Category Archives: Response to other blogs

Kepandaian Yang Tak Kena Tempat – Satu Jawapan pada YB Khalid Samad

Respon ini adalah merujuk pada posting YB Khalid Samad dalam isu perdebatan beliau dengan Dato Noh Omar dalam Isu Allah (disini).

Adalah satu kebodohan untuk YB berhujah dengan panjang lebar dalam isu ini. Apa yang YB cuba nak capai akhirnya? Supaya pihak Kristian bebas menggunakan kalimah Allah di merata-rat tempat di Malaysia dan supaya terpampang perkataan Isa anak Allah di papan tanda jalanan?

Dalam isu kalimah Allah, setiap pihak mempunyai hujahnya dan adalah sukar untuk kita memberikan kata putus dalam isu yang begitu longar. Walaubagaimanapun, sekiranya kita mahu berhujah, kita pun ada hujah-hujah yang boleh menunjukan bahawa hujah YB sebenarnya adalah lemah dan berdasarkan intepretasi yang tidak menyeluruh.

Umpamanya YB mendakwa orang bukan Islam zaman sebelum dan selepas Nabi S.A.W. turut menggunakan nama Allah dan ia tidak ditentang. Tetapi bagi yang mengetahui sirah, kita tahu orang Musyrikin asalnya beragama Nabi Ibrahim a.s. dan menyembah Allah. Tetapi agama Nabi Ibrahim telah dipesongkan dan digantikan dengan penyembahan berhala. Walaubagaimanapun, sebahagian dari agama Nabi Ibrahim a.s tetap kekal dibumi Arab. Walaupun mereka menyembah berhala, kita tidak pernah dengar orang musyrikin menamakan patung sembahan mereka dengan nama Allah. Sebabnya ialah orang musyrikin sedia memahami bahawa Allah itu bukan seperti patung sembahan mereka dan Allah itu bukan patung sembahan mereka. Hakikatnya ialah mereka tetap mengesakan Allah sebagai mana dalam ayat-ayat al-Quran yang mana jika ditanya mereka siapakah yang memberi rezeki, mencipta langit dan bumi dan menurunkan hujan, mereka akan jawab Allah (sila lihat Yunus [10.31], Al-Ankabuut [29.63] dan Az-Zukhruf [43.87]). Hakikat apa yang dilakukan oleh orang Kristian hari ini adalah bertentangan dengan tindakan orang musyrikin kerana mereka cuba menamakan sembahan mereka yang syirik (3 dalam 1) dengan nama Allah. Ia umpama orang musyrik yang cuba menamakan patung mereka dengan nama Allah. Apakah YB tidak tahu bahawa bila Kaabah rosak akibat banjir, orang Musyrik membinanya semula dengan duit yang HALAL sebab mereka tahu Allah S.W.T. tidak redha dengan sumber yang haram untuk membina Baitullah. Oleh itu mungkin kalau ada orang musyrik yang berani menamakan patung mereka dengan nama Allah, beliau akan dibunuh, bukan oleh orang Islam, tapi oleh orang musyrik sendiri kerana cuba menamakan Allah kepada apa yang tidak berhak untuk dinamakan kepadaNya.

Dalam persoalan akidah pula, apakah mengatakan Allah itu ada anak bukan persoalan akidah? Tapi ia bergantung pada interpretasi menurut keadaan dan tempat seseorang. Umpama sekiranya seorang Islam memakai bikini di Bondi beach di Australia, ia bukan dikira persoalan moral di sana, tetapi ia tetap persoalan moral bagi kita selagi akidah kita ini Islam. Cuma kita tidak boleh buat apa-apa tindakan sebab ia bukan kawasan kita. Tapi bila di buat di Malaysia atau Arab Saudi, ia adalah permasalahan moral yang serius dan boleh dikenakan tindakan. Sebabnya ialah intepretasi moral itu berbeza di Malaysia dan Australia dan kuasa untuk melaksanakan penguatkuasaan juga berbeza. Sama juga dalam isu nama Allah dan persoalan akidah. Harus diingat Malaysia ialah sebuah Negara yang mana agama persekutuan adalah Islam. Sebagai seorang Islam, kita percaya Allah itu tidak beranak dan diperanakkan. Oleh itu dalam rumah kita, kita menetapkan Allah itu esa, tidak beranak dan diperanakan. Tiba-tiba ada orang kafir masuk rumah kita dan ingin mengatakan Allah itu ada anak. Dia nak kata apa itu hak dia, tapi bila dia nak perkatakan perkara tersebut di rumah kita dan meminta kita untuk mengiakan kata-katanya, sebagai seorang Islam, kalau kita kata YA, kita sememangnya ada permasalahan akidah. Isu sekarang ialah mereka mahu gunakan nama Allah dalam bentuk 3 dalam 1 dan meminta kita untuk mengiakan tidakan mereka. Apakah ini bukan masalah akidah? Selama ini pun kita tidak pernah menghalang mereka dalam ucapan mereka, tapi apabila mereka meminta perbuatan mereka ini diiktiraf undang-undang, ia umpama menyuruh kita mengatakan YA dalam membenarkan perbuatan mereka. Apakah ini bukan persoalan akidah? Mereka nak kata Allah 3 dalam 1 memang bukan persoalan akidah bagi kita, tapi untuk kita orang Islam MENGIKTIRAF perbuatan mereka dalam keadaan yang mana kita orang Islam menguasai kerajaan persekutuan dan negeri, sememangnya orang Islam yang diberikan kuasa itu ada masalah akidah.

Apa pun, ini hanya contoh-contoh hujah saja dan kalau kita mahu memperdebatkan isu ini. Kalau kita menilai dengan akal yang waras tanpa kepentingan, kita akan tahu bahawa hujah YB juga adalah lemah dan boleh dipertikaikan.

Cuma dalam hal ini, apa yang ingin saya bangkitkan ialah kenapa kita ni nak berlebih-lebih dalam menjuarai isu yang tidak membawa manfaat, malah mungkin merugikan kita. Isu kalimah Allah di semenanjung adalah jelas satu bentuk provokasi sengaja dari satu pihak Kristian yang sengaja mahu mencabar perlembagaan persekutuan yang selama ini dilihat memihak pada Islam. Mungkin kerana kebelakangan ini puak mereka mendapat sedikit kekuatan politik, mereka seperti sengaja mahu mencabar dan merubah struktur di negara ini supaya mereka mendapat lebih daripada apa yang mereka perolehi selama ini. Natijah mereka ialah segala status quo yang melibatkan orang Islam harus dicabar.

Harus YB ingat, dalam tuntutan IFC,  perkara 9 dalam tuntutan mereka ialah supaya orang bukan Islam hendaklah dibenarkan dan tidak boleh dihalang daripada menggunakan perkataan perkataan suci Islam dalam percakapan dan sebagainya. Sekiranya tuntutan mereka ini berjaya, maka, tuntutan lain akan menyusul. Apakah YB mahu supaya seorang anak yang dilahirkan oleh ibu bapa Islam tidak mengharuskan secara terus menjadi orang Islam? Atau orang bukan Islam yang telah memeluk agama Islam hendaklah diberi kebebasan untuk kembali kepada agama asal mereka (murtad) dan tidak boleh dikenakan tindakan undang-undang? Atau orang bukan Islam tidak perlu dikehendaki menganut Islam sekiranya ingin berkahwin dengan orang Islam. Orang Islam hendaklah dibenarkan keluar daripada Islam (murtad) sekiranya ingin berkahwin dengan orang bukan Islam tanpa boleh dikenakan apa-apa tindakan undang-undang?

Apa yang kita lihat ialah tindakan mereka ini adalah satu bentuk provokasi untuk mencapai satu agenda yang lebih besar. Mereka bukan berminat sangat pun nak guna nama Allah. Ramai yang bising-bising tu, nak sebut Allah dengan lam tebal pun tak boleh. Mereka pun bukan percaya sangat orang Islam akan jadi Kristian kalau mereka guna nama Allah (walaupun salah satu teknik dakyah mereka ialah kontextualisasi istilah agama). Mereka cuma mahu provokasi saja pada segala status quo orang Islam di negara ini. Kalau runtuh satu status quo, maka yang lain pun boleh diruntuhkan. Akhirnya 14 tuntutan IFC akan terlaksana.

Malangnya, yang menjadi dalang dalam membantu usaha mereka tak lain tak bukan adalah orang Islam sendiri. Dalam sesetengah perkara, adakalanya berdiam diri itu lebih banyak manfaat daripada cuba menjadi hero dengan tidak kena pada tempatnya. Mungkin benar, isu penggunaan kalimah Allah oleh orang bukan Islam masih boleh diperdebatkan, tetapi kenapa kita perlu menjadi hero untuk memperdebatkan isu ini bagi pihak mereka. Mereka yang membuat tuntutan, biarlah mereka yang keluarkan hujah. Kenapa kita mahu melebih-lebih bagi pihak mereka. Inilah yang kita katakan kepandaian yang tidak kena pada tempat. Macam resmi tok kaduk, menang sorak, kampong tergadai.

Advertisements

Hypocrisy of Syed Akhbar Ali

I am referring to the blog post by Syed Akhbar Ali at http://syedsoutsidethebox.blogspot.com/2014/01/powerful-tribal-religion-vs-thinking.html

The title is Powerful Tribal Religion vs Thinking. Without further ado in his usual style, he went and whack the host of the program Mehdi Hasan. Among his words are

the host Mehdi Hassan does speak like a Taliban mullah. Even at Oxford the “Club of Doomers” just cannot be normal.

There is so much that Mehdi Hasan takes for granted without thinking

So we can presumably conclude that Mehdi represents the “Tribal Religion” and Irshad Manji represents the “Thinking”. You can view the video a the end of this post.

It is not my point to debate about the video. But what I want to show you is the hypocrisy of this Syed Akhbar Ali who often portray himself as a morally high, intelligent, most advance in thinking person that his school of management supersede the so called Proton School of Management he likes to call upon.

Now here is the interesting part. This is what he said

This type of discussion cannot take place in any Arab or wannabe Arab country – especially countries like Malaysia. This type of dialogue can only take place in societies that uphold real “Islamic values” like thinking and intelligent discussion. In other words the negara maju lah.

This debate took place at the Oxford Union in the UK. Unfortunately even in the UK, the host Mehdi Hassan does speak like a Taliban mullah. Even at Oxford the “Club of Doomers” just cannot be normal.

Wow! I am amaze by the level of openness. Such a person who can utter these words must hold high the moral value of open debate and free speech. Wait a minute.

I responded to his blog post. Below is my comment in his blog post:

I looked into the video for the first 20 minutes and all I can say is that there is nothing being intellectual about this Irshad Manji. She is just an emotional “pretty lady”. Many of her points are based on what she felt rather facts. Her logic and assumptions are also skewed because it is based on her own assumptions, shallow interpretation and a lot of rash generalization. Look at min 16 how she has been put flat by Mehdi on her shallow argument about scholars and interpretation of Islam. The audience even clap which clearly show that he as made a right point.

So it depends on which side you come from. If you go to Malaysia Insider and read the news about DAP bringing ROS to court, you can still see many red beans harping that UMNO is using ROS, ROS is serving UMNO to kill DAP and all the bla bla bla despite clear evidences and clear facts are present. So if your line of thought is like Irshad you will tend to settle like the red bean.

But frankly, argumentatively, Mehdi way supersede Irshad, see min 18min on his sharp argument.

Note: I posted as an anonymous least if he see they grandmarquis name which I use in all my blog comments to be deleted outright

But then, no where you can find my comment appear in his comments list. When I wrote my comment, there were 2 responses. When I wrote this blog post, there were 13 responses. By the order of approval, my response should appear anywhere in between the 3rd to the 13th response. But no where you can find it. All you can see are the responses that echo his line of thought, exactly like how those Red Bean is echoing all the actions of DAP no matter it is right or wrong (the ROS case is a good example).

Well, some may argue that it is his blog and he deserves to do what he likes. But then not for a person who portrays himself as the moral high ground for openness to the point he belittled others as not being open enough for open debate whereas he himself is not even transparent enough to let simple contradicting views to appear in his blog post.

This is and example of hypocrisy at the highest order and it is simply too much to swallow.

If you want to view the video, here it is. You can judge yourself. The first 20 minutes is suffice to tell everything. From an eloquent, vocal, confident lady to a stammer right at minute 18.

p.s. If Syed Akhbar Ali saw this blog post, he might go back and release my post. So be prepared.

The Problem with Moderate Movements in Malaysia

This is my response in RPK article at Malaysia-Today (http://www.malaysia-today.net/turning-back-the-clock/).  I am putting it here as reference if anyone would find it beneficial.

The problem with the moderate movements in Malaysia is their skewed definition of moderate itself. These people just wake up and say I am the moderate person in Malaysia. Come and join me and be branded as the moderate person in Malaysia. The problem is that they fancy themselves as a role model for moderate Malaysian but others are seeing them as extremist in one form or another.

Take for example people like Marina, Haris and Zaid Ibrahim. They considered themselves as the moderate role model, but to the main stream Malays and Muslims, they are the liberal. While many understood that the Taliban is a form of extremism because they take religious ruling in restrictive and rigid manner, liberal is also another form of extremism because they are being extremely casual with religious ruling. This LKS is no difference. He may fancy himself and his DAP as the moderate solution to the extremist world, but for many of the Malays they are seeing him and DAP as a chauvinist, extremist party.

The crux of the problem is that to these people, you are moderate if you fulfil my yardstick of moderation, otherwise you are an extremist. There are 30 million people in Malaysia, save half for the kids and not matured enough, so we would have at least 15 million versions of moderation in Malaysia. That is why these so call moderate movements are going nowhere. For those politicians who supposed to support the so call moderate movements, they probably do not even agree with the definition of moderation by these people (like do you think PAS will ever consider people like Marina and Zaid as moderate?), but they tagged themselves along to win vote as long as such movements are the in thing according to the political fad of the country. Once it is over, screw you.

So before they try to go further to fancy themselves as a moderate solution to Malaysia, they have to find the reference point that is acceptable to others, not merely by their own definition and expectation. Once the reference point is set, it is like a pole in the center, whoever deviates from the pole, they are the extremist. For Muslim, we have no problem finding the reference point as we have the Quran and the Hadith of the Prophet that is unanimously agreed upon by the majority of the Muslims (hence known as Sunni). Well, what about Shiah? Don’t they disagree with the majority of the Muslims? True to the sense that the Shiah has their reference point that is different from the Sunni and to the Sunni, the Shiah are the extremist because they deviate from the pole of Sunni and vice versa. But that is not the point of discussion. The point is that don’t call yourself Sunni or expect others to call you a Sunni when you are not in the pole of the Sunni reference point. The same as don’t call yourself as a Shiah or expect others to call you a Shiah when you deviate from the Shiah reference point.

Back to the issue in Malaysia, the problem in Malaysia is that not everyone is Muslim. So we cannot force the non-Muslim to subscribe to the “moderate definition” of the Muslim, and so to the non-Muslim, DON’T FORCE THE MUSLIM TO SUBSCRIBE TO YOUR DEFINITION OF MODERATION. In my opinion, in Malaysia, the constitution should be the reference point. The reason is because the constitution is an agreed upon values that seek the compromise from each party. No doubt you will dislike with some, but those are necessary as they are the compromises for the need of others. For example, with regard to proselyting people into your faith, a level of compromise has been is achieved to allow religions other than Islam to freely do that as long as they don’t do it to the Muslim, given the sensitivity of the Muslim who are the majority in this country. If you can respect these compromises even though you dislike it then you can call yourself moderate. Otherwise, you are just an extremist only seeking for your own satisfaction.

Come to the issue of Bible raid by JAIS. The Christians (supported by the moderate Muslims wannabe like Marina and Mujahid) accused JAIS (representing the Muslim) to be the extremist while JAIS also accused the Bible society as extremist. Now who is the actual extremist? If we all can agree to use the constitution as the point of reference, we can easily answer that. The one who deviates or violates from the constitution would be the extremist. That if we all agree to come to the common term. But if every party only wishes to satisfy their own definition of moderation, forever we will not achieve any moderation.

To conclude, people like Marina, Zaid, LKS, LGE and their like are not the solution to moderate Malaysia. They are actually the problem. They are either confused people, or people with agendas. Confused people will not solve any problem. Worse are the people with agendas. They take opportunity by creating problems.