I guess with much fuss on the kalimah Allah polemic, we should take a step back and be more critical and analytical in trying to understand the issue. Most inconclusive debates come as a result of not measuring the arguments based on the same scale of reference.
Looking at the motion of allowing or not allowing the word 'Allah' to be used in the Herald, every scholar agreed on one main point; the original ruling is that the usage is originally 'harus'. but in the end, when christianization agenda is added into the cocktail, the ruling differs to 2 views: it should not be used on a basis of avoiding harm and confusion as well as closing the doors of harm OR it should be used on the basis of tolerance, openness, and equality in terms of rights.
At the end of the day, it is not to be seen as a clash of opinions, but rather, a clash of view points or a clash of information. One party views law as a means of defending aqidah in any ways possible, while the other views religion as a personal choice, or something that is relative to different people, and every person have equal rights. (merely my biased assumption, do correct me if you have a better description).
And there is also the subjective nature of how people define christianization and whether christianization is really a real issue or just a gimmick to scare people.
To provide evidence on the issue of christianization, i bring to you, Hassan Al-Banna from Majmu' Rasail (in BM):
“Pertubuhan Ikhwan al Muslimin telah memainkan peranan yang besar dalam berhadapan dengan ancaman gerakan kristianisasi yang ditujukan kepada golongan kurang upaya dan miskin. Masalah ini bukan sahaja berlaku sejak akhir-akhir ini malah semenjak sekian lama.And that comes from a country with a relatively smaller percentage of Non-Muslims than Malaysia. If you disagree on the existence of christianization, then so be it. You have your references.
Rumah-rumah milik anggota Ikhwan akan menjadi tempat perlindungan golongan yang menjadi sasaran kristianisasi ini. Bengkel-bengkel pertukangan bersedia menjadi tempat pengajian mereka. Sekolah Ikhwan sedia menerima kedatangan mereka. Unit-unit khas Ikhwan mengingatan orang ramai mengenai ancaman Kristianisasi ini.
Gerakan ini mengugat akidah orang ramai dengan mengambil kesempatan kepada kemiskinan dan kesusahan hidup yang melanda untuk menyesatkan orang ramai”
- Buku Himpunan Risalah Hasan Al Banna
At the end of the day, as incompetent Muslims, we have to leave this debate to the scholars.
Up to this point, there is no real proof that muftis or scholars are corrupted in any way at all, so there could be no accusations to doubt their decisions. If there are corruption, then it should come with proof and should be dealt with.
While Dr MAZA may be credible, majority if not all muftis agree on this ruling. And to disregard their credibility relative to Dr MAZA's is just injustified. Perhaps Dr MAZA or UAI might be able to eloquently capture the hearts of many but it doesnt mean that their words are any more superior than any other scholars.
I am sad because scholars like Dr Zulkiffli Al-Bakri (one of the few people in this world that i highly respect because of his knowledge) was disregarded and not given any spotlight in his views.
I am sad because Harun Taib, the Leader of PAS Ulamak Council, who holds a PhD in International Politics, Masters in Political Syariah, and a Bachelors in Usuluddin is regarded as JUST ANOTHER SCHOLAR-with no say whatsoever.
I am sad that very competent scholars like Dr Aznan Hasan is also considered just another ISMA member. When his admirable achievements are many.
I can even quote Nik Aziz prior to 2013 election on his view regarding this issue, but that wouldnt be such a fair argument since times have changed.
Where is the real position of Ulamak in your life?
Are they just a means to reaffirm your opinion?
Whichever Ulamak supports your views, you agree? Is that how it works?
That's not how it works. At least that's not what you preach to people, right?
Deciding on a fatwa is not like debate. There are disciplines and guidelines that come with it.
Comparing views just by making a comparison of which one have a better example to reaffirm their stand, is merely deciding based on logic. and that's not how religion works.
Yet the saddest thing is not that there are clashes, but the debates that people cause on Facebook which heat up right after court rulings.
The hearings have been conducted for months but debates only started the last couple of days.
Where have you been all this while?
Have you not been informed about this hearing?
Why the sudden uproar?
If you really are to feel that your opinions are superior no matter what, then there is no need for courts or lawyers, or even scholars.
If any, the uproar and debates that happen after the ruling are nothing but means of dividing Muslims.
The judges have decided, the case was trialed in a fair way, both parties gave their arguments and they were heard.
Scholars have given their arguments, and they have came to a conclusion.
We dont live in a dictatorship where only one person decides.
Once a decision is made, as long as it's decided fairly, accept it, and move on.
Do you not trust our judges and lawyers? Do you not trust our scholars?
If not, then why not send your own to court?
It is YOU who claim that Islam is the religion of dialogue. Not me.
This is the essence of democracy-the system that you have been glorifying all this while.
The majority have spoken, and they won (in court, that is).
No comments:
Post a Comment