Featured post

Are 90% of Malays Extremist?

It is indeed funny to see how the star lined up a band of people whom it called the voices of moderation.

Well I don’t care about the non-Muslim (not Malay) in the line up because it is none of my business to interfere with how they want to define the term moderation, but it is kind of appalling to see the Malays in the list. They are

  • Marina Mahathir
  • Zaid Ibrahim
  • Razali Ismail (chairman of Global Movement of Moderates)
  • Zainah Anwar (Sisters in Islam co-founder)
  • Karim Raslan
  • Azmi Sharom
  • Anas Zubedy
  • Wan Saiful Wan Jan
  • Sharyn Shufiyan (Tunku Abdul Rahman’s great granddaughter)

I want to clarify that I have nothing against them personally. What I am against is the people who put them in the list and claimed that they are the voices of moderation that represent the Muslims whereas many Muslims (including me) and Malays are against their thinking and ideology. What more when some of them are well known for carrying ideology that is against the main stream understanding of Islam. Take for example the ladies in the list, whom none is wearing tudung. Zainah Anwar is also known to claimed that covering one’s hair is unnecessary in Islam, whereas the mainstream Muslim understanding all over the world is that it is compulsory. So how can the person ever claimed that Zainah Anwar is the voices of moderation for the Muslim while clearly she is the minority. If Zainah Anwar represents the voices of moderation for the Muslim, does that mean 90% (or probably 99%) of Malaysian Muslim women who believe hair as aurat which needs to be covered in public are the extremist? This is indeed insulting.

I am not sure if the person who put up the list is a Muslim or not, but for me, as a Muslim, it is a blatant misused (and wrongly used) of the term moderation for the Muslim. Firstly, the term moderation is a very misunderstood terminology. Secondly, for the Muslim, the term moderate is a religious definition where there are hadiths from the prophet S.A.W. that explains about the meaning of moderation. Therefore, to put these Malays (Muslims) as role model of moderation is an insult to the Muslim especially when some of them is known to have ideology and understanding of Islam that is against the understanding and practice of the mainstream Muslim.

It is Tolerate, not Moderate

When I dropped the word Moderate into Google, this is what I got

moderate

Moderate, by its adjective definition is the average in amount, intensity, quality, or degree. You cannot have an average if you only have one extreme. For example, what is the average of 10? No one can tell you. But if  you ask what is the average between 1 to 10, then the answer is 5. So we can say that 1 is the extreme to the left and 10 is the extreme to the right. So 5 is the moderate value which is in between the two intensities!

extreams

The misconception comes in the noun definition. It says that moderate is a person who holds moderate views, especially in politics. Now the problem is that views in politics are subjective. What someone view as moderate may not be viewed as moderate by others. For example, to the non-Muslim, a Muslim who is not wearing tudung is a moderate Muslim. To the many Muslims, she is not a good Muslim. To the non-Muslim, a person who drink only in social occasion is a moderate drinker. To the Muslim, if a Muslim drink at any occasion, he is a sinner. People like Marina, Zainah and Zaid Ibrahim may think that they are the moderate, but to the many they are the liberals and to some they are the deviants.

The more correct definition that fits them is Tolerate. These people are not moderate, they are just more tolerable, for example, some are more tolerable to western lifestyle where they don’t mind to wear bikini or drinking in a party with alcohol. So does in political view. Some are more tolerable to opposing views.

There is no point arguing who is indeed the moderate. We can never agree to such a subjective matter. What is unbecoming is for the Star to put up these people and claimed that they are the voices of moderation among the Muslim. it is like the Star trying to shovel the definition Moderation into the throats of Muslim. Who is the Star to tell the world that those people represent the moderate voices of Muslim in Malaysia? That is why I say it is insulting.

A Religious Definition

Islam has clear definition moderation. It is in the Quran and there are numerous hadiths from the Prophet s.a.w. about moderation.

In the Quran, Allah S.W.T. says

“We made you to be a community of the middle way, so that (with the example of your lives) you might bear witness to the truth before all mankind.” (Qur’an, 2:143) 

In one of the hadith,

‘Abdullah ibn Masood (Allah be pleased with him) reported that once Allah’s Messenger (Peace be upon him) drew a line in the dust with his hand and said, “This is the straight path of Allah.” Then he drew a series of lines to the right of it and to the left and said, “Each of these paths has a devil at its head inviting people to it.” He then recited (Qur’an 6:153), “Verily this is my straight path so follow it and do not follow the (twisted) paths.” (Collected by Ahmad, Nisai and Darimi; see Mishkat ul-Masabih, 1/166)

If you look back at the adjective definition, you will understand better the concept of moderation in Islam. In every moderation, there is always an extreme left and extreme right. So the moderate is the middle path in between the extremes. Picture speaks a thousand word. By looking at the picture below, you should understand better. This is off course according to Ahlul Sunnah definition.

moderate2

What it clearly tells you is that Zainah, Marina, and the other ladies in the list are not the moderate according to the Muslim standard. They are indeed the extremists, the liberals!

I will list few more examples of moderation in Islam

Extreme Left Moderate Extreme Right
Marriage
Priesthood, complete refrain from marriage Marriage up to 4 wives (in this respect, Sister in Islam by Zainah Anwar is against polygamy, so she is not the moderate) More than 4 and unlimited number of concubines
Relationship with Non-Muslim
Extreme enimity against non-Muslim irrespective of whether they have peace agreement with the Muslim or not. Treat and deal with those who have peace agreement with Muslim with kindness, honor, respect. Befriend those who are an obvious enemy to Muslim who are known of ploting to destroy Islam and the Muslim
Ibadah
Monastery life, i.e. spend whole life doing nothing except in prayer and worship Balance between worldly life and time spend in prayer and worship of God Only focus on world life and ignore worshipping of God
Charity
People who give everything and left nothing for themselves Give some part of their wealth for charity and keep the remaining for own use Do not give charity or alms at all

So it is not difficult to understand moderation in Islam. It is something very clear cut and obvious. There is a law in Islam. Some will take it extremely lightly and some will take it rigidly. The moderate is the one who take the middle path.

Trying to tell Muslim how to practice Islam

This is the alter ego and ignorance of many of the non-Muslim today. What exhibits by the Star is the result of this alter ego. They believe these few figures are the “moderates” so they put them as the moderate voices of Malaysia without an iota to think if the mainstream Muslim actually agree with them. Arrogance is one thing, but such ignorance is unacceptable. Even for those non-Muslims, do you think they really represent the voices of moderate among the non-Muslims? Don’t they know that Zainah is one of the most loathe personality among the mainstream Muslim community in Malaysia. How can you ever shovel such person into throats of Muslim forcing them to accept her as role model. This is an utter demonstration of low class journalism.

You are also welcome to read

The Problem with Moderate Movements in Malaysia

Malicious Posting from LKS

How malicious can LKS posting be.

Facing corruption scandal, Malaysian PM fires officials investigating him

Well, since when the 5 person dropped have been investigating him? If Muhiddin was to be drop, it would be because he claimed he was clueless of 1MDB, despite holding the next top position to Najib. Obviously not because he is investigating Najib.

 

 

Moderate Definition : A note from the Clueless to the Clueless

Finally the so call moderate has come out to define the term moderate. But unfortunately she got everything wrong. There are plenty of other words that better describe the characteristics she listed but simply throwing the word moderate to ascribe to anything that she regards as positive is a sign of the desperation and ignorance probably.

Marina said “For one thing, a true moderate respects another person’s point of view even when those views are patently abhorrent. For a moderate, freedom of speech and expression is a very important value.”

The right word is tolerate and patient. On the contrary, what she said is not a moderate, but a rather a trait of an extremely tolerant person. Would you respect another person’s point of view if his point of view is that your mother is a w**** and you are a son of a b******? What about opinion based on lies, spin or wild allegation such as your family earns a living through illegal means or you sell your family as prostitute to enjoy luxurious living? Or just because you are a royalty, you must be stealing from the people? Or just because you are a Malay you must be lazy? Or worse, just because someone hold top position in a country he must be corrupt?

Marina said: “Secondly, the non-moderate believes that there needs to be a law for everything.”

Tell us in what way we have law for everything? The actual problem with people like Marina is that when the law is not on her side, she blames the people who supported the law as being intolerant (or non-moderate per se). If she does not believe that some acts should be criminalized, fine. But there are other people who believe that they should. We are not here to discuss whose opinion is right or wrong, but if she goes around preaching that moderate should tolerate and respect others point of view, she should start by respecting the opinion of others whose views differ from hers.

Marina said: Moderates tend to speak in a careful way. Every word is considered well before spoken or written and tends not to be overblown or exaggerated because that would be immodest and therefore immoderate.

I can find many words to describe that, but none has the synonym to moderate. There are words like courteous, cultured, civilized, wise, erudite, sensible, clever, astute and many more, but I just can’t find any one of them has synonym to moderate.

Marina said: It might be fair to say that maturity is also a hallmark of the moderate person. The moderate person knows that you don’t need to comment about every single thing just because you cannot be an expert in everything. You especially cannot spend all your time making police reports about everything other people say and do, not least because this may give the impression that you have plenty of time on your hands and have no need to earn a living like other people.

So, are you saying that those who made police report against Ismail Sabri and ISMA are extremist. How about Lim Guan Eng and Lim Kit Siang who sue those who disagree with him? What you and your like who always comment on religious issues as though you are the expert? Are you the expert in religion or are you expert in everything? What about those non-Muslim who commented about Muslims’ religious affairs? Are they the expert or are they having plenty of time and no need to earn a living like other people? So Marina, why don’t you go and advise them and tell them to be your so call moderate or least to tell them not to waste tax payers’ money?

All I can say is Marina is simply a clueless woman. She called others to be moderate without realizing that she is the one who possesses all the characteristics of what she defined to be not moderate. Moderate is just her misused term to drawn people into subscribing to her views and also to deny others from having the views of their own. Well, we all want people to subscribe to our view. But then it is uncalled to brand others as not moderate simply because their views differ than ours. Isn’t branding others who disagree with us as an act of extremist? Moderate is also a misused term for her to deny the laws which she deemed unfit according to her view. It is also an excuse for her to allow her band of “extremist” the freedom to carry out their act of insulting the culture and religious values that she deemed unimportant but is dear to other. So Marina, you are just a clueless person who tries to educate clueless people. The more you write, the more we can see how desperate you are trying to make yourself look righteous.

Lastly, as a “moderate” person, I hope you can “tolerate” my view.

For the definition of moderate, you can read my previous posting. As I claim I am moderate as well, I will not force you to subscribe to my view. But let see who is more sensible.

Dr. Farouk, who are you trying to fool

I read with full astonishment on how the self appointed academic and Muslim thinker Dr Farouk Musa of Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF) trying to fool a bunch of audience who are probably clueless about the subject of his discussion. Dr. Farouk Musa in the forum claimed that that Muslim extremism is the result of reading problematic Quran translation, citing the translation by Dr. Muhsin Khan & Dr. Taqi-ud-Din Hilali as example. Below is the excerpt of what reported in Malaysian Insider:

Farouk said the Hilali-Khan translation was now one of the most widely available, in mosques, schools and English translations were given to haj pilgrims in Mecca.

A key feature of the Hilali-Khan translation is that it inserts many parentheses in the middle of the verses. These parentheses contain the author’s interpretations of what a particular word or phrase might mean.

“Instead of clarifying the text or explaining a word that cannot be easily explained in English, these comments make the text difficult to follow and often distort, rather than amplify the meaning,” said Farouk, who is also founder and director of the IRF.

An example, said Farouk, was the opening surah or chapter called Al-Fatihah, the most widely recited in individual prayers and public ceremonies.

The last verse of the Al Fatihah, a translation by Sahih International reads:

“Guide us to the straight path, The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favour, not of those who have evoked (Your) anger or of those who are astray.”

But the Hilali-Khan translation inserts these words:

“Guide us to the straight path, The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favour, not of those who have evoked (Your) anger (the Jews) or of those who are astray (the Christians).”

“This basically gives the impression that the Quran denounces Jews and Christians. Obviously, this is a great untruth.”

The danger was that Muslims read the interpretations in the Hilali-Khan translation and thought these words were part of the Quran itself, said Farouk.

The Hilali-Khan translation, Farouk said, was being distributed by Saudi religious authorities with money from its oil-rich government.

“I believe that propaganda such as the Hilali-Khan translation and other materials coming out of Saudi Arabia are one of the major root causes that feed extremist ideas among Muslims, violence against Christians and other minorities,” said Farouk.

Let us dissect his arguments.

Dr. Farouk claim that the injected words between parentheses are the author’s interpretation of what a particular word might mean. This is a blatant simplistic accusation. He could get away with it probably because he was talking to an audience who are clueless about the subject of Quran translation and interpretation. How many of his audience have ever heard of that name Hilali-Khan? How many of them actually know the method in interpreting the Quran? What make the matter worse is that these clueless people are made to believe that prominent Quran translation is full of injection by author’s opinion.

Let us look at the example given. He claimed that the word Jew and Christian are added in parentheses as the author’s opinion to give the impression that Quran denounces Jews and Christians. Now the question is who are those who evoked (God) anger and who are those that are astray? Probably supporters of PR will say it is BN and supporters of BN will say it is PR.

But if we care to dig in to the full interpretation of the verse, one will find that there are many supporting text from the Quran as well as the hadith of the prophet S.A.W. that explain the group that evoked anger and the astray.

In the verse Al-Maidah 60
Say, “Shall I inform you of [what is] worse than that as penalty from Allah ? [It is that of] those whom Allah has cursed and with whom He became angry and made of them apes and pigs and slaves of Taghut. Those are worse in position and further astray from the sound way.”

It is obvious for those who know about the Quran that this verse is targeted to the Jew because the incident is an event that happened among the Jew. So we are more clear about who are the people that evoked God’s anger.

In the verse Al-Maidah 77
Say, “O People of the Scripture, do not exceed limits in your religion beyond the truth and do not follow the inclinations of a people who had gone astray before and misled many and have strayed from the soundness of the way.”

If we follow the verses before and after Al-Maidah 77, it is obvious that the topic is related to the Christians. So we are more clear about who are the astray.

Then there are numerous hadith from the prophet S.A.W. that explain these group of people.

When the prophet S.A.W. was asked: Who are those who evoked Allah’s anger? The prophet S.A.W. answered the Jew. When he was asked: Who are those who has gone astray? The prophet S.A.W. said the Nasara (Christian). (Tafsir Ibnu Kathir Volume I / 32 )

Verily the Jews are those angered and Nasara are the people who have gone astray
[From At-Tirmidzi in his Sunan no: 4029]

So, in conclusion, Jews and Christians are not mere opinion of the translator, but they are the amplification (as what he rightly mentioned) of the meaning based on more comprehensive interpretation from authentic text. Either our Dr. Farouk is ignorant about it or was he trying to subjugate (or rather fooling) the audience by providing misleading fact?

I am also astonished by his claim (or rather accusation) that the translation like Hilal-Khan is the major root cause for ideas among Muslims, violence against Christians and other minorities. Was he so desperate to sound academic? First, he has to show us an instance in  modern time that Muslim commit violence against Christians and other minorities. What we know is the opposite which I do not have to elaborate further. Saudi Arabia, as he repeatedly accused hosted millions of non-Muslim expat from all around the world, who are enjoying every inch of the security, protection and prosperity of the country. Where is all the violent as he tried to accuse? Well he might cite IS as example, but since when IS is a government and has a minority of non-Muslim for them to commit violent? Probably I think he would suggest BN-UMNO to give us a good laugh.

My last advice to Dr. Farouk, please pick your audience. You are a neurosurgeon. Don’t go to a bunch of liberal art students to talk about your neurosurgery procedures. The are clueless and will not be able to tell what you said is right or wrong. Be a man. Speak to the right audience, not a bunch of clueless people to make you sound intelligent among them.

Menarik! Harakah Seperti Sengaja Mahu Menyerang Haji Hadi

Terbaca berita ini

Kawasan Presiden PAS antara terjejas banjir

post

Kenapa nama Haji Hadi sengaja diletakan dalam tajuk? Apakah ada niat untuk memalukan Haji Hadi.

Malang sungguh bila sebuah portal berita yang menjadi lidah rasmi sebuah parti politik yang berjenama Islam menggunakan tektik yang begitu jahat untuk menjatuhkan presidennya sendiri.

Persoalannya ialah siapa dibelakang artikel tersebut?

 

 

Ulasan terhadap Ulasan Khalid Samad tentang Muktamar PAS Ke-60

Apabila membaca ulasan YB Khalid Samad Muktamar Pas ke 60, saya tak tau sama ada nak menangis ataupun ketawa. Nak menangis kerana sekali baca bunyinya seperti tulisan orang yang sangat beriman dengan ilmu yang sangat tawaduk. Nak ketawa pula kerana bila saya memikirkan realiti tindak tanduk golongan yang didokongi beliau membuatkan saya rasa amat hairan, benarkah apa yang dikatakan beliau? Adakah beliau faham apa yang diucapkan dan adakah beliau benar-benar memaksudkan apa yang beliau ucapkan.

Sebelum kita pergi jauh, kita senaraikan dulu ayat-ayat Al-Quran yang digunakan Yb Khalid Samad dan simpulkan point-point penting dalam artikel beliau.

“Sesungguhnya orang yang beriman itu adalah bersaudara. Maka perbaikilah di antara sesama saudara kamu dan bertaqwalah kepada Allah semoga kamu menjadi golongan yang mendapat rahmat”. (Al-Hujurat 10)

“Wahai orang-orang yang beriman, jauhilah kamu dari kebanyakkan dari Dzan (syak wa sangakn). Sesungguhnya sebahagian dari Dzan itu adalah dosa. Dan jangan kamu mengintip satu sama lain dan jangan kamu memburuk-burukkan satu sama lain. Adakah kamu ingin memakan daging saudara kamu yang telah mati?” (Al-Hujurat 12)

“Wahai orang-orang yang beriman, jangan satu kumpulan merendah-rendahkan satu kumpulan lain, mungkin mereka (yang ditertawakan) adalah lebih baik dari mereka (yang mentertawakan). Dan jangan sekumpulan wanita mengelakkan sekumpulan wanita yang lain, mungkin mereka (yang ditertawakan) adalah lebih baik dari mereka (yang mentertawakan). Dan jangan kamu mencari kesalahan antara kamu dan jangan menggelar satu sama lain dengan gelaran (menghina). Amat buruklah nama-nama menghina setelah beriman. Dan sesiapa yang tidak berhenti (melakukan amalan ini) maka sesungguhnya mereka adalah orang-orang yang zalim..” (Al-Hujurat 11)

Tiga ayat ini (menurut urutan yang digunakan) dijadikan hujah YB Khalid Samad dalam tulisan beliau dan beriku adalah point-point dari hujah beliau.

  1. Orang Islam itu bersaudara.
  2. Perlu menjauhkan diri dari banyak melakukan Dzan (sangkaan buruk).
  3. Larangan label melabel (memberi gelaran) dan menghina satu sama lain dengan label-melabel

Sekarang mari kita kupas satu persatu point-point beliau.

Orang Islam itu Bersaudara

Adakah anda semua mahu menangis atau ketawa bila kita dengar ada orang Pas yang cakap orang Islam itu bersaudara? Siapa yang tidak tahu isu pengkafiran sesama Muslim, tak makan sembelihan, tak kawin anak disebabkan satu itu PAS dan satu itu UMNO. Kita ingin tanya, orang UMNO itu Islam atau tidak? Jika mereka itu Islam, kenapa begitu tebal permusuhan orang PAS terhadap orang UMNO. Adakah mereka mengangap orang UMNO itu saudara mereka? Antara orang DAP dan orang UMNO tu, siapakah sebenarnya saudara orang Islam? Tetapi kenapa pihak tertentu begitu mengutamakan DAP dari orang yang sepatutnya menjadi saudara kita? Adakah kerana tahluf siyasah bererti kita boleh mansuhkan surah Al-Hujurat ayat 10?

Perlu menjauhkan diri dari banyak melakukan Dzan (sangkaan buruk)

Selama ini apakah makanan politik Pas? Bukankah saban hari mereka timbulkan pelbagai isu mengenai pemimpin BN dan UMNO yang Muslim dengan pelbagai tuduhan, dan Dzan yang buruk. Mungkin ada sesetengah isu itu benar, tetapi dalam kebenaran tersebut terselit pelbagai Dzan yang tiada kepastian. Isu seperti Altantuya, cincin 24 juta, kapal selam malah sehingga kepada pihak mereka sendiri seperti Tan Seri Khalid Ibrahim pun tidak terlepas dari politik Dzan, dan penyebaran maklumah yang meragukan serta dipenuhi dengan sangka buruk. Jadi adalah amat lucu bila ada pihak yang mahu menasihat orang lain supaya jangan ada Dzan yang buruk.

Larangan label melabel (memberi gelaran) dan menghina satu sama lain dengan label-melabel

Tiba-tiba kita lihat YB begitu perihatin dengan isu label-melabel. Sebelum kita terusan dengan bab label melabel ni, kita nak terangkan yang kita bukan bersetuju dengan orang yang kata “Label-melabel adalah Sunnah”. Ini tidak lain dan tidak bukan menunjukkan orang yang ditarbiah oleh parti politik ni memang gemar memperalatkan hukum agama untuk menghalalkan tindak tanduknya.

Dalam isu label melabel, terdapat 2 bentuk label.

Pertama, label melabel yang memberikan kesimpulan terhadap suatu persoalan yang panjang penghuraiannya. Misalnya kalau saya tanya, apakah pegangan akidah anda. Kalau tiada label, maka kita kena jawab “pegangan akidah saya ialah saya percaya kepada al-Quran, al-Sunnah yang berdasarkan kefahaman serta pendapat para Sahabat yang bersepakat di atas kebenaran yang nyata dari Kitab Allah dan Sunnah Rasulullah s.a.w.” (ini sekadar contoh). Untuk dimudahkan definisi yang panjang, maka para ulama melabelkan orang yang beriktikad sedemikian sebagai Ahlu Sunnah Wal Jamaah.

Jadi label ini adalah memudahkan kita untuk menjelaskan keserupaan pegangan. Misalnya bila kita kata Anwarinas, maka kita secara automatik faham, mereka ini yang lebih cenderung untuk mempromosikan agenda Anwar Ibrahim dalam PAS. Begitu juga label Liberal bagi memudahkan kita faham fikrah dari mereka yang cenderung untuk mengubahsuai Islam supaya memuaskan kehendak pihak orang bukan Islam supaya Islam versi mereka kelihatan secocok dengan kehendak semasa golongan bukan Islam.

Oleh itu, bayangkan, kalau tiada label, jenuh kita nak terangkan satu-satu aliran sama ada dalam Islam, mahupun dalam jemaah politik. Atas dasar itu juga, kita lihat pebagai label muncul dari dunia Islam seperti murjiah, qadriah, qadiani, khawarij, haraki, syiah, rafidah, jaafariah, anti-hadit, Islam liberal, dll. Apakah semua label ini salah menurut YB Khalid Samad?

Kedua, label dalam bentuk untuk menghina dan memalukan seseorang ataupun satu kelompok. Sejarah politik Malaysia melihat PAS sebagai sebuah parti yang paling kuat bagi label menghina. Siapa yang boleh lupa label Al-Juburi yang diberikan kepada Anwar Ibrahim oleh salah seorang pemimpin ulung PAS yang kini turut sama digelar Anwarinas. Siapa yang paling rajin guna istilah Maha Firaun, Mamak Kutty, Najis, UMNGOK dll label menghina?

Ok, saya tau, orang UMNo pun buat juga. Tapi hello YB, bukankah Pas ni dikatakan Parti Islamik yang memperjuangkan Islam dan patutnya dah lumat ditarbiah dengan ayat dari surah al-Hujurat? Kalau ye pun pemimpin PAS yang bagi gelaran tu tak ditarbiah, tetapi kenapa baru hari in YB sibuk nak keluarkan surah al-Hujurat? Kenapa tidak dikeluarkan masa mereka memberikan gelaran Al-Juburi dulu untuk menasihati pejuang-pejuang Islam bahawa haram memberikan label menghina apatah sesama orang Islam? Kenapa hanya keluar ayat-ayat bila rasa diri sendiri dah kena label? Padahal, label itu boleh jadi dalam kategori labe no 1 untuk memudahkan kita memahami kerangka fikrah mereka.

Kenapa YB? Kenapa? Saya tidak faham, kenapa seperti ada double standard dalam hukum hakam Islam? Kenapa ada orang Islam tertentu yang bebas dihina, dikutuk, dicerca, difitnah, dilabel dengan macam-macam dan dilayan seolah-olah mereka bukan saudara kita, sedangkan tiba-tiba ada pula satu kumpulan orang Islam yang mana kita tidak boleh buat?

Jadi saya rasa sangat keliru bila membaca ulasan YB. Tak tau nak ketawa ataupun menangis.

Kita tidak perlu jadi ulama ataupun political scientist untuk nampak, sesungguhnya YB dan parti YB adalah dari mereka yang cakap tak serupa bikin. Dalam sibuk menuduh orang lain burukkan imej Islam, tindak-tanduk parti YBlah yang sebenarnya memberikan imej yang buruk pada Islam.

Saya memohon maaf sekiranya YB tersinggung.

 

 

Usaha Terdesak Khalid Samad “Menghalalkan” Anwarinas Langgar Hadi

Khalid Samad sebagaimana yang dipetik dari Malaysiakini telah mendakwa

Baiah yang disebut-sebut dibuat oleh anggota PAS sebenarnya dilakukan untuk mengikrarkan taat setia kepada Allah dan Rasul dan bukannya mana-mana pemimpin, kata anggota Jawatankuasa Pusat PAS, Khalid Samad.

Ini adalah usaha terdesak beliau untuk menghalalkan puak-puak Anwarinas melanggar Haji Hadi. Benarkah dakwaan bahawa taat setia hanya kepada Allah dan Rasul dan bukannya mana-mana pemimpin? Inilah contoh kalimah yang hak, digunakan dengan maksud yang bathil.

Pertama, kita menjawab beliau bukan kerana kita ini penyokong PAS, tetapi kita menjawab Khalid Samad kerana terdapat kesalahan yang nyata dalam dakwaan beliau.

Kedua, dimanakah kita nak letak ayat al-quran “Wahai orang-orang yang beriman, taatlah kamu kepada Allah dan taatlah kamu kepada Rasulullah dan kepada “Uli’l-Amri” (orang-orang yang berkuasa) dari kalangan kamu” [4:59].

Apakah bila YB Khalid Samad membuat fatwa, fatwanya terpilih-pilih menurut keadaan yang mana sesetengah ayat al-quran itu boleh disembunyikan untuk disesuaikan dengan keadaan?

Mungkin YB Khalid Samad akan menjawab, Haji Hadi itu bukan uli’l amri. Kalau macam tu kita nak tanya YB, siapakah uli’l amri bagi YB Khalid Samad. Mungkin Najib kot pasal Najib kan pemimpin negara, ataupun mungkin Anwar Ibrahim?

Ketiga, kalau pun YB Khalid Samad enggan mengaku Haji Hadi sebagai uli’l amri, kenyataan YB Khalid Samad juga penuh dengan penyelewengan. Sejarah Islam menyaksikan perkara yang sama juga berlaku yang mana hujah yang sama juga digunakan oleh puak Khawarij bagi menghalalkan darah Ali r.a. Mereka bunuh Ali r.a. juga atas dakwaan ketaatan itu hanya pada Allah dan Rasul dan oleh kerana Ali r.a. telah menyeleweng dari ketaat pada Allah dan Rasul menurut tafsiran mereka, maka darah beliau halal.

Ketaatan terhadap Allah dan Rasul itu adalah sesuatu yang jelas, masalahnya ialah tafsiran terhadap apa yang dikatakan sebagai taat pada Allah dan Rasul itu adalah subjektif menurut kefahaman serta ilmu individu. Dalam dunia Islam, ada lebih 1 bilion Muslim. Setiap orang mempunyai tafsiran sendiri tentang apa yang layak dikatakan taat pada Allah dan Rasul. Jika pendapat YB Khalid Samad ini diambil, maka setiap orang Islam akan mendakwa orang Islam yang lain tidak taat pada Allah dan rasul.

Inilah kecelaruan serta salah faham dalam pemikiran YB Khalid Samad. Kalimah yang digunakan nampak macam hak, sedangkan maksud dan implementasinya adalah bathil. Islam sebagai agama yang sempurna mengariskan panduan kepada ummah. Dalam ummah itu akan ada yang dipertanggungjawabkan sebagai pemimpin dan ulama. Mereka ini adalah uli’l amri yang mana mereka dipertanggungjawabkan untuk membuat kata putus dalam urusan umat Islam. Dalam hal-hal agama, kita ada para ulama yang mengeluarkan fatwa. Begitu juga dalam hal dunia, kita ada pemimpin yang membuat keputusan bagi jemaah. Oleh itu, sebagai orang yang dipimpin, tugas dan tanggungjawab kita adalah untuk taat pada keputusan dan fatwa yang dibuat pemimpin dan para ulama, selagi mana ia tidak jelas bercanggah dengan hukum Allah dan Rasul. Dengan itu, barulah satu jemaah Muslim dapat berjalan dengan teratur.

Oleh itu, dakwaan YB Khalid Samad adalah ternyata palsu apabila beliau mendakwa ketaat itu hanya pada Allah dan Rasul dan tidak pada mana-mana pemimpin. Malah dakwaan YB ini amat bahaya. Misalnya, dalam petikan tersebut, dikata YB menyebut ““Selagi mana presiden itu patuh pada ajaran Islam, ia OK.” Perkataan “selagi mana presiden itu patuh pada ajaran Islam” itu terbuka pada pelbagai tafsiran individu. Bagi golongan yang anti Haji Hadi, mereka mungkin mentafsirkan Haji Hadi sebagai tidak patuh pada ajaran Islam, dengan itu layak diperangi, sedangkan penyokong Haji Hadi pula mentafsirkan yang sebaliknya. Sejarah Islam juga melihat puak Khawarij mentafsirkan Ali r.a. sebagai tidak patuh pada ajaran Islam sehingga akhirnya Ali r.a. dibunuh oleh puak Khawarij.

Inilah bahananya bila setiap orang merasakan diri mereka layak menjadi jurucakap tentang Islam. Rasulullah s.a.w. mengingatkan kita bahawa diakhir zaman, akan muncul banyaknya golongan Ruwaybidah.

Daripada Abu Hurairah r.a. berkata, Rasulullah saw. bersabda. “Lagi akan datang kepada manusia tahun-tahun yang tandus (kemarau panjang). Dan pada waktu itu orang yang berdusta dikatakan benar dan orang yang benar dikatakan berdusta. Orang khianat akan disuruh memegang amanah dan orang yang amanah dikatakan pengkhianat. Dan yang berpeluang bercakap hanyalah golongan “Ruwaibidhah””. Sahabat bertanya, “Apakah Ruwaibidhah itu hai Rasulullah?”. Nabi saw. menjawab, “Orang yang kerdil dan sebenarnya hina dan tidak mengerti urusan orang ramai”.

(H.R. Ibnu Majah)