions and has consequences only so long as the convention is observed and maintained. A citizen can willingly give up his or her citizenship and other rights accorded in the laws of a country. However, the case is different for the Muslim who is subjected and obligated to all aspects of the religion of Islām. Therefore, the implications of being a Muslim and the implications of citizenship are not the same. The kind of logical fallacy in which one equates between the two unequals indicates an error in the understanding of the proper definition of religion, specifically the nature of the religion of Islām. On the nature of religion as being more than just belief in the form of affirmation in the heart and utterance on the tongue, but followed by submission in the way prescribed and approved by God. The religion of Islām requires both belief (imān) and submission (islām) from its believers. Both are not identical, but they are mutually inseparable and indispensable, which means that one cannot do without the other (Qur'ān, 49:14). Thus, belief here is not in the sense we mean is to have "faith" as understood in English, but in the sense that it involves becoming true to the trust by which God has confided in on so it becomes verification (shahādah) by deeds in accordance to what is known to be the truth. Imān consists of three components; assent by the heart, verbal declaration and action in accordance with the principles of Islām (taṣdīq bi'l-qalb wa iqrar bi'l-lisān wa'l-'amal bi'l-arkān). Therefore, it is misleading to say that all that is demanded from a Muslim is simply for him to claim that he has strong belief, as though strong belief alone is sufficient to secure his commitment to the religion. Indeed, there has been a lot of misunderstanding over this particular point about the importance of belief, especially with regards to religion in general and Islām in particular. No doubt belief is important insofar as it serves as the starting point of any purposive action. But it does not follow that belief alone is enough. It is presumptuous to believe that one can simply will to be good, therefore one is good, and consequently, one ought to be recognised by others as being good. To take a simple example, if a person were to make a claim that he or she loves the mother, if his or her actions are not in conformity with that claim, then the claim is disproved. Furthermore, it is not enough for that person to simply set an intention that "I love my mother" if that is not followed up by correct and proper words or actions that verifies that belief. Rather, belief — as important as it is — is not a substitute for words and actions that conform and make manifest that belief. To put it simply, it is through correct action that one's belief is verified, actualised and acknowledged. Islam and other religions compared in terms of the Aqīdah and Sharīʿah. A clear and correct definition of religion is central to the resolution of this debate. Following upon what has been said about the concept of religion as understood and practiced in Islam, we may now proceed to further elaborate on this matter. The teachings of Islam do not accept other religions as being the same and equal to it and the Muslims do not have the authority to acknowledge other belief systems as such. Lest Muslims be accused of being exclusivists, we reply that the non-Muslims should not worry about the fact that the only religion accepted in the sight of God is Islam (Qur'ān, 3:19) since to believe in the Holy Qur'ān is not a basic tenet in their belief systems. Nevertheless, if one recognizes and accepts the argument in the Holy Qur'ān to be rationally sound and true, then one should not reject its definition and conception of religion. In Islām, "al-dīn" is understood as the proper and correct term to portray the definition and conception of religion. Since it has been proven that the Qur'anic language, with its systematic root words, is scientific in nature, one can determine the meaning of this particular word by analyzing its semantic field. One of the manifestation of the root word of "al-dīn" is "madīnah". For Muslim, "madīnah" has a profound epistemological role in the belief and practice of religion. It is the period when the belief of the religion of Islām (aqīdah) was actualized by the Holy Prophet Muhammad (upon him be peace!) who is the final Messenger of God for mankind. What was actualized during the time of Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be upon him) constitutes the reality of religion (sharīʿah). What does compulsion and coercion mean? The Holy Qur'an enjoins the Muslims to invite others to the path of Islām with wisdom and good instruction, and if there arises an argument, the Muslims should argue with them in the best way or manner (Qur'ān: 16:125). "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things." [Qur'ān: 2:256] Since the verse above was revealed to the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of God be upon him), who himself is first and foremost a Muslim, it is only fitting that the way we look at the issue of compulsion in religion must be within the ambit of the worldview of Islām. In Islām, religion is an important matter because it is reflection of the Truth. From the authoritative exegesis of Prophet Muhammad's Companion - Ibn ʿAbbās, as collected by al-Fīrūzabādī (1329–1414) the phrase "there is no compulsion in religion" is understood to be referring upon people of the Book (Christians and Jews) and the Magians after the Arabs submitted themselves into Islām. The scholars of tafsīr clearly indicated that it is directed to non-Muslims and not Muslims as claimed by those who condone apostasy among Muslims. These views have found resonance in many authoritative tafāsīr and it has never been grossly misinterpreted in the way that is being peddled by certain groups – the likes of Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF) and Sisters in Islam (SIS) – to suit their fanciful slogans of enlightenment and reason. Referring to the verse 256 in chapter 2 of the Qurʾān, the Muslim scholar and the celebrated author of Tadabbur-e-Qurʾān ("Pondering over the Qurʾān"), Shāykh Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī (1904-1997), was fully aware of the tendency for confused Muslim throughout the ages of using the notion of "there is no compulsion in religion" in making the religion of Islām conforms to their fancy whims and desires, and said: "Some people unfortunately take this verse away from this sense and try to use it for rejecting all legal constraints. They argue that since there is no compulsion in Islām, any attempts to invoke punishments for certain acts are invalid in Islām and are, moreover, mere fabrications on the part of 'mullahs' (note: Muslim scholar title that is widely used in India and Pakistan). If this line of argument is accepted as valid, it would mean that the Islamic Sharīʿah (i.e. Law) is without any prescribed punishments and penalties and that it allows people to behave and act as they please without imposing any restrains on them." What this clearly demonstrates is the ready awareness amongst the learned scholars of Islam regarding the susceptibility of this particular Qur'ānic verse to misrepresentation and misinterpretation in the hands of those who possess neither the prerequisite knowledge nor the proper training that befits a true scholar. It may also be added that this particular verse has barred the Muslim from committing transgressions and atrocities from committing tyrannical religious persecution and forced conversion that stain the history of Europe, the likes of the Spanish Inquisition which in the course of 100 years resulted in the expulsion, forced conversion and killing of over 500,000 Muslims. Indeed, it is most peculiar while Muslim pundits especially in IRF and SIS prefer to chastise people for not looking at the context of the verse but in this case, it is they who remain blind to the context. If we allow the promissory note for such literal interpretation of the verse devoid of scholarly consensus and right guidance, then there would be nothing left to prevent the likes of fanatics, demagogues and even militant extremists from appropriating Islām in order to justify atrocities and perpetuate even further injustices. Rather, such methodology of blind interpretation is characteristic of the Wahhabi ideology that has produced extremists in the past. All of us should heed well the warning by the Holy Prophet which can be found in the Six Books of authentic traditions (Sunan Sittah) of the danger of spiritual and intellectual blindness: "A people will come out at the end of times, immature, foolish and corrupt. They will hold the discourse of the best of creation and recite the Qur'ān, but it will not go past their throats. They will pass through religion the way an arrow passes through its quarry." Those who argue along the lines of half-baked understanding of the Qur'ānic verse often do not even bother to read the second part of the verse that makes clear the distinction between Truth and error. There is no sense in holding on to that verse if this distinction is only mentioned in briefly or outrightly dismissed without equally serious consideration. The religion of Islām makes clear its claim to Truth, and this is why its content is cognitive to the human mind. If this is not granted, then the Qur'ān which is meant for guidance for mankind becomes entirely pointless, just as it is pointless for a someone, after having been forewarned of a burning house acknowledges the guidance given but proceeds headlong to enter it anyway - that is just sheer stupidity on that person's part. Hence, change of religion is neither similar to change of clothes nor the change in appetite for certain foods. A Muslim begins his religious life with the firm certainty with regards to the truth of his religion as revealed in the Qur'ān. Consequently, it follows that the act of choosing falsehood after having been acquainted with truth and living with the truth is certainly something unreasonable and cannot be made reasonable. Anyone who makes conscious decision to leave the religion WILL leave the religion; yet the onus falls on the people who are in collusion in helping him or her leave the religion, without giving us the chance to look at the reasons for leaving in the first place, which is mainly rooted in misunderstandings and ignorance of the religion altogether. Due to the fact that imān also depends on the Muslim's actions in accordance to the principles and the truth of Islām, therefore it is not correct to assert that one's own aqīdah remains intact after having consented to or worse, having participated in securing the apostasy of another Muslim. Freedom as understood in Islam - is there such thing as the freedom to do wrong? Islām conceives freedom as "ikhtiyar", which stems from the word "khayr", meaning "good", implying true freedom is choosing the good instead of the bad, the better over the worse or the best between two alternatives. A person who is presented with a choice between what is good and what is bad and proceeds to choose the bad is not exercising real freedom. In truth, the person is trapped within his own ignorance, thus unable to make the right choice in choosing for the better, and in doing so, has committed a grave injustice to his or her own self and others. God's prohibition to Adam (upon be him be peace) not to approach the forbidden tree only makes sense if he possesses the capability to do so in the first place, which he clearly demonstrated. Thus, it is wrong to say that Adam was given the choice to sin. Similarly, God's prohibitions to man only makes sense if man has the capability to do so in the first place, again, which he clearly demonstrated in the course of history. It would make no sense to issue a prohibition against flying to say, a cat, knowing full well that a cat has not the capability to fly. Therefore the argument saying that God gives man the freedom to commit sin or to change religion is not only fallacious, but also absurd. Just to tie in the knot, within the same sūrah, we are told that Adam after having realized his mistake, repented to God and He accepted it (Qur'ān, 2:37). On action and lawful enforcement - the necessity of action - double standards between political action and intellectual in-action - a perverse notion of power. The according of special position to Islām in the Federal Constitution reflects the worldview of Islām that was present in the minds of people who drafted it. In accordance with the reality that Islām as not merely an official religion but the religion of the Federation -- for the Muslim it is akin to a person who has witnessed (shahādah) and professed the truth of Islām -- no one can claim his Islām, as an ideal, is perfect, rather it is submission (aslama) that must be continuously implemented from time to time in order to grow in the certainty of faith - admittedly as human beings we have our our falling short of performing our religious duties but there is always room for improvement. There is no denying that it is of utmost importance for Muslims to reflect the highest of morals and virtues of Islām in their words and actions; this is emphasized numerous times in the the Qur'ān without the needing the cries of religious modernists as though it was only now realized by the Muslim community. What is more important is our attitude upon finding out that the reality of Islām has been misinterpreted or distorted by people whose knowledge of religion does not come to the level that qualifies them to speak on Islām; is it reasonable to allow these misunderstanding and confusion run rampant without being admonished and refuted by those who are truly qualified? Indeed, courage is not merely proven just by being violent or contentious. However, courage should not be reduced to being overly gentle and apologetic, moreover when ignorance has become rampant. Courage in that situation requires firmness that is based on true knowledge. One can contemplate on the lines by Yeat:
"Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity."
|
| U. S. Constitution Is A Secular Document Posted: 09 Nov 2012 10:37 AM PST
Was the United States founded as a "Christian Nation?" Is there anything in the Constitution that gives special treatment or preference to Christianity? Did the founders of our government believe this or intend to create a government that gave special recognition to Christianity? Darren Miller, North Wildwood The answer to all of these questions is no. The U.S. Constitution is a wholly secular document. It contains no mention of Christianity or Jesus Christ. In fact, the Constitution refers to religion only twice in the First Amendment, which bars laws "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Maryland Representative Luther Martin said that a handful of delegates to the Constitutional Convention argued for formal recognition of Christianity in the Constitution, insisting that such language was necessary in order to "hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism." But that view was not adopted, and the Constitution gave government no authority over religion. Article VI, which allows persons of all religious viewpoints to hold public office, was adopted by a unanimous vote. Through ratification of the First Amendment, observed Jefferson, the American people built a "wall of separation between church and state." The United States, in short, was not founded to be an officially Christian nation or to espouse any official religion. Our government is neutral on religious matters, leaving such decisions to individuals. This democratic and pluralistic system has allowed a broad array of religious groups to grow and flourish and guarantees every individual American the right to determine his or her own spiritual path or to reject religion entirely. As a result of this policy, Americans enjoy more religious freedom than any people in world history.
|
| Dark (K)Nights in Malaysia, Part 2 Posted: 09 Nov 2012 10:28 AM PST
When Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) Vice-President Nurul Izzah voiced her belief that freedom of religion is a right of even Malay-Muslims, it produced bedlam – NOT so much because she has implied that Islamic apostasy is a constitutional right, but because she voiced something that everybody has known but chose not to 'know' all along Alwyn Lau Bruce Wayne: You're afraid that if I go back out there, I'll fail. The Dark Knight Rises (2012) was without doubt one of the most realistically spectacular movies around. No mere CGI extravaganza, it presented audiences with a vision of total anarchy and the complete upheaval of society. One could even say that Dark Knight Rises is the logical realization and completion of the nightmare presented in The Dark Knight (2008). a) Gotham, Batman & Unknown Knowns We can begin by contrasting the two villains. Bane is most unlike the Joker. Yet in a powerful way Bane is the fulfillment of the Joker's being and agenda. In the earlier movie, the identity of Batman was one of the central riddles the Joker was trying to resolve i.e. it was a known un-known (something we realise we don't yet know and hence want to find out). In DK-Rises, however, Batman himself was fighting to defeat a trauma (of identity, of purpose, of possibility) he had locked away for eight years i.e. it's a unknown known (something we REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE we know and hence have to undergo some crisis in order to re-know this 'thing'). For the Joker, Batman was the obstacle to chaos in the city; for Bane, Batman and the city are synonymous. Bruce Wayne's reclusive behavior mirrored the 'eyes wide shut' condition of Gotham which kept on singing the praises of Harvey Dent (an insane murderer), encouraged by of all people its chief of police. Wayne's problem from the start was that, as per Alfred's words, he wanted to fail but didn't know it. Likewise, Gotham, like any modern-day metropolis or Capitalism as a whole, seems all too determined to succeed whilst secretly or unconsciously being hell bent on destroying itself. This is why Bane treated Batman (or Bruce Wayne) in virtually the same way he treated the city: bring him to his knees, let him suffer slowly, with death coming only after a prolonged period. Bane needed Wayne and Gotham to see clearly and without any doubt whatsoever the disavowed rot at the kernel of their being. In Malaysia, a critical 'unknown known' is the angst at the heart of our so-called 'multi-ethnic' society. Like Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005) at their marriage counseling, we know that the spaces between the races and religions are being filled with everything NOT said to each other, yet we prefer to keep silent. This is why when Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) Vice-President Nurul Izzah voiced her belief that freedom of religion is a right of even Malay-Muslims, it produced bedlam – NOT so much because she has implied that Islamic apostasy is a constitutional right, but because she voiced something that everybody has known but chose not to 'know' all along (especially those with vested political-religious interests to protect). The problem is not with Nurul Izzah said, it's that she said it at all. If there is one thing more frightful than a terrifying truth that has remained concealed from the public, it's the publicly known truth that has remained unspoken. So the question for Malaysia is: What else do we ALL know full well yet cannot bear to hear repeated out loud?
Bane, in many senses, was a clear 'improvement' over the Joker. The Joker threatened anarchy; Bane delivered it. The Joker tried (and failed) to demonstrate that individuals were at heart completely selfish; Bane successfully revealed that at the heart of society was an impossible trauma (even as he managed to bring Batman to his lowest depths). The Joker sought to show that inside a good man, there is only bad; Bane made it clear that what we understand as Good (e.g. the justice system) is really the Bad (e.g. the unjust political 'carving up' of the city) in another form. Thus, DK-Rises shows us what we choose everyday to half-ignore : the hypocrisy of the rule of law in outlawing everything except its own transgressions. The Joker transformed the city's White Knight (i.e. Harvey Dent) into its traitor; Bane showed that the city itself, Gotham, was an intra-social betrayal on a massive scale. The betrayal of the people (in the form of community-wide lies, political corruption and so on), far from being a threat to the city, in fact, constituted it and sustained its being. The Joker manipulated the police; Bane tore up the very idea of the police. The Joker tried to rope in the city's criminals; Bane made it a crime not to be a criminal and thus exposed the biggest crime of all: society itself. The scene in DK-Rises where a psychopathic doctor presides over a kangaroo court and sentences all the former VIPs' and public officials to death (or exile) is striking, for is it not simply the fantasmatic inverse of actual court proceedings, especially in Malaysia? Does Malaysia not urgently require a "Bane event" for the very criminals who at present use the law to justify their crimes? And can't the scene where Bane released all the prisoners, far from suggesting the terror of a society overrun by convicted criminals, hint at redemptive Biblical notions of 'setting prisoners free'? Simply imagine the words 'KAMUNTING' in the background. Is the Internal Security Act (and its sugar-coated successor) not our Malaysian law at its purest, and thus most 'illegal'? And to the extent that political change in Malaysia relies on the Law, is it not apparent that no true change can happen without the death and rebirth of the Law itself? The Dark Knight Rises hints that true transformation may need more than sincere politicians, better police, more integrated technology, cleaner elections or even a masked vigilante. True change requires a deep glimpse of the destruction that's forthcoming. True change requires a broken body and prolonged suffering in loneliness and hopelessness. True change may even mean that our bridges to the outside world (or practical escape route out of a pit-prison) are destroyed so we're forced to look inwards and face the truth we've chosen to un-know over time. A real rising requires a real death. In short, the movie ultimately provokes us to question what's good, what's bad, what isn't real and what it takes to make all things Real again. Most of all, it reminds us of the consequences of sticking to the status quo. What happens if we persist in lying to ourselves? What's the future like if the truly bad guys are venerated as good and vice-versa? Christopher Nolan's answer seems clear: We either continue living like a prisoner – or we face a nuclear winter.
|
| Who instructed the initiation? Posted: 09 Nov 2012 10:04 AM PST aVANd5k-TKk Or watch video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVANd5k-TKk Raymond H.H.Tan, PA to Batin Malam The District is situated bordering Puchong, Subang, Cyberjaya, Dengkil, Klang etc. --- a huge portion of Selangor, measuring thousands of acres were marked as 'Malay Reservation' land, but its status has been changed. This precious land is being converted to different types of categories, for property development and sale to Private Companies. In this case, the assigned or awarded Companies are within the same circle of trustees, deciding on the category changes. The modus operandi is also backed by Civil Servants in the District Office, of all Ranks.These lots involve thousands of acres, "on water", also intended to be used for mining. Selangor State Government to have purchased the Talam's properties, for the same simplest obvious reason; mining is where the money is, and housing development is just a blanket to these deeper financial ambitions. Please view the attachments and video link below for a clearer understanding - we have spent a great deal of time researching this issue, and will provide all the factual documents we have found, to speed-up the investigation. When it comes to 'governing a State under the Federal Constitutions', the entire citation of the Law must respect the land laws and environmental and social laws in place- they are there for a reason. Please send letters and question the actions of the Selangor Land Task Force or State Executive, let them answer if they can or dare. I also attach a handwritten confession by an officer from Pejabat Tanah Daerah itself, whereby these wrongdoings had been acknowledged and confirmed of its unethical acts. Now, lets cut to the chase, since the scale of its unethical plots are massively large, the question here is: WHO INSTRUCTED THE INITIATION?
|
| BOMBA should go back to school Posted: 09 Nov 2012 09:58 AM PST
Concerned citizen It was about 12.49pm. My friend tagged me on Facebook regarding a fire happening at Lido. Then more pictures appeared - a tyre shop was burning fiercely releasing thick black smoke. When I returned home from work at 6pm, it was raining heavily. After a function, I could still smell it. To my curiosity, I drove 5min from my home to the site and was shocked that it was still burning at 11.50pm. I talked to an officer asking about the situation. He said they used Foam at 2pm pointing at the whiteboard behind him. Now they are just using water to "cool" it down. The burning obviously released a lot of toxic in the air for the past 12 hours and was still doing so at the time. I saw an exhausted fire fighter asleep at someone's gate. Yet, they did not realize heavy rain and water does not help the situation? Fire fighters had to go to the site without masks. Sadly, their health was not taken into consideration too. Apparently they ran out of Foam and was too "expensive" to use more. Where do they think the twelve hours of chemical from the water they sprayed in will flow to? They should go back to study on how to put fire out accordingly and to use other options like "Sand/ Soil".
|
| An honest discourse between two Malaysians Posted: 09 Nov 2012 09:50 AM PST Dear Editor, I would be most obliged if you can consider posting this honest dialogue between two Malaysians as an article in MT for further discussion amongst readers. Two different views but equally honest. Thank you for your kind attention. Best regards fr truthbespoken
written by truthbespoken, November 08, 2012 11:07:28 Only the politically blind and somewhat mentally retarded Malaysians will continue to kiss the hands and smell the arse of this incorrigible Madhatter! As Malaysian, I say one need not have to show any manners to THE ONE who had gone out of his way over the years to systematically divide his countrymen with an iron-fisted hand in order to rule and silently plunder the wealth of the nation big time through his sons and cronies! This sly man with his warped policies and implementation which had weakened, perhaps even forever destroyed, the Malaysian pysche is unforgivable! Are these unawakened weak Malaysians who stick to him like bees to honey still under an evil spell or what? I am flabbergasted!
..."This sly man with his warped policies and implementation which had weakened, perhaps even forever destroyed, the Malaysian pysche is unforgivable"...
written by truthbespoken, November 08, 2012 16:20:25
Dear zulkifli anoud, the rationale is not whether one is Malay, Chinese, Indian or others. The more important thing is being Malaysian in Malaysia! If one looks at issues and situations from the Malaysian angle, Malaysia will 'progress and fly' without the simmering discords created by the divide-and-rule policies of your great Tun who discarded his ancestor's race and opted to your race to conveniently rule over you Malays and others. If this is not sly, then what is it? If this is not the method used by an opportunistic and incorrigible con-man, what is it? And you expect the works of this unprincipled and sly con-man to benefit Malaysian interest in the longer term? While this is being said, I honestly do not believe I am 'attacking' anybody else except an old countryman who had systematically planned and decidedly destroyed our original Malaysian soul!
written by zulkifli anoud, November 09, 2012 06:08:17
truthbespoken,
written by truthbespoken, November 09, 2012 12:42:13
Zulkifli anoud,
written by truthbespoken, November 09, 2012 12:47:19
(cont'd...2).Your Tun, for serving his self-aggrandisement and agendas, have obviously made it easier for himself to climb up the political ladder by opting out of his own race to become a Malay and after becoming PM, ruled with an iron-fisted hand through his nazist-approach and British-acquired lessons of divide-and-rule. Hence, because of his divide-and-rule policies and expanded implementation (NEP is way past its 20 years) the resultant factor we see now is one of discord and incohesion amongst Malaysians. Where then do our future hold? What about the future of the future generations of Malaysians with all these unabated corruption, plundering of the country's wealth and arrogance of the politicians under your Tun's tutelage? Yes, your Tun did physically developed the country. But he also developed a bunch of misfits and half-pass-six Ministers, like he once proclaimed, to continue their rule over this country. When oil runs out, imagine what the social scenario will be for the country. Yr Tun won all these years and perhaps will still win until he pass on but winning the plot and losing the game for the people's future is no-win! For sure, if what is happening amongst the people now is to be taken as a yardstick to measure harmony, I would firmly say the Malaysian soul and spirit is lost somewhere gliding into outer space. What then, again, will be the future for future Malaysians without unity?
written by truthbespoken, November 09, 2012 12:51:42
(....cont'd 3). Zulkifli anoud, I think you are younger and care more about the current disposition of the country than her future. But for older people like us who have no more grand designs over our life (no need to, ahem, and, haha, I am mainly speaking for myself), it is the concern for the bright future of younger Malaysians we have to care and gloat about. Do you now understand why I am making so much noise and so against your Tun's biased, spiritually-warped and shorted-sighted but ever-expanding government policies? I hope you can see and concur with my point of view now. I rest my case. Have a good day.
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan