Pagan God and Uslub Mujadalah.

They are many bloggers supporting the court ruling coming out with reasoned arguments. These I can accept even though we do not agree with each other. But those that come into my blog leaving remarks like fucking extremists, narrow minded religious bigot, guarantee their remarks will never see the light of day. Worthy adversaries however, deserve honour and respect.

There is this argument going around saying that if even Nik Aziz has agreed to its usage, why are you people still opposing the ruling of the court? With due respect to NIk Aziz, his views are not representative of all Muslims. Or even the PAS rank and file. And I am not even sure that you people who quote his name favourably now on this issue, are even on the same wave length with him. For all I know, you may be running with the hare while hunting with the hounds.

The next question often asked, why can't we be allowed to use Allah as you Muslims do? Because we Muslims use Allah conscious of the meanings read into it. You may be using the name just to refer to God.

I need to answer the following issues.

One.

One writer on his blog asked possibly with a dash of triumphalism, what religion did the Prophet's grandfather profess? The grandfather was some sort of keeper of the many idols found in the Kaabah and the Pagan Arabs called one god as Allah. Hence the writer, just like RPK did before him, asserted that Allah was used by Pagan Arabs.

The point intended by the writer is, if the name Allah was used even by Pagans then, why should we Muslims be tearing our hair out if the same name is wanted by the Catholics?

The answer is the Allah used and accepted by Pagan Arabs is not the same as the Allah accepted by Muslims. Not the same sir, that's why we are sticky about it.

This is not a debate about a dispute of the truth that we ALL worship One true God. We all do, but please call him by any other name you like except Allah. Because if you accept Allah then you must accept the full import and meaning of the word Allah as Muslims do.

How does a Muslim accept and understand the name Allah? The foundation of the name is founded on the principle of Tauhid, testification to the Oneness of Allah through tauhid Rububiyyah, Tauhid Usluhiyyah and Tauhid al-Asma was sifaat. I have answered that in my article.

The mystery is solved when one appreciates the distinctions of the 3 categories of tauhid.

Now, you others who want to use Allah to refer to God, would you do so in the same manner as Muslims do? I don't think so, and we respect that. I have not heard of Christians of any denominations in the Peninsular refer to God as Allah. They only do so in East Malaysia.

The term Allah is a noun which incorporates into it, His Essence ( Dzat) which is His Oneness founded on the principles of Tauhid. This is the meaning with which Muslims understand by the name Allah. It is therefore not just a nominal name, which is used to refer to God simpliciter. When a Muslim uses the name Allah, he understands it as the Name which incorporates the Oneness of God. He qualifies the name by knowing that It is founded on Tauhid.

All the names of God in various religions are given in accordance to the capacity of the respective languages. Thus the English assign a name to refer to their God- Lord or something. The Hindus and Arabs all give names to God in accordance to their language capacities. But through nominal names, understandable to a limited extent by humans, are not sufficient to teach us, the Essence of God. To us Muslims the name Allah is the only name that is able to incorporate the idea of His Oneness.

That is why we cannot allow the name Allah to be used if that usage is not understood as Muslims do.

TWO.

Allow me to try to answer another argument put forth by many commentators. I saw one on Din Merican's blog the other day. One commentator later wrote: Sakmongkol, read this. 29:46. And my answer is as follows:-

29:46

A favourite quote of those in favour of allowing the usage of Allah by Catholics is a verse from our Holy Quran: The Qur'an commands Muslims to declare that the God they worship and the one worshiped by the followers of revealed books, including Christians, is one:  "… and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him do we submit". (Qur'an 29:46)

The commentator says that verse should make sense to a lot of us. It does, but allow me to explain.

You don't read the Quran as you do a story book or novel. You sometimes need to investigate the circumstances which caused the revelation of particular verses. There is a companion book known as Asbabun Nuzul that explains these.

Likewise in the particular verse 29:46, you need to do the same. Why was 29:46 revealed to our Prophet? What were the circumstances?

I found a persuasive rebuttal from one Ustaz Zamihan Mat Zin Al Ghari who has his own blog. This is what he said in relation to people who use verses such as Quran 29:46.

Firstly, the above verse and other similar verses are classified as 'uslub mujadalah. These are stylised methods used in debating.

In those days, the musyrikins were in the habit of debating with the Prophet on matters concerning Tauhid. Winning debates by appealing to logic and intellectual reasoning was the preferred method. Argumentative and clever fellows worked at exposing the internal flaws of their opponents reasoning. They were not interested to argue to arrive at the TRUTH.

How to beat the doubters at their own game? By employing the same methods, i.e. using reasoned arguments.

Hence Allah commanded the Prophet and those that followed him to debate intelligently. Hence 29:46. One such method is to offer equally convincing argument employing the method known as uslub mujadalah. For example, when people argue with you, you argue back putting forth reasons and facts that support your views and stand.

Illustration: we have been taught, in order to win arguments and win over our opponents, we get them to agree with our propositions most of the time. Since we are agreeable on all points leading to the objective of our argument, we may be actually talking about the same object. We can ACCEPT that only the same unique object is capable of generating the elements that we find agreeable. Now from there, the one who employs the method of uslub mujadalah, can finally present his case, that the object that we want to accept is the one we propose.

From there you can move on to demonstrate why even though before the argument, you were attached to the same object which you refer by another name, you must now leave it. It's like discovering new facts that render your previous stand untenable. The other name of the object you previously refer by another name was founded on a set of your belief system elements. The rational you who accept what we propose just cannot adopt the name by which WE call our object without also changing the elements of your belief system.

For example, I can't expect that Catholics who now want to use Allah which is the name we call our God, to abandon the elements of Catholicism. We respect your belief system.

But that next step of the argument is an undertaking doable by more knowledgeable people in another forum.

If we start with the proposition that the God that we worship asks us to be kind, sincere, truthful, compassionate to others etc- these are common grounds of any belief system. If we therefore discover we have so much common grounds and similarities, might we not in reality, be talking about the same One God? That only the same object could generate the same commonalities?

Hence verses such as these were revealed to guide our Prophet in his work. That he is commanded to argue intelligently so as to prepare doubters to have the requisite open mindedness. You have to use a methodology to bring argumentative fellows onto a level playing field as it were. One such methodology was to make the musyrikins and other argumentative fellows accept the common ground rules, then a meaningful debate about the true meaning of Allah can be worked at.

So, how do we treat 29:46 then? If we now realise that this verse belong to the specie of uslub mujadalah category, 29:46 cannot be used as a valid argument to allow the usage of Allah. 29:46 was revealed to command our Prophet when dealing with musyrikins and doubters, to debate intelligently with people whose intention is to perpetually argue and dislodge faith by the use of semantics and nomenclatures. In truth, their aim was to dispute whatever the Messenger of Allah says.

Hence 29:46 is a verse incorporating the concept of Al Jadal- i.e. to confront reasoned argument with reasoned argument. We use this method to remove objections and disagreements leading to the object of our mission. Getting our opponents to agree on features or elements of a belief system leads us nearer to the object of our debates.

Tweet

Read more...

The Govt must come clean with plane engines and other losses.

My super sleuth friend Walla raised some disturbing points. They are as follows:-

In 1985, the govt bought 88 A4 Sky hawks of Vietnam War vintage from the US. It paid only RM127, 000 for the whole lot. The catch was it had to also cough out RM320 million to refurbish them with new engines, avionics and armaments.
Of these 88 jet fighters, only 53 were taken out of the Arizona desert where they were mothballed in 1996. Of the 53, 40 were refurbished for use by the RMAF, 12 were cannibalized for parts and 1 was returned for maintenance training.
My question is what has happened to the remaining 35 jet planes in that desert? Syed Hamid who was Mindef minister at that time was quoted as saying the govt would retain 4 of those 35 mothballed planes for displays and parts. Which means 31 A4 Skyhawk jet planes are unaccounted for.
Now, a lot of people had misgivings about the whole purchase. The govt apparently defended that it was a good investment to get experience before buying Mig's.
I am not sure the US would have been too happy about such statements on the comparability of hardware of cold war adversaries.

From the above account, we don't even know what we have and what we lost. Or we in fact knew the whole story, but the relevant authorities are sweeping everything under the carpets.

Which makes me to once again ask the question? What did we lose that amounted to USD 29 million?

On the 25^th of December I wrote asking, what did we lose that totalled USD29 million? That's over RM 100 million. The defence Minister, Zahid Hamidi said sternly that the cost of the engines was RM 100 million. He warned the traitors will be dealt with. Some other people shouted treason and treason is punishable by death. Unless of course there are no laws covering treasonous acts any more.

So what did we lose? Just yesterday, the defence minister once again came out with a new figure. The engines cost RM 300,000 plus each. So 2 engines cost RM 600k or RM700k tops. Pray tell then, how RM 600-700k now becomes RM 100 million? Has the law of the multiplier been applied to the engines lost or has the defence minister discovered some lost maths book which Malaysians have not availed themselves to.

Oh- the price of RM 100 million is arrived at with the use of current valuation techniques. How can second hand engines cost RM 100 million? What kind of financial sleight of hand is this?

The defence minister simply cannot give us this kind of cavalier answer. He must on account of national interest agree to the formation of a committee to establish a white paper to uncover the real story behind what we actually lost that amounted to USD million as broadcasted over TV. The contradictory statements as to the amount lost given by the Minister necessitates the formation of such a committee.

Tweet

Read more...

Gereja di bakar, lessen untuk demo , harga jet enjin

KEAMANAN, GEREJA DI BAKAR, LESSEN BERDEMO.

Terlebih dahulu saya mohon maaf. Kerana akan menggunakan beberapa istilah lucah. Tapi tidak mengapakan? Istilah hanya nama. What's in a name.

Well, dari apa yang terjadi sekarang, everything is in a name.

Bila saya mula menulis mengenai isu nama Allah saya sudah menjangkakan, perkara ini tidak akan berkesudahan.

Orang tak percaya! Kita demokrasi. Ini hak yang di peruntukkan oleh perlembagaan. Bolehkah perlembagaan menegah bencana? Woit, kita kena bincang. Kita bukan budak kecil. Dont insult our intelligence. Kita mesti confident. Jangan jadi knee jerkers!

Saya telah berhujjah memberi pendapat saya mengikut kapasiti yang saya ada. Saya sedar penghujjahan tersebut tidak semesti betul, tapi saya memberanikan diri mengupas isu tersebut satu persatu.

Saya juga menjangka bahawa pendirian saya akan mengundang pencemuhan. Malah sudah ada yang mengatakan saya fucking extremis. Well, I will answer in the same manner!

Memang benar saya fucking extremis apabila fucking keamanan dan fucking kedamaian dalam negara kita ini akan menjadi fucking malapetaka.

Memang benar saya fucking extremis jika perkara kecil mengenai penamaan Allah sedikit demi sedikit menjadi perbalahan yang fucking lebih besar.

Lihat sahaja lah- isiu nama Allah menjadi pertembungan sengit mengenai isiu fucking kebebasan beragama, menjadi isiu fucking penindasan kaum fucking majoriti(sudah tentu nya Melayu) keatas fucking kaum minoriti.

Saya fucking extremis bila saya melihat isiu ini akhirnya menjadi isiu perbalahan kaum dan perpecahan masyarakat.

And please dont blame it on Fucking UMNO. Its also Fucking PKR, Fucking DAP, Fucking PAS.

Saya tidak tahu apa kita hendak menamakan golongan yang rela semua ini terjadi kerana mahu membuktikan mereka liberal minded yang boleh di sukai oleh orang lain. Saya tidak tahu apa kita hendak menamakan mereka yang rela melihat negara kita hancur kerana perbalahan kaum.

Boleh kah kita solat dengan aman dan say our prayers knowing that at any time our church can be fire gutted and at any moment our mosques can be napalmed?

Sekarang kita sudah lihat ada gereja yang tidak berdosa dan sebuah tempat beribadat di bakar. Kita bersyukur tidak ada kehilangan nyawa.

Ini petanda yang amat buruk. Penjaga keamanan sekarang sudah mesti menyediakan resources menjaga keselamatan tempat dan rumah ibadat.

Pihak keamanan sudah mesti menyediakan resources mengelak kejadian ini dari menjadi tidak terkawal dan kehilangan nyawa manusia menjadi suatu kemungkinan.

Sebab itu, saya tidak boleh menyokong orang yang akan berdemo di perkaragnan masjid atau kawasan sekitar nya. Siapa yang boleh mengawal keadaan? Jika perarakan kepala lembu pun, polis tak dapat kawal, sanggup dan boleh kah mereka mengawal perasaan suatu jumplah yang besar?

Kerajaan mesti bertegas dalam perakara ini. Katakan- haram berdemoa atas isiu ini.

Lebih baik lakukan solat hajat bagi orang Muslim. Mudah mudahan doa kita di makbulkan.

JET ENJIN.

Bila saya menulis mengenai perkara ini, iaitu pada 25 Disember lalu, saya telah bertanya, RM 100 juta atau USD29 juta itu harga apa? Pak menteri Zahid pun awal awal dah kata USD 29 million atau RM 100 juta lebih.

Kali ini dia kata harga enjin hanya RM 300 ribu lebih lebih.

Saya tidak faham. Bagaimana dari RM 300,000 sebuah enjin jadi RM 100 juta? Boleh jadi enjin2 tersebut sudah di saluti emas. Atau dalam enjin tersebut di isi dengan beberapa tan dadah morfin.

Tidak ada enjin yang 2nd hand, wa ima di tafsir dalam harga hari ini pun, boleh jadi RM 50 juta sebuah. Ilmu hisab mana ni? Tapi seperti yang saya sebut, dalam keadaan di mana harga paket mee maggi jadi berpuluh Ringgit dan set screw driver jadi ratusan Ringgit, mungkin juga enjin yang RM300 ribu sebuah jadi RM 50 juta sebuah.

Enjin tahun 1972 hanya boleh kita jual sebagai harga besi buruk.

Jadi kalau TV pun dah bilang, Pak Menteri pun dahulu kata demikian dengan garang nya, kepala atuk apa yang kita hilang?

Tweet

Read more...

The Allah issue: not politics or favoured resort of gutter politicians.

The things that we dread are already happening.

UMNO cannot answer back. It's allowed to, only when and if its answers and responses are agreeable. It's a Henry Ford-esque dictum of: you can have any colour as long as it's black. Of course we can't agree if it's wrong.

This isn't an issue of politicising Allah as Anwar Ibrahim claims. When some silly person asks where is Allah in UMNO's administration- obviously with below the belt cynicism implied, that does NOT excuse any Muslim even if he/she is from dreaded UMNO to speak up. That silly person hasn't got the monopoly to speak about Islam nor does he/she owns religious righteousness. You can't prequalify who can and cannot speak up for Islam.

Somehow, suggesting that what UMNO is doing is diverting the public from UMNO's own political vulnerabilities, is so passé. The wrongs in society caused by the government's mismanagements will be exposed anyway despite attempts to divert, subvert or cover them. You mean to say, you people too will be quiet because UMNO people don't want to speak about it? Since when does speaking out against injustices and wrongs dependent upon whether its sanctioned or otherwise by UMNO by employing, to humour Mr Anwar and others, 'diversionary' tactics? So don't patronise us by suggesting that only our accusers have the monopoly over what is right.

The same suggestion can be applied to PKR and to Anwar Ibrahim. PKR is politicising the issue to cover its own political vulnerabilities. The latest drama is the resignation of the once pony-tailed Sallehuddin Hashim. (Son of the colourful Hashim Gera). His resignation may have been precipitated by Anwar's stand on the Allah issue.

We don't give a damn how UMNO or PKR want to handle this issue. This isn't about UMNO or PKR- it's about religion and to Muslims it's about Islam. Why can't this issue be treated as beyond partisanship? Debate whether it's wrong or right and more important whether it's appropriate. We just don't compromise on certain principles.

The majority of Muslims(less the more confident and the more knowledgeable, the caviar clerics, smoked-salmon sermoners, the Bolshevik Believers) are agitated and plain angry. The people in the bracket are all ok. They have no problem with their Islam. Only the plebeians do.

They are angry not because their sentiments and emotions are inflamed by the powers that be. Their resentment is voluntary and spontaneous. Those angry aren't just people from UMNO or UMNO supporters. PAS rank and file members and supporters are too. The Muslim public in Malaysia is angry also.

This time, the anger is caused by the legal permission that says the name Allah is now shareable. Hence, it is now possible to claim the Allah is the God of Christians and Muslims alike.

Malays are opposing the permission to use the name Allah because it is WRONG. This is the reason. It has nothing to do with Malay/Muslims being provincial, timid and so forth. It also has nothing to do with denying others to practice their own religions.

Let's be clear. The Muslims here oppose the use of Allah by Catholics not because they want to deny Christians to practice their religion. It's not even about religious intolerance as some of the caviar clerics and the Bolshevik Believers want others to believe.

Muslim oppose because the meaning of Allah to Muslims is different than that understood by Christians. To the Catholics it's just a name to refer to God. To Muslims it's not just a name. To allow that means we are compromising our religious beliefs. And by compromising does not mean we are less confident of our own religiosity which when shaken leads Malays to convert to Christianity as suggested by RPK.

The deliberate effort to impute the same meaning in the name Allah even though it's used by 2 distinct religions is the issue here. The Christian Allah and the Muslim Allah do not have the same meaning and implications therein.

If they have the same meaning, why do Muslims and Islamic religious authorities go berserk when a Muslim wants to convert to Christianity? We shouldn't make any fuss if we share the same God and His attributes, right? Anwar Ibrahim in this case, should support any Muslim who wants to convert to Christianity since by the definition so wished; Allah is the God of Christians and Muslims. Such a definition is untenable.

So when the Muslims insist that Allah cannot be used by Catholics if its usage carries with it meanings alien to that understood by Muslims, can we then judge the Muslims as being intolerant?

What are the Muslims doing here? Not waging war against Christianity but protecting Islam.

The more we talk about this issue, for us Muslims at least, the issue is not about balancing sensitivities. The issue is whether it is right to assign the same meanings to the name Allah when It is used by both Christians and Muslims.

Now, when UMNO argues the case for disallowing the use of Allah it must argue on the basis of right, wrong and appropriateness. Right and wrong are pure principles while appropriateness is discretionary.

Balancing of sensitivities is the foundation of tolerance. Insisting on the rigid application of principles, fixed and uncompromising laws can also lead to an impersonal, overbearing and imposing state apparatus. What do you call that? Plutocracy? Kleptocracy? Only people wealthy in religious knowledge or rich in legal knowledge are the only ones who can define how society should behave? And when we don't behave in accordance to their refined tastes, we are gutter politicians and those who agree with gutter politicians are rancid material?

We do not want that. Disallowing balancing of sensitivities will lead us to induced rigor mortis.

The whole idea of tolerance rests on our ability to manage sensitivities. We should be horrified at the idea of demanding we desensitise ourselves in favour of sticking to impersonal principles WHEN doing so generates unrest and animosity between religious people. The victim will be peace.

Even the rigidity of the law requires the occasional intervention of equity. When that happens, that does not and has never meant the non-application of pure legal principles made the law less just.

Tweet

Read more...

Allah the Pagan God?

There is an article written by RPK ( all know who he is) about this controversy about the name Allah. The article said, even the Pagans called God Allah so why do Muslims make a big hoo hah about it?

We are making a big fuss about it because the first religious fundamental to which our Prophet preached was Tauhid (the Oneness of Allah). This is expressed by the testification, 'La ilaha illa Allah' (meaning, none has the right to be worshiped except Allah). Muhammad spent thirteen years in Makkah explaining the Oneness of Allah, and not calling towards any other aspect of the religion.

This is because the correct belief (Aqidah) is the foundation of Islam. Only those actions and statements that stem from the correct belief (Aqidah) are acceptable to Allah and therefore, it is a Muslim's duty to safeguard his Aqidah against all defects.

Now I am sure RPK being the widely person that he is, knows that the Islamic Concept of Tawhid is divided into three categories – Tauhid ar-Rububiyyah, Tauhid al-Uluhiyyah, and Tauhid al-Asma was-Sifaat; which respectively mean that Allah is One. These mean:-

• 
  
  without partner in His dominion and His Actions
  
  
  
  
• 
  
  without similitude in His Essence and Attributes
  
  
  
  
• 
  
  without rival in His divinity and worship 
  
  
  
  

 Tauhid ar-Rububiyyah means to believe that Allah alone is the Rabb (the Creator, Provider, Sustainer, etc.) He has no partner in His Dominion and Actions. Allah alone has the power to benefit or harm, the power to change destiny, and He alone is truly Self-Sufficient (As-Samad) upon whom all the creation depends, as He says: "Allah created all things and He is the Wakeel (Trustee, Disposer of affairs, Guardian) of all things." "To Him belong the keys of the Heavens and the earth. He (Allah) enlarges and restricts provisions to whomever He Wills. Surely, He has Knowledge of everything."

 Now, about the Arab Pagans.

 True- the Arab Pagans believed in Tauhid ar-Rububiyyah. They believed in Allah to the extent that they declared Allah as the Supreme Lord. They acknowledged Him as the Creator of the Universe and considered Him to be the Sovereign and the Provider of sustenance, as is clear from the verses of Surah al-Mu'minun, Allah says: "Say (to the disbelievers): "Whose is the earth and whosoever is therein? If you know!" They will say: "It is Allah" … Say: "Who is the Lord of the seven Heavens and the Lord of the Great Throne?" They will say: "Allah" … Say: "In whose Hands is the sovereignty of everything? And He protects all, while against whom there is no protector, if you know?" They will say: "(All this belongs) to Allah."

Betul- Pagans also believed in Allah and uttered the word Allah. However, the belief in Tauhid ar-Rububiyyah did not make them Muslims, just as Abdullah the Prophet's father wasn't. Though they believed in this Tauhid, they lacked Tauhid al-Uluhiyyah (Oneness of Allah's Worship).

Thus even though as RPK pointed out, the Arab Pagans believed that Allah was their Lord, they did not direct all forms of worship to Him alone. They believed that Angles and pious people had special status with Allah, and thus could intercede with Allah for them. They would say: "We only worship them so that they may bring us closer to Allah."

Calling upon Allah for one's needs is a great act of worship, and if it is directed towards other than Allah, it leads to Shirk in the worship. Allah revealed: "They worship besides Allah things that hurt them not, nor profit them, and they say: "These are only our intercessors with Allah."

 Thus, Allah declared their act of seeking intercession with Allah as Shirk and termed them as Kafirun and Mushrikin. He ordered His Prophet (PBUH) to proclaim, "I worship not that, which you worship, nor will you worship that which I worship, and I shall not worship that you are worshiping, nor will you worship that which I worship." These verses of the Noble Quran establish the importance of the Tauhid of worship along with the Tauhid of Lordship.

 From the above, we understand that the Arab Pagans, despite their ignorance and arrogance, completely understood the meaning of Ibadah . They believed that intercession is a form of worship, and did not deny that calling upon pious people amounted to worshiping them. They would call their idols, 'Aaliha'(pl. of Ilah lit. meaning, One, who is worshiped).

Hence I urge Muslims to be wary of unchallenged thinking from smoked-salmon sermoners and Bolshevik Believers.

Tweet

Read more...

Siapa yang hipokrit pak sheikh?

Perkara yang kita khuatiri sudah berlaku.

Masyarakat Melayu yang berugama Islam, merasa resah. Mereka tidak puas hati. Kali ini kalimah Allah yang sebati dengan agama mereka di kongsi bersama. Kepada orang Islam, Allah bukan hanya suatu kalimah. Ia mengandung erti yang mendalam dan lebih luas.

Ada matlaon yang sudah berani berkata- Allah is God to Christians and Muslims.

Jika 'fahaman' kalimah Allah ini sama, mengapa orang Islam marah menggila bila ada orang Melayu/Islam nak peluk agama Kristian? Bukan kah kita boleh kata- tak ape lah, sebab Allah dan pengertian nya sama dalam kedua dua Agama ini. Semua berasal dari Ibrahim.

Isi lagi penting. Zahir dan luaran tidak penting.

Anwar Ibrahim boleh menyebut, jika banyak sangat soal mengenai perkara ini, kita hipokrit.

Orang Melayu/Islam tidak pernah menegah padri atau mubaligh Kristian mengembangkan Agama mereka. Tidak ada perutusan mahkamah yang melarang mubaligh Kristian mengembangkan agama mereka.

Memang benar pula, bahawa terdapat undang undang mengharamkan bertukar agama dari Islam ke pada Kristian. Tapi penghukuman di jatuhkan keatas orang Islam yang masuk kristian, bukan penghukuman di lakukan keatas pengembang agama Kristian.

Kenapa? Ternyata penegahan demikian terjadi, kerana dua agama ini berbeza dan walaupun kristian di benarkan menggunakan kalimah Allah, idea di sebalik nya berbeza. Penggunaan kalimah yang sama, tidak menjadikan Christianity sama dengan Islam.

Ini yang orang Melayu tentang. Bukan hak paderi dan mubaligh mengembangkan agama mereka.

Jangan kita jadi hipokrit- Christianity as we know it at present is not accepted by Muslims as a true revealed religion. This is a fundamental belief in our faith. No disrespects to God fearing Christians, and if Christian want to disbelieve Muslims, that is entirely their right and we shall not deny them this right.

Let's not be hypocritical about the perception of Muslims on Christianity. It is Anwar Ibrahim who is living a life of hypocrisy.

Bila orang Melayu resah dan bertukar pula jadi marah, ianya bukan penentangan keatas kebebasan beragama. Isiu ini mesti kita jelas. Orang Kristian mahu kristiankan orang bukan Islam- they can go ahead. Nak rendam dalam air, nobody yang akan melarang.

Itu perkara pertama. Kita khuatir ia nya akan menimbulkan keresahan dan kegelisahan jadi amarah yang tidak dapat di bendung. Keamanan jadi mangsa.

Ini bukan soal reaksi knee jerk atau bayangan kita orang Islam kurang yakin pada diri sendiri.

Adakah kita membuktikan kita manusia yang yakin dengan membenarkan apa pun di perlakukan keatas Agama kita? Itu cara yang dangkal mahu membuktikan bahawa kita golongan yang yakin dan berlapang dada. It is as though Islam needed some accreditation from others to certify that its adherents are confident and knowledgeable people. That's a most imbecilic stand.

Kedua, kita khuatir terjadi penjejasan dan kecederaan keatas aqidah. Sebab perkara yang asal nya mengenai perbalahan keatas kalimah, kemudian nya menjadi kekacuan dalam aqidah.

Sebagai contoh, sudah ada orang memproklamirkan bahawa Allah Islam sama dengan Allah Kristian. Lihat? Dari kontroversi keatas kalimah, ianya telah pergi beyond simple terms and nomenclature.

Sebab idea orang Islam megenai Allah tidak sama dengan idea orang Kiristian mengenai Allah. Kepada orang Kristian, Allah hanya bahasa.

Kalimah Allah adalah kata Nama buat Zat Allah yang suci yang di namakan oleh Zatnnya sendiri. Ia bukan nama yang di beri oleh orang Arab atau Muhammad SAW untuk Tuhan. Tiada siapa yang mampu menamakan Tuhan mereka kecuali Zat yang Agong memberikan nama itu kepada kita.

Nampak? Jadi apa yang kita lakukan bila melalui mahkamah, kita membenarkan suatu golongan menamakan Tuhan mereka Allah? Yang terjadi ialah kita mansuia menamakan Tuhan. Kita manusia yang banyak dosa dan tidak sempurna ini pulak yang pandai2 dan gatal berikan 'nama' kepada Tuhan kita.

dan bila kita yang Islam merelakan pemberian nama kepada Zat yang Agong, adakah status kita sama dengan Allah? Membenarkan pemberian nama bererti kita bersubahat!

Semua nama Tuhan setiap agama di sebut mengikut keupayaan bahasa masing masing. Orang Inggeris mengenali Tuhan mereka dengan bahasa mereka. Orang Hindu dengan bahasa mereka. Orang Arab dan lain2 bangsa semua menamakan Tuhan mereka dengan kata nama yang mampu di capai oleh bahasa mereka.

Tapi dengan nama sahaja, yakni yang di berikan kita oleh manusia, tidak akan mampu menunjukkan dan memahamkan kita mengenai Zat ketuhanan. Kerana, nama yang kita manusia berikan menyerupai makhluk itu sendiri.

It is God who gives us His Name, not the other way round. Muslims must be clear on this.

Sekarang, apa jadi kepada kita orang Islam bila membenarkan nama yang Zat Agong berikan untuk Nya sendiri , di beri pula oleh manusia.

Jadilah kita Tuhan?

Tweet

Read more...

Kontroversi Kalimah Allah.

Kontroversi kalimah Allah.

Saya ingat saya tidak mahu lagi menyentuh perkara ini. Anggapan saya meleset. Tapi ini kali pertama saya menyentuh nya dalam Bahasa Melayu.

Saya telah menulis beberapa artikel mengenai isiu ini. Dalam Bahasa Inggeris. Ianya adalah pandangan orang awam. Sudah tentu pengetahuan saya sebagai orang awam dalam isiu ini terhad. Namun demikian, saya rasa cukup untuk menyangkal pandangan pandangan setengah pihak.

Memang benar, pandangan dan luahan majoriti orang Islam di Malaysia ini adalah reaksi knee jerk atau pandangan terketuk lutut. Mungkin juga, pengetahuan mereka mengenai Agama Islam itu cetek secara bandingan dengan mereka yang bersegera segeraan pula menyatakan- boleh, boleh, boleh.

Pandangan Puan Marina Mahathir pula adalah pandangan benar yang rasional. Tambahan pula pandangan tersebut di sokong oleh penghujjahan yang bernalar. Kita patut dengar pandangan beliau.

Kita kumpulan knee jerk dan Muslim yang kurang yakin lawan Cannes Film Festival Crowd.

Di dalam artikel saya yang terakhir mengenai perkara ini, saya menceritakan kisah Abu Nawas dan Gembala Kambing.

Saya pun sudah insaf.

Rupa rupa nya:-

1. 
   
   mereka yang menyokong kalimah Allah ini boleh di pakai, memandang perkara ini dari pandangan sang gembala kambing.
   
   
   
2. 
   
   Mereka yang berkata kalimah ini tidak boleh di benarkan di pakai oleh puak Catholic memandang nya dari sudut mata hati.
   
   
   

Walla hu 'alam bissawab.

Tweet

Read more...