In the name of Allah Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

1.         Every Muslim since a child is taught to begin with the utterance of bismillah hirrahman nirrahim before he does anything. It means "In the name of Allah Most Gracious, Most Merciful".

2.         This is a constant reminder of the grace and mercy of Allah on his creations. It is a statement of His infinite compassion and forgiveness. In fact Allah describes Himself as “one who forgives again and again" (see Quran 20:82)

You may continue reading by clicking it here

Peace !

The Quran, The Dogs and The Lady

As usual, year in and year out, the entire of the Ramadan would have had many “religious events”. Most of the mosques would have been full of people doing the terawih – the long prayer. One will hope and expect that at the end of such “month of holy activities”, the Malay Muslim community will emerge more compassionate, more responsible for other makhluks of Allah, more aware of what Islam is and hopefully, more aware of what is IN THE QURAN.

My fear and I repeat – my fear only – that for many of the Malay Muslims, life will be back as usual until the next Ramadan comes along to perform the “religious rituals” all over again. I think some are concerned with the “pahala” (whatever that means to the beholder) of the ritual than the substance of what Islam is all about.

It was very disturbing the manner with which Maznah was handcuffed and put into lockup for 2 days simply because she happened to love and care for dogs. This says a lot about those involved in the episode.

It was already shocking (in one sense not shocking because one will not expect any differently from the ignorant) that a few Malay Muslims were chastising her for keeping dogs.  I also saw the video many times. Try as I might, I could not see anything offensive to Islam in that video.

OH my God – Muslims keeping dogs????? Haram ke? All this in Ramadan. Despite all the terawih, no one seems to care what Allah says in the Quran in surah Al Maidah verse 4. I honestly do not know what punishment Allah will visit on those who exert cruelty on others contrary to Allah’s injunctions and decree!

This is what surah Al Maidah verse 4 says with regards to what is lawful (halal) to eat:

‘They ask you what is lawful to them (as food). Say: lawful  for you are (all) things good and pure: and what you have taught your trained hunting animals (mukallibina) (to catch) in the manner  directed to you by Allah: eat what they catch for you, but pronounce the name of Allah over it: and fear Allah; for Allah is swift in taking account’-(translated by Yusof Ali).

Instead of “hunting animal”, it could very well have been translated as “trained dogs” because of the word “kalb”. So it is lawful to eat what your trained dog has caught for you. However, it is common sense and hygienic to clean the catch before you eat it – you don’t need a scholar to tell you simple things like this!

If dogs were haram or forbidden in Islam why would Allah give the example of righteous youths sleeping in a cave with their dog (surah 18 verse 18 to 22). You and the “religious salaried civil servants” know better or Allah? Some say that it is the view of some “scholars” that dogs are haram. So the scholars know better than Allah?

You would rather accept the views of the scholars than to use your own Allah given brains to accept what the Quran says?

I am generally scared of dogs but I will not allow my fear to proclaim it haram. Let me share a verse from the Quran with you:

“Or do you not reflect that the Companions of the Cave and of the Inscription (Al Raqim) were wonders among Our Sign?” (Quran: 18: 9)

There are many interpretations of Al-Raqim – some say it refers to an inscription, some say it is the name of the mountain where the cave is and some say it is the name of the dog. It is also said that the name of the dog is traditionally known as Qitmir.

If you are a Muslim and you sincerely accept the Quran, you can easily accept what Allah says in the Quran:

“You would have deemed them awake, whilst they were asleep, and We turned them on their right and on their left sides: their dog stretching forth his two fore-legs on the threshold: if you had come up on to them, you would have certainly turned back from them in flight, and would certainly have been filled with terror of them” (Quran 18:18)

Allah is giving an example of some youths who were keeping a dog. This dog accompanied them while they were sleeping. These youths are not some normal youths from some sekolah agama or some graduan kelulusan pengajian Islam who are too eager to show off the things they have memorised from there for fame or money or position.

Who are these youths? Allah tells us in surah 18 verse 13 as follows:

“We relate to you their story in truth: they were youths who believed in their Lord, and We advanced them in guidance” (Quran 18:13).

Can you not understand or is there some seal over your heart? These youths are believers whom Allah has advanced them in guidance. This is certification from Allah about these youths, not certification from some man made university teaching man made syllabuses based on their understanding.

These youths who are believers and are advanced in guidance had a dog. You think Allah tells us this for nothing? You think Allah does not know that in the future some Mullah from somewhere will teach otherwise and call dogs haram?

Why do you think that Allah mentions the youths keeping dog a further 3 times in the following verse?

(Quran 18: 22). “(Some) say they were three, the dog being the fourth among them; (others) say they were five, the dog being the sixth,- doubtfully guessing at the unknown;(2359) (yet others) say they were seven, the dog being the eighth. Say you: "My Lord knows best their number; It is but few that know (their real case)." Enter not, therefore, into controversies concerning them, except on a matter that is clear, nor consult any of them about (the affair of) the Sleepers”

This verse obviously first came to the Prophet. Do you honestly think that after having knowledge of this verse the Prophet would forbid Muslims from keeping dogs? Do you really think the Prophet will change the words of Allah? I do not think so. Try to understand what Allah is saying in the following verse in the same surah.

“And recite (and teach) what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord: none can change His Words, and none will you find as a refuge other than Him”. (Quran: 18:27)

It is so clear for those who have eyes that can see, ears that can hear and brains that can understand – there is no changing the words of Allah. Unless they belong to the category of “sum-mum bukmum umyumfahum la yarjiuun” (Quran 2:18), may Allah have mercy on them.

The Prophet Muhammad does not have any choice in the matter but to recite exactly as is revealed to him. He will not change, modify or say anything contrary to what is revealed.

“This is the Revelation sent down from the Lord of the ‘Alamin. And if Muhammad had forged a false saying concerning Us (Allah). We surely would have seized him by his right hand (or with power and might). And then We certainly would have cut off his life artery (aorta).” (Al-Haqqah: 44–46)

With a severe warning from Allah to the Prophet in the above verse, can we ever imagine the Prophet to forge any false saying contrary to the Quran? Allah forbid!

When the Quran is so explicitly clear, why do you want to go in search of other sources including the opinions (fatawa) of scholars? In the discipline of usul al fiqh or Islamic Jurisprudence, it is clear that the Quran is the most primary source.  Could this search for other than the Quran be what Allah means in the following verse?

"These are God's revelations (Quran) that We recite to you truthfully. In which hadith other than God and His revelations do they believe?" (Quran: 45:6) (also 7:185, 77:50 and 31:6).

For those of whom the Quran is insufficient even when it is clear, if one was to check some of the sahih hadeeth, you will find hadith of this type too:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, “While a dog was going round a well and was about to die of thirst, an Israeli prostitute saw it and took off her shoe and watered it. So Allah forgave her because of that good deed.” (Sahih Bukhari 4.56.673)

I find that the Maznah video episode is symptomatic of a bigger problem which I have been talking about for more than 20 years now – Islam has evolved into a religion instead of remaining as a “Way of Life” or “Addeen” as it was meant to be.  Hence, some Muslims have become confused between hygiene, religious ritualism and the act of keeping dogs which is allowed in Islam.

The matter is of course made worse in our country where there is an increasingly dangerous trend towards greater State control of the faith of Muslims and how they are allowed to manifest that faith.  This trend is bound to succeed in the long term because the Muslims themselves are largely ignorant of their own Quran. Again this has been predicted by Allah:

“And the Messenger has said, "O my Lord, indeed my people have taken this Qur'an as [a thing] abandoned." (Sahih International Translation. Quran 25:30)

Next: Rejecting the Quran, Worshipping the Mullah

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: The above views are entirely my understanding and no one is required to agree with them. Kindly check with your own copy of the Quran and make up your own minds and thoughts. If I have erred in my facts, kindly highlight to me.

Adakah Melayu bebas beragama? Bab 3 - Kesan Memperundangkan kepercayaan (effects of legislating faith)

Empat sumber tersebut juga di beri kuasa undang-undang didalam undang-undang syariah di Negara ini. Ini bermakna suatu perkara hasil ijmak dan qias wajib di patuhi oleh rakyat Muslim negara ini sebagai keperluan undang-undang. Begitu juga tafsiran terhadap Al-Quran dan Hadis oleh ‘orang-orang yang di iktiraf’ oleh undang-undang wajib di terima di sisi undang-undang syariah di Negara ini. “Orang-orang yang tidak di iktiraf” oleh undang-undang syariah tidak berhak memperkatakan sesuatu mengenai Islam kerana ia mungkin menjadi kesalahan di bawah undang-undang syariah. Jika ia nya di pertikai, ia juga akan mengundang hukuman undang-undang.

Memandangkan di Malaysia, undang-undang syariah adalah di bawah bidangkuasa Negeri-negeri, maka pengiktiran “siapa yang layak bercakap mengenai Islam” di Negeri masing-masing juga berbeza. Ia juga di tentukan oleh pihak berkuasa agama Negeri masing-masing.

Layak bercakap mengenai Islam?

Sebagai contoh, Dr Mohd. Asri, walaupun bekas mufti Perlis, beliau di tuduh di bawah undang-undang syariah negeri Selangor kerana ‘mengajar Islam’ tanpa “tauliah yang sah daripada pihak berkuasa agama Negeri Selangor (“tujuan tersebut”). Dalam ertikata lain, beliau bukan lah “orang yang diiktiraf” bagi tujuan tersebut oleh undang-undang syariah negeri Selangor selagi beliau tidak mempunyai tauliah daripada pihak berkuasa agama Negeri tersebut.

Alasan pihak berkuasa Negeri Selangor untuk keperluan tauliah ini ialah, di antara lain, untuk memantau “penceramah agama” serta sebagai kaedah untuk menggesahkan kelayakan orang yang berceramah atau mengajar agama. Walau pun sebabnya boleh di fahami, ini juga merupakan satu sekatan undang-undang terhadap kebebasan Melayu untuk mengamalkan agama mereka. Ini adalah kerana keperluan ”tauliah” ini menimbulkan pelbagai persoalan seperti berikut:-

(a) Apakah yang di maksudkan dengan “mengajar mengenai Islam”? – bagaimana kalau terdapat perbincangan agama antara 10 orang kawan di rumah mereka – adakah ini menjadi satu kesalahan syariah kerana masing-masing akan memberi kefahaman mereka yang mungkin berlainan mengenai Islam.

(b) Perkataan “berceramah mengenai Islam” juga menimbulkan pelbagai persoalan. Ada kah ia tertakluk kepada persoalan “tauhid” dalam pengertian yang amat sempit atau boleh merangkumi perkara-perkara yang tidak di anggap tauhid?

(c) Bagaimana jika seorang itu berceramah mengenai perkara yang di anggap sebagai “fardhu kifayah” – adakah ini juga perlukan tauliah? Jika ya, ia akan menyekat setiap professional Muslim seperti doktor, peguam, jurutera dan sebagai nya daripada bercakap mengenai profesion masing-masing hanya semata-mata kerana mereka itu Muslim.

(d) Setiap Muslim meyakini bahawa ajaran Islam itu syumul atau menyeluruh. Di atas dasar “kesyumulan” ini, tidak kah aneh jika tauliah diperlukan untuk sebahagian “perkara Islam” dan tidak bagi "perkara Islam" lain?

Seorang Muslim harus mampu keluar daripada minda “perangkap agama” yang menyempitkan ‘Islam” kepada perkara-perkara upacara semata-mata. Jika ia mampu, akan jelas lah bahawa sebarang penyekatan undang-undang terhadap diri nya di atas nama “agama” berkesan untuk menyekat kebebasan nya untuk mengamalkan ajaran Islam sebagai seorang Muslim yang bertanggungjawap hanya kepada Penciptanya.

Menangani ajaran sesat

Kita juga faham bahawa di antara tugas pihak berkuasa agama ialah untuk menangani ajaran sesat dan oleh itu mungkin tauliah di rasakan sebagai satu cara menapis ajaran sesat. Ini adalah hujah kawalan yang sering di gunakan oleh semua ajensi pelaksana di merata dunia, tidak kira syariah atau sekular. Kalau tidak memantau, bagaimana nak menangani ajaran sesat?

Peranan serta keberkesanan pihak berkuasa agama di dalam “usaha membanteras ajaran sesat” tidak pernah di nilai oleh Rakyat Muslim selama ini walaupun beribu wang Rakyat digunakan dalam usaha ini. Secara amnya, dalam Malaysia, sebarang ajaran agama oleh seorang Muslim yang menyimpang daripada asas-asas fahaman sunnah wal jamaah di anggap sesat. Sebagai contoh, sekiranya seorang Muslim mengatakan bahawa Nabi Isa di salib, ia di anggap sesat oleh undang-undang syariah dan boleh di kenakan hukuman. Sebaliknya jika seorang Kristian mengatakan perkara yang sama, ia tidak akan di hukum oleh undang-undang syariah walaupun dari segi akidah sunnah wal jamaah fahaman Nabi Isa di salib adalah fahaman yang sesat.

Begitu juga jika seorang Muslim mengajar atau menyebarkan fahaman Shia, ini juga boleh dianggap kesalahan jenayah di bawah undang-undang syariah di Malaysia walaupun di peringkat dunia, kedua-dua Malaysia dan Iran adalah ahli persatuan Negara-negara Islam iaitu OIC. Beberapa Negeri mempunyai fatwa bahawa fahaman yang di iktiraf hanya lah fahaman Ahlul Sunnah Wal-Jamaah (ASWJ).

Maka jelas bahawa pemantaun ajaran sesat oleh pihak berkuasa agama adalah terhadap Rakyat Muslim yang menyebarkan fahaman bertentangan dengan fahaman ASWJ majlis-majlis agama Negeri-negeri.

Sebagai contoh, ajaran-ajaran seperti Ayah Pin dan Arqam di anggap sebagai sesat dan pelbagai usaha telah di jalankan untuk mematikan pengaruh mereka dengan mengunakan kuasa undang-undang. Arqam di haramkan, “ajaran Ayah Pin” di haramkan serta perkampungan nya di robohkan. Persoalannya ialah: selepas pengharaman sedemikian, adakah pengikut-pengikut nya berjaya di “pulihkan”? Saya percaya walaupun undang-undang boleh ‘menghancurkan’ suatu organisasi, ia tidak semestinya berjaya menghapuskan suatu idea tanpa kaedah perbincangan dan pendidikan.

Dalam membincang usaha membanteras ajaran sesat, timbul kekhuatiran samada fahaman yang berbeza (dari segi tafsiran) dengan fahaman umum sunnah wal jamaah atau satu aliran sunnah wal jamaah juga di anggap sesat oleh pihak berkuasa agama yang mungkin di dominasi oleh satu aliran atau fahaman sunnah wal jamaah. Jika kekhuatiran ini berasas, maka ia adalah satu perkembangan yang tidak sihat kerana kefahaman terhadap agama disempitkan oleh fahaman satu kelompok yang berkuasa. Di dalam keadaan sedemikian, fahaman agama di lentur bukan oleh ilmu dan nas, tetapi oleh kuasa.


Islam untuk pakar atau untuk semua manusia (An-nas)?

Rakyat Melayu yang mahu berfikir harus menilai kesan penyekatan undang-undang ketas hak dan kewajiban mereka terhadap Allah. Ini adalah sedikit berbeza dengan hak dan kewajiban sesama manusia walaupun bagi seorang Muslim yang beriman kepada ayat di bawah, tidak ada perpisahan dalam kehidupannya.

“Katakanlah, "Sesungguhnya solatku, dan pengorbananku, dan hidupku, dan matiku, kesemuanya untuk Allah, Pemelihara semua alam”. (Quran: 6:162)

Sekiranya, seorang Muslim beriman kepada 6:162, maka ia juga mempunyai hak dan tanggungjawap untuk mempelajari, berbincang, memberi pendangan dan mengamal apa yang difahami oleh nya daripada Al-Quran. Saya percaya seseorang itu tidak boleh “habis belajar” hikmah Al-Quran dalam masa empat (ijazah) atau lapan tahun (PhD) diuniversiti. Selanjutnya, pembelajaran di universiti bukan lah jaminan keimanan seseorang. Kefasihan bahasa Arab, walaupun semestinya membantu, tidak menjaminkan keimanan atau kefahaman. Abu Lahab adalah satu contoh dalam kes ini.

Apakah seorang Muslim yang tidak memasuki “Universiti Islam” serta tidak berpeluang membaca kitab-kitab tulisan Imam-imam besar seperti Shafie, Hambali, Maliki, Hanafi, Ibn Taymiyah, Suyuti dan sebagai nya serta tidak membaca koleksi hadis-hadis Muslim, Bukhari, Ibn Majah, Abu Dawud atau Al-Tirmidhi serta tidak mempelajari usul-al fiqh dikira jahil dan tidak berpeluang untuk menjadi seorang Muslim yang beriman jika ia rajin membaca dan beriman kepada Al-Quran? Saya tidaklah bertujuan meremehkan pendidikan formal agama. Perkara yang di bincang di sini ialah hak setiap Muslim untuk mengamalkan Addeen Allah tanpa syirik kepada sesuatu atau sesiapa.

Jika kelulusan akademik serta jawatan “agama” menjadi pra-syarat untuk berbincang mengenai Islam, apakah kelulusan universiti para Nabi-nabi? Kita lihat bahawa para Nabi membawa ilmu Tuhan di zaman masing-masing yang berlawanan dengan budaya pembesar dan cendekiawan zaman mereka. Di samping itu, ajaran Nabi-nabi adalah mudah dan konsisten sepanjang zaman sehinggalah ke Nabi Muhammad.

Ramai yang masih keliru di antara maklumat dengan ilmu. Seorang yang masuk universiti dan berkelulusan PhD mungkin mempunyai banyak maklumat mengenai sesuatu perkara tetapi tidak semestinya berilmu mengenai perkara itu. Contohnya ialah burung kakak tua yang boleh menyuarakan suatu maklumat tanpa sebarang ilmu mengenai perkara yang disuarakan. Contoh moden ialah komputer yang bukan sahaja mempunyai banyak maklumat tetapi boleh memprosesnya dengan kelajuan yang tidak dapat ditandingi oleh manusia. Adakah kita akan mengatakan komputer itu berilmu atau berhikmah? Pada saya, semua ini adalah tanda-tanda yang di tunjukki oleh Pencipta bagi mereka yang rela berfikir.

Begitu juga wujud kekeliruan diantara beriman atau percaya berdasarkan ilmu dengan beriman atau percaya secara buta tuli. Untuk beriman berdasarkan ilmu, anda sendiri perlu mengesahkannya. Sebagai contoh, jika anda terima bulat-bulat apa yang saya tulis disini tanpa berfikir,menilai serta tanpa merujuk kepada Al-Quran, itu bermakna anda beriman kepada saya atau anda beriman secara buta tuli.

Keimanan seseorang itu lahir daripada sikap-sikap seperti cinta kepada Pencipta Nya, ilmu, sikap kerendahan diri dan takut hanya kepada Pencipta Nya. Namun, hakikat hidup ialah, ramai yang takut hilang jawatan, gaji, kawan-kawan, penghormatan dan perkara-perkara duniawi sedemikian. Akhir sekali, keimanan seseorang itu adalah hak Allah yang ditentukan oleh Nya. Kita hanya boleh menilai pandangan masing-masing berdasarkan nas-nas yang sahih, bermula dengan merujuk kepada Al-Quran.

“Dan Kami tidak mengutus seseorang rasul melainkan dengan bahasa kaumnya supaya dia memperjelaskan kepada mereka; kemudian Allah menyesatkan sesiapa yang Dia mengkehendaki, dan Dia memberi petunjuk kepada sesiapa yang Dia mengkehendaki; dan Dia Yang Perkasa, Yang Bijaksana”. (Quran 14:4)

Hari ini, kita dengar pihak yang menganggap diri mereka sebagai pakar memberi amaran bahawa orang yang tidak pakar, tidak harus berbicara mengenai Islam atau Al-Quran. Bolehkah seorang yang di lamun cinta ditahan daripada berbicara mengenai apa yang dicintainya? Tidak kah Muslim itu mencintai Penciptanya melebihi yang lain? Saya tahu bahawa perkara yang paling pasti di dalam kehidupan saya ialah: saya akan mati satu hari dan saya akan di persoalkan mengenai kegiatan saya di dunia. Masa itu, tidak ada seorang pun pakar yang akan membela saya. Saya harus membela diri saya. Dunia ini sementara manakala kehidupan selepas ini adalah berkekal. Adakah saya akan abaikan yang kekal untuk yang sementara? Sepedih-pedih cabaran di dunia, ia pasti akan berlalu. Yang di khuatiri ialah selepas itu kerana tidak mungkin ada alasan yang boleh di berikan kepada Tuhan jika kita telah mengadaikan akal dan hati kita kepada orang lain.

Kesan terakhir memperundangkan kepercayaan ialah: amalan dan bentuk kepercayaan seseorang itu di tentukan serta di kawal oleh undang-undang. The final effect of legislating faith is this: the practice and structure of a person’s belief is determined and controlled by law. Ini bermakna fahaman dan amalan Muslim di Negara ini di tentukan dan dikawal oleh undang-undang. Perkara in perlu di fahami betul-betul oleh setiap rakyat Muslim yang mengambil serius agama mereka.

Bersambung..insha Allah.

Salam!

[NOTA: Sila rujuk Al-Quran masing-masing dan penulis tidak mengkehendaki/meminta sesiapa pun untuk bersetuju dengan pandangan nya di dalam artikel ini. Sebaliknya, penulis alu-alukan sebarang pandangan yang membantu.]

IS YOUR BELIEF A PERSONALITY DISORDER?

It easy to say that you believe in God or a Supreme Being. It is more difficult to actually try to understand what you mean when you say that. What does it mean when you say that you believe in a Supreme　Being? If you care to analyse yourself (honestly and objectively) you will find that we often go through life saying things to ourselves that we do not fully understand. These things we do not understand, we repeat to others and they in turn repeat to others.

Through this process, what was never understood becomes a "reality" held by many. Since it is held by many, it then becomes accepted as the "reality" or the "truth". It then becomes even more difficult to analyse the belief or thought objectively because subjective factors tend to block critical thinking. Example, the person who told you about "believing" is someone you love or your parents or your friends or someone you or society regard as "knowledgeable" or "good person". All these subjective factors may be formidable obstacles in the search for "truth" unless you are focused only on letting your research unfold itself - whatever the results.

The sentence 'I believe in God". Is it simply a sentence? Is it simply a "feeling"? Is it simply something that you feel "right to say" and uncomfortable if you do not say it? Do you know what it entails when you say that?

Let us say you strongly believe that drinking more than 2 pints of water will make you dizzy. Most probably, you may abstain from drinking that amount. But what does believe in God make you abstain from? And how did you come to believe that drinking that amount of water will make you dizzy? Was it a personal experience? Did you validate the experience though research, inquiry and thinking?

What if you believed that you are fat when actually you are thin and thus you abstain from food until you become bulimic? Doctors say this is a personality disorder. Such beliefs can cause damage to self and to others. Unvalidated beliefs may be dangerous.

What about your belief in a Supreme being? Does that cause personality disorder in you such that you lose all sense of rationality, and common sense? To answer this question, if you want to, you have to examine your belief - what is it founded on, what does it do to you, why you believe, how does that belief manifest in reality and so on.

Just sharing. What do you think?

PEACE .

How did you become a Muslim?

I was completely shocked when a Muslim responded to me saying: “so what if I do not read the Quran? I am already doing all the essentials of Islam. So I really cannot understand why you are going on and on about me reading the Quran?”

[I also cannot understand why he, being a Muslim, was upset when all I did was to share with him the idea that the Quran should be read to understand its content]

ME: “But if you did not read the Quran, how did you become a Muslim?”

HIM: “You think that reading the Quran means you are a good Muslim?”

ME: “But if you did not read the Quran, how did you become a Muslim?”

HIM: “You didn’t answer my question!”

ME: “ Of course not necessarily. But if you did not read the Quran, how did you become a Muslim?”

HIM: “Well I like to think that I am an okay Muslim. I do all the essentials, I do not hurt others.

ME: “But if you did not read the Quran, how did you become a Muslim?”

HIM: “You do not understand at all. Just because you know the Quran, you think you are clever. What about those who do not know about the Quran?”

ME: “but YOU know about the Quran. You have read it without understanding when you were young. So, if you did not make an effort to understand the teachings of the Quran, how did you become a Muslim?”

HIM: (looking annoyed): “Don’t be stupid lah. Of course they taught us in the mengaji and agama classes. Cant you see I am doing the same thing as every other Muslims. Tak kan tak nampak? Why? Is there anything sesat that I am doing ka?”

ME: “That’s not the point. My point is and I sincerely want to understand … why do you not want to read the Quran to understand it”

HIM: “ Bila sampai seru, of course lah I will”.

ME: “Well, at least let me share some verses with you.”

HIM: “ Tak payah lah. We can just discuss generally without referring to the Quran. You ni, discus agama pun sikit sikit nak rujuk Quran. It is very distracting tau?”

ME: “How is it possible to discuss Islam without referring to the Quran bro? be reasonable”

HIM: “You are the one being unreasonable. Kan I told you, we discuss generally okay?”

ME: “Meaning what?”

HIM: “ Don’t pretend to be stupid lah. You are a lawyer. You know what I mean”.

ME (being sincerely baffled): “ No, I really do not know what ‘discussing generally means apart from the fact that it is clear we are not supposed to refer to the Quran”.

HIM: “ Bro. You are a very nice guy and I like you. I tengok bila discuss religion, you ni serious sangat”.

ME: “But bro, isn’t discussing truth and Allah’s verses a serious matter?.

HIM: “There you go again. All I was saying was that kita kena tingkatkan pengetahuan agama among the youth. You yang lari topic saying we must read the Quran lah, we must understand it lah. Of course. Siapa tak tau?”

ME: “Bro, sorry lah…you are 45 years old and you nak tunggu seru baru nak baca. How in the world are you going to motivate the young to understand Islam? What is this tunggu seru anyway?”

HIM: “You ni tak baik lah buat buat bodoh. Don’t lah play lawyer with me. Tak kan seru pun you tak tau?

ME: “ya lah bro, if we want to motivate the young, we must know the first basis of Islam that is the Quran. That’s what I have been meaning all through our chat tonight”.

HIM: “You are being difficult. Use common sense lah brother. Don’t we have the experts huh? Tak kan kita tak ada ustad, ulamak dan orang pengetahuan. Mereka lah yang perlu buat semua tu”.

ME: “If they are going to do it, why are you telling me this?”

HIM: “Sharing lah. Since you are so interested in Islam. I also feel much more should be done. Tengok lah pemuda pemudi Melayu, teruk sangat nilai dia orang. Simple as that”.

ME: “Your concern for them is good. But why do you forget about yourself?”.

HIM: “Mana ada I forget myself pula?”

ME: “Well, you are stopping me from referring to the Quran in our chat. And you say you want to tunggu seru, whatever that means. Anyway, how do you know what the experts are going to do is in line with the Quran if you do not understand it?”

HIM: “ Bro, malas lah nak discuss this topic with you. Tukar topic lah”.

Then he discussed current politics and after about 15 minutes of patience, I excused myself and went home.

SALAM.

P.S. Brother, if you do read this posting, know that I still love you as my friend.

Adakah anda seorang “penilai” atau “peminat”?

Walaupun pun masing-masing yang hidup itu diberi kehidupan oleh Maha Suci, setiap orang membuat keputusan yang berbeza mengenai bagaimana mereka hendak kendalikan kehidupan itu.

Ada yang mengambil berat kehidupan mereka, ada yang mengambil ringan dan ada pula yang membiarkan kehidupan mereka berlalu begitu sahaja.

Apa sahaja keputusan yang dibuat, masing-masing menerima akibat tertentu ekoran keputusan yang di buat.

Bagaimana dengan orang mukmin atau orang yang percaya? Sudah tentu orang mukmin mempunyai perspektif yang berbeza mengenai kehidupannya. Pertama sekali, seorang mukmin percaya dan sedar bahawa kehidupan nya adalah untuk Maha Suci. Kesedaran dan kepercayaan ini akan menjadikan beliau seorang penilai dalam kehidupan dan bukannya seorang peminat.

Seorang penilai akan menilai segala sesuatu yang di hadapinya atau dialami olehnya bagi menentukan bahawa kehidupannya diatur supaya “ia nya adalah untuk Maha Suci”.

Seorang peminat pula leka dengan kehidupan dan minat kepada tipuan dunia dan kesenangan sementara yang dikecapi oleh pancainderanya. Ia tidak akan menilai segala sesuatu yang didengar, lihat atau dirasa oleh nya. Ia akan terima segala yang dialami atau diingini oleh nya sebagai kebenaran tanpa sebarang penilaian.

Seorang mukmin adalah serorang penilai yang konsisten dimana ia akan menilai tindak-tanduk, pemikiran serta segala sesuatu berpandukan Al-Furqan.

Sekiranya orang mukmin itu tidak merujuk kepada Al-Furqan untuk menilai sesuatu, dari mana pula ia dapat pengukur nya? Kalau kayu ukur nya bukan Al-Furqan, sumber mana kah yang di percayai oleh nya? Apa kah setaraf Al-Furqan yang terus daripada Maha Suci dengan pandangan mana-mana manusia?

Adakah dikatakan orang itu beriman kepada Al-Furqan walhal ia tidak mahu atau tidak pernah merujuk kepada Al-Furqan dengan mata, hati dan akal nya sendiri?

Seorang peminat mudah meminati pelbagai perkara dalam kehidupan – kekayaan, kepandaiaan, benda, orang-orang terkemuka dalam pelbagai bidang, dan sebagainya. Ia menceburi dalam kehidupan dengan seluruh jiwa nya tanpa menilai.

Seorang mukmin menilai peranan pelbagai perkara dalam kehidupan nya. Ia menilai segala yang dilihat, dengar, dan dirasa kerana ia ,beriman bahawa segala ini akan diperanggungjawapkan kelak oleh Maha Suci. Ia mengunakan akal sejajar dengan apa yang di ajar oleh Al-Furqan.

Seorang peminat mudah taklid dan taksub kepada seseorang atau sesuatu.

Seorang penilai tidak pernah taklid dan taksub pada sesiapa atau sesuatu. Ia hanya beriman kepada Maha Suci dan berpandukan Al-Furqan.

Hanya sekadar berfikir - peminat atau penilai dalam hidup.?

Salam.

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 !

Is God really in our lives?

Malaysia should probably be classified as the 8th wonder of the world. It certainly has many wonders in its midst.

Every Malaysian remembers that our land is a land of slogans and songs. We have plenty of slogans – ‘bersih cekap amanah”, “kepimpinan melalui teladan”, “gemilang, cemerlang, terbilang” and so on. Go to every “gomen” department and you will find a slogan.

And yet, (this where we are the 8th wonder), we hear and experience major inefficiencies in the civil service, our political leaders suffer from lack of credibility, our universities are not terbilang and neither do we have kepimpinan melalui teladan.

And religion. God, this country has a lot of religion. Every Fridays, you find the Muslims going to the mosques and the hindus going to the temples. Every Sunday, you have the Christians praying at the Church. Every other day, you have the Taoists and Buddhists either praying at their temples or at the altar in their house. And there are the other religions which we do not normally mention in public but claim to believe and worship God nevertheless.

In fact, the government has taken the initiative to adjust the Friday lunch hours to enable the civil servants to pray. One would therefore think that the civil servants must be the most God-fearing of the lot in Malaysia. One cannot be faulted in thinking that Malaysia is almost a holy land full of pious citizens.

It seems everyone wants to be saved and every one wants to praise the Lord. What a wonderful nation of ours Malaysia is? We are so God conscious it seems.

With such pious, God- fearing citizens, surely they are all mindful that this is God’s earth and that we are all here to share. Love, peace, sharing, giving and equitable distribution of wealth. Equal opportunities for all the “children of God”.

We are so God conscious that there is no corruption at all. Our leaders are impeccable. The Muslim ones never forget to praise God before they make a speech.

And look at our priests. They fight for a better environment, better housing, better governance, just laws, education system that cultivates upright and responsible citizens, elimination of poverty, etc. They want to illuminate this country of ours with God’s light of mercy.

How unjust this world will be without these religious experts. They are so relevant in our daily lives.

I wouldn’t like to think that we are encouraging a culture of hypocrisy – saying we love God and behave like satan on earth. Surely, we have the mental ability and the strength of spirit to distinguish between form and substance?

But it puzzles me. I have heard and seen people scream and shout for blood in the name of religion. I have seen deliberate negative discrimination in the name of religion. And I am not just talking of the Muslims. In fact, I have heard of an MP say that he is “muslim first”,whatever that means. Why did he become a muslim (submitter) first before becoming a mukmin (believer)? What do these words mean anyway? Deeds we can evaluate but words…..?

In fact we are so religious that “a chosen few” among us have taken the duty to ensure that it is so even if it means resorting to compulsive measures. These chosen few will “guide” you to think how they “think”. When “guidance” fails, they will compel you for your own good. It does not matter that you are an adult above the age of 40 and have been maintaining a family well and that you are in a position of responsible decision making in your career. When it comes to religion, these chosen few are the experts. What a wonderful holy land we have!

This almost holy land ours is truly the 8th wonder of the world. Don’t you think?

The Mirror

If you have no love and mercy in your heart,
how can you claim to love God?

If you have no compassion and empathy,
why do you expect God to emphatise with you?

If you have no forgiving spirit,
why would you want God to forgive you?

If you are a tyrant in your ways,
your beliefs and your actions,
why do you expect God to shower you with His kindness?

If you live a life of only taking,
why would you expect God not to take it away?

If you do not want to understand the diverse colours
and languages that God created,
why do you expect God to understand you?

If you steal in creative ways,
why do you expect God to keep the wealth in your possession?

If you live a life of deceiving others,
why you do expect not to be deceived by your own self?

If you destroy lives in creative ways,
why do you expect your loved ones to be safe?

If, as a mere transient mortal you are arrogant,
why should not God humble you?

If you are forever distinguishing yourself above others,
why should God not differentiate you below others?

Are we forever asking but never doing?
Are we forever saving other souls, never our own?
Are we forever being religious but never a human being?
Are we forever form but never substance?

Let the mirror speak,
for it is enough as a witness
against us.


-jahamy

SATU MAHKAMAH - SISTEM KEADILAN MALAYSIA

Surat khabar melaporkan bahawa bekas Ketua Hakim Negara, Tun Abdul hamid Mohamad mencadangkan percantuman mahkamah sivil serta mahkamah syariah. Jahamy telah menulis pada tahun 2005 didalam berita harian bahawa kita perlu wujudkan satu sistem keadilan di Malaysia didalam berita harian. Artikel nya berikut:-

“Satu Mahkamah mantap” sistem keadilan Malaysia
Oleh Jahamy (Berita Harian bertarikh 19hb April 2005)

KITA di Malaysia seolah-olah mempunyai dua sistem kehakiman yang 'tidak sehaluan' iaitu Mahkamah Sivil dan Syariah. Ada sesetengah menyangka sesuatu tidak Islamik dan satu lagi Islamik. Ini mewujudkan tanggapan seolah-olah dalam keadaan tertentu kita ke mahkamah bukan Islam dan ketika lain pula ke mahkamah Islam! Adakah tanggapan ini benar?

Artikel 3 Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan bahawa: 'Agama Islam ialah agama bagi Persekutuan'. Ini bermakna Persekutuan mempunyai obligasi untuk memberi kesan kepada peruntukkan dalam al-Quran serta Sunnah Rasulullah SAW. Namun, perkara ini tidak boleh dikelirukan dengan bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah seperti yang wujud kini. Dalam perkataan lain, bukan Mahkamah Syariah saja yang bertanggungjawab melaksanakan undang-undang bertepatan dengan prinsip keadilan al-Quran.

Mahkamah Sivil serta forum keadilan lain (contohnya tribunal pengguna)juga Bertanggungjawab dan memang mereka pada amnya sudah dan sedang menjalankan tanggungjawab ini. Setiap hari, Mahkamah Sivil sibuk mendengar dan memutuskan pelbagai pertikaian individu, syarikat dan jenayah. Perkara ini berlaku sejak kita
merdeka dan dalam suasana Mahkamah Syariah masih pada peringkat awal.

Sumbangan serta kepentingan Mahkamah Sivil sebagai satu forum keadilan dalam masyarakat tidak dapat dipertikaikan oleh sesiapa pun. Jika kita mengkaji pelbagai aspek undang-undang yang dihakimi Mahkamah Sivil, kita dapati ia bertepatan atau tidak bercanggah dengan ajaran al-Quran.

Memang ada undang-undang tertentu yang masih lemah, perlu diubah suai atau dibuang. Ini ialah proses pembaikan dan pembaharuan undang-undang yang perlu dipikul Parlimen.
Di samping itu, boleh dikatakan hampir majoriti hakim Mahkamah Sivil ialah mereka yang beriman kepada ajaran Islam, maka adalah merunsingkan bagi hakim ini jika benar Mahkamah Sivil bukan Islamik. Sebagai Muslim, mereka juga wajib beriman kepada surah al-Qalam ayat 36 hingga 38 yang bermaksud:

"Mengapa kamu ini? Bagaimana kamu membuat keputusan? Atau adakah kamu mempunyai sebuah kitab yang kamu mempelajarinya, sesungguhnya di dalamnya kamu dapat memilih apa yang kamu ingini?"

Jelas kita dikehendaki menghakimi atau membuat keputusan menurut prinsip atau panduan ditetapkan Allah SWT. Perkara ini amat penting kerana berkait langsung dengan Keimanan. Seorang yang sengaja tidak mahu menghakimi menurut petunjuk ditetapkan
Allah boleh tergolong dalam kategori kafir atau fasik. Kita boleh mengambil pengajaran daripada Surah al-Maidah ayat 44 yang bermaksud:

"... maka jangan kamu takut kepada manusia dan takutilah Aku dan jangan menjual ayatKu untuk harga yang sedikit. Sesiapa yang tidak menghakimkan menurut apa yang Allah turunkan, maka mereka itulah orang yang kafir."

Begitu juga mereka yang tidak menghakimi menurut perintah yang ditetapkan Allah boleh tergolong dalam fasik (al-Maidah: 47) atau zalim (al-Maidah: 45). Kafir, fasik dan zalim bukan perkara remeh. Tidak guna menjadi hakim yang hebat dan disegani tetapi tidak memperoleh keredaan Allah, apatah lagi keistimewaan di dunia itu hilang selepas bersara. Oleh kerana kesan yang berat ini, kita harus jelas mengenai kedudukan
Mahkamah Sivil terutama kerana ramai hakimnya Muslim. Persoalan sama ada Mahkamah Sivil menegakkan keadilan adalah isu pokok yang harus difikirkan kerana Allah berfirman bahawa menegakkan keadilan bererti mendekati sifat takwa:

"Hai orang yang beriman, hendaklah kamu jadi orang yang menegakkan
(kebenaran) kerana Allah, menjadi saksi yang adil. Janganlah kebencian kamu kepada sesuatu kaum mendorong kamu untuk berlaku tidak adil, Berlaku adillah kerana adil itu lebih dekat kepada takwa dan bertakwalah kepada Allah; sesungguhnya Allah mengetahui apa yang kamu kerjakan".

Sejak merdeka, Mahkamah Sivil mengendalikan pelbagai kes dengan sejujur dan seamanah mungkin. Mahkamah ini sudah memberi makna kepada pelbagai akta diluluskan Parlimen yang memberi kesan terhadap pelbagai lapisan rakyat.

Memang ada kelemahan dalam proses sistem keadilan itu seperti kelengahan. Perkara ini diakui Ketua Hakim Negara, Datuk Ahmad Fairuz. Oleh itu, apabila beliau mengambil alih jawatan berkenaan, antara arahan utama beliau ialah mempercepatkan proses Keadilan.Kebanyakan peguam mengakui usaha beliau itu bukan saja berjaya, malah berkesan mengurangkan penderitaan mereka yang menunggu keadilan.

Adilkah jika Ketua Hakim Negara dianggap sebagai 'ketua sistem sekular' dengan konotasinya yang kurang sedap? Ketua Hakim Negara termasuk hakim lain ialah contoh manusia yang usaha bertakwa semampu mereka, sepatutnya.

Kita harus memulakan reformasi undang-undang secara menyeluruh (sivil dan syariah) untuk mengemaskinikan peruntukkan undang-undang yang bercanggah dengan keadilan.
Cara penyelesaiannya bukan dengan mengimport dari Timur Tengah atau 'negara Islam' yang diistilahkan syariah. Bukan semua yang dinamakan syariah bertepatan dengan al-Quran dan Sunnah seperti bukan semua yang diistilahkan 'sivil' itu bercanggah.

Sebagai contoh, Kanun Keseksaan Syariah Nigeria ditiru bulat-bulat daripada Kanun Keseksaan Malaysia dengan beberapa pindaan. Begitu juga undang-undang hudud di Terengganu, ditiru daripada undang-undang gubalan Pakistan.

Semua sumber itu perlu dibandingkan dengan al-Quran iaitu sumber yang diakui pertama oleh semua fuqaha. Banyak contoh forum keadilan yang tidak tergolong dalam sistem Mahkamah Syariah boleh diberikan - Mahkamah Perindustrian, tribunal perumahan,
pengguna, Mahkamah Buruh dan sebagainya.

Semua forum ini adalah forum untuk menuntut keadilan dan pada amnya mereka menjalankan kerja dengan penuh amanah serta mentadbir keadilan. Mereka berada di bawah satu payung sistem keadilan. Adalah tidak tepat dan mengelirukan untuk menamakan forum ini sebagai sekular atau tidak Islamik. Masalah besar umat Muslim kini ialah perangkap istilah, kulit dan bahasa yang hampir membutakan kita terhadap
inti pati sesuatu perkara atau keadaan - budaya terpesona dengan kulit daripada menghayati isi.

Sejak merdeka sehingga kini, tidak ada seorang pun mufti negeri yang mengeluarkan fatwa bahawa Mahkamah Sivil tidak bersesuaian dengan Islam atau sistem kafir. Ini tentu bermakna mereka juga mengakui Mahkamah Sivil mempunyai unsur Islam seperti Mahkamah Syariah.

Jika ini keadaannya, mengapa diwujudkan dua sistem keadilan sedangkan kedua-duanya Islamik? Pada masa sama, pengekalan dua sistem kehakiman yang berasingan juga mengelirukan mereka yang jahil berkaitan Islam.

Islam adalah cara hidup yang menyeluruh (syumul) dan merangkumi segala aspek kehidupan. Jika kita terima sistem kehakiman sivil adalah Islamik, maka usaha harus dilakukan untuk mencantumkan kedua-dua sistem sivil dan syariah supaya wujud sistem keadilan Malaysia.

Sistem sivil dibahagikan kepada beberapa bahagian seperti sivil, dagang dan keluarga. Melalui cara sama, kita boleh wujudkan beberapa bahagian bagi undang-undang khusus membabitkan perundangan Islam seperti undang-undang keluarga di bawah satu payung - iaitu sistem keadilan Malaysia.

Memang diakui usaha ke arah itu tidak mudah kerana pelbagai perkara perlu diteliti dan diambil kira. Namun, jika usaha ini memanfaatkan pentadbiran keadilan serta memperbetulkan kekeliruan terhadap Islam, kita harus lakukannya dengan mengetepikan sebarang agenda peribadi serta prejudis.

Kita mempunyai seorang Yang di-Pertuan Agong, seorang Perdana Menteri dan satu negara Malaysia. Amat bertepatan kita mempunyai hanya satu sistem keadilan iaitu sistem keadilan Malaysia yang menepati kehendak al-Quran dan Sunnah.

TAMAT

MENJAGA AKIDAH

Menurut fahaman agama Yahudi, “akedah” merujuk kepada peristiwa dalam Bible (Genesis 22: 1-19) dimana Nabi Ibrahim mengikat atau “binds” anaknya Issac sebelum hendak mengorbannya tetapi pengorbanan ini dihentikan oleh malaikat. Dalam pemikiran tradisi Yahudi, akedah juga digunakan sebagai asas kepercayaan yang kuat dimana penganut sanggup mengorbankan nyawa untuk agama (Kiddush Ha-Shem). Perbincangan konsep akedah ini dikalangan sarjana Yahudi menimbulkan perbincangan mengenai kepercayaan buta tuli berbanding pemilihan moral.

Perkataan “akidah”, seperti yang digunakan dalam negara kita, dari sudut istilah ialah kepercayaan yang pasti dan keputusan yang muktamat yang tidak bercampur dengan syak wasangka. Dalam konteks ahhul sunnah wal jamaah, ianya difahamkan sebagai kerpercayaan serta keakuran kepada ajaran-ajaran yang terkandung didalam Al-Quran, Sunnah., ijmak, dan qias (“empat sumber usul al-fiqh”). Ijmak dan qias yang dimaksudkan ialah ijmak dan qias ulama-ulama sunnah wal jamaah yang diiktiraf.

Sesuatu perbuatan atau perlakuan yang bercanggah dengan ajaran daripada empat sumber tadi boleh dianggap sebagai mencabar akidah, terutama sekiranya ia boleh menjejaskan kepercayaan. Sebagai contoh, mengatakan bahawa Tuhan tidak wujud kerana ini dianggap boleh menjejaskan akidah bahawa Tuhan itu wujud.

Dalam Negara kita, terdapat usaha-usaha serius yang diambil oleh pihak berkuasa agama untuk menjaga akidah orang Islam supaya tidak terpesong atau lari daripada fahaman ahhul sunnah wal-jamaah. Fahaman-fahaman daripada shiah, ahmadiyyah dan selainnya yang juga mendakwa sebagai bersumberkan Al-Quran dan Sunnah dianggap sebagai terkeluar daripada “akidah Islam”.

Siapa kah yang menentukan samada sesuatu perkara atau perbuatan itu menjejas akidah? Seperti mana yang masyarakat semakin sedar, salah satu badan yang membuat keputusan sedemikian ialah Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan dibawah Jabatan Perdana Menteri yang boleh mengeluarkan fatwa-fatwa. Begitu juga dengan Mufti-mufti Negeri yang boleh mengeluarkan suatu fatwa. Apabila suatu fatwa itu digazet mengikut perundangan, ia nya menjadi sebahagian daripada undang-undang syariah yang mana pelanggaran nya boleh mengakibatkan seseorang itu dihukum dengan denda atau penjara. Namun, bukan semua fatwa digazet.

Daripada perbincangan diatas, jelas bahawa selain daripada “undang-undang sivil”, rakyat beragama Islam juga tertakluk kepada undang-undang syariah serta diperlukan untuk mematuhi fatwa-fatwa yang dikeluarkan. Ini bermakna selain daripada undang-undang sivil terdapat pelbagai undang-undang yang mengikat and mengatur kehidupan seorang Muslim berbanding dengan yang bukan Muslim. Majoriti Muslim di dalam Negara kita ialah Melayu. Ini bermakna bangsa Melayu mempunyai lebih banyak undang-undang yang mengikatnya berbanding bukan Melayu.


Undang-undang sivil di luluskan oleh Parlimen setelah didebat . Rakyat berpeluang untuk mengambil bahagian didalam meluluskan suatu Akta melalui wakil rakyat mereka. Suatu rang undang-undang di maklumkan kepada rakyat supaa tidank balas daripada pelbagai lapisan rakyat boleh diperolehi. Kadang-kala kita tahu bahawa ada beberapa rang undang-undang dipinda atau ditarik balik apabila ada bantahan besar daripada rakyat. Bagaimana dengan undang-undang syariah yang diluluskan serta fatwa-fatwa yang dikeluarkan?

Ada kah anda tahu bagaimana ia nya dikeluarkan dan sama ada anda mempunyai peranan didalam penggubalan nya? Saya percaya persoalan ini penting kerana fatwa-fatwa dikeluarkan diatas nama “agama” maka ia nya dikeluarkan diatas nama Allah. Sebagai seorang Muslim tentu sekali anda mempunyai tanggungjawap untuk menilai fatwa yang dikeluarkan? Perkara ini jelas daripada surah Al-Israa ayat 36 dimana Allah berfirman, yang maksud nya:

“Dan janganlah kamu turut apa yang kamu tidak ada ilmu padanya. Sesungguhnya pendengaran, penglihatan dan hati, semuanya akan ditanya”.

Ayat diatas saya anggap sebagai membuahkan sikap yang membolehkan seseorang itu mengawal dan menjaga kepercayaan nya sendiri. Tanpa usul periksa atau sikap percaya buta tuli boleh memesongkan kita daripada jalan yang benar. Sebagai contoh, kaum ahlul sunnah wal jamaah menolak fahaman kaum shiah. Bagaimana mungkin seorang sunnah wal jamaah dapat menilai suatu perkara kalau ia tidak, antara lain, menyelidk samada ulama yang bercakap itu shiah atau sunnah wal jamaah?

Tidak harus juga kah Muslim yang takut kepada Allah menilai bagi diri nya suatu pandangan yang dikeluarkan oleh mana-mana ulama agama dengan merujuk kepada Al-Quran dan sunnah? Kita memang akur, undang-undang boleh digubal bagi memaksa seorang rakyat mematuhi sesuatu fatwa atau pandangan sesuatu majlis atau kumpulan. Ini kita akur. Persoalan yang ditimbulkan ialah berkaitan dengan amaran jelas yang diberikan oleh Allah didalam surah Al An’aam ayat 94 yang bermaksud:

“Dan demi sesungguhnya, kamu tetap datang kepada Kami dengan bersendirian, sebagaimana Kami jadikan kamu pada mulanya; dan kamu tinggalkan di belakang kamu apa yang telah Kami kurniakan kepada kamu; dan Kami tidak melihat beserta kamu penolong-penolong kamu yang kamu anggap bahawa mereka ialah sekutu Allah di kalangan kamu. Sesungguhnya, telah putuslah perhubungan antara kamu (dengan mereka), dan hilang lenyaplah daripada kamu apa yang dahulu kamu anggap dan sifatkan (memberi manfaat)”

Maka jelas bahawa ayat diatas meletakkan tangungjawap diri keatas diri sendiri. Kita tidak boleh berdolak dalih dengan Pencipta bahawa kita mengikuti pandangan pakar atau kumpulan “yang lebih mengetahui” jika apa yang diikuti itu tidak seiras dengan ajaran Islam.

Saya dapati bahawa sejak 20 tahun kebelakangan ini selari dengan lebih banyak graduan daripada pusat pengajian Islam yang keluar, lebih banyak langkah diambil bagi “menjaga akidah” orang Melayu.

Memang kita perlu pandangan kumpulan yang berpendidikan, namun ada kah bermakna bahawa segala pemikiran yang dicetuskan oleh graduan universiti semesti nya sesuatu yang lahir daripada proses pemikiran yang bersih dan tepat?

Persoalan keduanya ialah adakah pendikikan Islam kita gagal sehingga Melayu sentiasa memerlukan perundangan dalam semua hal untuk membantu mereka tidak sesat? Kita lihat yang bukan Melayu yang bukan Islam masih menganuti agama mereka tanpa sebarang faktor undang-undang untuk memastikan “akidah” mereka tidak terpesong. Niat saya disini bukan lah untuk meremehkan fatwa atau pandangan pemikir yang jitu. Memang ada perkara-perkara kompleks yang memerlukan kajian dan pemekiran yang mendalam bagi membantu umat. Sebagai contoh didalam mengenal pasti bahan-bahan kimia yang mungkin tercampur benda-benda haram.

Namun, adakah kita mahu memperbudakkan diri kita dalam semua hal? Kita tidak ada kata putus didalam kehidupan sendiri berdasarkan usaha pemahaman Al-Quran?

The Delusions of Collective Consensus.

There are just too many things in our mind that are delusional, that even before we start to think, we have to “clean our mind out first”. Just too many things. Lets try to consider one today - the idea of consensus.

I feel that today, “consensus” is one of those words that have received unchecked respect. Probably because it has served well some groups over the years for some ‘practical purposes’, it has come on to ten top ten list of “values to market”. What is consensus anyway?

We understand consensus to mean agreement. But please go further. It means an agreement among the members of a group or community where some of them retain the discretion in decision-making and follow-up action. So, consensus does not just mean agreement. It includes a follow-up action to ensure that the agreement is not breached.

AT the outset itself please understand that consensus has nothing to do with logic or rationality or common sense though sometimes they may coincide. From example, we may form a chatting club called “Nut crackers” and reach a consensus that only males aged between 35 and 50 from Penang can become members. We also reach a consensus that each member will greet the other with the gibberish “Ajija!”. If anyone ask us why, we just reply because we are Nut cracker members. Consensus requires no rational reason.

Consensus must be artificially created otherwise the desired conduct will not exist. Example, members must agree to call each other Ajija!” otherwise that conduct will not exist. On the other hand, we do not need to reach a consensus that the Sun is hot or that the gravity exists. Our consensus or lack thereof does not affect the conduct of the sun and gravity. Knowledge and not consensus that makes us aware of the truth.

What are delusions? It is a word that incorporates “deception”, “fancifulness” and “false”. If something is delusional, we mean it is false and deceptive. A delusional person thinks something is true when actually he has been deceived into thinking so. It is false. In simple language, we become delusional when we are misled into thinking that false is true. In psychiatry, the definition is necessarily more precise and implies that the belief is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process)

With this, let’s consider some thoughts.

Truth does not require consensus for it to be true. Those who deny the truth are either fools or ignorant. I think it is easy to understand so far because I have used easy examples. Let us try something more “complex”.

Let us consider another kind of truth – killing terminates life. It is a truism and you do not need a consensus to verify it. If you do not want to terminate a life, you do not kill. If you kill a human being, that means you want to terminate his life. If you kill an animal, you want to kill its life. These are logical conclusions that follow.

Now you go to war. You kill human beings. If we say you do that because you want to terminate the lives of those whom you kill, you will most probably object and say: “That is not the objective”. Or worse, you may say: “That is the consequence of war or collateral damage” or you may say “they are enemies”. These justifications that meander from the truth are a result of consensus. You have reached a consensus that those whom you kill are not human beings but enemies. Consensus has made us become delusional.

Now you go deer hunting or boar hunting. You kill animals. You do so because you reach a consensus that you are hunting and not killing. The agreed concept of “sports” becomes dominant in your mind and the death of the animals disappears from your consciousness. Consensus has made us become delusional.

There are resources in the world and there are living species that require sufficient amounts of these resources to live. No clean water, we die. Food, clothing, shelter, health are essential for human survival. The opposite of survival is extinction or death. This is the truth. If we deny or allow the denial of these resources to fellow human beings, we allow their extinction or their death. This is true.

But consensus comes in the way of this truth. Consensus makes us delusional.

By consensus, we agree that the theory of “survival of the fittest” shall apply. We agree that persons can own property and once owned the owners can do what they like with it. We also agree that resources can be owned by those who have the means to own them. We agree that “human wants are unlimited and the means to satisfy these wants are limited”. Our delusional mind has equalized the concept of “wants” with “greed” without realizing it.

Hence, you have persons owning a 1000 sq feet bathroom while many others sleep in the open air. Hence you have persons who have food stock up for the next 20 lifetimes while some others cannot find food for 20 days. But we have reached a consensus that it is okay. We even have agreed terms for it “hard core poverty”, “third world countries”, “income differentials”, etc. Once ‘termed’, it becomes an “issue”, no longer real. Once ‘termed’, we become delusional and hence indifferent to the deprivation suffered by other species, including human beings.

Truth does not require a majority vote for it to be a truth. It simply exists. You deny it at your own peril. Falsity requires a majority vote because without consensus, it will not come into being. This is what the Quran says:

“If you obey the majority of those on this earth, they will lead you far from the Way of Allah. They follow nothing but their imaginations and they do nothing but lie” (surah 6 verse 116).


I have always been wary of collective consensus because I have discovered that it is often untrue. A few persons will collectively agree and decree that is the “accepted value or mode of thinking” to be adopted and large sections of the society unthinkingly adhere to this consensus. Due to the fact that most of these consensuses are false, they only increase further the problems experienced by human beings and the world.

Collective consensus, in my humble view leads to mass delusional behavior. It is like a disease which only gets worse and worse because it is left untreated. This is what the Quran says:

“In their hearts there is a disease and this disease does Allah increase in them, and for them is a painful tormenting because they are false (to themselves). And when it is said to them: ‘Do not do evil on earth’, they say ‘We are but the reformers’. Of a surety they are the ones who do evil, but they realize it not” (surah 2 verses 10 to 12)

So, look out for collectives consensuses masquerading as the truth.

What is "faith and belief"?

It appears that central to religion is a “faith” or “belief”. What is faith or belief? We are asked to believe in ourselves, for example, by motivators. They argue that such a belief will bring forth positive behaviour and therefore positive results will ensue. “A positive mind is one that believes”. If you still keep having negative behaviour, it is then argued that you have not believed enough.

This line of thinking positions “belief” as infallible and the starting point. You believe and the cosmos will fall into place. It has nothing to do with how the natural laws relating to the cosmos works or whether you have any rational basis for the belief.

We have heard the argument that religion is not in the realm of reason or rationality. Is this so? If it is so, does it not contradict much of the way we live where we are constantly reasoning out things – even reasoning as ‘trivial’ as how to tie the shoe lace?

Is religion incompatible with reason? Or is there a “middle ground”? How central is the “middle ground”? Sometimes, what is stated to be the middle ground appears to be either too far left or too far right.

Must you believe first, think later? Or does your thinking lead to a belief? What happens if your thinking makes you uncomfortable with your belief?

Which do you abandon when there is a conflict – your thinking or your belief? We know that both faith and reason have their respective roles.

If I tell you that I can make iron float in mid air under normal conditions. You will not believe me. You know that the law of physics and gravity will make it impossible. You know however, that you can make iron float in mid air by being consistent with the law of physics and gravity –airplanes.

In these circumstances, your belief is the product of reason and logic. Your starting point is reason and logic based on available knowledge. You abandon belief in favour of logic when there is a conflict.

How does it work in religion?

In fact, how many who profess to have a religion has actually undertaken a systematic study of their own religion? Or is that unnecessary?

And if I may ask one more question: Is religion necessary to understand God?

Note: no conclusion has been made in this article. Just questions.