NGO Islam makin resah dengan Peguam Negara.. @NajibRazak @DSJamilKhir @NancyShukri

Semakin banyak NGO Islam dan semakin ramai umat Islam Malaysia yang kini mempertikaikan Peguam Negara. Institusi Peguam Negara sekarang dilihat sebagai ancaman terhadap kedudukan istimewa agama Islam dan telah hilang integriti untuk bersikap adil dalam hal ehwal berkaitan orang Melayu, umat Islam Malaysia dan agama Islam di dalam negara ini. 

Satu laman facebook telah dibuka oleh umat Islam dan NGO-NGO Islam yang prihatin dan resah dengan perkembangan semasa ini -  https://www.facebook.com/pecatdansiasatAG

Ini merupakan salah satu artikel yang dikeluarkan oleh salah seorang aktivis Islam negara, A Karim Omar di dalam blognya. Ini merupakan salah satu artikel yang terbaru dari siri artikel yang mempertikaikan Peguam Negara.

Dua Kes Mahkamah Hari Ini Mengesahkan Sikap Gani Patail?

http://akarimomar.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/dua-kes-mahkamah-hari-ini-mengesahkan-sikap-gani-patail/

Walaupun ramai orang bercakap tetapi sukar untuk dibuktikan. Kes Gani Patail tidak mahu mendakwa Bible Society Malaysia atas kesalahan Enakmen Pengawalan Ugama Bukan Islam (KawalanPerkembangan Di Kalangan Orang Islam) 1988 Seksyen 9 membuka mata kehairanan dan seolah-olah mengesahkan dakwaan bahawa Peguam Negara ini ada pilih-pilih kes untuk didakwa dan yang mana untuk beliau tidak teruskan.

Namun, apa yang berlaku pada hari ini mungkin mencatatkan sejarahnya seolah-olah membuktikan kebenaran sangkaan orang ramai selama ini terhadap Gani Patail.

Kes 1: Mendakwa Presiden ISMA, Ustaz Abdullah Zaik Abdul Rahman atas tuduhan menghasut. Didakwa di mahkamah sesyen di Kajang pagi tadi.

Kes 2: Mendakwa ADUN Seri Delima RSN Rayer di mahkamah sesyen Pulau Pinang. Ketua Unit Pendakwaan Jabatan Penasihat Undang-Undang negeri, Datuk Razali Che Ani mohon kes ditangguh dan peguam Rayer akan mohon Peguam Negara untuk gugurkan pendakwaan (laporan Utusan Online).

kes-UZAR-Rayer-berbeza

Apakah ini menjadi satu lagi sebab untuk orang ramai mengesahkan spekulasi yang kuat berlegar?

FB-Yuseri-GaniAGHingga seorang FBer berani membabitkan ‘Gani dengan ‘underworld’” di status FBnya pagi ini:

Isu MAIS : Keputusan ‘buang kes’ oleh Peguam Negara (AG) disebabkan Ghani Patail gagal berfikir & mempertimbangkan keputusan berlandaskan kepentingan agama, bangsa & negara – AG khuatir implikasi keputusan yang dibuat menyebabkan ugutan terhadapnya dilaksanakan oleh pihak tertentu – Inilah padah bila AG dikatakan mempunyai skandal & terlibat dengan ‘underworld’ di mana ia membuka ruang kepada pihak tertentu menjadikan penglibatan AG sebagai alat dalam mempengaruhi setiap keputusan yang dibuat oleh Pejabat Peguam Negara – Justeru adalah wajar Suruhanjaya di Raja ditubuhkan bagi menyiasat dakwaan orang ramai melibatkan Ghani Patail (AG)!

Bagi saya, saya tetap menyokong PEMBELA dan NGO-NGO Islam seluruh Negara yang sedang melancarkan kempen supaya Gani Patail letak jawatan atau digugurkan dari jawatan Peguam Negara dengan kadar yang segera.

Kiriman saya yang berkaitan sebelum ini:

Gani Patail Melanggari Al Quran, Al Hadith dan Ijma’ Ulamak

Gani Patail Bukannya Mengatasi Undang-undang

Desakan agar diadakan jawatan Peguam Negara Syariah adalah reaksi kepada kehilangan keyakinan terhadap Institusi Peguam Negara. Antara artikel awal yang menyarankan ini adalah yang ditulis oleh Datuk Zulkifli Noordin di bawah :-

PEGUAM NEGARA SYARIAH

Mengapa tindakan tidak boleh diambil terhadap pihak gereja yang membenarkan mana-mana orang Islam melakukan kesalahan jenayah Islam dengan menyokong kristian menyalahguna kalimah Allah yang bercanggah dengan Enakmen Anti-Dakyah? Sudah tiba masanya kita mengujudkan jawatan 'Peguam Negara Syariah / Pendakwaraya Syariah' dan 'Jabatan Peguam Negara Syariah / Pendakwaraya Syariah' setaraf Peguam Negara sivil!.

Salam 2 all.

Saya merujuk kepada kemelut penahanan 300 bibel versi bahasa Melayu oleh MAIS dan pendirian Peguam Negara tidak mahu mengenakan sebarang pertuduhan terhadap Persatuan Bible Malaysia.

Apa yang jelas, bibel tersebut mengandungi perkataan dan kalimah yang tanpa sebarang keraguan melanggar peruntukkan Seksyen 9 Enakmen Pengawalan Pengembangan Agama Bukan Islam Selangor.

Persoalannya sekarang, dengan keengganan AG/ Peguam Negara untuk membawa sebarang pertuduhan, apakah status kes tersebut. Satu kesalahan jenayah terang-terang telah dilakukan, tetapi tindakan pertuduhan jenayah tidak boleh diambil kerana AG enggan bertindak atas alasan-alasan dan sebab-sebab yang telah beliau kemukakan!

Ini adalah kerana kuasa pendakwaan jenayah di Mahkamah sibil terletak secara mutlak dibawah bidangkuasa AG/ Peguam Negara menurut Artikel 145 (3) Perlembagaan.

Menurut Artikel 145 (3), AG/ Peguam Negara tiada kuasa menentukan pendakwaan di Mahkamah Syariah, kerana itu bidangkuasa Majlis Agama Islam Negeri-Negeri.

Masalahnya ialah Mahkamah Syariah tiada bidangkuasa untuk membicara dan menghukum non-Muslim berdasarkan Artikel 74 dan Jadual 9 Senarai II Perlembagaan.

Jadi timbul konflik perundangan dimana seseorang yang jelas melakukan kesalahan membabitkan Islam tetapi tidak boleh dikenakan tindakan.

Antara contoh-contoh yang jelas percanggahan ini adalah seperti berikut:

1. Pusat perjudian yang membenarkan atau membiarkan mana-mana orang Islam bermain judi ditempatnya tidak boleh dikenakan tindakan jika ianya dipunyai atau diuruskan oleh non-Muslim walaupun jelas ianya satu kesalahan membabitkan Islam;

2. Mana-mana kedai atau pusat arak dan minuman keras milik non-Muslim yang menyediakan atau membenarkan mana-mana orang Islam meminum arak tidak boleh dikenakan tindakan walaupun ianya jelas satu kesalahan membabitkan Islam;

3. Mana-mana pusat pelacuran non-Muslim yang menyediakan atau membenarkan mana-mana orang Islam melacur atau melanggani pelacur juga tidak boleh dikenakan tindakan;

4. Mana-mana lelaki atau wanita non-Muslim yang melakukan zina atau seks luar nikah dengan pasangan beragama Islam juga tidak boleh dikenakan tindakan, sedangkan pasangan Muslim mereka boleh dikenakan pendakwaan. Ini mengujudkan satu ketidak-adilan kepada orang Islam dan satu diskriminasi perundangan;

5. Mana-mana pihak non-Muslim yang menghina atau memperlekeh institusi Mahkamah Syariah seperti menghina sebarang keputusan Mahkamah Syariah tidak boleh dikenakan tindakan  penghinaan terhadap Mahkamah Syariah (contempt of syariah cour)';

Ini hanyalah contoh-contoh dimana pendakwaan atau pertuduhan jenayah tidak boleh dikenakan terhadap non-Muslim yang jelas melanggar atau melakukan kesalahan yang sepatutnya boleh dikenakan tindakan di Mahkamah Syariah.

Oleh itu, saya mencadangkan supaya pindaan dibuat kepada Perlembagaan dan/ atau undang-undang berkaitan supaya memberi bidangkuasa kepada Mahkamah Syariah dan Pendakwa Syarie untuk membawa pertuduhan jenayah atau sebarang prosiding terhadap non-Muslim dalam kes-kes yang melibatkan kesalahan jenayah seperti dalam kes-kes diatas tanpa perlu mendapat persetujuan atau keizinan Peguam Negara atau Pendawaraya terlebih dahulu.

Ini akan memastikan non-Muslim menghormati perundangan melibatkan Islam dan tidak sewenang-wenangnya melakukan apa-apa kesalahan yang mereka tahu adalah kesalahan melibatkan Islam.

Tidak timbul soal kita meletakkan non-Muslim tertakluk kepada undang-undang syariah kerana ianya hanya melibatkan mereka yang secara sengaja melakukan kesalahan yang membabitkan orang Islam yang mereka ketahui adalah satu kesalahan jenayah syariah.

Contohnya pusat-pusat perjudian yang secara jelas tahu judi itu satu kesalahan jenayah Islam tetapi masih membenarkan atau menggalakkan atau menyediakan tempat dan ruang untuk orang Islam melakukan kesalahan itu.

Sama juga dengan mana-mana non-Muslim yang tahu seks luar nikah dan zina adalah satu kesalahan jenayah Islam yang serius tetapi masih melakukannya bersama pasangan Islam hendaklah dikenakan tindakan.

Jika tidak, mereka boleh dilihat seperti mempermainkan undang-undang Islam. Malahan akan terjadi penganiayaan kepada pasangan Islam yang boleh dikenakan tindakan pertuduhan jenayah dan dihukum tetapi pasangan non-Muslimnya bebas!

Inilah yang terjadi dalam kes penahanan bibel versi bahasa Melayu oleh MAIS. Walaupun jelas mereka pendakyah kristian non-Muslim ini melakukan kesalahan jenayah menurut Enakmen Anti-Dakyah, namun tindakan tidak boleh diambil oleh pihak berkuasa Islam apabila Peguam Negara memilih untuk tidak mengambil tindakan.

Sehubungan dengan itu, saya juga mencadangkan supaya diujudkan satu jawatan dinamakan 'Peguam Negara Syariah / Pendakwaraya Syariah (Syariah Attorney General/ Syariah Public Prosecutor) ' dan satu agensi dinamakan 'Jabatan Peguam Negara Syariah / Pendakwaraya Syariah' peringkat Persekutuan yang samataraf dan samafungsi seperti Attorney General / Peguam Negara yang bertindak sebagai Pendakwaraya.

Ini akan memastikan supaya sistem pengadilan jenayah Islam lebih teratur, tersusun dan profesional dan tidak timbul lagi persoalan dan konflik seperti yang berlaku sekarang bilamana Peguam Negara sivil enggan mengambil tindakan terhadap suatu kesalahan jenayah membabitkan Islam dan instiitusi Islam.

Wallahua'lam dan Wassalam.

Adios amigos, grasias senor.

Zulkifli Bin Noordin

Rabu

20 Sya'ban 1435

18 Jun 2014

Antara Harun Din dan Siti Kassim, Muslim yang waras pilih siapa? #AntiComango #Comango

Pilih satu di antara dua... sebagai Muslim yang waras anda pilih yang mana?

Di zaman ini, ramai yang mengaku Muslim tetapi belum tentu Muslim. Mereka mungkin sekadar Melayu yang keliru tentang aqidah dan pegangan mereka. Mereka keliru di antara falsafah dan pegangan barat, termasuk ideologi sosialis dan fahaman pluralisme dan merasakan itu adalah pegangan dan ajaran Islam. 

Selain dari yang keliru, jangan kita tolek kemungkinan bahawa ada sebilangan daripada mereka yang telah murtad dan dipergunakan oleh musuh Islam untuk mengelirukan umat Islam. Mereka ini mungkin dari segi nama dalam kad pengenalan adalah Melayu dan Muslim tetapi mereka sudah lama menjadi murtad dan bergerak sebagai misionari. Hati-hatilah dan jaga keluarga kita. Jangan sampai anak-anak kita jadi seperti budak-budak muda berbaju T hitam yang tak tahu apa-apa tetapi dipergunakan oleh musuh Islam dan Melayu murtad.

Ayat biasa golongan Comango, liberal dan pluralis ini adalah - "dont judge, jangan hakimi kami, hanya Allah yang layak hakimi kami". Erkk kalau dah selambak macam ni, orang tak judge lagi?

Neraca yang digunakan oleh seorang umat Islam untuk memilih dan membuat keputusan adalah ayat Quran dan al-hadis. Apa neraca yang digunakan oleh Siti Kassim ni sebenarnya? DONT JUDGE? Kalau diberi pilihan, untuk memilih di antara Ustaz Harun Din dan Siti Kassim, siapa yang akan dipilih oleh seorang Muslim yang waras dan berpandukan alQuran dan hadis?

Orang Islam sejati akan tahu di mana pendirian dan kedudukan mereka dalam isu berkaitan ummah dan aqidah. Hanya yang keliru atau yang sudah sesat dan yang sudah meninggalkan Islam sahaja yang tidak tahu di mana kedudukan mereka. Anda orang yang macam mana?

[Kisah dulu-dulu] Menyanggah artikel `Ending the Patriarchy' oleh Zainah Anwar

Zainah Anwar – searching the true meaning of `uswatun hasanah’.

(A response to “Ending the Patriarchy”)

versi bahasa Melayu disiarkan oleh Laman Web Pemuda UMNO

http://www.pemuda.com.my/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=806

Reading, the first paragraph from Zainah Anwar’s article, published by Time Magazine, for the 10th March 2003 issue, could silence those who took up religious study and the protectors of Malays’ values for a few seconds. In her article, entitled “Ending the Patriarchy”, Zainah wrote; “I also love the Beatles, I dance, swim, dive, hug and kiss my bosom buddies— male and female. I am a feminist and I am an activist.”

Actually, each and every times the quarters, which are represented by Zainah and those, which are represented by Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat express their thought, we are made worry that their thought might confuse the mind of the genuine truth seekers. This is because both quarters claimed that their thoughts are Islamic based, although they have gone astray from the true soul and spirit of Islam.

One quarters tried to describe Islam according to what they believe as `fundamental’, and on the other hand, the other tried their level best to `liberalise’ Islam via the approach of the `liberalist’.

Are we being made confuse? Al Hassan al-Basri had once warned “religion will be lost as a result of the practice of both the excessive and negligent.” The former tend to prohibit almost everything and the latter will make everything lawful and permissible. 

We are facing two extremist groups, which are opposite to each other. Both are far from the true `ummatan wasatan’ or `moderate Muslim’ model. One group is holding tight to rigid traditional interpretation, whereas the other depends too much on plastic kind of logic. In another word, the first bear a resemblance to the `wahhabies’ and `kharijites’, the latter resembles the `qadariites’ and `muktazilites’.

The neo-qadariites and neo-muktazilites frequently use mind logic above other sources, even though sometimes their arguments do not come from Islamic tradition and are purely rhetorical. Based on the logic hold by one of them; “…Islam is an egalitarian creed that recognises no essential hierarchy between individuals. The universal message of Islam was sent to mankind as a whole and not to a select grouping only. The emergence of the ulama — now with their costumes and accessories—is a later phenomenon which has no basis in Islam.” 

This argument is not solid. As we understood, Al-Quran was revealed in Arabic. Although it was sent to the mankind as a whole, the least assistance that a non-Arabic speaking people need would be the translation from Arabic to their language. Islam was not sent to the Arabs only, but they have the advantage to understand the Quran instantly since it was revealed in their mother tongue. 

The language of the Quran is not ordinary to the Arabs. It possesses high literature value. The Arabs, themselves need assistance to comprehend the Quran. An ordinary `badouin’ would not be able to understand fully the teaching of the Quran although they could understand it literally.

As we also know, the Quran does not reveal Islamic teaching in detail manner. Therefore a messenger, the prophet Muhammad SAW was sent to explain the teaching in detail. The best description of the teaching was well observed by his closest companions. His companions learned what he taught by heart and after his demise, they wrote them on goats skin. They practiced, recited and passed his teaching to the next generations. 

Along the way, of course there are people who tried to distort the teaching by creating things that were never said, or done by the Prophet in order to support their own interest. Due to this, the previous ulamas such as at-Tabari, al-Baghawi, al-Khazin dan al-Baydawi have created methods and come out with regulations and conditions to eliminate such falsehood. With the solidness of their arguments, these ulamas managed to eradicate the arguments brought by the literalists.

May be, due to the excitement to interpret Islam without concrete methodology, these quarters end up having the conclusion such as “ketaatan kepada Rasulullah SAW hanyalah kerana beliau dilihat sebagai pemimpin kabilah” (Farish Noor). Or, the saying that “Allah sendiri tidak meng`ISA’kan Iblis, walaupun Iblis menderhakainya, disebabkan itu ISA tidak diperlukan dan bukan merupakan sesuatu yang Islamik.” (Chandra Muzaffar)

We accept the fact that, ‘wisdom is not monopolized by any individual or any group’. Anyone, from the Greek, Athens, Indian, Persian or Chinese civilizations could come out with his own wisdom to deal with various problems arise every day in the world. One of the occasions, where they might fail is when they try to `find, describe and illustrate god’. The other that might make them slip away is when they try to determine `akhlaq’ and the virtues of a human. 

On these matters, to the Muslims, the Quran is the best guide. But, any effort to interpret it should come with `adab’. `Adab’ in the sense that, those involved must give due respect to specialty, express thought in civilized and sincere manner, and respect the methodology used by the faculty of knowledge. 

Above others, the most important aspects that should be given priority are the `taqwa’ and carefulness in the quest to find Allah’s blessing. (Above all the desire for recognition, respectful position and wealth.) This is the true `soul’, which the companions were adhere to when performing `ijtihad’ after the demise of the Prophet SAW.

We agree to the opinions from this quarters that ` Islam, is simply too important to be left in the hands of the ulama.”(especially the kind of Nik Aziz). However we also believe that, `Islam is much too important to be left to any Tom, Dick and Harry to come out with an edict, especially when they do not have appropriate knowledge.’

May be in Zainah’s world, Islam has the elasticity like a plastic. She may pull, stretch, bend and curve it the way that she wanted to. In her excitement, Zainah might forget about the `hadd’ (limits), regulations and the basis of `taqwa’. To hug and kiss my bosom buddies— male and female, is not a good example to other Muslim. Zainah, may be able to do wonders in her plastic `Islamic world’, but she can never do one thing – being the `uswatun hasanah’ or good example to other Muslims. 

___________________________________

Ending the Patriarchy

By Zainah Anwar

FROM THE MAR 10, 2003 ISSUE OF TIME MAGAZINE; POSTED MONDAY, MAR 3, 2003

I am a Muslim woman. I believe in God and the prophet Muhammad. I pray, I fast, I read the Koran, I've been to Mecca for umrah (the mini-hajj pilgrimage) and hope to go on the big one soon. I also love the Beatles, I dance, swim, dive, hug and kiss my bosom buddies—male and female. I am a feminist and I am an activist. I see no contradiction in being a Muslim and being a modern person who leads a joyous and meaningful life inside and outside the home.

In my world of Islam, I witness both the progressive and the regressive. There are women who are better educated than men and men who are better educated than women. There are husbands who maintain their wives and wives who maintain their husbands. There are men who love to cook and stay home, and women who prefer to eat out and hang out. But I also encounter women who yearn for husbands to share the housework and child rearing, just as they, as wives, share the financial burdens of the family. I meet women who cannot accept that their husbands have taken second wives, women who cannot believe that God has given the husband the right to beat his wife, women who cannot fathom how they, as long-suffering dutiful wives, are only entitled to one-eighth a share of their deceased husband's estate while other family members get more.

But the mullahs tell me of a different world of Islam. The mullahs say all men are superior to all women and therefore women cannot be regarded as equal to men. They tell me that a Muslim man has the right to divorce his wife at will, the right to take second, third and fourth wives, the right to demand obedience and the right to beat his wife if he thinks she is misbehaving. They say I cannot question these rules as they are God's law.

As a thinking and believing woman, I cannot accept such pronouncements made in the name of my faith and my God. What the mullahs are doing is using God and religion to justify patriarchy—and they don't like it when someone questions what they preach. Last year, a group that called itself the Ulama Association of Malaysia tried to get me charged for insulting Islam. They claimed that I, and the group I represent, Sisters in Islam, question the word of God when we assert that polygamy is not a right in Islam, and that the mullahs do not possess a monopoly on understanding, interpreting and codifying religion into law.

What I and my sisters are actually guilty of is asserting that there are deep differences between the revealed word of God and human (read: male) interpretation of the message. For centuries, men interpreted the Koran and codified Islamic rules that defined for us what it is to be a woman and how to be a woman. The woman's voice, the woman's experience, the woman's realities have been largely silent and silenced. This absence of the female voice in the interpretation of the Koran is mistakenly equated with the voicelessness of the Koran itself on female concerns. And this voicelessness is perpetuated these days by men who not only isolate Koranic verses from the sociohistorical context in which they were revealed but also isolate them from the context of the contemporary society we live in today.

Where Koranic verses appear to discriminate against women, I read it within the sociohistorical context of revelation. It is not God's intent to perpetuate injustice and discrimination. But how justice was served in 7th century Arabia was specific to that time, place and circumstance. Thus asking a woman to assist another woman as a witness in a contractual transaction was never meant to lead to the eternal principle of two women equals one man but to ensure that justice was done at a time when few women were managing their own businesses.

Women can no longer leave it to a God appropriated and defined by men to solve the problems and conflicts they face in their daily lives. So what is the choice before me? Rejecting religion so that I can live my life as a feminist is not an option. I am a believer, and I want to find solutions from within my own faith. So I have gone back to the Koran to search for answers. The Koran I read talks about love, mercy and equality, justice, freedom and dignity. It talks about equal responsibility of men and women in this world and equal rewards in the afterlife. The Koran says, "Be you male or female, you are members, one of another." In the final verse revealed by God on the relationship between men and women, it says we are "each other's protecting friends and guardians." I do not read of the superiority or inferiority of either sex in the Koran I know.

The more I read the Koran, the stronger my faith becomes. It is this conviction in a God who is just that gives me the courage to speak out and to try to end the injustice women suffer in the name of religion.

[Kisah dulu-dulu] Liberal Islam: Menyanggah M Bakri Musa

Nota: Dalam perbahasan mengenai Liberal Islam dan Konservatif, salah satu artikel yang paling menyinggung perasaan ramai adalah artikel M. Bakri Musa, seorang doktor yang tinggal dan bekerja di Amerika Syarikat. Saya telah mempertikaikan tulisannya dan untuk makluman pembaca, M Bakri Musa tidak menjawab soalan-soalan yang saya berikan kepadanya dan memberi alasan bahawa dia tidak memerlukan cukup masa untuk mencari jawapan soalan-soalan tersebut. 


Cheh! Kata bukan `rocket science', habis tu kenapa tak boleh cari jawapan dengan cepat? Inilah bahaya manusia yang cuba menjelaskan mengenai Islam tetapi meninggalkan tradisi para ulama dalam membentuk pandangan. Akhirnya sendiri tahu, sendiri tidak mampu memberi jawapan sebab tidak mempunyai pengetahuan yang cukup walaupun masalah yang diajukan bukan masalah `rocket science'. Wallahua'alam.



From:  "penjejak badai"  
Date:  Fri Dec 7, 2001  5:42 am
Subject:  Liberal Islam/Conservative Islam(Reply to BakriMusa)


Dear all,


This is a very disturbing article. I think, Jimmy and Lokman would agree 
with my opinion.


Remember when I asked Nori to re-think who she really is? A `liberalist' or 
a `truth seeker'. That the approach of `truth seeker' is different. That she 
does not represent all of the so called `liberalists' and she does not know 
how they think. That the previous literalist (Zahiriah) argue with little 
knowledge in Islamic Teachings, but the recent without any. By reading this 
article, you would know that everything I said does make sense.


Why do I say that:


1. The tone of the article is more towards imposing one opinion rather than 
an effort to seek the truth.


2. The opinion is based on weak logical argument.


3. The article contains interpretation errors.


4. That the writer make a presentation to other Muslim, without noticing 
that he could lead to further confusion of others.


5. That the writer are convinced enough that his opinion is factually 
correct, thus do not make effort to counter his opinion with authorities in 
Islamic Teaching and again distribute his opinion to others.


My advice to Bakri Musa, pause yourself for a while, get an ulama to discuss 
your opinion (take your time and do not rush), if you are not happy with 
one, find more ulama to discuss for 2nd opinion, and refine your thought, 
before you write your opinion about Islam to public again.


Do not get me wrong, this is not because I am not opened to your opinion. 
But I fear Allah SWT, that I might further deviate you from the right 
path should I argue in length with you. I do not have such capability and 
you need an expert to advise you in this matter.


You may try Astora Jabat of Utusan Malaysia, although he is not an ulama, he 
possesses a great number of referrences to futher guide you. Sit and discuss 
with him. Hopefully you would be able to have productive and effective 
discussion, which would help you to find the truth that you are seeking.


It is difficult to argue using e-mail with you, because the process needs 
good question and answer session in order to understand fully the method 
that you adopt to reach your opinion.


However I will try to highlight certain matters in this posting:


1. Your argument `had Allah chosen an eskimo as His last messenger, would 
hell be the place for internal fire or a cold dungeon? You based your 
argument on the story of a priest and the Eskimos.


I would reply this by saying `should the Eskimos realizes that sinners are 
burnt in hell instead of getting themselves warm, he will not want to go 
there since he will not find comfort'. This argument of yours is weak and 
does not have merits.


2. Muhammad Syahrur, challenges the Muslims to imagine had Allah revealed 
the Quran today, how would it be written? This is another weak argument, 
when the answers is that no one knows. Only Allah knows. If Muhammad Syahrur 
could explain what would be written then, may be he has merit in his 
argument. The truth is that, he himself does not know.


There is also a factual error in your article.


3. Muslims imitate the prophet by having multiple wives, forgetting that the 
prophet's many marriages were expression of his charity. As popular widows 
he could have his choice of virgins, instead he chose older widows.


Prophet's many marriage were expression of many reasons, one of them is 
charity. However should you refer to al-Quran, it does permits marriage up 
to four. It does not restricted that those marriage must be based on charity 
only, or must be with widows only, or to stop wars, however it does focus on 
the responsibility to be just and fair.


Here, a proper discussion is needed to understand in depth on how Bakri Musa 
gets his conclusion.


4. Islam is not a rocket science, comprehensible only to few.
To argue this, I will post some questions to him later, and see how he 
answers these question should he believes that al-Quran is comprehensible to 
anyone, without referring to hadis, and ulama consensus.


5. The rest are ornaments that vary with time and culture.
Another interesting part, where I would question him.


6. Osama bin Ladin (is an ulama)?
Another error here. Osama has never been treated as ulama.


Bakri Musa mentioned that Islam are comprehensible to all. He even asked who 
appointed ulama. Let us see how he answers these questions and check his 
reference: I'll ask in BM to ease myself:


1. Tauhid :


a. Allah itu ujud, dan kehadiran Allah di mana-mana. Allah itu tiada 
bertempat kerana Dia tidak menyerupai sesuatu yang baharu. Sekiranya Allah 
berada di Arasy, kenapa ketika solat kita menghadap kaabah, tidak menghadap 
atas? Nyatakan sumber pendapat.(sama ada Quran - ayat mana, Hadis, pendapat 
ulama, atau pendapat sendiri, jika pendapat sendiri bagaimana anda 
mendapatkannya)


b. Apakah sebenarnya Iblis? Apakah dia boleh beranak-pinak? Apakah Iblis 
mempunyai jantina? Adakah Iblis dan hantu, benda yang sama? Nyatakan sumber 
pendapat.


c. Dalam Quran ada banyak ayat yang menceritakan tentang kafir. Pada 
pendapat anda apakah definasi kafir? Adakah di semua tempat yang disebut 
perkataan `kafir' itu memberi maksud yang sama dengan definasi anda? 
Nyatakan sumber pendapat.


2. Ibadah :


a. Dalam al-Quran, dinyatakan kita wajib mengerjakan solat. Jika hanya 
berdasarkan ayat Quran, tahukah kita bagaimana caranya mengerjakan solat? 
Nyatakan sumber pendapat.


b. Salah satu perkara membatalkan solat adalah makan dan minum. Sekiranya 
ada makanan yang terlekat dicelah gigi, dan bila kita menelan air liur, 
adakah sah atau batal solat kita. Apakah sumber yang mengatakan sah, dan apa 
pula yang mengatakan batal?


3. Perundangan


a. Dalam al-Quran disebut `perempuan yang berzina dan laki-laki yang 
berzina, deralah setiap seorang dari keduanya seratus kali dera dan 
janganlah belas kasihan kepada keduanya mencegah kamu untuk (menjalankan) 
agama Allah'


- Apakah hukum bagi pemerintah yang tidak menjalankan hukuman ini? Nyatakan 
sumber pendapat.


- Besar mana rotan yang perlu digunakan? Sekuat mana pukulannya pula? Adakah 
100 rotan itu berturutan atau boleh dilakukan sebahagian, dan disambung esok 
atau lusa? Perlukah disambung pada hari berikutnya, atau boleh dilakukan 
pada minggu depan? Nyatakan sumber pendapat.


b. Dalam al-Quran dinyatakan `pencuri laki-laki dan perempuan, hendaklah 
potong kedua tangannya, gantibalasan pekerjaan keduanya sebagai siksaan dari 
Allah'


- Apakah hukum bagi pemerintah yang tidak menjalankan hukuman ini? Nyatakan 
sumber pendapat.


- Sehingga mana mahu dipotong tangan tersebut? Pergelangan tangan ke bawah, 
atau dari bahu ke bawah? Nyatakan sumber pendapat.


4. Ekonomi


Dalam ayat al-Quran ada disebut tentang Riba'. Pada pendapat anda apakah 
Riba' sebenarnya seperti yang dimaksudkan oleh alQuran? Adakah faedah dan 
dividen di anggap sebagai riba'? Kalau ya kenapa? Nyatakan sumber pendapat 
anda.


Should Bakri Musa believes and understand what he means by Islam is made 
comprehensible to everyone, and do not need ulama to guide him to make 
interpretation of al-Quran, he will be able to answers these question 
without much problem, and we'll see whether his arguments have merits or 
not.




tun

_________________________________

From:  bakrimusa@j... 
Date:  Thu Dec 6, 2001  1:16 pm
Subject:  Re: [PROMUDA-Circle] Liberal Islam vs Conservative


SEEING IT MY WAY
M. Bakri Musa


Muslims Can Learn to Disagree Agreeably


God in His infinite wisdom created mankind in all its variety. A passage in the Quran declares that variations in our languages and colors are His intent and design. Thus we must not only tolerate these differences but also more significantly, celebrate them, just as we celebrate His other grand designs and creations.


Each of us is unique. This very individuality gives measure to the diversity that defines human society. We cannot be a society if we are all clones; we would then be like a colony of bacteria. 
Because we are different, it naturally follows that we will view things differently.


God also gave us intellect, akal, the capacity to think and reason. We use this akal to decide between good and bad, right and wrong, and whether to believe or not believe.


To Muslims the Quran is the word of God, a divine revelation. Its message is immutable, universal, and eternal; for all mankind, at all times, and under all circumstances.


Islam is unique in that there is no proscribed theocratic class–no priests, bishops, or popes. There is only the Creator and the individual, with no intermediary. Sure we have imams but to paraphrase an old saying, he is an imam because we, the ummah, call him so. The power of the imam is derived from and not imposed on the masses. This is worth reemphasizing because today hardly a day goes by without some ulama (both real and self style) issuing fatwas (edicts). Osama bin Ladin is only the most recent and most bizarre example. It is appropriate to ask, who appointed or elected them, and who are they accountable to? Merely replying that they are answerable to God is not good enough; we all are. Until then they should remain answerable to us, the ummah. I would have more confidence if they have consulted experts in the field and deliberate in an open and transparent manner before issuing these edicts.


The religious establishment would like us to believe that they, and they alone, can interpret the faith. Islam is not rocket science, comprehensible only to the few. These mullahs conveniently forget that our exalted prophet (pbuh) was illiterate.


We should not be surprised that Islam is interpreted in many ways. Neither purity of purpose nor piety of pursuit guarantees an agreement. It is the height of naivety to expect otherwise. Indeed, differences of opinion within a community are a sign of Allah’s bounty.


Muslims should accept differences and learn to manage them. We should use these differences to prod us to seek greater understanding. Such an attitude would also lead to less divisiveness. Jabor Al Alwani of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, suggested that Muslims have a code of ethics on disagreement. Early Muslims channeled their disagreements into unparalleled intellectual vigor and vitality of our faith. We must relearn this fine art and etiquette of agreeing to disagree agreeably. We must make disagreements work for, rather than against, us.


We all agree on the basic pillars of our faith:  belief in Allah and Mohammad as His Last Messenger; praying five times a day; fasting during Ramadan; giving tithe; and conditions permitting, a pilgrimage to Mecca. The rest are ornaments that vary with time and culture. If we can tolerate these variations we would get along well with our fellow Muslims, and in turn, with non-Muslims.


In a building, a functional builder may show the structural pillars boldly, glorifying their massive strengths and advertising their supporting functions, as we see in modern warehouse-like offices. A more esthetic architect may want to camouflage them as Grecian or Roman columns. A post-modernist designer would hide and blend them into the walls.


So it is with Islam. Some display their faith exuberantly, others more subdued but no less pious. Living in America I am blessed with the opportunity to learn from fellow Muslims from all over the world. From the conservative Wahabis I value the anchoring stability of traditions and rituals; from the liberal Ismailis, pragmatic accommodation. They both enrich my understanding of my faith. I also learn from non-Muslim scholars. This is no surprise. In my specialty for example, many innovations are made by non-surgeons, including non-physicians. For Muslims to limit themselves only to Muslim thinkers or to suggest that reading non-Muslim writers is haram (sinful) is short sighted. Early Muslims eagerly learned from the Greeks and Romans.


A continuing and often violent source of disagreement is in interpreting the Quran. The late Fazlur Rahman of the University of Chicago suggested that we deduce from the particularities of the Holy Book its underlying principles, and then apply them to our specific present day situations. Obviously modern society differs from those of the prophet’s time, but the moral principles remain the same. The Quran teaches by parables and anecdotes, but we should not confuse examples with the underlying principles.


Let me illustrate this. If I were to explain the universal theory of gravitation by saying that gravitational pull is directly proportional to the mass and inversely to the square of the distance, or g=km/d2, only math jocks would get excited. Others would fall asleep. But if I were to illustrate this with an apple falling to the earth, then the concept is readily grasped. But if one confuses the example for the principle, then one’s faith would be severely shattered on seeing an apple floating when in a spaceship. Indeed dropping an apple while on one of the gut-wrenching roller coaster rides, it “falls” to the sky. If we truly understand the principle of gravity, then these apparent aberrations, far from shaking our faith, reaffirm it.


Much of the disagreements are the result of confusing examples with principles. We interpret the Quran literally, missing its essence. Muslims imitate the prophet by having multiple wives, forgetting that the prophet’s many marriages were expressions of his charity, to take are of widows and orphans during times of social stress and not, as many simplistic critics claim, of lust. As a popular leader he could have his choice of virgins, instead he chose older widows.
Muhammad Syahrur, the Syrian reformist, in his book al-Kitab wa al Qutan:  Qira’a Mucasira (The Book and the Quran:  A Contemporary Interpretation), challenges Muslims to imagine had Allah revealed the Quran today, how would it be written? Apart from being an intellectually stimulating exercise, it certainly helps us understand the Holy Book better. In my book The Malay Dilemma Revisited, I pondered had Allah chosen an Eskimo as His last messenger, would hell be a place of eternal fire or a cold frozen dungeon?


I am reminded of the priest who was preaching to the Eskimos. On his first sermon he was in his usual fire and brimstone form, exhorting them not to plunder, lie or fornicate lest they would be sent to burning hell. Imagine his horror the next day to find his congregation enthusiastically doing those bad deeds. To his angry tirade they countered, “Father, we want to go where the fire burns all the time!” Confusing example with principle!


We must respect differing opinions. If we disagree, critique the idea rather than the person. We should judge ideas on their merits and not be influenced by extraneous factors like the bearer’s string of titles, length of robe, or eloquence of oratory.


Where genuine differences do occur, we must abide by the consensus, or failing that the majority view, not because it necessarily represents the truth rather the best interpretation, recognizing that it could change with new insights. “Allah will not let my community to be in error,” goes a hadith. It pains me immensely to see Muslims polarized and divided over mere interpretations. We should have a Jeffersonian generosity:  every difference in opinion is not a difference of principle.


[This essay is an excerpt of a presentation given at South Valley Islamic Center, Morgan Hill, California, as part of the Ramadhan Lecture Series.]

[Kisah dulu-dulu] Memahami dan menangani pemikiran Islam liberal

Nota: Salah satu posting yang menarik dalam perdebatan Liberal Islam vs Conservative ini datang daripada Nori Abdullah. Melalui penulisannya, saya dapat memahami bagaimana seorang profesional muda yang rapat dengan kumpulan `so called liberalist' berfikir. Butiran hujahannya amat jelas dan baik. Bagaimanapun terdapat di beberapa tempat di mana saya tidak bersetuju dengannya secara total. Ikuti perdebatan bahagian ke-3 tentang Islam Liberal dan Konservatif.

From:  "penjejak badai"  
Date:  Thu Dec 6, 2001  4:06 am
Subject:  Liberal Islam vs Conservative Islam (Reply to Nori)


Dear Nori,


Should everyone put forth their argument like yours, I believe we would see a new 
breed of professionals who really appreciate a true intellectual discourse. I 
have to say that I agreed with your points but they have to be refined at 
certain places. I'll try my best....


Firstly, if we want to discuss the stagnation of Islam, we need to identify 
what causes it. In order to do that, we need to look back at the historical events ( as I 
summarised in my part II posting). There were many factors involved. But 
if you really analise them, you'll find that
Islam rose, shined and progressed well when the empire was politically 
stable, the ummah was united and experienced peace.


When there were struggles to keep peace and unity among the muslims, all efforts 
towards developments and progress were either being slowed down or totally stopped. 
So we learned that, in order to progress, the ummah has to be united, and 
the government must maintain certain level of political stability.


But what caused disunity and instability in the first place and lead to the 
stagnation of the ummah? Was it when the leaders and ummah were being 
`conservative', `traditionalist', `extremist', `lax' or `liberal'?


Then we have to define these terms, before we could be sure enough of what 
we are looking for. We could not term neither ourselves nor others with these terms 
should we ourselves do not really know what they mean.


Why do you call a certain group a `liberalist'? Do you see that this group 
is a group of those who have the quality of being broad minded and free from 
prejudice? How broad is `broad'?


Why do you call some people `conservative'? Are they the people who refuse 
to change and oppose changes? Have we checked how they define `changes'?


Which one is more dangerous to Islam? Being `too lax' or being 
`extreme'? Which one lead to the down fall of Islam faster - the `lax' or 
the `extreme'?


Who are the `traditionalists'? People who handing down beliefs from one generation 
to another? Should the method has been the best method available, since no one has 
come out with a more reliable and convincing alternative methods, do we 
expect them to change their methodology out of sudden?


I hope you could really look at these questions and slowly (through 
research), find the answers, and then you'll have a clearer picture of the 
dilemma faced by the muslims now, be it `liberalists' or `extremists'.


If you could get the answer, then try to ask yourself again - are you a 
`liberalist' or are you a `truth seeker' who would like to find sense in 
your belief. If you are the latter, then you will see that the cleric 
institution is still the highest authority to deal with Islamic teachings. 
You will respect them for the knowledge that they have, which you don't. However 
you will always see that you have all the right to ask questions and discuss 
with them intellectually until you get firm and objective answers.


Respect for others' knowledge, is important because this will change the way 
you ask your questions and your concerns. You'll be opened for discussion 
rather to spark rejections. Sometimes, from my observation, such respect were not 
shown and some groups made assumption that they hold higher authority and 
possess better knowledge by the way they commented on certain issues. It 
creates rejection from those who are sympathetic of the cleric institution, those 
who have basic knowledge in Islamic knowledge and its principles and those who look 
at physical appearences, or academic qualifications of the so called 
`liberalists'.


And, I share your concern that without good research, the clerics 
institution often issue out opinions, which tend to be rejected by the 
so called `liberalists'.


Let us see your arguments paragraph by paragraph:


1. `I was warned.......unconsciously becoming murtad' - you'll not fall into 
`riddah' (apostacy) simply because you questioned on certain issues in 
Islam.


The prophet SAW said `if they (people) utter shahadah they 
save guard their lives and properties so long as they fulfill its 
responsibility. They are accountable to Allah'.


Ibn al-Qayyim says, `judging contrary to what Allah SWT has 
revealed contains both parts of kufr, major or minor, according to the 
attitude of the person making the judgement. If he believes that a 
judgement must be passed according to what Allah SWT has revealed and 
a punishment decided, but refrains of doing so out of disobedience and 
trangression, in that case he commits minor kufr. But if he believes 
that it is not obligatory and that he is free to act, notwithstanding 
his conviction that it is divine, he then commits a major kufr. But if 
he acts out of ignorance, or makes an unintentional mistake, he is only 
to be judged as a wrong doer.


Minor kufr or wrong doer are not punished like those who commits 
riddah.(apostacy)


Even the Khawarij (the group which killed Caliph Ali RA and 
misinterpret al-Quran) were not branded `kuffar' by most of the Sunni 
jurist. (check Nayl al Awtar, by Imam al Shawkani)


2. `should answers ONLY come from this tradition?'- let me just say this, 
wisdom is not monopolised by any group in this world. But wisdom and 
`decree' are two different things. Wisdom may come from observation, 
experience, thinking, and guidance. Allah has awarded Muslim with al-quran 
and a prophet to guide the people to find wisdom and virtue. However to be guided by 
al Quran you will need certain tools. And these tools have been tested for 
years to avoid falsehood and misinterpretation. It has lead to stability, 
prosperity and high achievements in the past Muslim glory.


3. `This methodology has apparently perfect' - I would say, if not 100% 
accurate, it is 99.9% accurate. Nothing wrong with the method. Most of the 
time, the things that affect the judgement are input (knowledge) and 
availability of instruments.


Last time each faculty of knowledge is not too complex. But now it is 
imposible for a person to master everything. An Engineer will be an 
engineer, and a doctor will be a doctor.


Those days there were not enough invention of instrument to aid ulama to come 
out with a decree. But now x-ray machine could easily aid ulama to 
issue a decree to prohibit smoking and declares it as haram.


4. `doors of ijtihad is closed' - kindly refer to the latest development of 
ulama's thought. Yusof al-Qardawi, Sheikh al-Tantawi and other leading cleric 
do not hold to that. Kindly be informed that an ustaz, or a bachelor degree 
holder in Syariah are never the same as ulama. They might make wrong 
statements due to their shallow knowledge and lack of 
research. But they could be a reliable source of reference on basic and 
authentic issues.


`they do not contributed to the stagnation of Islam' - YES and NO. But 
kindly check the person's status - whether he is an Ustaz, a bachelor holder, 
specialise in what field, or an ulama. Sometimes when an Ustaz gave opinion 
on something, we shouldn't jump to a conclusion and treat that as a decree.


NO - there are scholars with limited knowledge and inadequate research who 
misinterpret al-quran and hadis, therefore they talk and act nonsense; 
they are those who contributed to the stagnation of ummah.


eg
Women is prohibited from learning, working


But we have to admit also that those who are too lax in practising Islam, 
also contribute a great deal in the downfall of Islam.


5. `I do not believe the liberalist think all the traditions of the ulama 
are conservative, irrelevant and wrong' - May be, but you do not represent 
all of them. You might be one of those with clearer perspective than 
them. But you do not know how they think. I also dont know how they think. I could only 
make assumption and relate to the way they do things.


As I said, give due respect to the person who has better knowledge than you 
in al-Quran and hadis, which you do not have. Respect the specialisation. Or 
else you would duplicate the effort of Zahiriyyah (literalist) group.


But there is another way to overcome this, learn similar way the Islamic Knowledge scholars
learn. Learn from basic to the highest level, get tested, practice 
practically your knowledge, and you could become an authority in that field.


6. why shouldn't they go to the primary source, rather relying on the 
established school of thought.


As I mentioned, please refer to the thought of leading Islamic 
clerics like al-Qardawi and al-Tantawi. If you do not make yourself 
alienated from this sources, you will know that they try their best to 
answers contemporary problems.


7. `liberals do have tradition of their own literature' - which as I 
said is duplicating the effort of Zahiriyyah (literalist) group 
centuries ago.


Jimmy has posted something in relation regarding the issue of 
covering the women head.


9. theocracy in government - This I'll reveal in next posting.


10. the door of interpretation should be kept open - it is always open, but 
to avoid making wrong interpretation, kindly equip yourself with adequate 
tools. Gain knowledge and be an authority of that knowledge, no one is 
stopping you. In fact, people will respect you more.


I hope this will help at the moment. I'm going to reveal further in my next 
posting.




tun


____________________________________________


From:  "Nori Abdullah"  
Date:  Wed Dec 5, 2001  9:39 am
Subject:  Re: [PROMUDA-Circle] Liberal Islam vs Conservative Islam


Ok... I shall try.


Before embarking to make any contribution to this issue, i.e. outline proper
grounds explaining my critical stand against Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib (as
opposed to hurling a controversial and admittedly unsubstantiated
one-liner), I was warned to be wary of ‘not breaching any fundamentals of
the Islamic faith and thus unconsciously becoming murtad’. Rather than be
staunchly vigilant of 'inadvertently abandoning my faith', I choose instead
to be wary of admonitions that come with a measure of sincereity, but often
with an even greater measure of contempt for those who 'question', likely as
not stemming from a lack of good reasoning.


I write this email in the spirit of ikhtilaf in Islamic discourse, a
recognised tradition of disputation or disagreement granted in areas
relating to different rulings in branches of law, opinion in jurisprudence
and hence interpretation with regards to such matters.


Let me explain the reasons behind my concern that the writer, Abdul Rahman,
appeared to espouse views which to my mind can eventually lead (and has led)
to the stagnation of Islam, i.e. what I initially so carelessly put as
'keeping Islam in the middle ages'. In his critique of the 'liberals', I'd
like to address a point which I think Abdul Rahman may have missed. I think
that voices like Zainah and Farish (and many others who are like-minded) are
raising a very crucial point in being concerned that something as important
as Islam, one's way of life, is far too important to be controlled and
dominated solely by any one group or persons - including a group whose views
are more amenable to the 'liberals' themselves.


The liberals raise questions, issues and concerns on many aspects of the
religion today with regards to how it will respond to the realities of the
here and now, not because they necessarily believe that they know the
answers and have found a better methodology, but because they are seeking
the answers. Sources of such answers must also come from those deemed
qualified by an intellectual and academic tradition refined over 1400 years.
Muslim scholars, ulama, mujtahid, experts on fiqh (jurisprudence) and so
forth must deal with the realities of today in order to back up the claim
that Islam is relevant for all time. The point is, should answers ONLY come
from this tradition? The criticism against traditionalist ulama themselves,
come only when the ulama fail to respond to such issues and questions, often
because it is specifically a reality of today, unlike at any other time
before.


I don't think that the liberals mean to debunk such a tradition (while
insisting that there is something better which they unfortunately themselves
then fail to define). I don't think the liberals have all the answers, and
they never claimed to, but that doesn't mean that it is the traditionalists
and conservatives who do - the point is, no Muslim should assume that we can
now rest easy on our previous laurels because all methodology, if we follow
Abdul Rahman's line of argument, has apparently already been perfected.


How can ulama who firmly believe that their methodology is perfected, who
think that all that Islamic jurisprudence has to offer has already been
found in 1400 years of refined discourse, research etc, who agree that the
doors of ijtihad have closed, reasonably argue that they have not at all
contributed to the stagnation of Islam? Do Muslims then bow their head and
quietly accept that our golden age has come and gone. Are we to live our
lives relying on imitation and regurgitation? Where then is the dynamic
Islam that is able to respond to any reality of any day through its
universal principles of justice and fairness.


I do not think that the liberals and all those who express alternative,
controversial or challenging views necessarily believe that they know better
than the ulama. And I don't believe that they think that all the traditions
of the ulama who are deemed more conservative, are entirely irrelevant or
completely wrong in some way. But I do think that they firmly believe, as I
do, in their right to question, criticise and demand a response from these
traditions, including the right to question, criticise and demand a response
to the outcomes of the initial responses/answers from these traditions
themselves. If these methodologies and traditions truly have been refined
and perfected, they should have no problems in responding to any question of
the day, rather than having to resort to reactions that often boil down to a
questioning of the critic's so-called Islamic credentials and 'methodology',
or a warning, or a call for silence - lest they end up 'unconsciously
becoming murtad'.


Islam was historically able to grow and create the well-respected tradition
in areas like jurisprudence and others that it now has, precisely because
the learned of the day had to respond to various challenges that came to
them from within and outside of Islam. Rather than simply challenge
liberals, reformists or anyone who questions opinions or methodoligies
already established in their traditions, I would like the ulama,
traditionalists or otherwise to work at responding to the concerns and
issues that have been raised. And why shouldn't they make the effort to go
back to the primary sources of the Qur'an, hadith and sunnah rather than
simply relying on the established schools of thought presented by the
various Mazhab or schools of thought that we alerady have?


As Tun pointed out in his email, Islam has the traditions of maslahah,
istihsan, qiyyas and others. Do we then take a step back as we seem to have
done for so long, and rely instead solely on established opinions already
outlined in tradition, practically rejecting all else? I would also like to
refer to his analogy concerning the logic of seeking out an authority and
how one should not reasonably go to someone who is not a doctor if he/she
was ill. While Tun makes a good point, I think that following the analogy
one can also say that it is reasonable to approach another doctor or
physician or surgeon, should one be unsatisfied with the diagnosis or finds
that the treatment/reccomendation is not working.


I fear the rising trend of what appears to be a clergy of sorts in Islam.
To my mind, this may end up being a sad aberration of the tradition of
'democracy' that Islam has had with respect to permissible discourse, and
also an aberration to the foundations of Islam that are not premised on some
form of institutionalised medium between the believer and God. Why should
something that directly influences everyone's (Muslims) lives come under the
exclusive control of particular groups? And as a citizen of a democratic
country, one also has the right to speak and be involved in any process that
seeks to govern and rule on his/her life.


To Abdul Rahman, I would also like to point out that liberals do have a
tradition of their own literature. Since Abdul Rahman appears to be
familiar with Farish, I'm sure he has also noticed that Farish rarely fails
to have a point of reference or good grounding for his arguments, whether
you agree with them or not. And since he's familiar with Zainah, he would
also know that she is not in the habit of coming up with her stand and
arguments based on 'mere rhetoric'. I don't think it is a bad thing to NOT
have 1400 years of literature flooding the market, an abundance of arguments
etc. I'm sure that those whom we now consider experts and scholars in
various fields, did not necessarily have, hundreds of years ago when they
began their work, such a tradition of reference - and that might have been a
very good thing.


I stand to be corrected but it appears to me that Abdul Rahman is arguing
that it is a positive thing to have ulama i.e. a theocracy in government and
thus power. I don't argue that the return of Muslims to the rule of clerics
and ummah has largely been brought about by the failure of
secular/liberalist regimes (I would argue the leaders rather than the
system) but I do not believe that the ummah of a community stands to benefit
from the rule of theocracy where interpretation, rules and policies are the
sole discretion of an elite who by dint of being religious scholars are
accorded ultimate authority. It is perfectly understandable to find people
turning towards 'religion' when they believe all else has failed in
government. But the danger, as many Iranians have found, is rejecting one
form of extremism for another. (Same thing with Attaturk in Turkey, just
the other way around)


The basis of the stand on interpretation by so-called liberalists is clear
to me - that the doors of interpretation should be kept open, always. Islam
should be universal, democratic and premised on justice and fairness. I
believe that Islam is, and I will continue to insist that this is a valid
viewpoint, just as valid as the views of all those who cite 1400 years of
tradition or otherwise.




-Nori Abdullah-