Copyright Notice

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the author, at the address below.

Sakmongkol ak 47

ariff.sabri@gmail.com

Thursday, 28 January 2010

Allah-watered down version, Sufi masters and the strange case of Aduka.



The National Fatwa Council should be more assertive in this issue. The fatwa council is the highest body to determine vexed issues concerning the religion of Islam. Even the PM is bounded to agree to the pronouncements of the national fatwa council. Thus far, the edicts that it issued on the Allah issue seem to have vanished into the black hole of indecision.

It acted with mercurial speed over a simple matter like certifying that Yoga was haram. But whenever political interests are involved, it displayed uncharacteristic indolence. Take for example, the issue on the canning of the model who was convicted by the shariah court for drinking alcohol. Until today, the canning hasn't been enforced.

It is therefore not surprising that the credibility of Islam in Malaysia is being disputed day by day. The very institutions tasked for safeguarding the sanctity of the religion are being undermined.

The PM even has a religious adviser and he should be accountable too. Instead he appears to wait for signals from the chief. The chief needs advice upon which he decides. You have a religious expert seemingly surrendering his assigned role waiting a decision on religion to be made by a person dependent on his advice in the first place.

The PM shouldn't be dragged into this issue at all had the Fatwa Council came out forcefully. Secondly, the person in charge directly over this issue is the minister in the PM's department in charge of Islam. He should have exercised leadership in this issue. Instead he has behaved like a eunuch.

If everything has to be decided by the PM, then he might as well run the country alone.

But, don't ask Khalid Samad- on Al Jazeera 101 East, he refused to accept the authority of the NFC alleging that it's the mouthpiece of UMNO. The edicts or fatwas declared are not UMNO edicts- they are edicts of Islam. There is only one Islam, NO PAS's Islam or UMNO's Islam. The people in UMNO and PAS pray to the same Allah. He is invested with the tauhid properties.

Susah lah itu macam- you dispute the legitimacy of the NFC on the flimsiest excuse that it hawks the views of the government. On that reckoning, if the Pakatan comes into power, Khalid Samad will reconstitute the NFC and thereafter, it will be opened for any UMNO politician to reject the pronouncement of the Pakatan NFC. Yes? It will also be opened for them to reject the edicts from the NFC because they are edicts of Pakatan. This is the same line of argument per Khalid Samad.

In this case, the NFC becomes a circus and there will be no finality. It's grossly unfair to imply the NFC is but a stooge to UMNO religious values. It insults the righteousness of Allah fearing individuals sitting in the NFC. By his condemnations, Khalid Samad has assigned the members of the NFC as religious trash.

Can Khalid Samad tell us, of the countless number of cases and issues decided upon by the NFC, how many in his opinion, were the extended 'religious' views of the ruling class? It's difficult to agree with an anarchist.

This issue has resolved into a credibility issue- the credibility of Muslims to defend their own religion. If Muslims here in Malaysia have forsaken their religion, who shall defend it?

What is being hawked here, promoted even by those remotely linked to this issue is a watered down version of Allah. The reasoning is akin to saying that it's ok for Muslims to drink wine because in essence wine is processed grape juice. It's the application of the same line of thinking on the Allah issue.

That's a watered down reasoning that justifies a position taken. It chucks out principles and is expediency-driven. Hence to justify drinking of wine, consider it processed grape juice.

The watered down Allah is the Allah that exists in all things. Allah exists everywhere- His Essence that is. You therefore have the Pantheism of Allah- his essence is invested into all beings ( makhluk). So to the enlightened and select few, they see Allah everywhere and hence have no problem in allowing Allah used by anyone or anything. The mountains and hills all worship Allah, so do the animals dispersed on this earth. You ask a goat and it can talk, the goat says it worships Allah. In all things ( makhluk) there is the essence of Allah.

Everybody it seems is a Sufi master able to see through their minds eye, the essence of Allah in everything. Here is the problem with many Muslims, they trivialize everything and thus Allah becomes commoditized. The majority of Muslims here are not the ascetic hermits able to comprehend the essence of Allah at the highest levels ( tasawwuf for instance). They submit to the edicts of shariah or Islamic jurisprudence. Not for them the luxury of philosophical contemplations or the luxury of disinterested and dispassionate interpretation of Allah. Islamic jurisprudence regulates the conduct and beliefs of the common Muslim man, not the lofty constructs of the Sufi master.

The second class of the select few, outside the circle of Tasawwuf masters has counterparts in our modern times. They are those who enjoy the luxury of disinterested and dispassionate interpretation of Allah. You can even say, they talk about Allah with an air of nonchalance.

Where do you find such special specie in these modern times? Look no farther. They are probably all the Muslims inducted in this year's little black book of Malaysia Tatler's society aka The List Issue. Ask any of the Muslim inducted there, whether they care whether Allah is used by non Muslims, the likeliest answer will be- they don't give a damn. Give us a merry time, anytime or so we die, is all that matters. Allah? The question probably begets the question, what Allah?

THE STRANGE CASE OF ADUKA TARUNA( OR WHATEVER HE CALLS HIMSELF).

Has Rais Yatim done a volte face? A few days ago, he was insistent and voluble asking the government to arrest this bloke Aduka and punish him. Now, he is reversing himself by saying that a formal apology is sufficient.

I don't mean to offend our non Malay friends- but Aduka deserved to be punished for despoiling the institution of our Monarchy. If a Malay condemns his own cultural emblem, who then shall defend his race?

Please charge and punish him. The more severe, the better. We want to know the offence for which a legal remedy is now sought to bear on him. Legislate the punishable offence and have it applied retrospectively. That would mean, everyone, most notably Tun Mahathir Mohamad for carrying out the 'guillotinization' of the Monarchy must also be punished under the same offence. The damage done to the Malay monarchy during that time was far more irreparable.

Perhaps Herr Rais suddenly becomes aware of the implications of punishing Aduka? Or has he changed his mode?



22 comments:

donplaypuks® 28 January 2010 at 13:53  

That's right! Rais did a complete 360 degrees volte face AFTER Kerismudin said mere apology is not enough or else it will become
the modus operandi of every scumbag racist and religious bigot!

But this is standard fare for UMNO/BN Ministers. Remember Defence Minister Zahid Hamidi saying it was 1 $50 million jet engine and 1 BG and 40 staff were sacked over it. And then retracted it after RMAF said "balls, no way!" Or Muhydin said their lawyer candidate was not disbarred or had a 2nd wife? Or PM Najib said he never met Saiful, then said he did about a scholarship and then a day later retracted that and said it was about sodomy?


dpp
We are all of 1 race, the Human race

Anonymous,  28 January 2010 at 16:34  

why only insisting punishing 'Aduka' ?? how about those demonstrators in KT carrying banners calling "Agong" natang !!

is it because they are UMNO supporters , so no action to be taken ?? and 'Aduka' a seemly opposition supporter must the rap !!

com'on Sak, you're getting more and more ridiculous with your writting since the 'Allah' issue erupted !!


Kamal

Anonymous,  28 January 2010 at 16:42  

This Allah ban is a non starter. The Government may ban and confiscate written materials but how are they going to stop people from praying and saying the word Allah? Arrest them?

And it is not just the Christians, what about the Sikhs.

And most touchy of all, we have a 200,000 strong Bahai community who not only use the word Allah but also believe that Mohammad was just one among the prophets that include Jesus and Buddha.

In some muslim contries the Bahais are considered heretics of Islam.

What about the bahais?

Are the police supposed to arrest the Chatolics , Sikhs and Bahais?

sakmongkol AK47 28 January 2010 at 21:42  

kamal,
are you a mental retard or what? didn't you read near the ending of this article? if Aduka is punished let it be so that it can be a precedent and if applied retrospectively, will ensnare many people. but then, you wouldn't understand subtle arguments do you?

Wenger Khairy 28 January 2010 at 23:49  

Dear Dato',
It must be tough covering the political situation, I doubt anybody, whether pro UMNO or Opposition or man on the street can be happy. Every one seems to be bogged down on different positions on issues such as the Allah issue, the monarchy issue, the DAP racist issue, the UMNO racist issue, the Hindraf racist issue, and other issues. These issues exist because of differing points of view.

Now, if you come to think of it, are these issues new or old?

Personally, i think these issues are old issues brought forth to public light due to either the backlog in court cases or the emergence of the internet that allows an inconsequential persons ranting and raving to suddenly become prime time news.

I want to focus on the latter. In reality, in actual fact, can one be surprised to hear of what Aduka Taruna said?

Depends on the company one keeps. If lets say you keep company with a group who is at the edge of society, would it be completely out of the realm of expectation and probability to hear such a rude and crass off the cuff remark?

Go to Chow Kit, Pasar Seni, the bus stations in small towns and the like to find this group. They are relatively visible if one bothers to look.


For me, you would probably hear it. Some even say worse things.

But then what?

And really here is where I have to take to task the media heads. If the Government gets kicked out, we should thank those people because on a scale of 0 to 10 they are scoring a -10.

This Aduka Issue to me was completely unnecessary. Lets assume that Aduka is insane, perhaps suffering from bipolar disorder, and in a period of mania wrote what he wrote. And then some of the regular Gestapo bloggers picked on it and proceeded to alert the whole known world about this guys statement.

Does anybody ask the question why did the Papa Gomo's, the Parpukaris, the Unspinners, the other minions bother to alert the whole world about what Aduka said?

Now what Aduka said was in contravention of the law and they could report the matter to the police and leave it as that.

But why alert the whole world?

Well the answer was to extrapolate it to attack the entire PAS hierarchy. Thats obvious.

Respect for the departed Sultan had nothing to do. Even a school kid could point that out.

Those in question, we all know, especially the one that tries to pretend he is the estate equivalent of Dr. House, has the intellect of a pea. We all know that. Nobody says he is anything smarter than a 2 yr old.

It is perhaps too much for them to be able to measure what benefit it serve to inform the whole world including a grieving household and the citizens of the state that somebody just said some awful things about the ruler?

This is what we call discernment. Discernment is 0 amongst these lot. We all know that.

But we assume that those in the media, those assumed to be qualified to set the information agenda for 10 million people have a bit more brains.

Alas. Who am I kidding?

They are just as stupid. This stupidity has been reflected ever since the day the Truth 4 Beng Hock blog appeared on mainstream newspapers.

It is this lack of refinement, class and discernment amongst the entire machinery, be it in the private and public sector that differentiates a developed society from a primitive one. I doubt this was always the case in Malaysia. After all, our society in yesteryears must have held to certain ideals and higher purposes in order to produce luminaries like Tun Dr. Ismail, Tun Abdul Razak, Dato Onn Bin Jaafar and Dato' Abu Bakar Baginda?

Does this society exist anymore?

If not, who killed it.

Brown Noser Anonymous (BNA),  29 January 2010 at 01:10  

Dear Dato
Why no comment on PM Najib makes historic visit amid 'radical' overtures

Are You Gonna Go My Way,  29 January 2010 at 01:44  

Wenger,

Good analysis.

and who killed it?

Video killed the radio star..
and now Internet killed the real star..you wont find those kind of luminaries anymore.

learn quran online 29 January 2010 at 06:11  

The Most Concise Definition of Allah
The most concise definition of God in Islam is given in the four verses of Surah Ikhlas which is Chapter 112 of the Qur’an:

"Say: He is Allah,
The One and Only.
"Allah, the Eternal, Absolute.
"He begets not, nor is He begotten.
And there is none like unto Him."
[Al-Qur’an 112:1-4]
The word ‘Assamad’ is difficult to translate. It means ‘absolute existence’, which can be attributed only to Allah (swt), all other existence being temporal or conditional. It also means that Allah (swt) is not dependant on any person or thing, but all persons and things are dependant on Him.

Surah Ikhlas - the touchstone of theology:

Surah Ikhlas (Chapter 112) of the Glorious Qur’an, is the touchstone of theology. ‘Theo’ in Greek means God and ‘logy’ means study. Thus Theology means study of God and to Muslims this four line definition of Almighty God serves as the touchstone of the study of God. Any candidate to divinity must be subjected to this ‘acid test’. Since the attributes of Allah given in this chapter are unique, false gods and pretenders to divinity can be easily dismissed using these verses.

Learn Quran, Read tajweed Quran online, learning Quran online Koran

Red Alfa 29 January 2010 at 11:08  

Dear Dato'

In establishing the credibility and legitimacy in the proper Malaysian perspectives, one supposedly should be taking cue as follows: Fatwa Council would represent the learned authority having jurisdictions in coming with the scholarly views on EVERY and ALL contemporary issues faced by the Muslim (as in accordance with following the Shaffie school of thought, perhaps). By same token, NATIONAL Fatwa Council... ditto as above ... as faced by the Malays, subject however to GUIDANCE of/by Majlis Raja-Raja Melayu, Government, et al)
Perhaps we should understand that NFC can never be assertive in anything it should not be. Hence the perception that it is just somebody's stooge or mouthpiece prevails when its assertiveness and credibility must matter most.

As with certain other institutions in Malaysia, NFC functions but without the raison d'etre independence.

walla 29 January 2010 at 14:05  

Since i am a monarchist, i agree that the role of our Monarchy as a timeless national and cultural emblem must be protected.

Whichever race we are born to, we must still be beholden to something that is unique to this land, this particular piece of real estate on this one of many exoplanets.

Where everything changes every second, one should try to hold on to something which tries to keep the true and real essence of what it must be that retains its uniqueness.

Our Monarchy which is the cultural emblem of our country belongs to all races. We should therefore honour it, respect it, uphold it, defend it and build on it.

But i have to also ask a question:

when we do that, who or what exactly are we doing it to and for?

Maybe that's more than one question but suffice to say, it could be more than for a person per se. Could it be for a concept, a notion, an ideal? Even a projection from an ideal? Please furnish an answer if you have it.

However, that concept or notion may have a subset which is reverence for a person. We may say that we revere a person who symbolises a cultural emblem when that person has carried his personage in accordance with the attributes universally assigned to that emblem, thereby strengthening that emblem even more.

Let me leave it as that for ponder. But with a few other points:

We are each born to either like or dislike what we turn ourselves out to be. This feeling of self-love or self-loathing is based on something else. Social standards and norms, perhaps. Articulated and defended universal principles and standards, perhaps. Comments from others, known and unknown, even.

Therefore wouldn't anyone be more than happy to be pointed out his or her faults in order to improve on his or her role for society?

The key element here is improvement. In a world where everything changes, sometimes to nonsensical levels, improvement is a virtue, a much sought after commodity which commands a premium.

So that even the timeless and most valued may be expected to rationally seek out improvement.

walla 29 January 2010 at 14:05  

Why is this so? Because it cannot be that the notion or ideal was perfect in the beginning that it needs no improvement now.

And why is that so? Because the world has changed. Standards, protocols, norms and manners of interactions have changed. For instance, what was a compliment may now be an insult and what is now an insult may tomorrow be a compliment wrapped in a subtlety that is coaxed from a reality - the reality that it is not that one loves someone less but that one loves something else more. And who has the credentials to say that is intrinsically wrong?

Improving is thus about staying relevant. You can't improve today if you only speak latin now, can you? If no one understands or accepts you, the uniqueness is not definable.

Parents are unique to their children and children are unique to their parents. Does being a parent exclude the children from questioning them in much the same way they can expect their parents to question them in return?

Without questions, how can one improve? Without improvement, how can one's emblems stand the test of time? And somewhere inside these two questions is the role of rationality so that we may also ask if we are irrational when defending something, what defense is that when what we are trying to defend is an ideal, for if we are irrational then we can mount one defense today for that ideal and another possibly opposite defense tomorrow for the same ideal, thereby turning an ideal into an ever-changing non-ideal?

Therefore, an ideal cannot stand on its own independent of everything. In other words, it can only be an ideal if people can relate to it rationally. Its property of idealism is after all drawn from the people.

Which goes to say that what is an ideal in a custom may also apply as ideals in the provisions of law.

You have a set of provisions of law. One ideal is possibly to ask whether that set is complete and sufficient for all situations which it is called to apply. If the answer is yes, then apply. If the answer is no, then interpret to apply in such a way that the ideal of the law is not forfeited owing to insufficient provisions of that law.

If a law is used just to tar all cases because that law doesn't have enough provisions to cover all possible eventualities, then the fault is in the formulation of the law. Some will say injudicious interpretation of the law.

Because the ideal of the law is presumably all about justice.

But then again, maybe that has also changed.

Wenger Khairy 29 January 2010 at 14:40  

Dear Dato',

Perhaps many know that I am one of the most vocal critics of TDM on the Internet. I also realize I am but a minion in the blogging world.

Some had suggested that I respond to Tun directly. For a long time I was afraid of the consequences, but today, when Tun offered yet more hyperbole on economics and finance - a subject I study into the late hours of the night, I finally said "enough is enough".

I have responded to TDM's latest posting where he commented on the origins of the crisis. As usual, he did no wrong. My response was approx. 2,000 words long and I hope that Tun is made of sterner stuff that the evil Parpukari and does not censor my comments.

I kept a copy just in case, and would beg of your indulgence to publish it in case my assumptions on Tun are proven wrong.

Warmest Regards
Wenger J. Khairy

There you have it all,  29 January 2010 at 17:53  

When even Malays like you hold opinions like these, I think it is time to pack our bags.

walla 29 January 2010 at 18:37  

any comments, sak and all?

http://is.gd/7hju4

sakmongkol AK47 29 January 2010 at 20:59  

anon 17:53
define how a Malay should think please...

Yellowrabbit 30 January 2010 at 02:06  

Dear donplaypuks®

If one makes a 360 degrees volte face, doesn't one get back to the same position ? Sorryye, can't stand it any longer to see this happens again and again !

Rais is definately a weird character. He should stop making comment. Just like minister Aziz, certain states can use 'Allah' n certain states cannot ! Poor guys should stop making fools of themselve. Kesian. Nowadays, it's so tough to tell what is true and what is false. Everyone is so 'smart'!!! God forgive and save us all. Ameen.

Mat Cendana 30 January 2010 at 18:12  

Haha!...YES, we've forgotten (Melayu, Cina, India & Yahudi mudah lupa)! -- What about that case where the model was to be whipped?? If you're not going to whip her, why not? JAWAP LAH, WOI! Heheh! Kasi kacau sikit sama dia

Good point about the person in charge of Islam, and supposedly the PM's advisor. This is one situation where you can't really blame Najib - it's not reasonable to expect one person to be an expert in everything. If he is, then someone please ask him why my laptop insists on "correcting disk errors" four out of 5 times when it reboots -- six-month-old laptop, Hitachi hard disk, Windows 7 Ultimate (RM10 pirated version SHHH!).

So, one reasonable conclusion that we can make about the "Islamic advisor" -- he doesn't really know nuts about the religion(?) If that is so, then why the heck is he there?? Transfer him to the Forestry Department then (because he's a `kayu')... Or appoint him to advise the PM on other things; like in giving film reviews. So, what does he think of Avatar?

Anonymous,  30 January 2010 at 20:37  

Yo Walla

I have a comment. Can you take a course in precis writing please? You say in 10 words what others can say in 1, all over blogdom!

Gte short-winded, man.

donplaypuks® 30 January 2010 at 20:43  

Yellowbird

Good one. Point taken. It should be 180 degrees volte face / u-turn!

dpp
We are all of 1 race, the human race

walla 31 January 2010 at 09:35  

Yo anon 20.37

If i were to say in 1 what is needed to be said in 10, at least ten in this blog will have to be presented at the seremban high court for possible lest majeste because they didn't say anything to the contrary, innit?

Nowadays we can't possibly know how the winds of justice really blow anymore, duh?

My first thoughts when commenting in other peoples' blogs is for the blogger first. Don't want to get him into trouble just because we want to ventilate something, hopefully to improve this country, nyet?

Just because some don't have mental stamina, acuity, gumption and wisdom doesn't mean i have to write for their reading pleasure exclusively, true?

I have written very short and to the point before, therefore if i don't here, there must be compelling reasons, perhaps lost on those on short leash and thin fuse, no?

But i thank you all the same for your suggestion. Point shall be well-taken henceforth, save where it may hurt the blogger, which i hope will be never.

Grief, i suddenly realize i can draw blood too. I sheathe now and hang my head in shame for this uncharacteristic post.

Thank you for enlightening a fault in me.

Wenger Khairy 31 January 2010 at 14:15  

Dato,
Ignore anon 17:53, there is no reason for anyone to tell anybody else how one should or should not think. Furthermore, your correct on your points and it is in fact laudable that you are applying your intellect to discuss issues pertaining to the Malay community. Most non Malays refuse to confront the fact that racism especially looking down on the Malays is deeply imbued in their psyche. I am saying this as a non Malay.

Anonymous,  1 February 2010 at 01:04  

Yo bro Walla

I did not mean to discourage or insult you. You write very well and your source references are well researched and brilliant.

But, brevity is the soul of wit!

  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP