Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Posted: 04 Dec 2011 10:45 PM PST

It is remarkable that some Muslim politicians in our present day differ so much from their earliest religious leaders. The contemporary racist mentality displayed by local Malay supremacists who claim to be Muslims contradicts directly against the values held so dear by earlier Islamic rulers. There is inherent inconsistency to juxtapose the interest of the 'Muslims' with that of the 'Malays' and 'Bumiputeras'.

By Joshua Woo (New Mandala)

In the recent United Malays National Organisation's (UMNO) general assembly, the "Prime Minister and Umno President Datuk Seri Najib Razak launched a Bumiputera Economic Transformation Roadmap" as a gesture to inform the Malay community that his political party will continue to advance the Malay agenda.[1]

UMNO's Deputy President Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin further affirmed this race-based ideology by saying that "it is vital" to protect "Malay political power."[2] He justified such ideology by painting the picture that the interest of the Malay race, given its demography in the country, dictates the well being of the whole nation. "[W]hen we talk about Malay interest it does not mean we are racist because the largest group in the Malaysian society whether you like it or not is still Malays, Bumiputeras and Muslims."[3]

Seeing 'Malays', 'Bumiputeras', and 'Muslims' being juxtaposed next to each other certainly stirs up curiosity as to what actually has the third group (Muslims) to do with the other two:

Does Islam teach race-based ideology or race-favouritism? Is it true that Islam requires the advancement of 'Ketuanan Melayu' (Malay Supremacy)?

It is common understanding among theologians and scholars of comparative religions that Islam promotes racial equality. One of the clearest indications of this is in the fact that Allah's Prophets consist of individuals from different races. There is no distinction made among them:

"'Say: "We believe in God and what has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob and [his] children, and what was given to Moses and Jesus, and what was given to [all other] prophets from their Lord. We make no difference between any of them; and to Him we submit ourselves."' (Qur'an 2:136).

Not all of these messengers are Arab, yet all are considered equally authoritative. There is simply no relevance to their prophethood whether they came from the Jewish, Arabian, or any other race.

Besides the Prophets, there are also Qur'anic teachings concerning equality of humankind:

"O people! Be careful of (your duty to) your Lord, Who created you from a single being and created its mate of the same (kind) and spread from these two, many men and women; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, by Whom you demand one of another (your rights), and (to) the ties of relationship [the wombs]; surely Allah ever watches over you." (Qur'an 4:1)

Here, the Islamic Scripture teaches that all ethnic groups are created in the same way, and bear close ties to one another.

Reflecting on this, Abd-al'Aziz 'Abd-al-Qadir Kamil, Professor at the University of Cairo and Minister of Waqfs and Azhar Affairs of Al-Azhar University, commented that: "God […] commands us to fear two things: God and 'the wombs' (al-arham). 'The wombs' refers here to the human bond that links all men, however remote they may be from each other in space or time, and however unlike they may be in language and colour, and however much they may differ in economic or social position. We are charged to fear God's commands, and this applies first and foremost to the observation of human brotherhood on the widest scale…"[4]

At another place of the Qur'an, we find similar teaching:

"O Humankind! We have created you from male and female and have made you into peoples (shu'ub) and tribes (qaba'il) that you may know one another; truly, the noblest (akram) among you before God are the most pious (atqa) among yourselves; indeed, is God the All-knowing, the All-seeing."

(Qur'an 49:13).

Although it is commonly interpreted that this passage is talking about race, some said that it actually refers to 'tribes' and not 'race'.

Responding to this, Paul A. Hardy, who lectured on Islamic thoughts at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the Universityof London, remarked that there is no difference between tribe and race in this passage. He pointed out two early Islamic commentators—the eighth century C.E. Sufyan ath-Thawri and the tenth century C.E. Tabari—who understood this verse as reference to genealogy.[5]

In other words, this verse is indeed referring to race. It describes the creation of the various ethnic groups with their own genealogy. No race or genealogical lineage is declared superior or should be favoured than others. The only superiority is that of piety, between those who are loyal to Allah and those who are not—Not between those who are Malay and non-Malay, Bumiputeras or non-Bumiputeras.

Besides, this verse also states that the diversity of races is intended for mutual learning ("that you may know one another"). The instruction to cultivate multi-racial learning is understood by Hardy as "a motivating force for mutual love."[6] If this is followed, then this further undermines the ideology that one race is or should be more favoured than others.

Turning to the Hadith, we find in Prophet Muhammad's Farewell Sermon his conviction of racial equality:

"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action."[7]

The Prophet has a deep sense of racial impartiality. Probably this is the reason why he condemned those who claim supremacy over others because of their ancestral-racial lineage:

"Allah, Most High, has removed from you the pride of the pre-Islamic period and its boasting in ancestors. One is only a pious believer or a miserable sinner. You are sons of Adam, and Adam came from dust. Let the people cease to boast about their ancestors. They are merely fuel in Jahannam [hell]; or they will certainly be of less account with Allah than the beetle which rolls dung with its nose."[8]
"Your lineage is of no account… you are all the children of Adam… the pride you take in your forefathers transgresses the teaching of your Lord… no man is superior to another save in faith and fear of God."[9]

These Hadith accounts prompted Abd-al Aziz Abd-al-Qadir Kamil to conclude that, "Islam sees mankind as a large garden, in which there are flowers of many colours, but no one colour is superior to any other;"[10] and, "The diversity of tongues and colours is simply a manifestation of divine power, and does not imply any notion of preference or privilege. On the contrary, in Islamic thought, privilege is opposed to God's commands of love and brotherhood."[11]

Commenting on the Prophet's teachings on racial equality, Zakaria El-Berry, the then Minister of State for Wakfs and Head of the Higher Council for Islamic Affairs, who was also Professor of Sharia Law at Cairo University, wrote, "In this powerful style, the Prophet, peace be on him, has destroyed all racial and other discriminatory grounds artificially claimed by selfish and conceited forces."[12]

The implication of this to the Malaysian context is obvious: the Prophet opposes all race-based ideology, including 'Ketuanan Melayu'.

Among the Hadith accounts, there was an incident where the Prophet made clear that there should not be favouritism based on racial, cultural, economic, or even familial affinity in Muslims' handling of public policy:

"During the Prophet's lifetime, a woman of the Banu Makhzum (a noble Arab clan) stole and was due to be punished. Some of the men of Quraish thought it intolerable that judgement should be executed upon the person of a woman of Makhzum and considered who would be able to speak to the Prophet and convey the people's intercession to him. Their choice fell on Usamah ibn-Zaid, who was near to the Prophet's heart and well loved by him, because of his own and his father's rank and standing. But the Prophet rejected Usamah's mediation, and rebuked him, saying: 'Would you intercede against a punishment ordained by God?' He then stood up and addressed the people: 'Verily those that came before you were destroyed. It was their wont, if a noble man stole, to let him go free and if a weak man stole, to execute judgement upon him. By God! Were even Fatimah the daughter of Muhammad a thief, she should have her hand severed."[13]

Such was the firmness of the Prophet's sense of impartiality. Probably due to his stern stand on this issue that subsequent Muslims continued to exemplify the same deep sense of racial equality. One example is seen in the trial presided by the second Caliph, Umar ibn-al-Khattab, which involved a Jew and Ali ibn-Abi Talib.

During the trial, the second Caliph called the Jew by his name and addressed Ali by his agnomen (Abu al-Hasan), because that was how the Caliph called Ali when they talk. As the trial proceeded, the Caliph noticed the angry expression on Ali's face. So the Caliph rebuked Ali, "Are you displeased that your opponent is a Jew and that you have appeared with him before the court!"

Ali said in reply, "No, but I take it amiss that you have not treated us equally but have displayed partiality in my favour, inasmuch as you addressed him by his name and me by my agnomen." (At that time, the use of the agnomen was a mark of esteem).[14]

In this account, Ali displayed the same fervency to uphold racial equality like the Prophet. Such was the admirable sensitivity of the first Muslim leaders with regard to racial differences. (We know that later on Ali assumed the caliphate as the fourth Caliph, ruling over the entire Islamic community of that time.)

The Qur'an stipulates that the concern of the people of Allah should not be dictated by race and kinship, but by justice and righteousness. "O you who believe! Be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness of Allah's sake, though it may be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives; if he be rich or poor, Allah is nearer to them both in compassion; therefore do not follow (your) low desires, lest you deviate; and if you swerve or turn aside, then surely Allah is aware of what you do." (Qur'an 4:135)

Therefore it is remarkable that some Muslim politicians in our present day differ so much from their earliest religious leaders. The contemporary racist mentality displayed by local Malay supremacists who claim to be Muslims contradicts directly against the values held so dear by earlier Islamic rulers. There is inherent inconsistency to juxtapose the interest of the 'Muslims' with that of the 'Malays' and 'Bumiputeras'.

Understanding our rights

Posted: 04 Dec 2011 09:23 AM PST

Rights are not something to be played with. It is not a political tool to be bandied about. It is fundamental and inherent. It exists in us simply because we are civilised men and women.

Related to human rights is democracy. When we choose our own leaders, we ensure that we are not led simply by someone who is going to force himself or herself onto us.

AZMI SHAROM, The Star

RIGHTS are the weapons of the powerless. And just who are the powerless? Well, in my view, it is most of us.

Ordinary folks who either do not hold the reins of government machinery or have the means to control those who hold the reins.

That is why only those who are powerless or who have been powerless can truly appreciate rights.

We only have to look at history to see that to be true. The Magna Carta was created because the nobility of Britain felt powerless against the King.

The American Declaration of Independence takes the shape that it does because the founding fathers wanted to ensure that they would never again be under the yoke of a distant king.

Our own leaders, during the early days of our existence as a nation also understood this need for rights, having been ruled by an oppressive force more powerful than them.

Of course there are those with short memories who belittle rights when they have power, bemoan the lack of them when they lose power and belittle them again when they have power once more.

But then, there will always be the utterly unprincipled in any community.

The human race has evolved. We have values which prevent the strong simply taking what they want from the weak.

Our laws are in place so that we can be assured a person who is bigger than us can't simply knock us out and take our wallets.

And just as we have laws to protect us against thieves and thugs, so too do we have principles which prevent the rulers from abusing us.

As a race we have come a long way from "only the strong will survive". And that is due to the civilising of human kind.

Rights therefore are the current pinnacle of this civilising process. It indicates that we are civilised.

Related to human rights is democracy. When we choose our own leaders, we ensure that we are not led simply by someone who is going to force himself or herself onto us.

Once again, we see a principle which empowers the powerless.

This is why I care so much about human rights and democracy.

This is why I get furious when those who do not understand or choose not to understand, take my rights away.

That is why I work on the premise that we must have as much rights as possible.

Of course I understand there are limitations to everything, including rights, but those limitations must be made with the aspiration that a complete right is the ideal.

It is only with these aspirations in place will we ensure that whatever limitations imposed are the barest minimum and with the smallest effect on our rights.

Rights are not something to be played with. It is not a political tool to be bandied about. It is fundamental, it is inherent. It is not something that can be given for it exists in us simply because we are civilised men and women.

The powerful do not wish to see this.

It is up to us, the powerless, to remind them.

Why fear a Malaysian Spring

Posted: 04 Dec 2011 08:56 AM PST

That is why Pakatan and Malaysia civil society are pushing passionately for the electoral reforms that the Bersih movement champions. Elections are the best and most legitimate way to bring change in a society. As John F. Kennedy once said: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, The Malaysian Insider

In his speech at the 2011 Umno general assembly, Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir claimed that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Pakatan Rakyat are trying to topple the federal government through a form of democracy that is alien to Malaysia. This desperate statement illustrates how out of touch the Umno-BN government has become.

Mukhriz justified his claim by referring to Anwar's interview with Bloomberg recently when the latter predicted that a "Malaysian Spring" would emerge to bring political change in the country.

Mukhriz probably missed the part when Anwar told Bloomberg, "When will the Malaysian Spring be? The next elections."

While opposition parties in Malaysia have faced an uneven playing field for decades, most — including Pakatan Rakyat — have faithfully participated in the various elections. Disgruntled opposition parties sometimes resort to extra-parliamentary measures when they get disillusioned with unfair elections, but this has not and will never be the case in Malaysia.

Indeed, we believe that free and fair elections are crucial for any state to be legitimate. Unfortunately, Umno-BN has thus far resisted the most substantive measures advocated by the electoral reform movement. It is mind-boggling how a party that claims it is democratic can be so opposed to any effort to improve the electoral process.

This came to a head during Bersih 2.0 when Malaysians from various backgrounds witnessed the crude and confused response of Datuk Seri Najib Razak's administration. How can a demand for clean and fair elections be controversial unless one does not subscribe to democracy, a principle that is enshrined in our Federal Constitution? The Bersih 2.0 committee was even willing to compromise by shifting the peaceful assembly to the stadium as first offered by Najib and then advised by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong when they were granted an audience with him.

But as the record will show, Najib reneged on his promise and forced tens of thousands of Malaysians from all races and background to take to the streets. Thousands of Malaysians abroad also gathered across the world in solidarity with Bersih, an act that, banana republic-like, was deemed "illegal" in Malaysia.

Thanks to the backlash from his indecisive handling of Bersih 2.0, Najib relented and formed a Parliamentary Select Committee on Electoral Reforms — an admission that Bersih, Pakatan Rakyat and the civil society were right all along: that there are deep and serious problems with our electoral system. The rationale of the PSC was supposedly to ensure the credibility of the upcoming elections.

Two days later, however, the government appeared to dither, saying that Parliament can be dissolved any time and would not be subject to the result of the parliamentary select committee.

Similarly, on Malaysia Day 2011, Najib announced plans to revoke the country's archaic Emergency laws, repeal the Internal Security Act and amend the Printing Presses and Publications Act as well as the Police Act, among other things.

Interestingly, Najib's own Cabinet was not informed of the sweeping announcement, underlining the fact that at best our prime minister seems to be the only man in his Cabinet who believes in the need for reform — assuming of course he actually does so. Of course, the Cabinet publicly had to appear to be enthusiastic about the announcements.

READ MORE HERE

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Isnin, 5 Disember 2011

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan