Pertama kali saya mendengar perkataan “bila dah tua, boleh lah taubat adalah semasa saya dibangku sekolah menengah. Kata-kata ini diungkapkan oleh beberapa rakan sesekolah. Kemudian daripada itu, saya juga mendengar daripada beberapa dewasa dikeliling saya. Sebenarnya saya keliru apabila mendengar nya pertama kali dan bertambah keliru sehingga sekarang.
“Taubat” yang saya faham adalah satu sikap yang menyedari bahawa suatu tingkah laku, pendirian, cara hidup atau tabiat yang diamalkan oleh kita itu adalah tidak direstui oleh Allah dan lantas itu kita menggantikan nya dengan satu sikap yang baik. Sebagai contoh, mungkin kita secara tabiat suka menipu orang lain. Tiba-tiba satu hari timbul kesedaran bahawa sikap menipu itu tidak baik dan sekaligus kita menggantikan atau berusaha bersungguh-sungguh untuk menggantikan nya dengan sikap jujur.
Taubat semestinya bererti menggantikan yang jahat dengan yang baik. Ia tidak boleh sesuatu yang bercakap sahaja tanpa amalan baik yang menggantikan yang jahat atau yang buruk.
“Mereka ini diberi upah mereka dua kali ganda kerana mereka bersabar, dan menolak kejahatan dengan yang baik, serta menafkahkan daripada rezeki yang Kami berikan pada mereka”.(Quran 28:54)
Pertama, saya percaya prinsip “menggantikan yang jahat dengan yang baik” adalah sejajar dengan saikoloji manusia serta hukum alam. “Things cannot exist in a vacuum”. Maka, bagaimana kedudukan mereka yang menyedari bahawa mereka melakukan kejahatan tetapi “menunda taubat” berdasarkan pelbagai alasan? Sebagai contoh, perasuah berikrar akan “taubat” satu hari kelak atau selepas pencen. Orang yang menipu dan mencuri dalam pelbagai keadaan kehidupan dengan pelbagai kaedah kreatif berikrar akan “taubat kelak”. Begitu juga dengan yang malas menjalankan amanah yang diterima olehnya berikrar akan “taubat” kelak dan sebagainya.
“Allah hanya menerima taubat orang-orang yang membuat kejahatan dalam kejahilan, kemudian dengan segera bertaubat; Allah akan menerima taubat mereka, dan Allah adalah Mengetahui, Bijaksana”. (Quran 4:17)
Kedua, jelas bahawa taubat yang diterima oleh Allah adalah taubat oleh orang yang melakukan kejahatan tanpa disedari olehnya iaitu dalam kejahilan. Kalau ia tahu itu adalah jahat atau tidak baik, dan ia masih sengaja melakukannya adakah “taubat kelak” itu merupakan “taubat” yang dimaksudkan dalam Al-Quran? Bagaimana dengan kerosakkan yang telah dilakukan olehnya terhadap makhluk Allah dengan penuh sedar sekian lama?
Ketiga, pada saya perkara yang jelas adalah orang yang hendak taubat itu mesti mempunyai keupayaan untuk taubat iaitu keupayaan menggantikan yang jahat dengan yang baik. Sebagai contoh, seorang lelaki yang menghabiskan kehidupan sihatnya dengan membohongi wanita untuk kepuasan nafs nya. Apabila beliau menjadi tua dan tidak bermaya, beliau pun “taubat” atas perlakuan memperkosakan wanita. Adakah beliau berupaya memperkosa wanita lagi apabila sudah tua dan tidak bermaya? Kalau tidak berupaya, beliau tidak melakukan kejahatan bukan kerana beliau sengaja berhenti tetapi kerana beliau tidak berupaya melakukan kejahatan lagi. Beliau telah dihentikan oleh aliran masa.
Contoh yang lain: Orang yang bercakap bohong boleh taubat dengan bercakap benar. Bagaimana kalau ia sudah menjadi bisu kerana sesuatu penyakit dan lantas ia “bertaubat” tidak akan bercakap bohong? Bagaimana orang yang telah dihilangkan keupayaan bercakap boleh berikrar untuk bercakap yang benar.
Katakan pula ada pegawai kerajaan yang korup dan ia bertekad akan “taubat” selepas bersara. Namun, apabila ia bersara, ia sudah pun kehilangan kedudukan atau keupayaan untuk menerima rasuah. Maka bagaimana ia boleh “mengorbankan” (iaitu berhenti mengambil rasuah) sesuatu yang tidak lagi ada pada nya?
“Tetapi tidak diterima taubat orang-orang yang melakukan kejahatan sehingga, apabila salah seorang antara mereka didatangi kematian, dia berkata, "Sesungguhnya sekarang saya bertaubat", dan tidak juga bagi orang-orang yang mati dengan tidak percaya (kafir); bagi mereka, Kami menyediakan azab yang pedih” (Quran 4:18).
Berdasarkan fahaman seperti diatas, saya berpendapat konsep “taubat selepas tua” amat mengelirukan dan tidak tepat dengan hakikat alam. Konsep itu mengandaikan bahawa kita akan sampai ke peringkat tua . Gagal didalam usaha bersungguh untuk memperbaiki diri tidak sama dengan tindakan sengaja menunda usaha memperbaiki diri atas alasan “satu hari nanti”.
Salam.
DISCLAIMER: Pembaca disarankan untuk memeriksa dengan sendiri ketepatan sebarang terjemahan Al-Quran didalam tulisan saya. Tulisan ini juga merupakan fahaman saya dan saya tidak meminta mana-mana pembaca terima fahaman saya ini. Ia adalah sekadar perkongsian dan saya mempelawa sebarang komen pembetulan. Prinsip ini adalah berterusan didalam semua artikel saya yang bersangkut paut dengan Addin Allah.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
MERRY CHRISTMAS AND SEASONS GREETINGS !!!
HO! HO! HO! The legendary Santa Claus is here reminding us of the magic of gifts and joy. Christmas is a reminder of giving and sharing.
Truly Christmas is a period where you can feel the "celebration spirit" with creative decorations all over the shopping complexes welcoming you. 
Of course the decorations stand out better when you have a "beautiful" person posing with it - like my dearest friend in the photos! Santarina Sabrina!!!FRIENDS - MERRY XMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR !
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Revenge, love and hatred
People say that revenge and hatred are two self destructive emotions. It can become obsessive and consume your entire life. Total love can turn to total hatred if you allow it and if you are not careful.
Anyone's first love is most beautiful while it lasts. The very first moment of holding the hand of one you love is a blessing that can never be repeated. How can one who has loved ever hate? But we see and hear of love turning to hate. It really amazes me how people who have loved each other can just forget each other once they "break up". It could not have been love in the first place then?
Breaking up is of course a painful experience. Both are hurt. When one is hurt, sometimes the wounded one wants to hurt the other - revenge. Feelings of betrayal, of being let down and of being unappreciated can wreck havoc with the mind and heart, especially if you feel that you were true to the relationship and the other wasn't.
I had an experience when I was very young. I was lucky, however. God had given me the knowledge of unconditional love through a book which I bought from the second hand book store in my teens. I did not know that it was to prepare me for my first "break up". I had known the girl for more than 4 years. When she left, I cried for a month. I did not ever want to love again if it was that painful. At the end of the month I decided that I had to have my revenge. She must pay the penalty. And this is the prayer that I wrote in the form of a poem and etched it into my heart:
THE PENALTY
I shall kiss
your very hand
that killed
my heart.
I pray for
kindness for
every cruelty
you offer me.
For every crime
your penalty
...the pearls
of this life.
-justme.
I felt free once I penned those lines in my heart and I could concentrate on my studies and did very well in the university that year!
Today, I must thank God for answering my prayers and my revenge has been obtained. She is successful, happily married with wonderful children and we are friends even to this day.
It is not difficult to love...but to hate needs much effort...:) If I truly believe my Creator is merciful, can't I show some mercy to those around me?
Anyone's first love is most beautiful while it lasts. The very first moment of holding the hand of one you love is a blessing that can never be repeated. How can one who has loved ever hate? But we see and hear of love turning to hate. It really amazes me how people who have loved each other can just forget each other once they "break up". It could not have been love in the first place then?
Breaking up is of course a painful experience. Both are hurt. When one is hurt, sometimes the wounded one wants to hurt the other - revenge. Feelings of betrayal, of being let down and of being unappreciated can wreck havoc with the mind and heart, especially if you feel that you were true to the relationship and the other wasn't.
I had an experience when I was very young. I was lucky, however. God had given me the knowledge of unconditional love through a book which I bought from the second hand book store in my teens. I did not know that it was to prepare me for my first "break up". I had known the girl for more than 4 years. When she left, I cried for a month. I did not ever want to love again if it was that painful. At the end of the month I decided that I had to have my revenge. She must pay the penalty. And this is the prayer that I wrote in the form of a poem and etched it into my heart:
THE PENALTY
I shall kiss
your very hand
that killed
my heart.
I pray for
kindness for
every cruelty
you offer me.
For every crime
your penalty
...the pearls
of this life.
-justme.
I felt free once I penned those lines in my heart and I could concentrate on my studies and did very well in the university that year!
Today, I must thank God for answering my prayers and my revenge has been obtained. She is successful, happily married with wonderful children and we are friends even to this day.
It is not difficult to love...but to hate needs much effort...:) If I truly believe my Creator is merciful, can't I show some mercy to those around me?
Monday, December 15, 2008
DEATH
The first death of someone which had a profound effect on me was when my school friend died after finishing his form 5. He was a brilliant student, very intelligent and everyone predicted a bright future for him. He was leaving for US in a few days time. He drove to KL from Penang with the view of gong to the US embassy to finalize his visa – his car got involved in a collision and he died instantly.
I was shocked when I heard this. We were only 17 then. Though I KNEW that people do die at any age, but I never really was AWARE you can die at 17. AT 17, you are not really aware of how to value life. You are also not taught about death in schools or at homes which is odd because death is a certainty. One must be “prepared” for what is certain. My friend’s death made me reflect deeply and read as much as I can on death.
I realized there is no fortress to keep out death. It is natural.
"Wherever you are, death will find you out, even if you are in towers built up strong and high!" If some good befalls them, they say, "This is from God"; but if evil, they say, "This is from you" Say: "All things are from God." But what has come to these people, that they fail to understand a single fact? (Quran 4:78)
But how does one prepare for death? The loss of loved ones may be a difficult experience for many. It may bring about feelings of loss, intense sadness, guilt even, helplessness or even anger. But death is a certainty as it is a natural trait of transience. It reminds us of our inevitable exit from earth as we know it. It reminds us that we are bound to be separated from everything that is known to our senses. It seems as if all that was life was just a dream that went by so fast. It seems that we have been deceived into accumulating things that we now have to leave behind.
“Every soul shall have a taste of death: And only on the Day of Judgment shall you be paid your full recompense. Only he who is saved far from the Fire and admitted to the Garden will have attained the object (of Life): For the life of this world is but goods and chattels of deception” (Quran 3:185)
I know some people who fear death. I know some others who look forward to it as a return to “their maker”. Others have expressed their wish to remain long enough to ensure that those under their care are well provided for. There are many motivations why people want to live as there are for why they want to die. Many too, for a while, float in life letting life’s flow take them where it may without active participation.
But what is death? Some say that it is the ultimate termination of life, full stop. Such people do not believe in an afterlife. They say you are born, then you die.
“And they say: "What is there but our life in this world? We shall die and we live, and nothing but time can destroy us." But of that they have no knowledge: they merely conjecture”. (Quran: 45.024)
I believe that death is the process of going into the next phase of life. I used to marvel at how water changes to steam, goes up, becomes clouds and falls as water again. Death is like evaporation. Water evaporates changing to steam, not dying. It is “raised again” as water – the hydrologic cycle (water cycle). Of course some do not believe this:
“The Unbelievers say: "What! when we become dust,- we and our fathers,-
shall we really be raised (from the dead)?” ( Quran 27:67)
Allow me to share this short poem I wrote in remembrance of my late friend:
The Soul
water in the mug
steaming
releasing vapour into the air,
disappearing
changing form
not dying.
-justme
1985
ukm
Politicization of Religions.
Let us consider an alternative perspective.
Politics appears to the only route that humankind seems to know to govern the nation. Political history has shown us that many wars have been waged by politicians. The excuses may be different and the people pushing for the wars may be different but it is ultimately the politicians that make the decision to wage wars. Many political observers world wide also acknowledge that politicians are prone to excesses, abuses and deceit. Given half a chance they will sell even their own mother to stay in power, as some say it rather crudely.
Politics is about power. Power is a divine trait, godly. Since it is a divine trait, in the hands of lesser mortals, it can be intoxicating and addictive. Hence, while political power is a major responsibility it can equally be a dangerous tool in the hands of the lesser mortal. It is never easy to give up neither power nor the uninformed supporters. The more extreme the supporters, the more secure the politician. The more loyal the supporters, the more the politician has to pander to their inclinations to maintain their loyalty.
This is the vicious cycle that the politician has trapped himself in for the sake of power. This is sometimes called “riding the tiger syndrome”. It is almost impossible to dismount the tiger because it might bite you.
The politician rides on a cause, a platform. People who support the cause, support the politician. They get together into a club called the “political party”. They create rituals, mantras, levels of authority and ranks. At the bottom is the ordinary member whose usefulness is not only to make up the numbers but to support their leaders unquestioningly in the name of the party. The politician cannot make drastic changes for ordinary members constantly need something that they have already identified themselves with without understanding. Change implies need to think and to alter behavior which will upset the members. Only variations of what is already believed and upheld by the party members is allowed even if it gradually strays from the original ideal.
Religion appears to be the only route humankind seems to know to relate to the supernatural, to be “good” and to make sense of the “spiritual” world. History of religions has shown us that many wars have been waged by the religious leaders. The excuses may be different and the people pushing for the wars may be different but it is ultimately the religious leaders that make the decision to wage wars. Many observers world wide also acknowledge that religionists are prone to excesses, abuses and deceit. We have heard of the inquisition, burning at the stake, killing in the name of “god” ethnic cleansing, “Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim terrorists” etc.
Religion is about influence and about instilling belief in a person’s heart. influencing a person’s heart and “instilling faith” is a divine trait, godly. Since it is a divine trait, in the hands of lesser mortals, it can be intoxicating and addictive. Hence, while religion has tremendous potential for guiding good human conduct and a major responsibility it can equally be a dangerous tool in the hands of the vested interest religionists. It is never easy to give up neither the power to influence nor the uninformed supporters. The more extreme the supporters, the more secure the religious leaders. The more loyal the supporters, the more the religious leaders has to pander to their inclinations to maintain their loyalty.
This is the vicious cycle that the religious leaders has trapped himself in for the sake of power. This is sometimes called “riding the tiger syndrome”. It is almost impossible to dismount the tiger because it might bite you.
The religious leader rides on a cause, a platform. Adherents who support the cause, support the leader. They get together into a club called the “X religion”. They create rituals, mantras, levels of authority and ranks. At the bottom is the ordinary adherent whose usefulness is not only to make up the numbers but to support their leaders unquestioningly in the name of the religion. The leader cannot make drastic changes for ordinary adherents constantly need something that they have already identified themselves with without understanding. Change implies need to think and to alter behavior which will upset the adherents. Only variations of what is already believed and upheld by the adherents is allowed even if it gradually strays from the original ideal of the “founder”.
If you agree with the above alternative analysis and if it is correct, then imagine the potency of mixing the two – politicization of religion.
When religion is politicized, it moves away from the individual and resides in a select few who bestow upon themselves the power to determine what should be believed and what should not. Political power may have control over your body but religious power attempts to control your very emotions, beliefs and soul. With this mix, the control over you is complete.
Now, just sit back and imagine the colossal catastrophe that can be unleashed by the lesser mortal with vested interest who now has the sniff of what is divinely!
Let's discuss.
Politics appears to the only route that humankind seems to know to govern the nation. Political history has shown us that many wars have been waged by politicians. The excuses may be different and the people pushing for the wars may be different but it is ultimately the politicians that make the decision to wage wars. Many political observers world wide also acknowledge that politicians are prone to excesses, abuses and deceit. Given half a chance they will sell even their own mother to stay in power, as some say it rather crudely.
Politics is about power. Power is a divine trait, godly. Since it is a divine trait, in the hands of lesser mortals, it can be intoxicating and addictive. Hence, while political power is a major responsibility it can equally be a dangerous tool in the hands of the lesser mortal. It is never easy to give up neither power nor the uninformed supporters. The more extreme the supporters, the more secure the politician. The more loyal the supporters, the more the politician has to pander to their inclinations to maintain their loyalty.
This is the vicious cycle that the politician has trapped himself in for the sake of power. This is sometimes called “riding the tiger syndrome”. It is almost impossible to dismount the tiger because it might bite you.
The politician rides on a cause, a platform. People who support the cause, support the politician. They get together into a club called the “political party”. They create rituals, mantras, levels of authority and ranks. At the bottom is the ordinary member whose usefulness is not only to make up the numbers but to support their leaders unquestioningly in the name of the party. The politician cannot make drastic changes for ordinary members constantly need something that they have already identified themselves with without understanding. Change implies need to think and to alter behavior which will upset the members. Only variations of what is already believed and upheld by the party members is allowed even if it gradually strays from the original ideal.
Religion appears to be the only route humankind seems to know to relate to the supernatural, to be “good” and to make sense of the “spiritual” world. History of religions has shown us that many wars have been waged by the religious leaders. The excuses may be different and the people pushing for the wars may be different but it is ultimately the religious leaders that make the decision to wage wars. Many observers world wide also acknowledge that religionists are prone to excesses, abuses and deceit. We have heard of the inquisition, burning at the stake, killing in the name of “god” ethnic cleansing, “Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim terrorists” etc.
Religion is about influence and about instilling belief in a person’s heart. influencing a person’s heart and “instilling faith” is a divine trait, godly. Since it is a divine trait, in the hands of lesser mortals, it can be intoxicating and addictive. Hence, while religion has tremendous potential for guiding good human conduct and a major responsibility it can equally be a dangerous tool in the hands of the vested interest religionists. It is never easy to give up neither the power to influence nor the uninformed supporters. The more extreme the supporters, the more secure the religious leaders. The more loyal the supporters, the more the religious leaders has to pander to their inclinations to maintain their loyalty.
This is the vicious cycle that the religious leaders has trapped himself in for the sake of power. This is sometimes called “riding the tiger syndrome”. It is almost impossible to dismount the tiger because it might bite you.
The religious leader rides on a cause, a platform. Adherents who support the cause, support the leader. They get together into a club called the “X religion”. They create rituals, mantras, levels of authority and ranks. At the bottom is the ordinary adherent whose usefulness is not only to make up the numbers but to support their leaders unquestioningly in the name of the religion. The leader cannot make drastic changes for ordinary adherents constantly need something that they have already identified themselves with without understanding. Change implies need to think and to alter behavior which will upset the adherents. Only variations of what is already believed and upheld by the adherents is allowed even if it gradually strays from the original ideal of the “founder”.
If you agree with the above alternative analysis and if it is correct, then imagine the potency of mixing the two – politicization of religion.
When religion is politicized, it moves away from the individual and resides in a select few who bestow upon themselves the power to determine what should be believed and what should not. Political power may have control over your body but religious power attempts to control your very emotions, beliefs and soul. With this mix, the control over you is complete.
Now, just sit back and imagine the colossal catastrophe that can be unleashed by the lesser mortal with vested interest who now has the sniff of what is divinely!
Let's discuss.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Sultan of Selangor, HRH Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah on Islam
HRH Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah correctly pointed out that "Islam is a beautiful religion. It is a practical religion. It must be known for its values and compassion. It is not about punishments or banning this or that. This has unfortunately happened. Islam is not about force. Substance is more important, let’s not forget".
(Interview with the Star on 2.12.2008)
I hope the religious authorities heed HRH's wise observation.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
What is faith in God anyway?
The Quran says:
“Do men think that they will be left alone on saying, "We believe", and that they will not be tested?” (Quran 29.2)
Clearly Allah says that saying you believe in God is inconclusive. A mere ritual of declaring your faith either to yourself or to the whole of mankind is not tantamount to faith in God. There are tests. Tests that will determine whether you walk your talk. Whether your so-called faith is mere lip service, a cultural baggage, a psychological escapism, etc. Allah detests those that do not walk their talk.
“O you believers! Why say you that which you do not?” (Quran 61.2)
“Grievously odious is it in the sight of God that you say that which you do not”. (Quran 61.3)
Hypocrites are the worst among the lot. They can feign faith and religiosity which will shame even the best Hollywood actors. It is difficult to identify the hypocrites, but not impossible. You may carefully look for the signs, the manner in which they react to the “tests” that Allah has planned for them.
“Who does greater wrong than one who invents falsehood against God, even as he is being invited to Islam? And God guides not those who do wrong”. (Quran 61:7)
For a variety of selfish reasons, hypocrites invent falsehood against Allah. Many of such people fail the test by inventing some law or some view and then ascribing that to Allah. When you check it with the Quran and the Sunnah, you find that it contradicts. The “devil” invents many things in the name of God merely to lead people astray from the path of Allah. For example, we have heard of the invitation to the killing of innocent people in the name of God, extremist or excessive behaviour in the name of God, etc.
“O you who believe! make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no excess: for Allah loves not those given to excess”. (Quran 5:87)
But Allah says that the Satan has no authority over humans beings who are His loyal servants. In other words, you must have chosen to incline yourself to evil for Satan to whisper evil ideas into your mind and heart. You have failed another test – the test of being the master of your senses as God intended you to be.
“And on them did Satan prove true his idea, and they followed him, all but a party that believed”. (Quran 34:20)
“But he had no authority over them,- except that We might test the man who believes in the Hereafter from him who is in doubt concerning it: and your Lord does watch over all things”. (Quran 34:21)
Many people who say that they believe in God seem to behave as if they do not. Their camouflage may be the various religious rituals that they dutifully perform. Or they may be in a constant state of self-denial. Or they are just plain ignorant or inclined to evil. They do not exhibit trustworthiness, compassion, diligence, love, gratitude, care for the environment, etc – some of the attributes that Allah commanded in the Quran for believers.
They are easily duped by the illusions of the transient world. They bask in their possessions, beauty, status, family, etc. As such they fall into dubious concepts such as “survival of the fittest” not realizing that ultimately all living things will not survive. They rationalize the evil manner in which they earn an income to sustain their family and themselves – corruption, selling dangerous products/services, cheating, etc.
Are they who do these believers in God even though they faithfully perform all the rituals?
“You shall certainly be tried and tested in your possessions and in your personal selves; and you shall certainly hear much that will grieve you, from those who received the Book before you and from those who worship many gods. But if you persevere patiently, and guard against evil,-then that will be a determining factor in all affairs” (Quran 3:186)
“That which is on earth we have made but as a glittering show for the earth, in order that We may test them - as to which of them are best in conduct”. (Quran 18:7)
Clearly Allah does not teach that once you say you accept Him, you will be “saved”. You have to go through the journey of life and pass the various tests that you encounter in reality.
“Every soul shall have a taste of death: and We test you by evil and by good
by way of trial. to Us must you return” (Quran 21:35).
Peace !
“Do men think that they will be left alone on saying, "We believe", and that they will not be tested?” (Quran 29.2)
Clearly Allah says that saying you believe in God is inconclusive. A mere ritual of declaring your faith either to yourself or to the whole of mankind is not tantamount to faith in God. There are tests. Tests that will determine whether you walk your talk. Whether your so-called faith is mere lip service, a cultural baggage, a psychological escapism, etc. Allah detests those that do not walk their talk.
“O you believers! Why say you that which you do not?” (Quran 61.2)
“Grievously odious is it in the sight of God that you say that which you do not”. (Quran 61.3)
Hypocrites are the worst among the lot. They can feign faith and religiosity which will shame even the best Hollywood actors. It is difficult to identify the hypocrites, but not impossible. You may carefully look for the signs, the manner in which they react to the “tests” that Allah has planned for them.
“Who does greater wrong than one who invents falsehood against God, even as he is being invited to Islam? And God guides not those who do wrong”. (Quran 61:7)
For a variety of selfish reasons, hypocrites invent falsehood against Allah. Many of such people fail the test by inventing some law or some view and then ascribing that to Allah. When you check it with the Quran and the Sunnah, you find that it contradicts. The “devil” invents many things in the name of God merely to lead people astray from the path of Allah. For example, we have heard of the invitation to the killing of innocent people in the name of God, extremist or excessive behaviour in the name of God, etc.
“O you who believe! make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no excess: for Allah loves not those given to excess”. (Quran 5:87)
But Allah says that the Satan has no authority over humans beings who are His loyal servants. In other words, you must have chosen to incline yourself to evil for Satan to whisper evil ideas into your mind and heart. You have failed another test – the test of being the master of your senses as God intended you to be.
“And on them did Satan prove true his idea, and they followed him, all but a party that believed”. (Quran 34:20)
“But he had no authority over them,- except that We might test the man who believes in the Hereafter from him who is in doubt concerning it: and your Lord does watch over all things”. (Quran 34:21)
Many people who say that they believe in God seem to behave as if they do not. Their camouflage may be the various religious rituals that they dutifully perform. Or they may be in a constant state of self-denial. Or they are just plain ignorant or inclined to evil. They do not exhibit trustworthiness, compassion, diligence, love, gratitude, care for the environment, etc – some of the attributes that Allah commanded in the Quran for believers.
They are easily duped by the illusions of the transient world. They bask in their possessions, beauty, status, family, etc. As such they fall into dubious concepts such as “survival of the fittest” not realizing that ultimately all living things will not survive. They rationalize the evil manner in which they earn an income to sustain their family and themselves – corruption, selling dangerous products/services, cheating, etc.
Are they who do these believers in God even though they faithfully perform all the rituals?
“You shall certainly be tried and tested in your possessions and in your personal selves; and you shall certainly hear much that will grieve you, from those who received the Book before you and from those who worship many gods. But if you persevere patiently, and guard against evil,-then that will be a determining factor in all affairs” (Quran 3:186)
“That which is on earth we have made but as a glittering show for the earth, in order that We may test them - as to which of them are best in conduct”. (Quran 18:7)
Clearly Allah does not teach that once you say you accept Him, you will be “saved”. You have to go through the journey of life and pass the various tests that you encounter in reality.
“Every soul shall have a taste of death: and We test you by evil and by good
by way of trial. to Us must you return” (Quran 21:35).
Peace !
Monday, December 8, 2008
CATTLE OR HUMANS?
When I look around me, I am left with intense sadness.
The human species running around trying to make sense of life. They are trying their very best to do something. They are busy. Some, have no time to think what they are busy about. They have their hands full of life’s real challenges – food, clothing, shelter. They have their children’s stomach, education, health and well being to think of. They are so poor that they only have one thing in mind - how to survive in this world.
On the other hand, we have the privileged ones. The educated, the well-off, the powerful and the soon to be educated, well-off and powerful. They too are busy.
The soon to be educated, well-off and powerful are busy trying to be educated, well-off and powerful. Society generally agrees that one should excel. Politicians, self made thinkers and the elites of the society echo this. Has anyone stopped and thought for a while; - what does it mean if I am educated? How does that benefit you if I am educated? Does this world become a better place when I am educated? What does being “educated” mean anyway - a scroll in the hand?
If “education” is merely to enrich myself, to boost my ego, to fall into that delusions that “I am clever”, to get the privileges that is dished out to such groups and such, would you be happy that I am “educated”? What if I use my “educated status” to write and speak of things that benefits me but ruins the society generally? If you oppose me, I can simply garner all the support merely on the dubious ground that “I am educated and you are not. Hence you are disqualified to oppose me”.
Does having a formal education mean that I am necessarily more intelligent than the kuay teow seller? That I must necessarily be wise in all areas of life? If I believe yes, then I have been a danger to you and society. If not, then why should I “look down” on the kuay teow seller? I may be cleverer but he may be wiser. In the face of wisdom, I believe cleverness is crushed.
Look. Look at us. We have more educated people today than in the 1960s. Listen to what they say. Look at how they behave. Look and judge if the “education” that they posses have made them into human beings – or have they become lower than the animals?
Who are the ones who are inciting to racial and religious hatred in Orissa, India? The uneducated and poor ones or the ones with education, well-off and powerful?
Look at our own country…. Try to understand with your hearts, see with your eyes, hear with your ears – who are the ones with vested interest trying to prevent people from embracing each other as the created or makhluk of the Creator? Who???
“Many are the Jinns and men we have made for Hell: They have hearts with which they understand not, eyes with which they see not, and ears with which they hear not. They are like cattle,- nay more misguided: for they are heedless (of warning)” (Quran 7:179)
Allah says clearly that many human beings are lower than cattle. Cattle. Why cattle? Cattle is guarded, fed, and its direction and life determined by the cowherd. Cows have a heart, eyes and ears ….so do human beings. Cows cannot use them to better their lives. Cows do not think and see or hear like humans. Humans can. Humans have been given the privilege by Allah to use their hearts, their eyes and their ears. Those who do not, Allah says, surely are worse than cows.
The educated, well-off and powerful among us who follow their “animalistic instincts” for their own desires need cattle around them to make their desires a reality. They spurn lies albeit sometimes couched in intellectual, religious, nationalistic terms. Sometimes, sentiments. When this fails, they use power and fear and threats. They do all they can to wreck society and the basis of human nature as Allah created to satisfy their selfish ends.
But why must WE fall in their trap?
Are we like the cattle led by the nose by the cowherd? What? Merely for the miserable hay that is thrown in our way and the cow shack that we are allowed, we are willing to live a life lower than the cattle? Even though we know that the cowherd’s main purpose is only to milk us and to slaughter us?
If so why did Allah give us hearts, eyes and ears that are different from the cow if He intended that we should only be led by the selfish cowherd? Why do we insist on degrading ourselves so low when Allah has elevated us?
Allah has given a way out – he holds you personally accountable. He reminds you:
“And pursue 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)
It is now entirely your choice. You can choose to be the human being that Allah created or you may continue to be lower than the cattle that Allah forbade you to be.
Peace and May God guide us all from this madness.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Berbohong Dengan Nama Rasul !
Allah telah mengutus pelbagai rasul sepanjang zaman kepada setiap kaum dimuka bumi sebagai pembawa berita gembira dan pemberi amaran. Perkara ini jelas daripada ayat-ayat berikut:-
"Ada beberapa rasul-rasul yang telah Kami menceritakan kepada kamu sebelumnya, dan rasul-rasul yang Kami tidak menceritakan kepada kamu, dan Allah telah berbicara secara langsung kepada Musa" .(Quran 4:164)
"Rasul-rasul itu pembawa berita gembira, dan pemberi amaran supaya manusia tidak ada alasan membantah terhadap Allah selepas rasul-rasul itu; Allah adalah Perkasa, Bijaksana".(Quran 4:165)
"Sesungguhnya Kami mengutus kamu dengan kebenaran, pembawa berita gembira dan pemberi amaran, dan tiadalah sesuatu umat melainkan telah berlalu di dalamnya seorang pemberi amaran" (Quran:35:24)
Walaupun peranan Rasul-rasul adalah jelas, ramai manusia terperangkap didalam mendewa-dewakan sebahagian rasul-rasul ini sebagai tuhan di samping Allah. Bagi mereka yang mengkaji agama-agama di dunia ini, perkara ini amat jelas. Penyembahan rasul-rasul ini di mulakan dengan pembohongan yang mengambil kesempatan kejahilan manusia sendiri.
Memandangkan Allah telah memberi amaran kepada kita bahawa Iblis akan menunggu manusia dijalan dan akan menyerang nya dari semua arah, maka tidak harian bahawa dunia Islam juga tidak sunyi daripada pembohongan menggunakan nama Rasul.
Datuk Dr Mohd Asri Bin Zainal Abidin, pemikir Muslim yang dihormati dan bekas Mufti Perlis menulis:
"Apa tidaknya, dia berbohong dengan menyatakan Rasulullah SAW bersabda sesuatu hadis sedang hadis tersebut adalah palsu pada nilaian ilmu hadis. Bohong jenis ini jauh lebih besar dosanya dari bohong saudagar atau ahli politik. Bohong saudagar dan ahli politik merosakkan harta orang, tetapi bohong pembaca hadis palsu merosakkan agama".
[Di syorkan membaca keseluruhan tulisan beliau disini].
Ini lah antara sebabnya saya sentiasa sarankan penceramah dan guru-guru agama wajib bersikap lebih bertanggung jawap apabila menyatakan suatu hadis dengan menyatakan sekali rujukan hadis tersebut supaya pendengar boleh mengesahkan kesahihannya. Muslim harus berwaspada dalam hal ini supaya tidak di gelincirkan oleh hadis palsu.
"Ada beberapa rasul-rasul yang telah Kami menceritakan kepada kamu sebelumnya, dan rasul-rasul yang Kami tidak menceritakan kepada kamu, dan Allah telah berbicara secara langsung kepada Musa" .(Quran 4:164)
"Rasul-rasul itu pembawa berita gembira, dan pemberi amaran supaya manusia tidak ada alasan membantah terhadap Allah selepas rasul-rasul itu; Allah adalah Perkasa, Bijaksana".(Quran 4:165)
"Sesungguhnya Kami mengutus kamu dengan kebenaran, pembawa berita gembira dan pemberi amaran, dan tiadalah sesuatu umat melainkan telah berlalu di dalamnya seorang pemberi amaran" (Quran:35:24)
Walaupun peranan Rasul-rasul adalah jelas, ramai manusia terperangkap didalam mendewa-dewakan sebahagian rasul-rasul ini sebagai tuhan di samping Allah. Bagi mereka yang mengkaji agama-agama di dunia ini, perkara ini amat jelas. Penyembahan rasul-rasul ini di mulakan dengan pembohongan yang mengambil kesempatan kejahilan manusia sendiri.
Memandangkan Allah telah memberi amaran kepada kita bahawa Iblis akan menunggu manusia dijalan dan akan menyerang nya dari semua arah, maka tidak harian bahawa dunia Islam juga tidak sunyi daripada pembohongan menggunakan nama Rasul.
Datuk Dr Mohd Asri Bin Zainal Abidin, pemikir Muslim yang dihormati dan bekas Mufti Perlis menulis:
"Apa tidaknya, dia berbohong dengan menyatakan Rasulullah SAW bersabda sesuatu hadis sedang hadis tersebut adalah palsu pada nilaian ilmu hadis. Bohong jenis ini jauh lebih besar dosanya dari bohong saudagar atau ahli politik. Bohong saudagar dan ahli politik merosakkan harta orang, tetapi bohong pembaca hadis palsu merosakkan agama".
[Di syorkan membaca keseluruhan tulisan beliau disini].
Ini lah antara sebabnya saya sentiasa sarankan penceramah dan guru-guru agama wajib bersikap lebih bertanggung jawap apabila menyatakan suatu hadis dengan menyatakan sekali rujukan hadis tersebut supaya pendengar boleh mengesahkan kesahihannya. Muslim harus berwaspada dalam hal ini supaya tidak di gelincirkan oleh hadis palsu.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Malay or Muslim - Relooking at Article 160(2)
Having posted the above article, I had the opportunity of speaking to Haris Ibrahim, the lawyer and People’s Parliament blogger on the interpretation of “Malay” in Article 160(2).
He pointed out part (b) of the definition of “Malay” and suggested that "the issue of such a person" need not satisfy the conditions set out in part before (a). The whole section is reproduced below:
Malay" means a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom and -
(a) was before Merdeka Day born in the Federation or in Singapore or born of parents one of whom was born in the Federation or in Singapore, or is on that day domiciled in the Federation or in Singapore; or
(b) is the issue of such a person;
One view:
Part (b) of the above section states “is the issue of such a person”. This means the children of the “Malay” who satisfies part (a) is a “Malay”. The only condition that need to be satisfied by a person to be considered constitutionally a “Malay” under part (b) is only one, namely, to be the ISSUE of the person who satisfies part (a).
The language of the Constitution appears to suggest that part (a) conditions need not be satisfied by the person who is “Malay” pursuant to part (b). For example, he could be born in Ireland and yet still qualifies as a “Malay” if he is the issue of the person who is “Malay” pursuant to section (a).
Second view:
On the other hand, could it not be interpreted in another way? That is "Malay" means a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom AND (a) or (b). In other words, the issue of the person qualified under (a) must also satisfy the condition that he professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom. I would think this appears to be the more tenable interpretation.
Which is correct?
He pointed out part (b) of the definition of “Malay” and suggested that "the issue of such a person" need not satisfy the conditions set out in part before (a). The whole section is reproduced below:
Malay" means a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom and -
(a) was before Merdeka Day born in the Federation or in Singapore or born of parents one of whom was born in the Federation or in Singapore, or is on that day domiciled in the Federation or in Singapore; or
(b) is the issue of such a person;
One view:
Part (b) of the above section states “is the issue of such a person”. This means the children of the “Malay” who satisfies part (a) is a “Malay”. The only condition that need to be satisfied by a person to be considered constitutionally a “Malay” under part (b) is only one, namely, to be the ISSUE of the person who satisfies part (a).
The language of the Constitution appears to suggest that part (a) conditions need not be satisfied by the person who is “Malay” pursuant to part (b). For example, he could be born in Ireland and yet still qualifies as a “Malay” if he is the issue of the person who is “Malay” pursuant to section (a).
Second view:
On the other hand, could it not be interpreted in another way? That is "Malay" means a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom AND (a) or (b). In other words, the issue of the person qualified under (a) must also satisfy the condition that he professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom. I would think this appears to be the more tenable interpretation.
Which is correct?
Muslim or Malay?
There is a big difference between the two. “Malay” is an anthropological and a legal definition, while a “Muslim” is one who ‘surrenders’ to Allah as defined by the Quran. The act of surrendering to Allah would require that one leaves or strives very hard to leave all that which contradicts or prevent this surrendering. For example, the pagan Arabs who embraced Islam gave up the concept and practice of Arab tribalism.
A Muslim views all human beings as the creations of the Grand Designer. He does not, therefore discriminate people based on racial lines. He is not a racist. This does not mean of course that one cannot think or talk about races. If so, it will not be possible to identify racism in all its ugly colors.
Malaysia is unique. “Malay” is constitutionally defined. Muslims become constitutional Malays once they fulfill all the requirements of Article 160 of the Federal Constitution. This means that if a Javanese was before Merdeka Day born in Malaysia or Singapore or born of parents one of whom was born in Malaysia or in Singapore and the said Javanese professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language and conforms to Malay custom, he/she is a Malay by definition under art. 160(2) of the Federal Constitution.
On the other hand, a Javanese who is a Christian is not a constitutional Malay. Similarly, an Indian Muslim or a Chinese Muslim who satisfies the conditions under Article 160 is likewise a constitutional Malay. Clearly therefore, a constitutional Malay is a legal definition. However, even this simple fact can cause confusion among many, in particular in the Government and the civil service.
In fact, with respect, even no less than a Judge appear to have been confused with this legal definition. Preconditions of being Malay have been confused with preconditions being Muslim. Justice Faiza Tamby Chik J while sitting in the High Court stated that:
“Therefore a person as long as he/she is a Malay and by definition under art. 160 cl. (2) is a Malay, the said person cannot renounce his/her religion at all. A Malay under art. 160(2) remains in the Islamic faith until his or her dying days”. LINA JOY v. MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN & ANOR [2004] 6 CLJ 242
NO where in the constitution do you find a requirement that a Malay SHALL profess Islam. Article 160 clearly sets out who is a Malay in law and if you do not have any one of the conditions thereat, then you are no longer a Malay in law. Going by Faiza’s logic, does it therefore mean that “a person as long as he/she is a Malay cannot stop conforming to Malay customs”? Surely, he can stop practicing Malay custom. If he does so, he ceases being a Malay under art 160 (2). This is not the same as saying that because art. 160 defines a Malay in this manner, therefore he cannot stop practicing the Malay custom. Hence with respect, there appears to be a reasoning flaw in this part of Faiza’a judgment.
A Malay and a Muslim must surely be different in fact. For example a Chinese Muslim who does not follow the Malay custom and does not habitually speak the Malay language is a Muslim but not a Malay under art. 160. Ahmad and Ah Mat Chong who both practice and profess Islam are Muslims but one is a Malay while the other is a Chinese.
What then is the commonality between Ahmad (Malay Muslim), Ah Mat (Chinese Muslim) and Hameed Sultan Basha (Indian Muslim)? The answer would be that there are all Muslims and that the common factor among them is “Islam”. What, however, is the significance of this commonality? What does it mean in real terms?
In Malaysia, being Muslims, all three will certainty be subjected to the state Syariah laws and all the fatwas by the religious authorities. The Quran says that all believers are brothers of each other and that they should assist one another. The Quran enjoins all Muslims to be united to the “rope of Allah”. Is this possible under the current laws in Malaysia?
Let’s take a very simple example for the sake of discussion. Let us say for example that Ah Mat, the Chinese Muslim is from the low income group. He wants to buy a house. Ahmad is from the middle income group. Ahmad will be eligible for the 7% discount when he buys a house but Ah Mat will not. This is perfectly legal and in line with current policies but certainly appears unjust in Islam. In this situation, would it not be correct to state that the “malayness” overrides the ‘Islamness’? I stand to be corrected.
In any event, I have never heard of any fatwa by any learned ulamak in Malaysia that it is harm to discriminate favours among Muslims while they are all subjected to the same state Syariah laws. In any event, isn’t it an Islamic principle that the poorer should be assisted more than the richer in these situations irrespective of racial considerations?
To me, there is a big difference being a Malay or a Muslim. The underlying philosophy, world outlook and motivations are totally different. A Muslim will not be unjust even to an unbeliever or even the heretic. He mindful that Allah has created the world in a balance and He has enjoined on the Muslims to uphold justice and fair play. He is ever conscious that Allah is omnipresent and hence, the Muslim will forever be wary of his commitments, behaviour, task and duties. He will strive to do his best barring human failings and weaknesses.
A Muslim’s entire life existence is for Allah. This is conscious in the mind of everyone who considers himself a Muslim. What is the basis of the Malay’s life existence? If it is the same as the Muslim’s then is there a need to be conscious that you are a Malay or Indian or Chinese or German? Why can’t Muslims just speak and be concious in “Islamic terms”? Just be Muslims?
A Muslim views all human beings as the creations of the Grand Designer. He does not, therefore discriminate people based on racial lines. He is not a racist. This does not mean of course that one cannot think or talk about races. If so, it will not be possible to identify racism in all its ugly colors.
Malaysia is unique. “Malay” is constitutionally defined. Muslims become constitutional Malays once they fulfill all the requirements of Article 160 of the Federal Constitution. This means that if a Javanese was before Merdeka Day born in Malaysia or Singapore or born of parents one of whom was born in Malaysia or in Singapore and the said Javanese professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language and conforms to Malay custom, he/she is a Malay by definition under art. 160(2) of the Federal Constitution.
On the other hand, a Javanese who is a Christian is not a constitutional Malay. Similarly, an Indian Muslim or a Chinese Muslim who satisfies the conditions under Article 160 is likewise a constitutional Malay. Clearly therefore, a constitutional Malay is a legal definition. However, even this simple fact can cause confusion among many, in particular in the Government and the civil service.
In fact, with respect, even no less than a Judge appear to have been confused with this legal definition. Preconditions of being Malay have been confused with preconditions being Muslim. Justice Faiza Tamby Chik J while sitting in the High Court stated that:
“Therefore a person as long as he/she is a Malay and by definition under art. 160 cl. (2) is a Malay, the said person cannot renounce his/her religion at all. A Malay under art. 160(2) remains in the Islamic faith until his or her dying days”. LINA JOY v. MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN & ANOR [2004] 6 CLJ 242
NO where in the constitution do you find a requirement that a Malay SHALL profess Islam. Article 160 clearly sets out who is a Malay in law and if you do not have any one of the conditions thereat, then you are no longer a Malay in law. Going by Faiza’s logic, does it therefore mean that “a person as long as he/she is a Malay cannot stop conforming to Malay customs”? Surely, he can stop practicing Malay custom. If he does so, he ceases being a Malay under art 160 (2). This is not the same as saying that because art. 160 defines a Malay in this manner, therefore he cannot stop practicing the Malay custom. Hence with respect, there appears to be a reasoning flaw in this part of Faiza’a judgment.
A Malay and a Muslim must surely be different in fact. For example a Chinese Muslim who does not follow the Malay custom and does not habitually speak the Malay language is a Muslim but not a Malay under art. 160. Ahmad and Ah Mat Chong who both practice and profess Islam are Muslims but one is a Malay while the other is a Chinese.
What then is the commonality between Ahmad (Malay Muslim), Ah Mat (Chinese Muslim) and Hameed Sultan Basha (Indian Muslim)? The answer would be that there are all Muslims and that the common factor among them is “Islam”. What, however, is the significance of this commonality? What does it mean in real terms?
In Malaysia, being Muslims, all three will certainty be subjected to the state Syariah laws and all the fatwas by the religious authorities. The Quran says that all believers are brothers of each other and that they should assist one another. The Quran enjoins all Muslims to be united to the “rope of Allah”. Is this possible under the current laws in Malaysia?
Let’s take a very simple example for the sake of discussion. Let us say for example that Ah Mat, the Chinese Muslim is from the low income group. He wants to buy a house. Ahmad is from the middle income group. Ahmad will be eligible for the 7% discount when he buys a house but Ah Mat will not. This is perfectly legal and in line with current policies but certainly appears unjust in Islam. In this situation, would it not be correct to state that the “malayness” overrides the ‘Islamness’? I stand to be corrected.
In any event, I have never heard of any fatwa by any learned ulamak in Malaysia that it is harm to discriminate favours among Muslims while they are all subjected to the same state Syariah laws. In any event, isn’t it an Islamic principle that the poorer should be assisted more than the richer in these situations irrespective of racial considerations?
To me, there is a big difference being a Malay or a Muslim. The underlying philosophy, world outlook and motivations are totally different. A Muslim will not be unjust even to an unbeliever or even the heretic. He mindful that Allah has created the world in a balance and He has enjoined on the Muslims to uphold justice and fair play. He is ever conscious that Allah is omnipresent and hence, the Muslim will forever be wary of his commitments, behaviour, task and duties. He will strive to do his best barring human failings and weaknesses.
A Muslim’s entire life existence is for Allah. This is conscious in the mind of everyone who considers himself a Muslim. What is the basis of the Malay’s life existence? If it is the same as the Muslim’s then is there a need to be conscious that you are a Malay or Indian or Chinese or German? Why can’t Muslims just speak and be concious in “Islamic terms”? Just be Muslims?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
