Why Do Muslims Execute Innocent People?

Why Do Muslims Execute Innocent People?
Islamist Ideology
by Denis MacEoin
Middle East Quarterly
Fall 2006
http://www.meforum.org/article/1000

While often ignored in the Western media, human rights abuses in the Islamic world are a daily occurrence. Both Muslim states and ad hoc religious courts order mutilation and execution, not only of criminals but also of individuals—mainly women—who have not committed anything which would be considered a crime in other societies. In some cases, Shari‘a (Islamic law) tribunals issue death sentences for those acquitted in regular courts.[1] In other cases, religious leaders invoke religion to sanction non-Islamic practices such as honor killings and female genital mutilation.

Original Islamic jurisprudence, however, does not necessarily mandate such severe punishments. In the early twentieth century, it even seemed that the introduction of modern legal codes in Muslim majority countries might ameliorate regular Shari‘a punishments, but in recent decades, traditionalists have pushed a back-to-basics program which has augmented application of Shari‘a punishment. Rather than modifying Islamic practice, many self-described Islamist reformers make matters worse by advocating retrenchment rather than reform.

Unjust Punishment
Many of the crimes for which death is mandated involve sex or honor. While capricious application of Shari‘a punishment is common throughout Muslim majority countries and communities, since the fall of the Taliban and because of the activity of Iranian journalists and bloggers, many of the specific examples which are known in the West come from Iran.

On August 15, 2004, 16-year-old Ateqeh Rajabi, was hanged in public in the northern Iranian town of Neka. Her crime was to have sex with her boyfriend. She had no lawyer, nor could her family find one willing to defend her. The capriciousness of the judge rather than a strict interpretation of the Qur'an contributed to her death. She had talked back to the judge, Haji Reza'i, who later remarked that he would not have ordered her execution had it not been for her "sharp tongue."[2]

In December 2004, Leyla, a 19-year-old girl with a mental age of eight, was sentenced to death for "acts contrary to chastity." The sentencing judge ordered her to be flogged before execution. Her situation was lamentable. When she was eight, her mother forced her into prostitution, letting her be raped repeatedly. She was later sold as a temporary wife (mut'a, sigha), legal in Twelver Shi‘ite law which allows temporary wives to be contracted for set periods ranging from one hour to ninety-nine years. Thirteen-year-old Zhila Izadi also received a death sentence—later commuted—after being impregnated by her older brother.

Other examples abound. In July 2005, Iranian authorities publicly hanged two boys, 18-year-old Ayaz Marhoni and 16-year-old Mahmud Asghari, in the shrine city of Mashhad for homosexual acts. Photographs of the boys with nooses round their necks just before their execution are available online,[3] but never appeared in Western newspapers or on television.

On January 7, 2006, an Islamic court in Tehran passed a death sentence on an 18-year old girl, identified only by her first name, Nazanin. She had stabbed an assailant while fighting off three men who attempted to rape her and her 16-year-old niece.[4] Reports suggested their attackers were members of the Basij, a radical militia charged with upholding the Islamic Republic's revolutionary principles. Nazanin was aged seventeen at the time of her offence, too young for a death sentence even under Iranian law that states that such sentences for minors should be commuted to five years' imprisonment. In Nazanin's case, the judge ignored extenuating circumstances and applied rigidly the law of retaliation (qisas). Under such a system, a life must be paid for by a life, an eye for an eye, except where the family of the victim is willing to accept blood money or compensation (diya) for lost body parts and organs.[5]

Iran is not the only Islamic country practicing spurious punishment. On April 21, 2005, in Spingul, a valley near Faizabad in Afghanistan's Badakhshan province, family members and villagers executed 25-year-old Bibi Amin after she was found in the company of a man to whom she was not married. She was buried to her neck and, for two hours, stoned.[6] There have been similar cases in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, Nigeria, and other Muslim countries. Even in Egypt, where Shari‘a law has been modified, men and women are still imprisoned unequally for adultery.[7] That the application of such punishments is widespread and that its perpetrators justify their actions in Islam neither means that a consensus exists among theologians or that such interpretations have been consistent through time.

Qur'anic Attitudes toward Punishment
With only one exception, every chapter of the Qur'an begins with the words Bismillah ar-rahman ar-rahim, "In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate." While such compassion is lacking in modern application of Shari‘a law, this has not always been the case. Many traditional sources argue for limited punishment. The Sunan of Ibn Maja, one of the six canonical collections, cites a saying by Muhammad that reads, "Do not carry out punishments if you can find a way to avoid them."[8]

This example is echoed by another tradition from the Sunan of Tirmidhi: "Wherever possible, do not inflict punishments (hudud; singular hadd) on Muslims; if there is a way out for someone, let him go. It is better for the ruler (al-imam) to err in forgiveness than for him to err in punishment."[9] According to the twelfth-century jurist and philosopher Ibn Rushd (Averroes), "hadd punishments are suspended in doubtful cases," echoing another hadith to that effect.[10]

Still, in traditional Islam, adultery and fornication (both termed zina') are considered criminal acts worthy of a hadd punishment, which the Qur'an sets at 100 lashes.[11] Adultery itself is a difficult charge to bring under Shari‘a: it requires four adult male witnesses to the penetration; in contrast, only two males (or four females) need witness murder for the charges to stick. Nor is circumstantial evidence sufficient. Pregnancy is not enough to prove that adultery occurred since the law considers that a woman may have been penetrated in her sleep or, according to some scholars, the possibility that an embryo could have gestated for up to five years. The penalty for false accusation of adultery is seventy-five lashes.

That does not mean that Islamic law does not embrace the death penalty for adultery. At some point—often said to have occurred during the rule of the second caliph ‘Umar (r. 634-44)—jurists began to set the punishment for married people as stoning to death based on a verse that had allegedly been dropped from the Qur'an.[12] Stoning is also mentioned in the Hadith, and there is no doubt that Muhammad sanctioned the punishment. However, strict conditions are determined for accusation and punishment. A distinction is made between unmarried and married offenders; inebriation, force, and errors such as intercourse with a woman mistaken for a man's wife or slave girl are mitigating factors while the demand for four eyewitnesses to sexual penetration makes it almost impossible to bring an accusation. It is because of the difficulties of formal adultery charges that many Islamic societies embrace honor killing.

Historically, there were significant differences in the treatment of free men and slaves. Modern Iranian law discriminates even further against religious minorities. The Islamic Republic might execute a non-Muslim man accused of having sexual relations with a Muslim woman, whereas a Muslim man who has sex with a non-Muslim woman is not subject to any penalty.[13]

Despite the potential for leniency in the application of Islamic rules, states acting in the name of religion have applied harsher penalties than traditional religious jurists. The Islamic Republic of Iran ordered Ateqeh Rajabi hanged even though Shari‘a only permits the execution of married adulterers, whereas she was single. At most, she should have received 100 lashes—and, according to many interpretations, these should not be laid on hard.

The hadith literature is not silent on two of the factors relevant to many of the recent applications of capital punishment in the name of Islam for crimes of honor. Tirmidhi relates an incident when a woman was brought to the Prophet, accused of adultery. It transpired that the man had forced her to have intercourse in acknowledgment of which Muhammad refused to have her punished.[14] Young age can also be cause for leniency. Ibn Maja records a statement by a boy who survived the massacre of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza in 627, saying he had been spared the fate of the tribe's men because he had not yet grown pubic hair.[15]

What about a case such as Nazanin's, in which a person was killed? In Islamic law, offenses against the person come under the law of qisas. These offenses amount to five crimes: murder, voluntary manslaughter—such as when an offender sets out to beat a victim but kills him or her in the process, involuntary killing, intentional physical injury, and unintentional injury.

Retaliation—a life for a life—is permissible in the two instances of intentional killing or injury, but even in these cases, the victim's family may waive retribution in return for a set financial payment. In all other cases, only blood money may be demanded. If correct Shari‘a rules were applied, Nazanin would not face a death sentence for an involuntary killing, especially when she had acted in defense of her honor.

Theological Impediments to Reform
So why is there a growing discrepancy between the penalties justified in Islamic jurisprudence and the far more serious punishments applied? Traditional Muslims believe that the Qur'an is immutable. It is not just a sacred text like the Torah or the New Testament but a direct copy of God's word imprinted on the mind of Muhammad via recitation from the Archangel Gabriel. It cannot be rewritten. Indeed, a hadith attributes to Muhammad the saying, "Whosoever disputes a single verse of the Qur'an, strike off his head."[16]

This doctrine has become pernicious for all who attempt a modern understanding of the scripture. Whereas progressive Jewish and Christian scholars and clerics have devised forms of higher criticism that tackle issues of context and period, all efforts to do the same thing with the Qur'an have met with fierce resistance. Several Muslim reformers—notably Pakistani academic Fazlur Rahman (1911-88), Iranian cleric Muhammad Mujtahid-i Shabestari (b. 1936), Iranian philosopher ‘Abd al-Karim Soroush (b. 1945), and the Syrian Muhammad Shahrur (b. 1938)—have tried to develop ways to account for the social, linguistic, and religious environment at the time of the Qur'an's revelation when adjudicating and legislating on matters relevant to the modern world, such as women's rights. Their efforts have pushed the debate in a positive direction, but they are both better understood and better liked in the West than in the Muslim world.[17]

Muslim reactions to such reformist initiatives have been largely hostile and even violent. In the 1960s, a Pakistani religious court sentenced Fazlur Rahman to death.[18] Vigilantes have attacked Souroush on numerous occasions,[19] and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born ex-member of the Dutch parliament;[20] Canadian writer Irshad Manji;[21] and Los Angeles-based psychologist Wafa Sultan, [22] all outspoken critics of Islamic social practice, are in hiding or under guard.

The pressure to reject contextualization of the Qur'an is illustrated by two cases, occurring more than sixty years apart in Egypt. In 1930, a cleric named Muhammad Abu Zayd, published a book of Qur'an exegesis titled Al-Hidaya wa'l-'Irfan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an bi'l-Qur'an, in which he treated concepts such as paradise as metaphors. Other clerics at Cairo's Al-Azhar University, the central seat of religious learning and authority in Sunni Islam, condemned him. Rashid Rida' issued a more forceful condemnation, accused the author of being an apostate, and called for his forcible divorce. All copies of the tafsir were collected by the police and destroyed. Clerics who had read it were dismissed from their posts.[23]

In 1992, history repeated itself. Egyptian academic Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd presented research in application for a full professorship at Cairo University. His work argued that the Qur'an had been written in a human language so that men could understand it. Since it was in a specific language, he argued, it was legitimate to read it with reference to our knowledge of seventh-century Arabic and the human world to which it was directed. His arguments created an uproar. Al-Azhar University condemned him. Leaflets and the popular press accused him of heresy. The Egyptian government tried him before a secular court on charges of apostasy. He was declared a heretic (mulhid) and an apostate (murtadd) and became the object of death threats from radical Islamists throughout the country. An Egyptian court ordered that he and his wife be divorced on the grounds that a Muslim woman cannot be married to a non-Muslim, even as he denied ever abandoning his faith. He now teaches at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands.[24] That parallel situations would occur sixty years apart illustrates how stifled scholarly discourse is at Al-Azhar.

A particularly flagrant example of academic suppression in a modern Shi‘ite context may be seen in the case of ‘Abdulaziz Sachedina, a prominent Shi‘ite academic, professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia, and coauthor of Human Rights and the Conflict of Cultures: Western and Islamic Perspectives on Religious Liberty.[25] In August 1998, Sachedina, who had received complaints from his local Muslim community about his teaching and writing about Islam, held a meeting in Najaf, Iraq, with grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. In the course of this interview, as recorded in detail by Sachedina, Sistani demanded that he could no longer "express any opinions in matters dealing with Islam, its religion, and its teachings." Prominent among the many theological errors of which Sachedina was accused was his promotion of an irenic, pluralist approach to Judaism and Christianity, which he saw as equals of Islam.[26]

The net result of such incidents is discouragement of serious revisionist work on the Qur'an and the Hadith. Fear for one's life, the safety of one's family, or one's livelihood are powerful disincentives to saying or writing anything controversial. The only arena in which open debate on such matters takes place is in Western academe, but it is likely here that some Muslim academics living in the West and, indeed, some Western scholars of Islam have chosen safer areas in which to carry out research, knowing the risks they now run from a single accusation of defamation.

Qur'anic Challenges
The problem is that, despite the belief that the Qur'an is the immutable word of God, in its current form the book was compiled only during the reign of the Caliph ‘Uthman (644-56) and organized into suras, ranging in length from a few verses to many pages. While the Qur'an was revealed over a period of twenty-two years, the order of compilation was curious: with the exception of the first sura (al-Fatiha), the longest suras come first and the shortest last. Early scholars debated when particular suras, verses, or groups of verses were "sent down." Determining chronology was often basic, all suras being labeled either Meccan or Medinan, based on in which of these two Arabian cities Muhammad had received a particular revelation. Sometimes it was possible to attribute certain passages to a particular incident, such as the Battle of Uhud or a dispute with the Prophet's wives. These asbab an-nuzul (occasions of revelation), insofar as they are reliable, permit a more nuanced picture of how the text developed during Muhammad's lifetime.

One thing is clear: later verses often express a position contrary to earlier ones. For example, early—mainly Meccan—verses express a positive view of Jews and Christians, whereas late ones—all Medinan—follow the souring of relations between the Prophet and both Jews and Christians. By this reckoning, there are late verses that abrogate (termed nasikh) and early verses which are abrogated (termed mansukh).

Verses commanding jihad against non-believers abrogate those of an ecumenical nature, moving from a position of "There is no compulsion in religion"[27] to "Fight those who do not believe in God or the last day, who do not forbid what God and his Prophet forbid, who do not believe in the religion of truth among those who were given the Book [Jews and Christians] until they pay the poll tax (jizya) by their own hands, having been brought low."[28]

The problem is that earlier sections of the Qur'an tend to be more amenable to a modernist interpretation than later ones. Where modern Muslims emphasize the verse decreeing that there is no compulsion in matters of faith, more radical or orthodox scholars trump such citations with nasikh verses overriding moderate interpretations.

What impact does this have on punishment? Qur'anic verses that mention punishments are invariably late but not very detailed. Although the Qur'an always carries greater weight than the hadiths, it is not uncommon to see a hadith cited to support a harsher legal position. Thus, the verse, "There is no compulsion in religion" is outweighed by the tradition according to which the Prophet said, "Whosoever changes his religion, kill him,"[29] which forms a basis for the law of apostasy as it still stands.[30]

The Emergence of Islamic Neo-radicalism
What happened to some strains of Islam to favor the past over the present and glorify black-and-white interpretations of the Qur'an over more nuanced approaches? While the exact answer varies across regions, certain common factors emerge.

In several cases, a puritan form of Islam has either allied itself with a military or political force—for example the Salafi-Wahhabi movement's alliance with the Saud family in Saudi Arabia—or has itself taken political power, as with the early nineteenth-century Sokoto Caliphate in West Africa or, more recently, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's followers in Iran, the Taliban in Afghanistan, or, perhaps, the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia. In all such cases, the resulting political systems have applied Shari‘a in a harsher form than usual.

In addition, from the mid-nineteenth century to the present, there has been a broader struggle between traditionalist and modernizing influences and movements. Growing European influence in Middle Eastern states led to demands for the introduction of Western-style constitutions, educational systems, and laws. Many regional countries adopted modern legal codes modeled on the French, Italian, Swiss, British, or other systems. This represented a great step forward in respect to areas such as family law, tangential women's rights, legal clarity, and modes of punishment.

There were, however, two drawbacks to this brand of modernization. The first was the alienation of the clerical class. Religious leaders are "the learned" (ulema), men who have undergone training as jurists within Shari‘a. Marginalized by the introduction of European criminal codes and the establishment of Western-style courts, divested in many places of their role as educators, and alienated by the overt secularization of many Muslim societies and cultures, the ulema dreamed of a return to basics. They were backed by like-minded lay thinkers, such as Hasan al-Banna (1906-49), a schoolteacher who founded the Muslim Brotherhood, an influential and radicalizing force in several countries in the Middle East and Europe.[31]

The reaction against modernization might have been muted had there been a loose movement for reformation of Shari‘a itself. Mainstream scholars held that it was impossible for modern jurists to challenge or alter the legal precepts set down in the early tenth century by the four main Sunni law schools—Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali. The classical formulation of this precept is that the gates of ijtihad, independent reasoning in matters of religious law, had been closed. The Qur'an—as the immutable word of God—could not be rewritten nor could the records of the Prophet's life and sayings—the other source from which Islamic law derived—be edited or reconsidered.

However, beginning in the late nineteenth century, a number of thinkers argued that, even if the sacred texts could not be altered, it was legitimate to exercise reasoning in order to bring the laws more in line with modern ways of thought and practice. At that time, Muslim attitudes to the West were generally positive. Arab, Iranian, and Turkish political reformers sought to emulate European political systems, science, technology, military know-how, schools, universities, and laws. They argued that Islam could advance by re-configuring itself along Western lines.

Despite this, a small number of intellectuals developed a countervailing trend that emphasized the religious and legal thought of the first three generations of the faith. This became the Salafi movement, derived from the Arabic term salaf (predecessors).[32] Salafi thinkers such as Muhammad ‘Abduh (1849-1905)[33] reexamined the two basic texts, the Qur'an and the body of traditions or hadiths that make up the Sunna, the living record of how the Prophet and his companions behaved and thought. From this emerged a belief that, far from needing to be modernized, Islamic law and, by extension, Muslim life in general, had to return to how it was at the time of the Salaf. Most of the movements Western commentators term "fundamentalist" are Salafi.

While the first modern Salafi thinkers sought reform, later Salafi theoreticians narrowed the debate. Egyptian cleric Muhammad Rashid Rida' (1865-1935) published a periodical, Al-Manar (The Lighthouse), which influenced intellectuals across the Islamic world. His ideas formed a bridge between Salafi reformers and more radical movements such as Banna's Muslim Brotherhood.[34]

These new Salafists focused on improving Muslim morals and what has come to be known as "Shari‘a-mindedness." Sayyid Qutb (1906-66),[35] probably the most influential Islamist thinker of the twentieth century, took this moral emphasis and extended it to include violent action against both non-believers and unfaithful Muslim rulers. He argued that the term al-jahiliya, which had normally been used to define the "Age of Ignorance" that preceded Islam, should now be applied to the present day to the extent that modern society—including Muslim society—had distanced itself from Islam. Just as Muhammad fought a holy war against the forces of paganism in seventh-century Arabia, so, too, true Muslims should fight the barbarism of the modern age. Qutb outlined these ideas in a short book, Ma'alim fi' t-Tariq (Milestones on the Road), based on notes he kept in prison.[36] The text launched the new, radicalized, jihadist style of Salafi thought and activism.

It is this world-view that is echoed today by theorists such as Osama bin Laden and groups such as the Afghan Taliban. They argue that Islam cannot adapt to the changes imposed by history but must remain rigidly faithful to the existing interpretations of scripture, the models laid down by the Prophet and his companions, and the legal rulings developed from these sources by the first generations of legal scholars.

Reform without Reformation
There have been and are a number of reformers working to bring Islam into closer harmony with universal standards of justice, tolerance, pluralism, and human rights. These include Nurcholish Madjid (1939-2005), the founder of a school of Islamic neo-modernism in Indonesia, in which contextualized, independent reasoning in matters of religious law, ijtihad, is put forward as a path to renovation, and radicalism is understood as an obstacle to progress because of its authoritarian and intolerant nature; Mohammed Arkoun, an Algerian thinker, who teaches at the University of Paris III, for whom secularization and modernization are essential elements of Islamic progress; and feminists such as Asra Q. Nomani who have called for major liberalization in the sphere of women's rights.

Others present a liberalizing face to the Western media and academia but retain an essentially conservative position on everything from hijab (veiling) to jihad. This charismatic but, essentially, two-faced trend promotes an image of Islam as protective of human rights while sticking to an agenda in favor of strict Shari‘a limitations to such rights. Two notable figures in this context are Tariq Ramadan and Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Ramadan is the Swiss-born grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna. With a broad academic background including Swiss doctorates in philosophy and Islamic studies, and Arabic and Islamic studies qualifications from Al-Azhar University, he has taught at several Western universities, including the University of Fribourg and St. Anthony's College, Oxford. While he is banned from the United States,[37] he has been accepted in Europe as a Muslim intellectual with a reputation for moderation. That said, many French intellectuals describe him as "The Master of Doubletalk" and regard him as an intégriste or fundamentalist. He has argued, for example, that Muslims should enter into mainstream society only to move it closer to Islam; that he accepts Western laws but only so long as they do not oblige him to do something against his religion; that stoning for adultery should be subject only to a moratorium until Muslim clerics discuss the matter; that Muslim women should insist on wearing the veil; that swimming pools should be segregated, and so on.[38] His support for radicals such as Yahya Michot, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, or Sayyid Qutb lays bare an agenda far from that of the moderate he likes to pass himself off to be.

Qaradawi (b. 1926) is another Azharite with an international following. Considered by most Muslims as a "moderate conservative" and lionized by London mayor Ken Livingstone, Qaradawi's moderation on issues such as elections and women's enfranchisement is a thin disguise for radicalism. He has issued fatwas and commented in lectures, television broadcasts, and on the Internet that wives should submit to their husbands; men may beat their wives "lightly;" men and women should mix only to a very limited degree; and women must wear hijab. He has deemed female genital mutilation, flogging of adulterers, and execution of homosexuals and apostates permissible and has endorsed suicide attacks against Israeli civilians or U.S. soldiers and civilians in Iraq. He has also condemned liberal democracies and urged Muslims to vent their anger publicly on issues such as the Danish cartoon controversy.[39]

Some Western governments have relied upon Ramadan, Qaradawi, and others to develop appropriate policies towards Islam and Muslims. Western media have painted them as authorities on Islam, enabling them to speak without an explicit mandate on behalf of Muslims. By drawing media and government attention to themselves while keeping their agendas hidden, they come to overshadow more authentically reformist figures. This problem is compounded by the numerous self-appointed bodies claiming to represent Muslims in Western countries, such as the Council for American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim Council of Britain.

None of these individuals have used their prominence to speak out about harsh punishments, the execution of minors, or the stoning of those whom most modern cultures would call innocent women. It is probable that many self-described reformers practice a form of taqiya or religious dissimulation in order to show a moderate face to the West and quite a different perspective to their constituents in the Muslim world.

Indeed, when challenged about the harshness of Shari‘a penalties, many Muslim writers and Islamist politicians state their dislike for the alternative—human rights as defined by the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"—on the grounds that such agreements are of Western origin, that they will undermine the norms of Islamic societies, and that they are not themselves based on Shari‘a rulings. Some Muslim intellectuals have even argued that human rights do not exist in Islam. In 1985, Sa'id Raja'i-Khurasani, the permanent Iranian delegate to the United Nations, stated that the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which represented secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition, could not be implemented by Muslims and did not accord with the system of values recognized by the Islamic Republic of Iran … his country would, therefore, not hesitate to violate its prescriptions."[40] According to Ayatollah Muhammad-Taqi Misbah-Yazdi, a contender for the role of Iranian supreme leader upon the demise or removal of ‘Ali Khamene'i, "Islamic human rights differ from the ‘Declaration of Human Rights.' … Human rights must be Islamic human rights."[41]

Conclusion
There are, then, several reasons why severe punishments and unreasonable judgments continue in parts of the Islamic world and why certain human rights—the freedom to change one's religion, to convert Muslims to another faith, to enjoy full civil rights as a Baha'i, Zoroastrian, Armenian, or Jew, to marry by free choice, to write about controversial religious issues—are nowhere recognized. In the absence of fully secularized educational systems and with the increasing political involvement of groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas, the day when genuine reform arrives in most Muslim countries seems to be as far off as ever.

A hardening of sentiment against the West and an increasing tendency to fall back on conspiracy theories to explain Islamic problems seem to make insistence on tough Shari‘a -mindedness a desirable option for many if only as a weapon to use against perceived Western weaknesses. Desperate not to offend, the West has done little to make issue of abuses such as those promoted by judges like Haji Reza'i. While crimes such as his go unpunished, the continued stoning, hanging, flogging, and even beheading all serve to intimidate Western critics and are, therefore, encouraged by Islamic states and groups.

On a wider scale, a major debate needs to take place between advocates of Islamic or other relativist human rights agendas and supporters of the principle that such rights are, by their very nature, universal and applicable to all people at all times and in all places. Unfortunately, that debate cannot take place openly while there is a threat of violence from those who oppose the notion of human rights as a Western or Zionist evil.

What are the policy implications of this situation for Western countries, the U.N., and international human rights organizations? One is that they should give more genuine support to Muslim reformers, their conferences and publications, and, where appropriate, their teaching positions. Another is to pressure Islamic governments to make arrests when death threats and similar menaces are used instead of open argument. A recent Saudi doctoral thesis listed two hundred names of intellectuals who must be killed while, in May 2006, Osama bin Laden declared open season on all Muslim freethinkers. Neither the Saudi government nor the Islamic establishment elsewhere have moved to counter such provocations.[42]

Human rights issues must be linked more firmly to trade and other agreements. The multiculturalist notion that Muslims may not be criticized for the use of unjust and cruel punishments must be countered. The stigma of political incorrectness is counterproductive. Islamic countries and ordinary Muslims must be given incentives to observe human rights norms within their borders and disincentives to apply the Shari‘a in harsh and unjust ways.

The case of Egyptian democracy activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim is instructive and suggests that outside pressure can work. In 2000, following his criticism of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's anointing of son Gamal as his successor, an Egyptian court arrested Ibrahim on spurious charges involving finance of his nongovernmental organization, the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies. The Bush administration responded by withholding nearly $200 million in aid pending Ibrahim's release. The Egyptian government responded by setting him free.

The payoff from support given to positive reform is potentially enormous. If genuinely reformist thinkers are enabled to have an impact within Muslim societies, violence, unjust punishments, and abuse of human rights in the name of religion will decline. In the end, a space for dialogue can only be opened up when intellectual debate joins forces with a determined war on terror—not only terror against Western interests but also against all violence done to Muslims themselves in the name of religion.

Denis MacEoin holds a Ph.D. in Persian studies from the University of Cambridge. He taught Arabic and Islamic Studies at Newcastle University and was for many years an honorary fellow at Durham University. He is currently the Royal Literary Fund Fellow at Newcastle University.

[1] The Washington Post, May 20, 2006.
[2] Amnesty International U.K., news release, Aug. 24, 2004.
[3] BBC News, July 28, 2005.
[4] Etema'ad (Tehran), Jan. 7, 2006.
[5] For examples from a Shi‘ite perspective, see Ayatullah Sayyid Abulqasim al-Khoei, Islamic Laws of Ayatullah Khoei, trans. Muhammad Fazal Haq (New York: Islamic Seminary Publications, n.d.), ch. 35, pp. 2808, 2814-5.
[6] AdvocacyNet, news bulletin, no. 37, May 23, 2005.
[7] "Punishment for Non-Marital Sex in Islam," Religious Tolerance.org, accessed June 6, 2006.
[8] Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Yazid ibn Maja ar-Rab'i al-Qazwini, Sunan Ibn Maja, Bab al-Hudud, Al-Islam.com, Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Waqf, Missions, and Guidance, Saudi Arabia, accessed July 5, 2006.
[9] Abu ‘Isa Muhammad at-Tirmidhi, Sunan at-Tirmidhi wa huwa al-jami' as-sahih, 4 vols., 2nd ed., ed. ‘A. ‘Abdallatif (Beirut: n.p., 1983) Al-Islam.com, Bab al-Hudud, hadith 2, accessed July 5, 2006.
[10] Ibn Rushd, Bidayat al-Mujtahid, vol. 6, p. 113, cited in Asifa Quraishi, "Islamic Legal Analysis of the Zina Punishment Awarded to Bariya Ibrahim Magazu, in Zamfara, Nigeria," Islam for Today, Jan. 20, 2001.
[11] Qur'an, 24:2.
[12] John Burton, Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, s.v "Abrogation," accessed June 21, 2006; Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, Istitabat al-Murtadin, 82: 816, 817; Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and Musnad al-Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, ed., Samir al-Majzub (Beirut: Maktab al-Islami, 1993), vol. 2, p. 39.
[13] "Discrimination against Religious Minorities in Iran," report to 63rd session of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Fédération Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l'Homme (Paris) and Ligue de Défense des Droits de l'Homme en Iran (Geneva), Aug. 2003.
[14] At-Tirmidhi, Sunan, Bab al-Hudud, hadith 22, Al-Islam.com, accessed July 5, 2006.
[15] Ibn Maja, Sunan, Hudud, 14:4:2532.
[16] "Hadith," Ibn Maja, Sunan Ibn I Majah (Lahore, 1995), Arabic with English translation by M. Tufail Ansari, Bab al-Hudud, Al-Islam.com, accessed July 5, 2006.
[17] On these and others, see Suha Taji-Farouki, ed., Modern Muslim Intellectuals and the Qur'an (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); Charles Kurzman, ed., Liberal Islam: A Sourcebook (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).
[18] M. Yahya Birt, "The Message of Fazlur Rahman," Association of Muslim Researchers, June 27, 1996.
[19] "Letter to President Rafshanjani," Human Rights Watch, New York, July 22, 1997.
[20] Ayaan Hirsi Ali, "Danger Woman," interview with Alexander Linklater, The Guardian (London), May 17, 2005.
[21] Johann Hari, "Islam's Marked Woman: Irshad Manji," The Independent (London), May 28, 2005.
[22] John M. Broder, "For Muslim Who Says Violence Destroys Islam, Violent Threats," The New York Times, Mar. 11, 2006.
[23] Ami Ayalon, "Egypt's Quest for Cultural Orientation," Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, Tel Aviv University, 1999.
[24] Fauzi M. Najjar, "Islamic Fundamentalism and the Intellectuals: The Case of Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd," British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 27:2 (2000): 177-200.
[25] Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1988.
[26] Abdulaziz Sachedina, "What Happened in Najaf?" accessed June 6, 2006.
[27] Qur'an, 2:256.
[28] Qur'an, 9:29.
[29] "Hadith," cited in Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, Istitabat al-Murtadin, 68:2:1.
[30] For an Iranian view of the law on apostasy, see, Sayf Allah Sarami, Ahkam-i murtad az didgah-i Islam va huquq-i bashar, in Tahqiqat-i andisha-yi Islami series, vol. 4 (Tehran: Markaz-i Tahqiqat-i Istratizhik-i Riyasat-i Jumhuri, 1997).
[31] Lorenzo Vidino, "The Muslim Brotherhood's Conquest of Europe," Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2005, pp. 25-34; The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, vol. 3, s.v. "Muslim Brotherhood," comprising the following articles: Nazih N. Ayubi, "An Overview," pp. 183-7; Denis J. Sullivan, "Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt," pp. 187-91; Philip S. Khoury, "Muslim Brotherhood in Syria," pp. 191-4; Beverley Milton-Edwards, "Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan," pp. 194-7; Gabriel R. Warburg, "Muslim Brotherhood in the Sudan," pp. 197-201.
[32] The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, vol. 3, Emad Eldin Shahin, s.v. "Salafiyah."
[33] ‘Uthman Amin, Muhammad ‘Abduh, trans. Charles Wendell (Washington: American Council of Learned Societies, 1953), pp. 1-103.
[34] Charles Adams, Islam and Modernism in Egypt: A Study of the Modern Reform Movement Inaugurated by Muhammad ‘Abduh (London: Oxford University Press, 1933); Malcolm Kerr, Islamic Reform: The Political and Legal Theories of Muhammad ‘Abduh and Rashid Rida (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966).
[35] Ahmad Moussalli, Radical Islamic Fundamentalism: The Ideological and Political Discourse of Sayyid Qutb (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1993).
[36] Sayyid Qutb, Ma'alim fi ‘t-tariq (Cairo: Dar as-Shuruq, 1980).
[37] The Guardian, Dec. 17, 2004; Daniel Pipes, "Why Revoke Tariq Ramadan's U.S. Visa?" The New York Sun, Aug. 27, 2004.
[38] Caroline Fourest, Frère Tariq: Discours, stratégie et méthode de Tariq Ramadan (Lyon, France: Lyon Mag' Hors Serie, 2004).
[39] "The Qaradawi Fatwas," The Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2004, pp. 78-80; The Daily Telegraph (London), Feb. 3, 2006; Lamia Radi, "Qaradawi: Prophet Cartoons Is (sic) War Waged against Us," Middle East Online, Mar. 23, 2006.
[40] See Mayer, Islam and Human Rights, p. 8.
[41] Quoted in Ann Elizabeth Mayer, "Islamic Rights or Human Rights: An Iranian Dilemma," Iranian Studies, Summer/Fall 1996, p. 294.
[42] "Saudi Doctorate Encourages the Murder of Arab Intellectuals," Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Special Dispatch Series, no. 1070, Jan. 12, 2006; "To Kill a Muslim Freethinker," FrontPage Magazine, May 3, 2006; Aluma Dankowitz, "Arab Intellectuals: Under Threat by Islamists," MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis, no. 254, Nov. 23, 2005; Aluma Dankowitz, "Accusing Muslim Intellectuals of Apostasy," MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis, no. 208, Feb. 18, 2005.

Apa Kata Mufti Brunei Isu Murtad

Apa Kata Mufti Brunei Isu Murtad
MURTAD DAN RISIKONYA
http://www.brunet.bn/gov/mufti/ic45_1999.htm
(Bilangan 87 Bahagian Akhir). Bismillah,

Walhamdulillah Wassalatu Wassalamu
`Ala Rasulillah, Wa'ala Aalihie Wasahbihie Waman
Walaah

RISIKO RIDDAH MENGIKUT HUKUM FIQH
Persoalan riddah telah disentuh oleh para ulama,
bahkan ia telah mengambil salah satu tempat yang
terpenting di dalam senarai kes-kes hukum jenayah yang
mereka bicarakan. Persoalan ini mereka letakkan di
dalam bab atau bahagian khas yang sebahagiannya mereka
namakan dengan Kitab Al-Riddah, Bab Al-Riddah, Ahkam
Al-Riddah (hukum-hakam orang murtad).

Dengan merujuk kepada analisis hukum yang dikeluarkan
oleh ulama tentang orang-orang murtad berdasarkan
nash-nash syarak, hukum pertama yang mereka sepakati
ialah tentang wajib membunuh orang-orang yang
benar-benar didapati murtad. Ilmuan fiqh abad ini, Dr.
Wahbah Al-Zuhaihi berkata : "Para ulama telah sepakat
tentang wajib hukum bunuh ke atas orang murtad."
Katanya lagi : "Dan telah ijmak para ahli ilmu tentang
wajib hukum bunuh ke atas lelaki yang murtad dan hukum
bunuh ke atas wanita yang murtad dan hukum bunuh ke
atas wanita yang murtad mengikut pendapat jumhur
ulama." (Al-Fiqh Al-Islami wa Adillatuh : 6:186)

Mengikut analisis para ulama lagi, tindakan murtad
merupakan salah satu jenis kekufuran yang amat keji
dan sangat keterlaluan dan ianya menyebabkan terhapus
dan hilangnya segala balasan pahala kebajikan yang
pernah dilakukan sebelum murtad sekiranya mati di
dalam kemurtadan (wal ‘iyazu billah). (Al-Sayyid
Al-Bakri, I’anah Al- Thalibin : 4:132-134)

Perlaksanaan hukum bunuh di atas hanya akan berlaku
apabila orang murtad berkenaan enggan bertaubat dan
enggan kembali kepada Islam setelah dinasihati dan
diarahkan bertaubat. Hukum memberi nasihat dan
menyuruh bertaubat ini adalah wajib ke atas
pemerintah. Taubat di sini mestilah dilaksanakan
dengan mengucap dua kalimah syahadat. (I’anah
Al-Thalibin : 4:139)

Selain daripada hukum di atas, banyak lagi hukum yang
timbul kesan daripada tindakan keluar daripada Islam,
antara lain ialah : Hilang hak penjagaan anak, baki
hartanya diserahkan ke baitulmal, tidak sah menjadi
wali nikah, hilang taraf kehormatan diri, putus
perkahwinan setelah habis idah, tidak dibenarkan
berkahwin sama ada dengan orang Islam atau kafir,
tidak berhak harta waris dan lain-lain lagi.

DASAR HUKUM WAJIB MEMBUNUH ORANG MURTAD
Di antara dasar hukum wajib pihak berkuasa membunuh
orang murtad ialah hadis-hadis berikut yang maksudnya
: "Sesiapa yang menukar keislamannya hendaklah kamu
bunuh dia." (Hadis para Perawi kecuali Muslim).

Maksudnya: "Tidak halal darah seseorang muslim kecuali
dengan salah satu daripada tiga perkara : Tayyib
(duda/janda) yang berzina, qishash nyawa dengan nyawa
dan orang yang menukar agamanya yang terpisah daripada
jemaah (kaum muslimin)." (Hadis riwayat Bukhari dan
Muslim daripada Ibnu Mas’ud).

Maksudnya: "Mana-mana lelaki yang murtad daripada
Islam, hendaklah kamu menyerunya supaya kembali kepada
Islam jika dia mahu. Jika tidak, pancunglah
tengkuknya. Dan mana-mana perempuan yang murtad,
hendaklah kamu menyerunya supaya kembali kepada Islam
jika dia mahu. Jika tidak, pancunglah tengkuknya."
(Hadis riwayat Thabarani daripada Mu’az bin Jabal).

Itulah di antara dalil-dalil yang menunjukkan betapa
berat dan besarnya risiko murtad ( keluar daripada
agama Islam).

Berdasarkan hasil analisis para ulama yang muktabar
dan berkaliber daripada hadis-hadis ini dan
dalil-dalil lain, adalah wajib dihukum bunuh orang
murtad sebagai risiko terhadap kemurtadannya.

Orang yang tidak mengakui kedudukan dan fungsi
dalil-dalil tersebut sebagai dalil wajib bunuh ke atas
orang murtad setelah cukup persyaratan hukumnya, serta
menafikan hukum berkenaan, mereka adalah golongan yang
terpesong, tersilap dan terkeluar daripada konsep ahli
sunnah bahkan terkeluar daripada Islam (kafir).

Termasuk golongan murtad itu, mereka yang antihadis
yang hanya mengutamakan atau hanya berpegang kepada
Al-Quran. Golongan ini menyampaikan diayah jahat
mereka menerusi pelbagai media massa sama ada media
cetak atau elektronik. Mereka cuba mempengaruhi
orang-orang yang cetek pengetahuannya mengenai Islam
dengan memaparkan berbagai teori yang mengelirukan
tanpa bersumberkan kepada asas-asas hukum yang
muktabar. Mereka mengutamakan andaian akal mereka
daripada nas-nas syarak. Mereka ini adalah golongan
yang sesat dan menyesatkan.

Termasuk juga yang terkeluar daripada agama Islam itu
mereka yang menghina dan menolak hadis yang telah
disepakati dan diijmahkan oleh ahli hadis tentang
kesahihannya. Ini kerana mengikut para ulama yang
muktabar, di antara sebab yang boleh membawa seseorang
terkeluar daripada Islam (murtad atau menjadi kafir)
termasuklah menghina atau menolak hukum yang telah
diijmakkan umat Islam.

Pensejarahan semula perjuangan kemerdekaan: Satu tuntutan keadilan

Pensejarahan semula perjuangan kemerdekaan: Satu tuntutan keadilan
Sun Aug 27, 06 01:12:53 PM
Oleh Pusat Penyelidikan PAS Pusat

etik 31 Ogos sudah menghampiri kita. Maka begitulah lumrahnya pada setiap tahun rakyat Malaysia disaran untuk mengibarkan bendera Jalur Gemilang. Tapi, apakah maknanya semua ini? Apakah seluruh fakta sejarah kemerdekaan kita ditulis dengan betul dan adil?


Tanggal 31 Ogos 1957 adalah tarikh kemerdekaan negara kita sebagaimana yang tercatat dalam buku-buku sejarah. Detik bersejarah ini telah dimulakan dengan penurunan bendera Union Jack (bendera British) di hadapan Bangunan Sultan Abdul Samad, Kuala Lumpur tepat pukul 12 malam.


Keesokan harinya barulah diisytiharkan Merdekanya Tanah Melayu dari penjajah British dengan laungan Merdeka! oleh Perdana Menteri Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, Tunku Abdul Rahman di Stadium Merdeka.


Namun demikian, beberapa persoalan timbul disebalik fakta sejarah kemerdekaan negara kita yang sedia ada iaitu: Adakah Umno dan Perikatan (Umno, MCA dan MIC) sahaja dari mula hingga akhir yang memperjuangkan kemerdekaan Tanah Melayu?


Sejarah acuan pemerintah
Apakah buku-buku sejarah yang ditulis pada hari ini berasaskan kepada fakta sebenar ataupun berasaskan kepada acuan pemerintah? Benarkah hanya Dato?Onn Jaafar, Tunku Abdul Rahman dan pemimpin-pemimpin Umno sahaja yang bersungguh terlibat memerdekakan negara kita?


Bagaimana pula peranan yang dimainkan oleh Ustaz Abu Bakar Al-Baqir, Dr Burhanuddin Al-Helmy, Ahmad Boestamam dan ramai lagi berserta dengan pertubuhan-pertubuhan pimpinan mereka Hizbul Muslimin, Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM), Angkatan Pemuda Insaf (API) untuk memerdekakan negara kita?


Kepentingan Penulisan Pensejarahan Semula Perjuangan Kemerdekaan
Adalah diakui bahawa tajuk ini sememangnya penuh kontroversi dan menjadi pertikaian sejak sekian lamanya. Penelitian kembali dari perspektif kajian Sains Politik dan Sejarah adalah mustahak bagi membolehkan usaha-usaha untuk mengembalikan keadilan dan kebenaran dalam penulisan pensejarahan fakta perjuangan kemerdekaan negara ini, mampu dilaksanakan oleh pengembelengan semua pihak yang cintakan kebenaran dan keadilan.


Penulisan pensejarahan semula perjuangan kemerdekaan adalah wajar, dhoruri dan satu kemestian kerana, untuk:


i. Memberikan kefahaman yang jelas dan benar tentang kemerdekaan


ii. Menjamin sejarah sebenar perjuangan kemerdekaan tidak terus diselindung,


iii. Memastikan generasi muda dan rakyat seluruhnya tidak terkeliru


iv. Mengembalikan semula keadilan dan kebenaran


I. Memberikan kefahaman yang jelas dan benar tentang kemerdekaan
Menekuni aspek sejarah dan faktanya secara menyeluruh dalam membicarakan sejarah perjuangan kemerdekaan negara ini amat penting. Ini untuk memastikan kefahaman kita berkaitan dengan kemerdekaan dan sejarah perjuangannya difahami dengan jelas, telus, adil, rasional dan tanpa pertimbangan yang salah dan berat sebelah.


Ia amat perlu kerana penulisan pensejarahan kemerdekaan negara sejak 48 tahun yang lalu tidak transparen dan adil dalam penyampaiannya pada umum.


Sejarah Awal Perjuangan Kemerdekaan
Kemerdekaan Tanah Melayu diperoleh dari Inggeris pada tanggal 31 Ogos 1957. Dalam sejarah perjuangan kemerdekaan negara dan kebebasan bangsa kita, memang banyak golongan telah memberikan pelbagai sumbangan dan pengorbanan-tenaga dan nyawa.


Ketika Portugis menyerang Melaka, Bendahara Paduka Raja muncul sebagai pemimpin yang menentang serangan itu. Lebih tiga abad kemudian, penjajah Inggeris cuba menakluki negeri-negeri Melayu, timbul pula pembesar-pembesar Melayu terkenal: Datuk Maharajalela di Perak, Datuk Bahaman di Pahang, Tok Janggut di Kelantan dan ramai lagi yang bangkit melawan kuasa penjajah.


Dalam perjuangan menentang penjajah untuk mempertahan kedaulatan bangsa ini, dapat dilihat dua tradisi yang jelas. Pertama, tradisi melawan atau menentang penjajah habis-habisan. Kedua, tradisi bekerjasama atau bersubahat dengan penjajah.


Mereka yang menentang ada yang dibunuh, diburu, dibuang negeri dan dilucut kedudukan mereka. Yang menang pula kemudian diupah dengan pangkat, martabat dan kekayaan. (Dr. Syed Husin Ali "Hormati semua pejuang kemerdekaan"


Selepas penjajah menakluki negara dan rakyat, maka timbullah golongan yang berjuang untuk menentang penjajahan dan menegakkan kemerdekaan. Sejarah membuktikan golongan yan mula-mula bangkit untuk menuntut kemerdekaan terdiri daripada tokoh-tokoh atau pertubuhan-pertubuhan yang dicop oleh penjajah sebagai radikal dan kiri.


Pejuang kemerdekaan sebenar
Antaranya ialah Ibrahim Yaakub, Ishak Hj Muhammad, Shamsiah Fakeh, Dr. Buhanuddin Al-Helmy, Ahmad Boestamam dan Abu Bakar Baqir. Mereka memimpin pertubuhan-pertubuhan yang dikenali sebagai Kesatuan Melayu Muda (KMM), Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM), Angkatan Pemuda Insaf (API), Angkatan Wanita Sedar (AWAS) dan Hizbul Muslimin (Ini adalah kumpulan pejuang kemerdekaan dalam golongan tradisi pertama).


Oleh kerana sikap tokoh-tokoh dan pertubuhan-pertubuhan kiri ini tidak mahu bekerjasama dengan pihak penjajah malah, mereka yang menentang penjajah habis-habisan, maka mereka ditekan, ditangkap dan dipenjara bertahun-tahun.


Berikutan pengisytiharan darurat pada 20 Jun 1948 (British telah mengharamkan parti-parti politik yang keras menentang mereka) ruang telah terbuka luas kepada UMNO, MCA dan MIC di bawah pimpinan Tunku Abdul Rahman , Tun Abdul Razak, Tun Tan Cheng Lock dan Tun S. Sambanthan melanjutkan tuntutan kemerdekaan.


Pihak Inggeris merasa lebih senang dan selamat untuk menyerahkan kemerdekaan kepada Perikatan (UMNO, MCA dan MIC) kerana mereka sanggup bekerjasama, berkompromi dan menjaga kepentingan ekonomi penjajah.(Ini adalah kumpulan pejuang kemerdekaan dalam golongan tradisi kedua).


Begitu juga sejarah tidak boleh menafikan hakikat bahawa Parti Komunis Malaya (PKM) juga berperanan dalam menuntut kemerdekaan sejak mula ia ditubuhkan (Mei 1930 di Kuala Pilah Negeri Sembilan; merupakan parti politik pertama di Tanah Melayu yang sudah ada jaringan antarabangsa dengan kehadiran Ho Chi Minh dari Vietnam pada tarikh penubuhannya).


Pada zaman penjajahan Jepun, Chin Peng dan anak buahnya adalah antara kumpulan yang paling berani menentang Jepun. Adakah boleh ditolak peranan PKM menentang penjajah? Mereka ini duduk di tengah-tengah hutan, tidur berlantaikan tanah berbumbungkan langit untuk memerangi Jepun dan mencari kemerdekaan sebenar.


Wajarkah peranan mereka tidak diperakui kini? Perjuangan PKM tidak terhenti setakat menentang penjajahan Jepun, tetapi mereka juga mengangkat senjata untuk menentang penjajah British bagi menuntut kemerdekaan.


Tidak dinafikan mereka berjuang mendapatkan kemerdekaan untuk membentuk satu bentuk penjajahan baru dengan doktrin komunisme untuk menubuhkan sebuah negara komunis (yang sama sekali ditolak masyarakat Melayu dan Islam) tetapi, usahasama dan gandingan perjuangan mereka untuk membebaskan Tanah Melayu dari penjajah wajarkah dinafikan.


Penghakiman sejarah yang adil
Justeru, amat perlu untuk menekuni kesemua fakta sejarah kemerdekaan dengan mengambil kira semua peranan yang dimainkan oleh sesiapa juga; baik pemimpin ataupun rakyat biasa di semua peringkat dalam usaha memerdekan negara ini.


Ini penting demi menjamin penghakiman sejarah yang adil bagi mereka yang berjuang secara bersungguh untuk merdeka; kesungguhan perjuangan yang bukan hanya terhad di meja perundingan tapi juga sanggup berkorban nyawa demi memerdekakan tanah air dan membela maruah agama serta bangsa.


II. Menjamin sejarah sebenar perjuangan kemerdekaan tidak terus diselindung
Tegasnya, sebelum Tunku Abdul Rahman melaungkan Merdeka pada 31 Ogos 1957, laungan ini sudah bergema dan banyak babak-babak sejarah yang dimainkan bukan hanya Umno atau Perikatan.


Parti Komunis Malaya bersama parti-parti nasionalis Melayu yang diharamkan telah mengangkat senjata menentang British. Adullah CD, Rashid Maydin, Shamsiah Fakeh dan Musa Ahmad adalah antara pemimpin-pemimpin yang turut berjuang untuk kemerdekaan (Hishamuddin Rais "merdeka dan sejarahnya")


Begitu juga halnya dengan pertubuhan yang dilabel berhaluan kiri. Fakta sejarah menegaskan wujudnya parti-parti politik nasionalis Melayu mendahului Umno dalam perjuangan kemerdekaan. Persatuan Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM) yang di pimpin oleh Mokhtaruddin Lasso ditubuhkan pada 17 Oktober 1945.


Bersama parti ini ialah Angkatan Pemuda Insaf (API), Angkatan Wanita Sedar (AWAS), Baris Tani Se-Malaya (BATAS), Majlis Agama Tertinggi Se-Malaya (MATA) dan pada 14 Mac 1948 ditubuhkan pula Hizbul Muslimin. Ini semua adalah jaringan gerakan nasionalis Melayu yang menuntut merdeka dari British.


Indoktrinasi Umno
Realitinya pada hari ini, indoktrinasi yang cuba dan sentiasa diterapkan oleh Umno khususnya dan regu kuat politiknya-MCA dan MIC bahawasanya, merekalah pelopor kepada perjuangan memerdekakan Tanah Melayu.


Buku-buku sejarah yang digunakan di sekolah, penulisan-penulisan sejarah dan politik tanah air di institut pengajian tinggi juga bahan-bahan bacaan dan tatapan umum yang berorientasikan sejarah, hebat memperkatakan kesungguhan Umno dan Perikatan dalam membawa kemerdekaan.


Merujuk kepada sejarah perjuangan kemerdekaan Malaysia hari ini, banyak fakta yang dinafikan kerajaan yang memerintah. Ini jelas apabila sejarah perjuangan para pemimpin dan pertubuhan selain Umno/Perikatan serta rakyat biasa seolah-olah tidak diiktiraf.


Ini dapat dibuktikan bilamana, penulisan pensejarahan perjuangan kemerdekaan hari ini masih melabelkan Ahmad Boestamam, Dr Burhanuddin Al-Helmy dan seangkatan dengan mereka serta pertubuhan mereka sebagai golongan radikal dan berhaluan kiri. Juga, mereka ini hanya berperanan kecil dalam usaha memerdekakan Tanah Melayu.


Ini satu ketidakadilan dalam pengungkapan sejarah, kerana fakta sejarah sebenar telah menegaskan Umno dan Perikatan hanya menyambung usaha menuntut kemerdekaan daripada British setelah pemimpin-pemimpin yang di labelkan radikal ini ditahan oleh British.


Perjuangan sebenar menuntut kemerdekaan sedari awal bukanlah dipelopori oleh Umno/Perikatan tetapi pemimpin-pemimpin dan pertubuhan-pertubuhan yang berhaluan kiri tersebut. Inilah fakta kebenaran yang dinafi dan diselindung.


III. Memastikan generasi muda dan rakyat seluruhnya tidak terkeliru
Generasi muda dan rakyat keseluruhannya telah dikeliru dan terkeliru; ditipu dan tertipu dengan fakta sebenar perjuangan kemerdekaan. Menyeleweng dan menyelindung kebenaran fakta sejarah perjuangan kemerdekaan adalah satu pengkhianatan terhadap sejarah perjuangan bangsa.


Ia mencemar perjuangan dan pengorbanan suci pejuang-pejuang terdahulu dalam membela maruah bangsa dan agama. Pengolahan dan pengungkapan fakta sejarah yang berat sebelah dalam penyataan memerdekakan Tanah Melayu beralasankan untuk mengelakkan kontroversi dan mencetuskan provokasi dalam masyarakat adalah hujah yang amat dangkal.


Ini kerana ia tidak akan membentuk kesatuan dan keharmonian dalam sambutan kemerdekaan pada setiap tahun. Generasi baru daripada salasilah keluarga tokoh-tokoh yang dilabelkan sebagai radikal dan kiri (Dr Burhanuddin Al-Helmy, Ustaz Abu Bakar Al-Baqir Chin Peng dll.) pada hari ini, tidak akan mengiktiraf kemerdekaan yang disambut disebabkan penafian peranan datuk-datuk mereka dalam memerdekakan Tanah Melayu dalam penulisan sejarah tanah air.


Justeru, selagi mana fakta sejarah sebenar dirahsiakan dengan menonjolkan pejuang-pejuang kemerdekaan secara selektif; dengan menyatakan perjuangan menuntut kemerdekaan hanyalah dipelopori oleh pertubuhan moderat Melayu iaitu Umno, lantas menafikan peranan para pemimpin dan pertubuhan lain, maka selagi itulah semangat meraikan kemerdekaan secara bersama tidak akan tercapai.


Sambutan bermakna
Bilamana semua warga memaklumi fakta sejarah perjuangan kemerdekaan yang sebenar dan hakikat sejarah ini diterima, barulah sambutan kemerdekaan akan lebih dirasakan maknanya. Perkongsian sejarah bukan eksklusif untuk satu kelompok yang dari sejarahnya pula kurang tepat.


Sekiranya, semua warga diberitahu kelak menerusi pensejarahan semula bahawasanya, kemerdekaan Negara ini adalah perjuangan anak semua bangsa dan Negara ini juga untuk anak semua bangsa, maka sambutan kemerdekaan ini tidak lagi memerlukan peringatan dan pengumuman kerajaan. Ini kerana ianya milik bersama dan semua anak bangsa Malaysia.


IV. Mengembalikan semula keadilan dan kebenaran
Penekunan dan penelitian kembali fakta-fakta sejarah dahulu dapat memberikan kefahaman yang mendalam pada kita untuk memahami keadaan sosio-politik hari ini. Yang terdahulu melahirkan yang terkini dan yang terkini akan menimbulkan yang akan datang. Kesatuan Melayu Muda diharamkan lebih awal dari parti-parti yang lain. KMM diharamkan oleh fasis Jepun semasa Jepun datang menjajah tanah Melayu.


Tanggal 20 Jun 1948 penjajah British telah mengisytiharkan 'darurat' di Tanah Melayu. Ini adalah akibat terdesak kerana rakyat Tanah Melayu telah bangun menentang mereka. Langkah pertama yang dilakukan British ialah mengharamkan parti-parti politik yang betul-betul menentang mereka (PKMM,API dll.)


Apa yang tinggal ialah parti-parti politik seperti Umno, MCA, MIC. Parti-parti yang tersusun rapi dan berupaya melawan British telah diharamkan. Parti-parti yang diharamkan ini tidak memainkan sentimen perkauman dan berkemungkinan menggalang kesatuan rakyat semua bangsa. Ini sebenarnya mengancam kepentingan British di Malaya.


Maka, dari latar belakang inilah munculnya United Malay National Organization (Umno) satu pertubuhan Melayu yang hingga ke hari ini masih memakai nama Inggerisnya. Dari nama pertubuhan ini sudah dapat ditelah bahawa ini adalah penggabungan badan-badan dan kumpulan-kumpulan Melayu yang akhirnya diiktiraf oleh British sebagai parti politik.


Direstui British
Umno kemudiannya bekerjasama dengan MIC dan MCA dalam Perikatan. Kumpulan politik yang bergabung di bawah Perikatan lebih diyakini dan direstui British. Para pemimpin ini juga lebih senang dan selesa untuk mengikut dasar yang diletakkan oleh British. (Hisahmuddin Rais, 'Merdeka dan sejarahnya')


Tegasnya, dalam perjuangan menentang penjajahan demi memerdekakan Tanah Melayu, kedapatan juga dua tradisi yang sama, iaitu: tradisi kerjasama serta kompromi dengan penjajah dan tradisi perlawanan serta penentangan terhadap penjajah. Penilaian dan justifikasi kita mungkin berbeza terhadap kedua-dua tradisi ini. Namun, adalah perlu untuk kita memberi pengiktirafan yang seimbang kepada tokoh-tokoh dan parti-parti penting dari kedua-dua tradisi ini.


Penutup dan kesimpulan
Adalah jelas bahawasanya sejarah perjuangan kemerdekaan pada hari ini tidak benar-benar mengungkapkan fakta pensejarahan yang tepat. Banyak fakta yang diselindung dan diseleweng khususnya bila melibatkan tokoh-tokoh pejuang kemerdekaan yang tidak sealiran prinsip perjuangannya dengan Umno dan Perikatan.


Seharusnya, kita memandang berat dan menghormati pandangan Tun Dr. Ismail, dengan mengikuti nasihatnya iaitu sebagaimana yang diungkapkan pada tahun 1972 : "sumbangan semua golongan, termasuk golongan kiri' mesti dihormati.' (Dr S.Husin Ali), 'Hormati semua pejuang kemerdekaan'. Sungguhpun beliau tidak menyebut satu-persatu golongan tersebut, maksudnya agak jelas.


Tiada siapa yang seharusnya menafikan peranan Tunku dan Umno untuk akhirnya mendapatkan kemerdekaan dari kerajaan Inggeris menerusi perundingan. Memang salah jika ada pihak yang mengatakan mereka tidak memberikan sumbangan sama sekali.


Tetapi sebaliknya, salah juga jika kita tidak mengiktiraf sama sekali peranan dan sumbangan oleh golongan-golongan lain, termasuk golongan ulama, bangsawan tradisional dan tokoh serta pertubuhan 'kiri' yang disebut tadi.


Pensejarahan semula perjuangan kemerdekaan Negara ini amat penting demi menjamin keadilan dan kebenaran fakta sejarah kemerdekaan keseluruhannya. Ini kerana kita tidak mahu "The victor writes history, the loser writes poetry"(Yang juara menulis sejarah, yang kalah menulis sajak)./wann.

Multiculturalism – how can it be wrong?

Friday August 25, 2006 The STAR


Multiculturalism – how can it be wrong?

By NG KAM WENG
Research Director,
Kairos Research Centre

THESE must be worrying times for Malaysian citizens if an official from Ikim, a government think-tank dedicated to the task of disseminating Islam as a tolerant religion, can come out with an article entitled “Debunking multiculturalism” that appeared in The Star (Aug 22, 2006).

Credit must be given to the writer, Md Asham Ahmad, for his forthrightness in arguing that Islam – rather than multiculturalism – be the framework for social policy in Malaysia.

Nevertheless, it is evident that the writer’s forthrightness is not accompanied by accurate facts, given his skewed reading of Christian history.

Md Asham suggests that religious pluralism and multiculturalism is the outcome of a weak religion (Christianity) that does not stand comparison with Islam, given Islam’s strong relation with the State.

I am always suspicious of mono-causal interpretations of history that purport to explain how the existing condition of a society arose from a particular ‘ism’.

A more nuanced reading of the history of the rise of liberalism and religious liberty would take into account the multiplicity of factors including the new discoveries of Oriental civilizations in the European age of exploration, the power struggle between hegemonic states (Spain and France) and new nation-states in Germany and the Netherlands, the rise of the merchant class and independent trading cities (like Geneva) and the conflict between tradition and critique of the Enlightenment thinkers.

Above all, multiculturalism, exemplified by toleration, was the outcome of ‘religious’ wars that led to the treaty of The Peace of Westphalia (1648). Notably, the provisions for religious freedom were called articles of peace.

It should be of interest to note that the challenge of managing religious plurality (a fact rather than an ideology) is not a unique problem of Western Christianity. We see ongoing conflicts in Asia and Africa – such as in Sudan, India and Iraq – that cry out for equivalents of the historic Peace of Westphalia.

It would do well for Md Asham to adopt a modest attitude of willingness to learn from the past rather than judge it with sarcasm, when it is evident that we Asians/Africans continue to be plagued by religious and cultural conflicts.

Md Asham suggests that non-Muslims are motivated by ideology when they commend multiculturalism as a valuable framework to promote social harmony.

He writes: “Multiculturalism, as understood and propagated by its proponents in this country is not based on diversity, but rather it strives to debunk Islam as a socio-political order.” By using words like ‘hostility’ and ‘subversion’ he also suggests that non-Muslims are imbued with an adversarial attitude.

The problem is, Md Asham has inverted the dynamics of rational debate in this country by suggesting that the non-Muslims’ call for multiculturalism is driven by an ideology inherently hostile to Islam.

The reality is that our nation was a plural society at its inception in 1957 and more so in 1963 when Malaysia incorporated the many tribal communities in East Malaysia.

One plainly cannot deny the existing social condition (plurality) that needs to be addressed. Hence, the stress on multiculturalism as the best modus vivendi for developing a national identity that expresses unity in diversity and equality for all peoples regardless of their culture and religion.

Since concepts have different meanings in different contexts, the onus is on writers to define their terms in a fair and accurate manner.

For example, Allan Bloom (The Closing of the American Mind) castigates western multiculturalism that leads to relativism, and results in the demise of “solidarity in defence of the truth”.

On the other hand, Malaysians and other Asians tend to describe multiculturalism as “the view that various cultures in a society merit equal respect and scholarly interests” cf. Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (1994).

Such sensitivity to contextual meanings would have cautioned Md Asham against making the suggestion that supporters of multiculturalism are merely motivated by hostility towards Islam based on family, neighbourhood and school.

Perhaps, Md Asham wrongly equates liberalism with libertarianism. Libertarianism is the view that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish so long as they do not infringe on other people’s freedom or property.

However, Md Asham would be remiss if he tars political liberalism with a form of libertarianism that undermines social relationships; bearing in mind that liberalism has a range of meanings.

It should be noted that classical liberalism as expounded by John Locke describes the essential theses of liberalism in the following terms: that the people are the source of all political power, that government cannot be justified unless it possesses their free consent, that all governmental measures are to be judged by an active citizen body, that men of government are to help them when they require it, but not to run their lives for them, and finally the State must be resisted if it steps beyond its political authority.

More importantly, political liberalism and multiculturalism in the Malaysian context envision the flourishing of citizens based on the preservation of fundamental liberties from encroaching State authoritarianism, if not totalitarianism.

Md Asham may find the theses objectionable, but a robust set of philosophical propositions demands careful and rational response rather than a debunking couched in loaded and emotive words.

Md Asham ends his article with a call for a polity that must be rooted in local history. But taking local history seriously must surely mean honouring the consensus on the specific form of secularism engraved in our Malaysian Constitution in 1957 and 1963.

Unlike some places in the West, secularism in Malaysia does not reject religion. It was the social consensus back in 1957 and 1963 that there should be no establishing of one religion above others in a multi-cultural, multi-religious society like Malaysia.

Secularism in Malaysian history as such commends a benign neutrality and benevolent support for religious plurality.

I find unacceptable Md Asham’s suggestion that, “it is through Malaysia, as an Islamic state, that other religions would thrive, and that we have a better chance of fostering national unity based on a common religious worldview.”

Firstly, it is undeniable that religions are presently flourishing in Malaysia under the existing Constitutional arrangement.

Secondly, national unity remains strong so long as State polity is based on overlapping consensus of diversity of religious worldviews (John Rawls).

I write this to contrast Md Asham’s call for unity under a common religious worldview, which suggests imposition by a dominant religion. In short, Md Asham’s suggestion is both unnecessary and counterproductive.

In conclusion, even though Md Asham’s article in debunking multiculturalism may be a legitimate academic exercise, I reject his suggestion that multiculturalism as historically understood and practiced in Malaysia is incongruent with our local cultural aspiration.

Indeed, I wish to stress that open debate on pubic philosophy is itself testament to the robustness of our national Constitution that envisions the task of nation building to be inclusive and open to positive contribution from all citizens regardless of race, culture and religion.

It is an affirmation of the politics of recognition, mutual respect and reciprocity.

Finding Moderation in Malaysia's Islam

Finding Moderation in Malaysia's Islam

By Marzuki Mohamad, 24 Aug 2006


Malaysia has long been touted as a moderate Muslim country in which modern ethos and Islamic tradition blend well in its political, legal and economic system. Though a Muslim-majority country, Malaysia’s political system is modeled after the Westminster style of parliamentary democracy. Islam is the official religion but the modern Federal Constitution is the highest law of the land. Islamic banking and insurance exists side by side, if not part and parcel of, the modern capitalist economic system.

There are more to say about Malaysia’s Islamic justice system which exists side by side the modern civil legal system. Islamic laws as administered by the Syariah courts derive their legitimacy not from some kind of divinely inspired authority of the Vicegerent of God on Earth, but from the modern constitution. The Syari’ah court judges apply written Islamic laws passed by modern legislatures, thus making Malaysia’s Islamic justice system a far cry from Max Weber’s notion of highly unpredictable traditional Kathi-justice system. Contrary to Weber’s assumption, the litigants in Malaysia’s Syariah court can expect some degree of predictability of the law, which is also a necessary requirement of modern laws.

Such unique blend of Islamic traditions and modern ethos makes Malaysia a model moderate Muslim country which is able to showcase to the world not only its harmonious plural society, but also successful experience with mutual engagement of Islam and modernity. At the heart of this success are increasingly educated and tolerant Muslim population, moderate Islamic movements and responsive government.

The Muslim population has generally accepted a “tolerated” version of Islam in the public sphere by accepting the supremacy of the modern Federal Constitution as the highest law of the land. The mainstream moderate Islamic movements, while are committed to preaching Islam, are not keen on restoring the glorious theocratic Caliphate system in order to replace the existing modern nation state set-up. The government has also been responsive. While it has been aggressive in modernizing public administration, education and defense, it has also embarked on a colossal “Islamization project” as a response to Islamic resurgence in the 1970s.

Toleration and moderation has been central not only to continued existence of Malaysia’s harmonious plural society, but also to its progress toward modernity. Recent debate and furor over special constitutional position of Islam and constitutional freedom of its multi-religious population, however, put the central role of moderation to test. In a haste to progress toward modernity, a group of human rights activists pressed for absolute religious freedom, which is a taboo for traditional Islamists. This is evident in a spate of recent events which include formation of a coalition of human rights organizations committed to promoting constitutional rights, which include rights to absolute religious freedom, and a court room battle over an application by a Muslim lady to apostate.

The response is almost predictable. There has been hue and cry among the Muslim community who often interpret the right to absolute religious freedom as synonymous to the right to murtad (apostasy), which is a grave crime in traditional Islam. While some are quick to blame recent valorization of human rights activism as a cause for the current “onslaught” on Islam, others are keen on proving international plot against Muslims in Malaysia. On top of this, the enemies are the West and its “isms” - secularism, liberalism, religious pluralism and, of course, modernism.

While recent struggle for the right to absolute religious freedom and Muslim community’s firebrand response to it seem to suggest that there has been some kind of regression from modernity, a closer look on the ground reveals that an ambience of commitment to modern values remains salient. While The Organization of Defenders of Islam (PEMBELA), a coalition of more than 70 Islamic NGOs committed to defending the rights of Muslims in Malaysia, seeks to defend the special constitutional position of Islam, what the organization demands is merely re-emphasization of the terms of pre-independence constitutional contract, which is itself a foundation for the modern Federal Constitution.

Muslim student leaders who participated in a public forum at University of Malaya recently reminded the audience not to go overboard in their response to current “onslaught” on Islam so as not to offend the non-Muslim community in the country, as well as not to severe the ties with progressive non-Muslim student groups which have been allies in their common struggle for democratic students’ rights recently. The same concern was raised by participants at a recent meet organized by Allied Coordination Council of Islamic NGOs (ACCIN), a coalition of 14 Malaysia’s Islamic NGOs.

Commitment to constitutionalism and the rule of law is also not missing. Lawyers in Defence of Islam (PPI), another organization consisting of Muslim lawyers formed to defend constitutional position of Islam, is resolute to pursue its struggle through constitutional and legal means. In short, moderation and civility are not all lost in Malaysian Muslim’s response to the call for the right to absolute religious freedom, which is regarded by the generally traditional Muslim-majority as a serious challenge to their faith.

But there is an important lesson to be learnt from the still unfolding events. The Malaysian experience shows that the Western ethnocentric view of inevitable progress toward modernity has its own limitation. In a society with deep cultural and social cleavages, the progress is not one of directional movement to one end. As modern ethos interplays with traditional values, the result can either be further progress toward modernity or complete regression from the same. Moderation is then a key to mutual co-existence of traditional and modern values in a modernizing society. Choosing to be moderate could mean taking a long journey toward modernity, or even a halt to the whole “progress”, but neither being abrasive is a guarantee for complete attainment of modern ideals.



Marzuki Mohamad (marzuki.mohamad@anu.edu.au) is a Research Scholar at the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University, Canberra. He is also a Central Executive Committee Member of Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia (AB

Gubra didakwa 'hantar mesej' maksiat sebagai satu cara hidup

Gubra didakwa 'hantar mesej' maksiat sebagai satu cara hidup
Mon Aug 14, 06 05:37:54 PM
Oleh Azamin Amin

KUALA LUMPUR, 14 Ogos (Hrkh) - Orang ramai dan pengkritik mendakwa 'Gubra' arahan Yasmin Ahmad yang muncul filem terbaik pada Festival Filem Malaysia ke-19 (FFM-19) sebagai filem yang cuba 'menghalalkan' dan 'menerima' dengan senang hati perbuatan maksiat, di samping menyinggung sensitiviti umat Islam dan kaum lain.


Selain itu, mereka turut resah dengan unsur-unsur 'Islam liberal' yang cuba ditonjol dalam filem ini kerana ia dikhuatiri akan mengundang suasana tidak sihat, di samping membawa mesej bahawa agama dan sesuatu tindakan perlu dilihat dari sudut akal manusia semata-mata.


Mesej lain dalam filem ini yang mengelirukan ialah, walaupun sesuatu perbuatan itu salah, seperti melacur, bersekedudukan dan berpacaran tanpa batasan, atas dasar kasih sayang dan persetujuan akal sesama manusia, maka perlakuan sumbang tersebut perlu diterima dengan terbuka dan senang hati.


Sesetengah penonton yang ditemui berpendapat bahawa filem ini mepunyai 'agenda tersirat' kumpulan tertentu dalam memperjuangkan ideologi yang menjurus ke arah kebebasan hak individu untuk melakukan apa saja tanpa sebarang halangan dan wajar diterima oleh semua pihak kerana perbuatan tersebut sudah merupakan satu cara hidup yang tidak asing lagi di mana-mana sekalipun.


Dalam rancangan Fenomena Seni yang lalu, produser filem David Teo turut mengulas mesej filem ini yang dipetik sebagai berkata, sebagai pembikin filem, Yasmin perlu bertanggungjawab terhadap filemnya, ia bakal dijadikan warisan generasi akan datang.


"Yasmin perlu menghormati isu-isu sensitif seperti agama dan budaya. Yasmin perlu menjaga perasaan masyarakat pelbagai kaum di negara ini," katanya.


Dilaporkan juga para penonton yang menghubungi program itu berkata, cara penyampaian Yasmin tidak sesuai dengan budaya masyarakat Malaysia, malah sebanyak 59 peratus penonton yang menghantar khidmat pesanan ringkas (SMS) bersetuju bahawa filem-filem Yasmin mencermarkan budaya Malaysia.


Seorang pengkritik filem dalam rancangan itu turut menyuarakan pandangannya bahawa Yasmin tidak memahami budaya sosial Malaysia yang sebenar.


Katanya, Yasmin secara jelas menerapkan budaya songsang yang boleh mengelirukan pemikiran penonton dalam filem-filemnya umpamanya kesan-kesan budaya yang dibawa Yasmin dapat dilihat pada watak Orked dalam Sepet.


"Orked sebagai perempuan Melayu digambarkan mempunyai didikan agama yang teguh tetapi dia hanya sesuai untuk seorang lelaki Cina penjual CD dan VCD haram yang boleh dikategorikan sebagai penjenayah," ujar beliau dalam rancangan itu.


Mengulas filem 'Gubra', pengkritik itu berkata watak bilal dan isterinya dalam filem tersebut begitu ramah dan mesra dengan pelacur yang juga jiran sebelah rumahnya, menunjukkan bahawa ianya tidak langsung menepati ciri-ciri seorang bilal.


Sewajarnya bilal tersebut, katanya memanggil pihak berkuasa untuk menangkap mereka (pelacur).


"Bilal jenis apa yang 'membenarkan' kegiatan maksiat berlanjutan di sekitar kejiranannya," tanyanya.


Seorang produser kontroversi pula dilaporkan berkata bahawa realiti kehidupan yang dibawa oleh Yasmin tidak berlaku di Malaysia.


"Ia semata-mata pengalaman yang dilalui oleh Yasmin, ertinya pengalaman pengarah filem itu bukan pengalaman majoriti rakyat Malaysia," katanya.


Lain pula pandangan wakil 'Sisters in Islam' yang dipetik sebagai mendakwa filem ini tidak langsung menyinggung atau menghina Islam malah mempamerkan sikap toleransi dan ketulusan perasaan.


Kemenangan 'Gubra' dianggap mengulangi kejayaan filem 'Sepet' karya Yasmin juga yang muncul sebagai filem terbaik pada Festival Filem Malaysia ke-18 tahun lalu yang didakwa turut membawa mesej songsang dan mengelirukan.


Filem ini dipilih oleh panel juri FFM-19 yang diketuai Pansha selain Dato' Rahim Razali, Profesor Madya Dr Asiah Sarji selain dua juri luar negara iaitu Zairin Zain dari Indonesia dan Dr Liu Li Hsing (Taiwan). - lanh

Resolusi Seminar WADAH 13 Ogos 2006

RESOLUSI

SEMINAR KEBANGSAAN KEDAULATAN

ISLAM DI MALAYSIA : ERTI DAN REALITI

anjuran

WADAH PENCERDASAN UMAT MALAYSIA

13 OGOS 2006



BISMILLAHIIRAMANIRRAHIM



Mukaddimah:



Seminar Kebangsaan yang bertemakan Kedaulatan Islam Di Malaysia: Erti Dan Realiti, anjuran Wadah Pencerdasan Umat Malaysia (WADAH) yang berlangsung di Hotel Equotorial, Bangi, Selangor, pada 13hb. Ogos 2006 / 19 Rejab 1427H, telah membahaskan keprihatinan para peserta seminar yang terdiri daripada kalangan ilmuwan, tokoh korporat, pemimpin-pemimipin masyarakat dan NGO terhadap beberapa isu Islam semasa. Justeru, isu-isu tersebut menggugat kedudukan ‘akidah, status syariat, serta peruntukan Islam sebagai agama Persekutuan. Mengingat peri pentingnya umat mempertahankan kemurnian ajaran Islam sebagai satu amanah dari terus digugat oleh mana-mana pihak yang tidak bertanggungjawab, maka para peserta Seminar pada hari ini telah menyepakati resolusi-resolusi berikut:



1.0: Konsep kedaulatan Islam yang jelas huraiannya di dalam al-Qur’an dan al-Sunnah hendaklah menjadi asas kepada kedudukan dan penghayatan Islam di Malaysia. Justeru prinsip hakimiyyah dan siyadat’ul Islam hendaklah difahami dengan tepat dan dihayati sepenuhnya.



2.0: Peruntukan artikel 121 (1A) Perlembagaan Persekutuan hendaklah dipertahankan demi ketinggian status Islam dan sekaligus menghormati status Islam sebagai agama rasmi Persekutuan. Justeru, semua perkara yang berkaitan dengan hal ehwal Islam di Malaysia hendaklah dirujuk kepada Mahkamah Syari’ah sebagai badan kehakiman tertinggi di Malaysia.



3.0: Artikel 11 dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia yang memperuntukkan kebebasan beragama kepada masyarakat bukan Islam di negara ini hendaklah dihormati dan dipertahankan. Namun demikian peruntukan tersebut haruslah dibaca bersama dengan peruntukan lain dalam perlembagaan yang menjamin kedaulatan Islam sebagai Agama Rasmi Persekutuan.



4.0: Semua pihak yang bertanggungjawab dengan Islam hendaklah menjelaskan kepada warga Malaysia bahawa artikel 11 (4) dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia melarang masyarakat bukan Islam menyebarkan ajaran agama-agama lain kepada masyarakat Islam.



5.0 Menggesa semua Dewan Undangan Negeri dan Parlimen bagi Wilayah Persekutuan untuk segera menggubal enakmen/akta yang menghalang gerakan penyebaran dakwah agama-agama lain kepada umat Islam dan pihak berkuasa hendaklah melaksanakan enakmen/akta berkenaan dengan segera.



6.0: Kewajipan mendaulatkan syariat Islam secara komprehensif (syumul) di Malaysia adalah satu amanat Ilahi kerana Syariat Islam pasti memberi kesejahteraan, bukan sahaja dalam kehidupan masyarakat Islam secara khusus tetapi juga kepada seluruh warga manusia.



7.0 Justeru upaya mendidik masyarakat Islam dan bukan Islam tentang dinamika syariat Islam hendaklah ditingkatkan pada semua lapisan masyarakat dengan menggunakan pendekatan ilmiah yang berhikmah.



8.0 Menyeru kepada semua Raja-Raja Melayu supaya bersikap prihatin dan tegas terhadap bidangkuasa yang diperuntukkan dalam Perlembagaan untuk mempertahankan kedaulatan Islam supaya tidak dimanupulasikan oleh mana-mana pihak.



9.0 Usaha menjelas dan mendidik masyarakat Malaysia. Muslim dan bukan Muslim dengan konsep-konsep Islam dan isu-isu berkaitan dengannya hendaklah dipergiat supaya mereka lebih faham, lebih rasional dan objektif demi menjamin keharmonian dan kesejahteraan masyarakat Malaysia. JAKIM, IKIM, YADIM dan institusi-institusi keagamaan lain hendaklah pro-aktif berperanan menganjurkan program-program yang bermanfaat dan berkesan kepada semua lapisan masyarakat Islam dan bukan Islam.



10. Memasukkan Islam dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia dan subjek Sejarah Islam (umum dan nusantara) sebagai sebahagian dari kursus hubungan ras di IPT awam dan swasta bagi membudayakan generasi muda Malaysia dengan realiti setempat.



11. Demi kelestarian hidup masyarakat Malaysia yang majmuk, maka dialog agama dan ketamadunan hendaklah ditingkatkan dalam kalangan cendekiawan dan para pimpinan masyarakat untuk mencari formula-formula berkesan bagi meneruskan keharmonian hubungan antara kaum yang unik di Malaysia.



Sekian, Wassalam.





Hotel Equatorial, Bandar Baru Bangi, Selangor Darul Ehsan.

13hb. Ogos 2006 / 19 Rejab 1427H

How Much Longer? By Eduardo Galeano

Eduardo Galeano - Latin America Writer on the War on Lebanon and Palestine

How Much Longer? By Eduardo Galeano
30th July 2006

One country bombed two countries. Such impunity might astound were it not business as usual. In response to the few timid protests from the international community, Israel said mistakes were made.

How much longer will horrors be called mistakes?
This slaughter of civilians began with the kidnapping of a soldier.

How much longer will the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier be allowed to justify the kidnapping of Palestinian sovereignty?

How much longer will the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers be allowed to justify the kidnapping of the entire nation of Lebanon?

For centuries the slaughter of Jews was the favorite sport of Europeans. Auschwitz was the natural culmination of an ancient river of terror, which had flowed across all of Europe.

How much longer will Palestinians and other Arabs be made to pay for crimes they didn’t commit?

Hezbollah didn’t exist when Israel razed Lebanon in earlier invasions.
How much longer will we continue to believe the story of this attacked attacker, which practices terrorism because it has the right to defend itself from terrorism?The U.S. has vetoed forty resolutions condemning actions of Israel.

How much longer will the United Nations act as if it were just another name for the United States?

Since the Palestinians had their homes confiscated and their land taken from them, much blood has flowed.
How much longer will blood flow so that force can justify what law denies?

History is repeated day after day, year after year, and ten Arabs die for every one Israeli.
How much longer will an Israeli life be measured as worth ten Arab lives?

In proportion to the overall population, the 50,000 civilians killed in Iraq—the majority of them women and children—are the equivalent of 800,000 Americans.

How much longer will we continue to accept, as if customary, the killing of Iraqis in a blind war that has forgotten all of its justifications?

Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon: How much longer will Israel and the United States be allowed to exterminate countries with impunity?

The tortures of Abu Ghraib, which triggered a certain universal sickness, are nothing new to us in Latin America. Our militaries learned their interrogation techniques from the School of the Americas, which may no longer exist in name but lives on in effect.

How much longer will we continue to accept that torture can be legitimized?

Israel has ignored forty-six resolutions of the General Assembly and other U.N. bodies.

How much longer will Israel enjoy the privilege of selective deafness?

The United Nations makes recommendations but never decisions. When it does decide, the United States makes sure the decision is blocked. In the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. has vetoed forty resolutions condemning actions of Israel.

How much longer will the United Nations act as if it were just another name for the United States?

Since the Palestinians had their homes confiscated and their land taken from them, much blood has flowed.

How much longer will blood flow so that force can justify what law denies?

History is repeated day after day, year after year, and ten Arabs die for every one Israeli. How much longer will an Israeli life be measured as worth ten Arab lives?

In proportion to the overall population, the 50,000 civilians killed in Iraq—the majority of them women and children—are the equivalent of 800,000 Americans.

How much longer will we continue to accept, as if customary, the killing of Iraqis in a blind war that has forgotten all of its justifications?

Iran is developing nuclear energy, but the so-called international community is not concerned in the least by the fact that Israel already has 250 atomic bombs, despite the fact that the country lives permanently on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

Who calibrates the universal dangerometer?

Was Iran the country that dropped atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

In the age of globalization, the right to express is less powerful than the right to apply pressure. To justify the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, war is called peace. The Israelis are patriots, and the Palestinians are terrorists, and terrorists sow universal alarm.

How much longer will the media broadcast fear instead of news?

The slaughter happening today, which is not the first and I fear will not be the last, is happening in silence. Has the world gone deaf?

How much longer will the outcry of the outraged be sounded on a bell of straw?

The bombing is killing children, more than a third of the victims.
Those who dare denounce this murder are called anti-Semites.

How much longer will the critics of state terrorism be considered anti-Semites?

How much longer will we accept this grotesque form of extortion?

Are the Jews who are horrified by what is being done in their name anti-Semites?
Are there not Arab voices that defend a Palestinian homeland but condemn fundamentalist insanity?

Terrorists resemble one another: state terrorists, respectable members of government, and private terrorists, madmen acting alone or in those organized in groups hard at work since the Cold War battling communist totalitarianism. All act in the name of various gods, whether God, Allah, or Jehovah.

How much longer will we ignore that fact that all terrorists scorn human life and feed off of one another?

Isn’t it clear that in the war between Israel and Hezbollah, it is the civilians, Lebanese, Palestinian, and Israeli, who are dying?

And isn’t it clear that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the invasion of Gaza and Lebanon are the incubators of hatred, producing fanatic after fanatic after fanatic?
Eduardo Galeano, Uruguayan writer and journalist, is author of “Open Veins of Latin America” and “Memory of Fire.”

We are the only species of animal that specializes in mutual extermination.
We devote $2.5 billion per day to military spending. Misery and war are children of the same father.

How much longer will we accept that this world so in love with death is the only world possible?
Eduardo Galeano, Uruguayan writer and journalist, is author of “Open Veins of Latin America” and “Memory of Fire.”

Anwar Ibrahim speaks his mind

Malaysia's Anwar Ibrahim speaks his mind
By Zari Bukhari and Shawn W Crispin


KUALA LUMPUR - Former Malaysian deputy prime minister and finance minister Anwar Ibrahim is on the political offensive. Nearly two years after his early release from six years in prison on trumped-up corruption and sodomy charges, he now represents the biggest opposition threat to Malaysia's government led by the United Malays National Organization (UMNO).


Once groomed as former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad's successor, Anwar, now 58, has spread his wings widely since his 2004 release, serving as an academic fellow at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington and later teaching courses on Arab politics, inter-religious relations and Islam and modernity at Georgetown University. On the international lecture circuit, including high-profile stops in Europe and the Middle East, he frequently speaks about the growing schism between Islam and the West.


Throughout, Anwar has presented himself as the cool, rational voice of moderate Islam, and his name is now frequently mentioned as a possible successor to outgoing United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan. Although his candidacy has not been launched formally, Anwar is believed to have support in Europe and close ties with several senior US political figures, including World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz and former US trade representative and deputy secretary of state Robert Zoellick.
In a recent e-mail interview with Asia Times Online contributor Zari Bukhari and Southeast Asia editor Shawn W Crispin, Anwar aired his views on Malaysian politics, his personal future and the escalating conflict in the Middle East.


ATol: How and why in your opinion would you represent a better political choice than the incumbent UMNO-led government? What would you handle differently and what specific political, economic and social policies would you enact toward that end?


Anwar: I believe that the opposition, particularly [Partai] Keadilan [Sejahtera], would be able to offer a new brand of politics in Malaysia. There is a greater realization that the race-based politics of the ruling BN [Barisan Nasional] is obsolete, and is unable to face the present challenges.


First, we are committed to democratic renewal - abolishing draconian laws such as the ISA [Internal Security Act], enhancing the role of parliament, restoring the independence of the judiciary and freeing up the media. Secondly, we are committed to a new economic agenda - one that takes a non-racial approach towards enhancing economic competitiveness and alleviating poverty for all Malaysians.


ATol: How do you reconcile your moderate Muslim image with your affiliation with the Islamic fundamentalist PAS [Parti Islam SeMalaysia, or Islamic Party of Malaysia]? Is this a marriage of political convenience, or does your affiliation indicate that you have returned to the more conservative Islamic views you held during your early political career?


Anwar: Yes, PAS is a political party based on Islamic ideals. Yet what many people fail to appreciate is that it has been operating faithfully within the democratic framework for over 50 years, in spite of undue pressures exerted to its participation by the BN government.


There are things [on] which I do not agree with PAS, but in my engagement with them I am confident that we can work on a minimum set of programs that are in tandem with Keadilan's ideals.


When I was arrested under the ISA for the first time, it was because I protested against the poverty and economic deprivation of the rural folk in Baling, Kedah. My commitment to Islam has always been consistent - as a source of an ethical framework for Malaysia, and one that promotes freedom, justice and human dignity.


ATol: What is your assessment of Abdullah Badawi's government? Has he lived up to his reform promise and, if not, what do you see as the more glaring discrepancies in his government's actions? What are your thoughts on the Mahathir versus Abdullah row? Do internal UMNO disputes provide you with a valuable political opening? Any plans to politically exploit the widening row?


Anwar: Undoubtedly Abdullah's big victory in the 2004 elections was partly due to the fact that he campaigned on eradicating corruption and enhancing accountability. While there have been some changes - eg, in the freer democratic space, less interference in the judiciary - I think overall Abdullah has failed to fulfill his pledge. There seems to be a lot of intent, but not so much political will in initiating change within UMNO. A lot of people have been disappointed, and Mahathir is exploiting on this.
Personally, I view this clash as a personal dispute, as it seems ironic that Mahathir is talking about strong opposition, free press and accountability when it was he who destroyed all that during his rule. I believe that this has allowed the people to see our consistent commitment to reform more clearly, and hopefully they will give us the opportunity to implement it.


ATol: Looking back at your time in detention, what realizations did you come to while in prison about Malaysia's governance? As a former senior UMNO member, what do you view as the party's biggest historical shortcomings and future political soft spots?


Anwar: Even when I was back in UMNO, I was committed towards combating corruption and promoting freedom. But when in prison, it made me realize that I underestimated the force of the vested interests that are committed to derail reform.


The problem with UMNO is that it has been in power for so long, and that it relies on racial politics as its strength. At times, this requires it to stir racial emotions for the sake of political expediency, but at the expense of the country.


ATol: Your name has recently been bandied about as a possible candidate to succeed Kofi Annan as United Nations secretary general. Any truth to those rumors, and if so, how will you campaign? Did you broach this idea with your contacts in Washington during your recent stint at Georgetown University? Obviously there is a growing global call for a moderate and modern Muslim leader to take the UN secretary-general post. Are you that candidate? Why or why not?


Anwar: I have [made] some comments to that effect ... The problem is that the discussion involves presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers. The discussion has been going on for the past six months, more serious now with non-governmental organizations and the UN apparatuses - across the world. So I don't think it's polite to be so dismissive in rejecting the option. Most of them asked me to give it serious thought, or at least to consider the option.


To my colleagues here in the Keadilan and the opposition I have stated that my commitment is here. They asked, why don't I state a categoric rejection or denial? I told them I don't think that would be polite. I am not saying that it would be easy for me [to get the UN post] in the event I choose to run, but I think it is a serious proposition. But in the discussion with party leaders, I have made it clear that I am ready to work here.


ATol: What are your thoughts on the unfolding events in the Middle East, including the spiraling Israel-Lebanon conflict, the United States' occupation of Iraq and the growing pressure emerging on Iran? As UN secretary general, how would you hypothetically respond to these challenges?


Anwar: It is disgraceful that the US has given Israel yet another blank check in its offensive against Lebanon even when the whole world is condemning it. The US has to realize that it needs to be consistent to its own ideals of promoting freedom and democracy in the Middle East even if that requires distancing itself from Israel.


This will only serve to infuriate Muslim opinion even more. The few Arab countries that the US can deal with are all unpopular with their own citizens. In reality, the UN can only do so much if the US continues to stand by Israel come what may. Israel must be reined in, and genuine democracy must be promoted in the region - which means the US must be prepared to deal with parties that are not willing to be dictated by its whims and fancies.


This is really unfortunate, because historically the US has been seen as the beacon of freedom and democracy throughout the world. The neo-conservative policy unfortunately has only exacerbated anti-Americanism in the Muslim world.


(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved.

A very touching story

>To my married and unmarried friends:
>
>This is a very touching story, please read it slowly, ....
>
>When You Divorce Me, Carry Me Out in Your Arms
>
>
>On my wedding day, I carried my wife in my arms. The bridal car stopped in
>front of our one-room flat. My buddies insisted that I carry her out of
the
>car in my arms. So I carried her into our home. She was then plump and
shy.
>I was a strong and happy bridegroom.
>
>This was the scene ten years ago.
>
>The following days were as simple as a cup of pure water: we had a kid; I
>went into business and tried to make more money. When the assets were
>steadily increasing, the affection between us seemed to ebb. She was a
>civil servant. Every morning we left home together and got home almost at
>the same time. Our kid was studying in a boarding school.
>
>Our marriage life seemed to be enviably happy. But the calm life was more
>likely to be affected by unpredictable changes.
>
>
>Dew came into my life.
>
>It was a sunny day. I stood on a spacious balcony. Dew hugged me from
>behind. My heart once again was immersed in her stream of love. This was
>the apartment I bought for her.
>
>Dew said, you are the kind of man who best draws girls' eyeballs. Her
words
>suddenly reminded me of my wife. When we were just married, my wife said,
>Men like you, once successful, will be very attractive to girls.
>
>Thinking of this, I became somewhat hesitant. I knew I had betrayed my
>wife. But I couldn't help doing so.
>
>I moved Dew's hands aside and said you go to select some furniture, O.K.?
>I've got something to do in the company. Obviously she was unhappy,
because
>I had promised to do it together with her. At the moment, the idea of
>divorce became clearer in my mind although it used to be something
>impossible to me.
>
>However, I found it rather difficult to tell my wife about it. No matter
>how mildly I mentioned it to her, she would be deeply hurt.
>
>Honestly, she was a good wife. Every evening she was busy preparing
dinner.
>I was sitting in front of the TV. The dinner was ready soon. Then we
>watched TV together. Or, I was lounging before the computer, visualizing
>Dew's body. This was the means of my entertainment.
>
>One day I said to her in a slightly joking way, suppose we divorce, what
>will you do? She stared at me for a few seconds without a word. Apparently
>she believed that divorce was something too far away from her. I couldn't
>imagine how she would react once she got to know I was serious.
>
>When my wife went to my office, Dew had just stepped out. Almost all the
>staff looked at my wife with a sympathetic eye and tried to hide something
>while talking to her. She seemed to have got some hint. She gently smiled
>at my subordinates. But I read some hurt in her eyes.
>
>Once again, Dew said to me, He Ning, divorce her, O.K.? Then we live
>together. I nodded. I knew I could not hesitate any more.
>
>When my wife served the last dish, I held her hand. I've got something to
>tell you, I said. She sat down and ate quietly. Again I observed the hurt
>in her eyes. Suddenly I didn't know how to open my mouth. But I had to let
>her know what I was thinking. I want a divorce. I raised the serious topic
>calmly.
>
>She didn't seem to be annoyed by my words, instead she asked me softly,
>why? I'm serious. I avoided her question. This so-called answer made her
>angry. She threw away the chopsticks and shouted at me, you are not a man!
>
>That night, we didn't talk to each other. She was weeping. I knew she
>wanted to find out what had happened to our marriage. But I could hardly
>give her a satisfactory answer, because my heart had gone to Dew.
>
>With a deep sense of guilt, I drafted a divorce agreement which stated
that
>she could own our house, our car, and 30% stake of my company. She glanced
>at it and then tore it into pieces. I felt a pain in my heart. The woman
>who had been living ten years with me would become a stranger one day. But
>I could not take back what I had said.
>
>Finally she cried loudly in front of me, which was what I had expected to
>see. To me her cry was actually a kind of release. The idea of divorce
>which had obsessed me for several weeks seemed to be firmer and clearer.
>
>Late that night, I came back home after entertaining my clients. I saw her
>writing something at the table. I fall asleep fast. When I woke up, I
found
>she was still there. I turned over and was asleep again.
>
>She brought up her divorce conditions: she didn't want anything from me,
>but I was supposed to give her one month s time before divorce, and in the
>month's time we must live as normal a life as possible. Her reason was
>simple: our son would finish his summer vacation a month later and she
>didn't want him to see our marriage was broken.
>
>She passed me the agreement she drafted, and then asked me, He Ning, do
you
>still remember how I entered our bridal room on the wedding day? This
>question suddenly brought back all those wonderful memories to me. I
nodded
>and said, I remember. You carried me in your arms, she continued, so, I
>have a requirement, that is, you carry me out in your arms on the day when
>we divorce. From now to the end of this month, you must carry me out from
>the bedroom to the door every morning.
>
>I accepted with a smile. I knew she missed those sweet days and wished to
>end her marriage romantically.
>
>I told Dew about my wife s divorce conditions. She laughed loudly and
>thought it was absurd. No matter what tricks she does, she has to face the
>result of divorce, she said scornfully. Her words more or less made me
feel
>uncomfortable.
>
>My wife and I hadn't had any body contact since my divorce intention was
>explicitly expressed. We even treated each other as a stranger. So when I
>carried her out on the first day, we both appeared clumsy. Our son clapped
>behind us, daddy is holding mummy in his arms. His words brought me a
sense
>of pain. From the bedroom to the sitting room, then to the door, I walked
>over ten meters with her in my arms. She closed her eyes and said softly,
>Let us start from today, don't tell our son. I nodded, feeling somewhat
>upset. I put her down outside the door. She went to wait for a bus, I
drove
>to the office.
>
>On the second day, both of us acted much more easily. She leaned on my
>chest. We were so close that I could smell the fragrance of her blouse. I
>realized that I hadn't looked at this intimate woman carefully for a long
>time. I found she was not young any more. There were some fine wrinkles on
>her face.
>
>On the third day, she whispered to me, the outside garden is being
>demolished. Be careful when you pass there.
>
>On the fourth day, when I lifted her up, I seemed to feel that we were
>still an intimate couple and I was holding my sweetheart in my arms. The
>visualization of Dew became vague.
>
>On the fifth and sixth day, she kept reminding me something, such as,
where
>she put the ironed shirts, I should be careful while cooking, etc. I
>nodded. The sense of intimacy was even stronger. I didn't tell Dew about
>this.
>
>I felt it was easier to carry her. Perhaps the everyday workout made me
>stronger. I said to her, It seems not difficult to carry you now. She was
>picking her dresses. I was waiting to carry her out. She tried quite a few
>but could not find a suitable one. Then she sighed, all my dresses have
>grown bigger. I smiled. But I suddenly realized that it was because she
was
>thinner that I could carry her more easily, not because I was stronger. I
>knew she had buried all the bitterness in her heart. Again, I felt a sense
>of pain. Subconsciously I reached out a hand to touch her head.
>
>Our son came in at the moment. Dad, it's time to carry mum out. He said.
To
>him, seeing his father carrying his mother out had been an essential part
>of his life. She gestured our son to come closer and hugged him tightly. I
>turned my face because I was afraid I would change my mind at the last
>minute. I held her in my arms, walking from the bedroom, through the
>sitting room, to the hallway. Her hand surrounded my neck softly and
>naturally. I held her body tightly, as if we came back to our wedding day.
>But her much lighter weight made me sad.
>
>On the last day, when I held her in my arms I could hardly move a step.
Our
>son had gone to school. She said, actually I hope you will hold me in your
>arms until we are old.
>
>I held her tightly and said, both you and I didn't notice that our life
>lacked intimacy.
>
>I jumped out of the car swiftly without locking the door. I was afraid any
>delay would make me change my decision. I walked upstairs. Dew opened the
>door. I said to her, Sorry, Dew, I won't divorce. I'm serious.
>
>She looked at me, astonished. The she touched my forehead. You got no
>fever. She said. I moved her hand off my head. Sorry, Dew, I said, I can
>only say sorry to you, I won't divorce. My marriage life was boring
>probably because she and I didn't value the details of life, not because
we
>didn't love each other any more. Now I understand that since I carried her
>into the home, she gave birth to our child, I am supposed to hold her
until
>I am old.. So I have to say sorry to you.
>
>Dew seemed to suddenly wake up. She gave me a loud slap and then slammed
>the door and burst into tears. I walked downstairs and drove to the
office.
>
>When I passed the floral shop on the way, I ordered a bouquet for my wife
>which was her favorite. The salesgirl asked me what to write on the card.
I
>smiled and wrote, I'll carry you out every morning until we are old.
>
>
>Very touching, right? If you think it's touching, please forward it to
your
>friends and me too, if you think it's not touching at all, just ignored
>this email.

Muslim anger grows at Pope speech

Last Updated: BBCFriday, 15 September 2006, 01:28 GMT 02:28 UK

Muslim anger grows at Pope speech

Pope Benedict XVI in Freising, southern Germany

The Pope's comments came on a visit to Germany

A statement from the Vatican has failed to quell criticism of Pope Benedict XVI from Muslim leaders, after he made a speech about the concept of holy war.
Speaking in Germany, the Pope quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things................

We all know about Pope

How dare the Pontiff utter such slander towards Islam dan the Prophet s.a.w. ? Observers have noted previous statements before by Pope Benedict XVI which tended to show his true colours concerning other religions especially his own subtle aversion to Islam in his speeches and his thoughts expounded.

No one should expect a Christian leader to show belief nor be sympathetic towards Islam and its adherents. However being the supreme head of the largest Catholic denomination, utterances must not be callous and disparaging especially in times of religious suspicion and animosity.

But what do we expect from a Church which has its roots in being rejected from the public domain of life? Catholicsm was relegated to become limited to a personal relationship with God for self preservation or salvation, surrendering unto Caesar everything else. The Catholic Church became the most corrupted and tyrannical institution in Europe’s dark history. Out of this rejection, spawned humanism, secularism and the decline of religion in governing human affairs. Mankind in Europe basically reformed themselves and aspired a reawakening and scientific advancement devout of any regard for divine guidance nor religious morality.

It was the mass agitation of Pope Urban that drove millions of Crusaders to attack and plunder Muslim lands and the East, the Orient. The promise of God, Gold and Glory, with it mass murder, destruction and subsequent colonisation was the Catholic’s Church doing. The fall of Jerusalem to the first crusaders brought genocide of hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims and Jews. It was the Pope and the Church at that age that inspired the conquest and extermination of the natives of the Americas.

Even today the Catholic Papal authority is rife with scandals, sleaze and corruption. Celibacy may be an honourable vow to some and a painful self inflicting punishment but has been seen to be quite hypocritical. Being unmarried but having human desires led many senior Catholic church leaders, priests and nuns to engage in demeaning and debasing behaviour. It led to cover ups and the church is in a mess. Scandals after scandals have hit the disgraced Catholic church throughout history until today.

The Pope has to put his church’s history and his own house in order. Muslims however have to the right to be angry but we have to remain calm at such agitation because we all know the true nature of the Pope and all of his ways and all of his minions.



Abu Omar

Muslims demand pope apologise for comments on Islam

September 15, 2006 08:31 AM



Muslims demand pope apologise for comments on Islam

PARIS (AFP) - Pope Benedict XVI faced sharp reactions to a lecture in which he linked Islam with violence, with Muslim leaders in several countries demanding he apologise.

"We hope that the (Roman Catholic) Church will very quickly... clarify its position so that it does not confuse Islam, which is a revealed religion, with Islamism, which is not a religion but a political ideology," the head of the French Council for the Muslim Religion (CFCM), Dalil Boubakeur, told AFP.

Benedict provoked the outcry with comments on Tuesday in a theological lecture in which he implicitly denounced connections between Islam and violence, particularly with regard to jihad, or "holy war".

The pope's official spokesman later issued a response to the outcry, saying that Benedict respected Islam but rejected violence motivated by religion.

"It was certainly not the intention of the Holy Father to do an in-depth study of jihad and Muslim thinking in this field and still less so to hurt the feelings of Muslim believers," said Federico Lombardi, head of the Vatican's press department.

The pope's comments, made in a lecture at the University of Regensburg during a visit to his native Bavaria in southern Germany, were couched in a historical reference to a 14th century Byzantine emperor.

"He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,'" Benedict said, quoting the Byzantine source on the Prophet Mohammed, founder of the Muslim faith.

The comments provoked an outcry among Muslims in several countries.

"It is a statement full of enmity and grudge," said Ali Bardakoglu, the head of Turkey's state-run religious affairs directorate.

He also expressed opposition to the pope's planned visit to Turkey in November.

Senior Islamic officials in Kuwait and Egypt demanded an immediate apology by the head of the Roman Catholic Church.

Hakem al-Mutairi, secretary general of Kuwait's Umma (Islamic Nation) party, urged Muslim countries to recall their ambassadors from the Vatican until the pope apologised for what Mutairi called his "calumnies" against Islam.

Several Islamic parties in Pakistan expressed their regret at the pope's comments, and the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference in Jeddah called on the Vatican to clarify its "true position on Islam and its precepts".

This demand was echoed by Mustapha Cherif, an Algerian Islam expert and co-founder of an Islamic-Christian friendship group, who said Benedict's views should be "made explicit".

"If they are confirmed, that proves Islam is misunderstood," Cherif told AFP in Paris. He also called on Muslims to help promote understanding of their faith.

Benedict's speech at Regensburg University explored the historical and philosophical differences between Islam and Christianity, and the relationship between violence and faith.

"Violence is incompatible with the nature of God," he said.

Muslims also objected to another part of the lecture, in which Benedict quoted a scholar's assertion that the Muslim view of God, unlike the Christian, was not informed by the Greek-inspired western philosophical tradition of "rationality".

A member of the Moroccan parliament, Abdelilah Benkirane, told AFP in Rabat that this claim was "an offence to a billion Muslims".

Justo Balda Lacunza, a Vatican-based priest specialising in Islamic affairs, said the speech was not intended to look unfavourably on Islam, but was an "examination" of the relationship between violence and faith.

The president of Germany's Central Council of Muslims, Aiman Mazyek, responded to Benedict's comments by recalling violent chapters in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper reported.

Benedict had also drawn criticism on Wednesday from a leading Muslim figure in Italy.

Ejaz Ahmad, a member of a governmental consultative committee on Islam, called on him to retract his comments.

"The Muslim world is currently undergoing a deep crisis," Ahmad was quoted as saying by the ANSA news agency.

"Any attack from the West can aggravate this crisis."

Yussef al-Qardawi, a widely respected Muslim cleric who belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood, said: "This is not the first time this pope has adopted a negative attitude towards Islam and Muslims."

"Does the pope want to close the door on dialogue and new crusades to be readied?," said the cleric, who was stripped of his Egyptian nationality and is now a citizen of Qatar in the Gulf.

"We hope the pope will call for positive dialogue between religions, true dialogue between civilisations rather than confrontation and conflict," Qardawi added.

The cleric defended "violence carried out by certain Muslims", saying: "Some violence is legitimate in the eyes of both religion and law, such as resistance to the occupation in Palestine, Lebanon or in Iraq."

"We call for peace because our religion orders it, but if war is imposed on us we will take it to our hearts."