Monday September 17, 2007

Thoughts to chew on

THE designer hijab (headscarf or veil) and abaya (the Arab black long robe) are simply gorgeous. Well, yes, they cost a bomb, but these are “proper” Islamic wear. So can a Muslim add them to her wardrobe?

“No,” says Dr Heba Raouf Ezzat, a member of the Council of 100 for Western-Islamic Understanding. She was speaking at the recent conference on “Muslim Women in the Midst of Change”, in Kuala Lumpur.

Even though an outfit may cover the aurat (parts of the body that are supposed to be covered up, according to Islam), the fact that it is exclusive and pricey means it is just not Islamic, Heba explained.

“Muslims are forbidden to wear clothes as a ‘costume of fame’. We have to be humble in what we wear.”

Thus, clothes, including headscarves that reveal one’s economic standing and makes distinctions between people, would be frowned upon by the religion.

“The veil or headscarf puts an egalitarian demand on women. You can pick and choose something that looks elegant and expensive, but the veil sort of puts a ceiling on that because at the end of the day, there isn’t much you can do because you are covered up.”

But the “over-obsession” with the hijab exasperates Dr Heba, who teaches political theory at Cairo University, because the female headgear is only one dimension of the religion.

“I am more concerned about how we deal with our bodies and consumerism. My concern is that the headscarf is being turned into a kind of commodity, and about the woman who veils yet does not abide by the humility that the religion symbolises.”

Dr Heba argued that humility in dressing (as well as in other aspects of life) applies to both women and men.

“I get annoyed when people always talk about the female body and the veil but don’t question what a man can or can’t wear. Men have restrictions, too, in Islam,” she stressed. In her view, men should not be strutting around in expensive, posh suits.

“We should fight consumerism so that our bodies do not become commodities. This is a burden that both men and women should be carrying,” said.

One of her fears is that the headscarf issue could be used by some for political negotiation, “when we should be talking about poverty, violence, authoritarian regimes, ecology, health, how to tame capitalism – the things that really matter.”

Dr Heba pointed out, too, that Islam forbids Muslims from living closeted lives. “Living and enjoying life in a good way is what God wants for us,”

Having dreams, aspirations and a sense of humour are all part of living that life. “People are human beings – not saints,” she added.

Thus she finds it somewhat odd that Muslims have turned mosques into “temples” of worship.

“The mosque is not a holy place. It is a social place. The holy part of it is temporary – limited to the times of prayer and that’s only five times a day.

“The mosque should be open to all around the clock for activities of society, including being the playground of children so that they come to the grounds.” What about those who say that the layman should not ask questions of the religion because the human mind is limited and cannot fully understand. Questions are regarded as a lack of faith and tantamount to questioning God.

As far as Dr Heba is concerned, everyone should ask questions because this is how people arrive at a body of knowledge.

“Even the angels asked God questions like, ‘Why are you creating Adam because man would cause bloodshed?’ And God allowed that. He said, ‘I know better than you.’ He didn’t say, ‘No questions allowed.’”

While Dr Heba’s talk was sprinkled with tongue-in-cheek comments, another speaker, Dr M. Haytham al-Khayat, was more academic in his presentation at the conference. But he also gave the audience a huge chunk to chew on.

Dr Al-Khayat, a member of the Board of Trustees of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, addressed common “errors” in Islamic thought.

First, he noted that the Arabic language asserts “absolute equality” between men and women and that Muslim scholars are in agreement that the Quran speaks of all believers, both men and women.

Hence faith, controlling one’s anger, forgiveness, attending to prayers, charitable spending and determining matters through consultation are equally applicable to men and women.

“Nevertheless, some Muslims today insist that deciding matters through consultation among Muslims should be limited to men only,” he said.

For him, the religion asks that men and women are treated on equal footing with regards to their financial and economic independence and competence.

Pointing out that faith is linked to good work in no less than 82 verses in the Quran, he added that just as the pursuit of knowledge and learning is the duty of every Muslim, so is work.

It was imperative, he added, that men and women received the same wages when they did the same work.

Dr al-Khayat named some women who held top public posts during the early days of Islam.

There was al-Shifa Abdullah who, during Caliph Umar al-Khattab’s time, was appointed head of the al-Hisbah system, the highest authority controlling market activity and transactions, including quality control and prevention of cheating and fraud.

Then there was al-Samra bint Nuhayk, head of the supervisory department in Mecca.

“Such was the state of affairs in the Islamic society 14 centuries ago, at its purest period, before decline started to set in,” he said.

Islam also states that men have a responsibility towards women. Dr al-Khayat added this was because women have been accorded the ability to give birth.

“Men are caretakers. They take care of the women. But this does not mean dominance or superiority over women,” he stressed.

Berkenalan Dengan Ciri-Ciri Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama‘ah Dalam Hukuman Jenayah by Hafiz Firdaus Abdullah

Sekilas Berkenaan Hukum Murtad by Hafiz Firdaus Abdullah

Apostasy Revisited
by Dr. Musa bin Mohd Nordin

Salams

Surgeon Kama embraces the classical opinion vis a vis apostasy which is being increasingly challenged by contemporary scholars the likes of Qardawi, Gamal Badawi, Ghanousshi etc – all members of the International Union of Muslim Scholars. I alluded to this in an earlier mail. I subscribe to the latter opinion having read the evidence of the contemporary scholars and having listened directly to Gamal Badawi whom we invited to our event in MPF. A useful kick off would be to first acknowledge :

1. that there are ahkam (laws & rulings) dealing with matters of faith, belief and ibadah which are firmly established in the Quran, Sunnah and Ijma’ and which are definitive and categorical (qat’ie) eg prayers, fasting, riba, property distribution
2. and that there are the allegorical (dzanni) ones, non-fixed, which invites a flexibility in shariah and a spaciousness in fiqh (jurisprudence). Such is the wisdom of the Almighty in making a few ahkam in shariah categorical in both their definitiveness, clarity and meaning; and in making hypothetical/allegorical/non-fixed ones the bulk of the ahkam in which there would be a broad scope for fruitful engagement and disagreement.

Therefore, we need to be cognisant of the issues which are open to disagreement and those which are not. And equally important; to exercise permissible norms of behaviour in negotiating differences and disagreements.

I therefore have a problem with surgeon Kama’s suggestion “If somebody wishes to take a softer stance towards the apostate, truly this is from his own decision, and not based on Islamic fatwa. The fatwa is clear as it stands and Islam cannot change in accordance to time and situation”

Not only is it autocratic and overbearing, it fails to exemplify the generous latitude of opinions provided for in Islamic jurisprudence and does a gross injustice to the magnanimity and “plasticity” of our deen in the face of post-modernism.

Kindly allow me to articulate a few reflections on this issue :

1. There is no single verse in the Qur’an that prescribes an earthly punishment for apostasy. Verses about apostasy in the Qur’an speak only about God’s punishment of the apostate in the Hereafter. Writes Prof. Badawi : [Behold, as for those who come to believe, and then deny the truth, and again come to believe, and again deny the truth, and thereafter grow stubborn in their denial of truth – God will not forgive them, nor will guide them in any way.] (An-Nisaa’ 4:137)

   It is important to note in the above verse that if the Qur’an prescribes capital punishment for apostasy, then the apostate should be killed after the first instance of apostasy. As such there would be no opportunity to “again come to believe and again deny the truth, and thereafter grow stubborn in their denial of truth”. In spite of these acts of repeated apostasy, no capital punishment is prescribed for them.

   The silence of the Qur’an on any prescribed mandatory capital punishment for apostasy is quite revealing. More revealing is the fact that there is overwhelming evidence in the Qur’an of freedom of conscious, belief, and worship.

2. There are a few reports alleging that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered the killing of a few apostates who refused to repent. However, all such reports were deemed weak (unauthentic) by Hadith scholars. For example, the famous scholar Muhammad Ash-Shawkani (died in 1839) wrote that there were problems with the isnad (chain of narration) of these reports and thus they are not consider to be reliable, especially in a serious matter such as capital punishment. None of these reports were narrated by earlier and far more reliable sources of Hadith such as Al-Bukhari and Muslim.

   More significant is the fact that a case of apostasy was reported in the most authentic book of Hadith (Bukhari) reported by more than one reliable chain of narration (stronger isnad). The following includes a translation of the most central hadiths:

   Jabir ibn `Abdullah narrated that a Bedouin pledged allegiance to the Apostle of Allah for Islam (i.e. accepted Islam) and then the Bedouin got fever whereupon he said to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) “cancel my pledge.” (wanted to leave Islam) But the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) refused. He (the Bedouin) came to him (again) saying, “Cancel my pledge.” But the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) refused. Then he (the Bedouin) left (Medina). Allah’s Apostle said, “Madinah is like a pair of bellows (furnace): it expels its impurities and brightens and clear its good.”

   This incident took place in Madinah when Muslims were living in an independent Islamic “state,” where the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had full authority to implement Shari`ah law. If indeed the “revealed” prescribed punishment for apostasy is death, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would have been the first to carry out the punishment. In fact, he did not even prescribe any punishment at all against that Bedouin, nor did he send any one to arrest him as an “apostate,” imprison, or ask him to recant or even reconsider his decision as later jurists prescribed. Nor is there any solid ground to claim that this and other similar hadiths were “abrogated.” In fact, these Hadiths are in conformity with the Qur’an and consistent with its central value of freedom of conscious and rejection of any compulsion in matters of faith (Al-Baqarah 2:256).

3. Ibn `Abbas narrated that the Prophet said, “Whoever changed his religion, then kill him“.17 This hadith (Sahih al-Bukhari) is perhaps the most quoted one by those who are of the view that apostasy is a capital crime. It raises a number of questions as to how it may be interpreted in view of the following context :
   1. The absence in the Qur’an of any earthly punishment for apostasy in spite of its mention in many places in the Qur’an.
   2. The consistent and repeated affirmation of freedom of conscious and freedom of faith and worship in the Qur’an.
   3. The hadiths in Al-Bukhari discussed earlier show that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) himself did not carry out any punishment on the man who committed apostasy in Madinah and left the town.
   4. There is no authentic hadith that narrates that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) carried out capital punishment for apostasy during his lifetime.
   5. In the light of the evidence discussed earlier, the Prophet’s command here seems to refer to the permissibility of capital punishment, when apostasy is coupled with a capital crime such as waging war against the community.
   6. Umar (RA) who is against mandatory capital punishment for an apostate, most probably opines that when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘Whoever changes his religion, then kill him,‘ the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said that in his capacity as the leader of the community and head of state and that this was one of the executive decisions by the authorities (one of the actions that falls within as-syaasah ash-ahar`iyyah) and NOT a religious verdict (fatwa) or transmission (of a verdict) of God which is binding on the Ummah at all times and everywhere and under all circumstances.”19
4. With due respect, in our handling of the apostasy issue we have been seen to be rigid, inflexible, restrictive, punitive, autocratic – all of which Islam is not. Beauty, tranquility, peace, freedom, compassion, forgiveness and love, all attributes of Islam is lost in the maze of highhandedness, rigidity, inflexibility and failure to grasp the ruh of the fiqh related to apostasy.
5. Even if an act was permissible or desirable but could cause harm to the cause of Islam, it should be avoided (ma’alaat al-af`aa – a principle of Islamic jurisprudence). The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was conscious of the imperative of safeguarding the name of Islam and its reputation. When it was suggested to him that Abdullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul should be killed because of the divisive and subverting role he had played in Madinah, the Prophet answered that he feared that people will say that “Muhammad is killing his companions.”
6. It makes no sense to do some good if that results in greater harm (Mel’s significant other makes a good point about this). Applying these rules in our contemporary world where the setting is vastly different from the past, begs a few pertinent questions :
   • Would the insistence on a particular view, common in Muslim jurisprudence heritage as it may be, really enhance the reputation of Islam and Muslims and correct the already severely blemished unfair image?
   • Just as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and early Muslims considered the context of their times in non-fixed matters (ghair thawaabit) shouldn’t our scholars today do the same?

Prof Gamal Badawi concludes :

• The preponderance of evidence from both the Qur’an and Sunnah indicates that there is no firm ground for the claim that apostasy is in itself a mandatory fixed punishment (hadd), namely capital punishment.
• References to early capital punishment for apostasy were not due to apostasy itself, but rather other capital crimes that were coupled with it.
• In the context of the besieged early Muslim community, apostasy was a major threat to the nascent Muslim community. Taking a passive attitude towards it would have jeopardized the very emergence of the Muslim community. This may be one reason why the consensus of scholars is that apostasy is an offense (in the context of an Islamic society). However, there are wide divergence of views about its suitable punishment. Sheikh `Abdul-Majeed Subh argues that “we can conclude that the issue of the penalty prescribed for apostasy is dependent on the public interest of the nation. Therefore, there is no harm in ignoring the apostasy of an individual as long as he or she does not harm the nation. On the other hand, if a group of apostates endangers the security and interests of the Muslim community, then the Muslim ruler should consider them to be a danger and threat to society.”
• As religious opinions (fatwas) change with the changing time, place, custom, and circumstances, this issue should be reexamined within the basic boundaries of Islamic jurisprudence and not simply of pressures of others. No Muslim is required to change the indisputable stable and fixed aspects of Shari`ah for the sake of pleasing others or earning the title “moderate” or “open minded.” In the meantime, jurisprudent rulings and interpretations in the non-fixed area need not be permanent either.

Wallahu alam

musa

Fitnaul Kubra in Perspective
by Dr. Musa bin Mohd Nordin

The unending Afghan, Iraqi … tragedy is yet another classic example of incessant Muslim disunity (to put it mildly) and brutal killings and handling of fellow believers to put it realistically Is the ummah doomed to this fate and has no escape option from this vicious cycle of infighting ?

Is the fitnatul kubra the rationale, the justification and the permissible precedent for our gross misbehaviour towards fellow believers? Will the battles of Siffin and Al-Jamal continue to haunt the psyche of every Muslim prepared for the ultimate battle?

Much has been written about the the 2 battles. Notably the last century has witnessed the profileration of books and analysis of events which depicted the sahabah in a bad light based on unauthentic and unreliable hadiths and narrations.

In the battle between Ali and the people of Al-Jamal, the latter included the likes of Saad ibn Abi Waqqas, Zubeir bin AlAwwam, Talha bin Ubaidullah ( who including Ali were amongst the Mubasyirun – the 10 promised paradise during their lifetime) and Aisya RA & in the battle of Siffin near the Euphrates against Muawiyah RA.

This unprecedented fitnah was hatched by a munafiq named Abdullah ibn Saba’ (hence the term saba’iyin) inspired by the Yahudi who since time immemorial were in a conspiratorial mode with the bearers of truth. The desire to undermine the Muslim was in play during the time of Rasulullah SAW and in full gear with the assassination of Uthman RA. (see our reply to webmaster of Malaysia-Today when he ressurrected these issues “Swelling the ranks of latter day surrogate orientalists. *Part II by Dr. Mazeni Alwi & Dr. Musa Mohd. Nordin)

Events unfolding worldwide are testimony to this evil conniving blue print. And Muslims continue to fall prey as lame ducks. Probably the best expose’ of the difficult times during the period of the sahabah RA were authored by AlQadhi Abu Bakar Ibn Arabi (not to be confused with the sufi Muhid-Din Ibn Arabi) in 536 Hijrah. Al Awasim Minal Qawasim, Immunity from the Backbone Breakers is an expose’ which will inshaAllah protect us from saying things and believing in things that would be tantamount to being thrown into the Fire (thus breaking backbones). Quarrels were not uncommon during the time of Rasulullah SAW but they were settled amicably within the ethics of disagreements – adab ikhtilaf fil Islam.

Rasulullah SAW was supposed to know have known exactly the date of Lailatul Qadr but because of the quarrelings of the sahabah in masjid nabawi in his presence, the exact date escaped him. A companion of Prophet, Samith bin Ubadah reported that:
“The Prophet of Allah came out to inform us about the date of “Lailatul Qadr”. (He found that) two Muslims were quarrelling with each other. The Prophet PBUH said that I had come out to inform you about the Qadr Night. However, on account of the quarrelling of so and so the identity of the Night has been Rufiat – lifted or taken away. Perhaps it may be better for you, to try to find it on the 29th, 27th and 25th (nights of Ramadan).” (Sahih Bukhari)

This takes me back to my earlier deliberations on the Fitnatul Kubra and in particular the historical deadlock between Ali RA and Muawiyah RA. Fighting started in 36 AH and in 110 days, there were 90 battles and 80,000 killed !! All the intricacies of battle and arbitration (tahkim) aside, the absolute correct thing was that no war should have taken place. Impyling neither were absolutely correct.

However, the consensus of the fuqaha, the opinion of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the majority of the people of hadith, the majority of sahabah from Ansar and Muhajirun concluded that Ali was nearer to the truth, and that Muawiyah was a mujtahid but he was incorrect. And this was supported by the hadith that Khawarij would be killed by the group nearer to the truth and Ali killed Khawarij.

And as to the thorny issue why Muawiyah RA became Khalifah whilst there were better sahabah during his time was explained by Ibn Taimiyah as being permissible according to fiqh islami. Ibn Taimiyah in Fi Minhaj Assunnah mentioned from Qatada that “if you have witnessed what he (Muawiyah RA) has done then everyone of you would have said that he is the Mahdi”.

Imam Ahmad RA when asked about a powerful ruler but who is debauched and about a weak one but he is righteous, with whom one should make jihad ? He said ” as for the debauched but powerful (quwwah) ruler, his debauchery is for himself but his power is for the Muslims. As for the righteous (amanah) but weak one, his righteousness is for himself, but his weakness will not avail Muslims. So make jihad with the powerful, even he is debauched”

Wallahulam.

musa

In Memory of Syed Hussain Alatas (Poem)
by Prof Ajmal of ISTAC

There are few that God root in gold dust
And nourish with nectars from heaven —
Honeyed rays that sprout
Sublime fruits.
Pristine wisdom is always
Cushioned in calmness —
it sprays fountains of knowledge.

In one such as this,
truth is always fortified by resolve;
One such as this,
Bows & prostrates
In obeisance only to the Lord—
He glorifies with words and deeds.
He speakes the tradition of noble pursuits and sacrifices:
In this, Hussein was Hussein:
He captured
in script the screams of his conscience.

Today his sweet tongue is silent,
But his thoughts will continue
To ebb and flow through our veins—
And they will
repose on the crystal shores of time.
In our solitary walks,
We shall pick these gems and marvel
That the one who fashioned these was one of ours—-
A son of this soil whose brightness
Stretched far and wide beyond our horizon.
Today we have placed you, Hussein, in the bosom of God’s earth—
So embrace the truth and rejoice in the coolness of His Love and Mercy.

AJMAL AL-AIDRUS
ISTAC, IIUM

Swelling the ranks of latter day surrogate orientalists Part I
by Dr. Mazeni Alwi

At a glance Raja Petra’s article “Does an Islamic State Really Exist” (Malaysia Today Dec 17, 2006) gives one the impression that he is contributing to the debate about the role of Islam in politics, society and state craft. Given the present renewed interest if not also prejudice about Islam spurred by “political Islam” as a possible challenge to the dominant world order, war on terrorism and unending conflicts affecting the Muslim world, a sustained, informed debate on the subject is very much welcome. One would assume that Raja Petra is more than able to make a meaningful contribution to the debate given his association with a multitude of Muslim opinion leaders, locally and internationally and his previous writings on the subject.

From the outset, any student of Islamic political history would acknowledge the plethora and spectrum of opinions within the body of Islam itself. Gearing on this latitude, Raja Petra sets out, sometimes in cavalier fashion and sometimes with irreverent jest, to overturn generally accepted ideas and teachings about Islam as a religion of revelation, its theological doctrine, Islamic history and prominent personalities including the Prophet and his close companions.

Being the owner of the website that published the article, it is all within Raja Petra’s right and power to overturn commonly held views and beliefs to “debunk millenia old myths” in any manner he likes. But one wonders whom Raja Petra is writing to. The facets of Islamic faith that Raja Petra tackled are big subjects that are the provinces of specialized scholarship. Is the applause of a few worth the severe loss of credibility with his nonchalant mangling of Islamic doctrine, rituals and practice, and history without paying heed to the minimum standards of intellectual accountability and evidence based scholarship?

Raja Petra’s main thesis is that Islam as religious faith to a sizeable chunk of humanity for 1400 years has been cobbled up together by Muhammad, who “not only followed but believed in their generations – old religion (of the Pagan Arabs) – which was not only influenced by the different variations of Judaism and Christianity but Zoroastrian as well. It is no surprise therefore that Judaism and Christianity, as well as Islam, borrowed heavily many of the rituals and practices from this ancient Zoroastrian religion”. To bring home the point, Mr. Petra in the next paragraph wrote, “What Muhammad introduced was the doctrine of the one God – ‘there is no God but God’. Everything else down to the rituals was inherited from pre-Islamic days. In fact, many were inherited from pre-Christianity and pre-Judaism days (such as the Hajj). And that is why some Jewish and Christian sects share the same method of praying as the Muslims and which are consistent with the earlier Zoroastrian methods”. Yes according to Islamic teachings the Hajj rituals came from Abraham, the father of monotheistic religions, but one is entitled to ask, which other rituals are borrowed from Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism?

So it is, throughout the article Raja Petra makes sweeping unsupported assertions strange to mainstream teachings and sources (Muslim or otherwise) on fundamental aspects of Islam and its history.

“There was no Shariah or Islamic laws during the time of Muhammad … Laws were based on ancestral tribal tradition … Tribal laws came first and even Muhammad was not able to go against this …” writes Raja Petra, implying that we have all been had. The pious scholar jurists like Imam Shafi’i, hadith scholars like Al-Bukhari, thinker-theologian Al-Ghazzali, philosopher-jurist Ibn Rushd to statesmen, scientists, and scholars of the Islamic civilization when the Muslim world was the centre of the civilized world, to ordinary mortals like us today, have all been taken for a ride.

His writings suggests that we have all been fooled to believe that Muhammad was a prophet who received the final revelation to purify the message of Tauhid. And we have all been fools to believe that the Quran is a revealed book when in fact it was written by Muhammad who cut and pasted its contents from Christian, Judaic and Zoroastrian traditions.

All those painstaking, unbelievably meticulous scholarship that went into the preservation and study of the Quran and Hadith from which fundamental teachings of doctrine, rituals, social norms and laws are derived by our pious predecessors have actually been in vain because the Quran and Hadith are not what we think they are.

To get away with such gross irresponsible mangling of Islamic teachings and history, Raja Petra not so cleverly uses the device of selectively referring to obscure, off-mainstream sources. Even more irresponsibly so, the sources are not mentioned, but merely stating, “There are many variations of history and the history or story of Muhammad is no less spared these variations. For example, many believe Muhammad to be illiterate and they argue that the revelations he received must have come from God since he could neither read or write. Others, however, dispute this and they quote the following verses from the Quran to support their contention that Muhammad was in fact learned … . As for Muhammad’s ignorance of other religions, this is also in dispute, as his wife Khadijah’s cousin was a learned Christian who knew the scriptures well. As you can see, history is not an exact science and variations do occur. Who is reporting the more accurate account may never be known and until today experts dispute the many versions of history … These are but just some of the variations and you are free to believe whichever version you most comfortable with”. The accuracy and relevance of the Quranic verses to the subject matter aside, who are “they” and “experts” that Raja Petra refers to – are “they” respected scholars in the field or ill-informed individuals giving their cheap, prejudiced opinions?

Well, there are sources and there are “sources”. Raja Petra’s assertion that Muhammad, being a learned person, cobbled together Islamic doctrines, rituals and practices from Christian (and other ancient) teachings is nothing new. This was the well-worn charges of medieval Christian scholars who accused the prophet Muhammad an imposter on the basis that some of the teachings and names of prophets in the Quran were familiar to Christians.

The same charge was developed and refined by European scholars who specialized in the study of Islam in 19th and early 20th century – “Orientalism” – which Edward Said famously critiqued as an academic enterprise not to understand Islam but to dominate it, not to seek empathy with it but to ridicule it, abuse it and demonstrate its inferiority. Thus Duncan Black McDonald considered Islam to be a heretical form of Christianity, and even as late as the sixties, renowned orientalist Philip Hitti could get away presenting Muhammad as an imposter and the Quran as a rather jumbled document based on Christian, Jewish and heathen sources.

But the world of scholarship or Islam has progressed significantly since but Raja Petra refused to move along, preferring to believe his nameless “experts” who would today stand discredited in the academic world with those prejudiced and unsubstantiated ideas. It is to scholars like RJ Nicholson, AJ Arberry and Marshall Hodgson, who devoted their lives to Islamic study that we owe much contemporary knowledge of ancient Muslim manuscripts and modern holistic interpretations of Islam authenticating the early works of traditional scholars. Biographies of Muhammad written during recent years by European scholars do further justice to his personality supplementing the classical works of earlier historians of seerah (Muhammad’s life history). Of this, Martin Ling’s “Muhammad, his life based on the earliest sources”, W. Montgomery Watt’s “Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman” and Annemarie Schimmel’s “And Muhammad is His Messenger – the veneration of the Prophet in Islamic Piety” come to mind.

Today, only Muslims can conjure the kind of poorly researched articles that Raja Petra writes in “Does an Islamic State Really Exist”. A westerner or a non Muslim risks putting their credibility and academic credentials on the line and being consigned to the thrash-bin of Islamophobes alongside Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson.

They resurrect worn out and failed anti-Islam agenda of the past, further abuse, mangle and distort Islamic teachings and the Prophet’s life and do the bidding for Islamophobes who can no longer write the way orientalists did up to 50 years ago. At least the orientalists of old had mastery of the Arabic language and were involved in actual scholarship.

Welcome to the world of latter-day surrogate Orientalism and join the fabulous world of Ayar Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji and Amina Wadud. Like them, Raja Petra has the right qualification. He seems to have a severe and profound aversion towards anything to do with organized religion and religious authority accepted by mainstream Islam – the unblemished revealed Holy Book (Quran), the authenticated prophetic traditions (Hadiths), the codified Islamic Law (Shariah) and the righteous scholars (Ulama).

Dr. Mazeni Alwi
Chairman, Muslim Professionals Forum

References :
1) Muhammad – his life based on the earliest sources. Martin Lings, Islamic Texts Society 1983
2) And Muhammad is His Messenger – the veneration of the prophet in Islamic piety. Annemarie Schimmel, the University of North Carolina Press 1985
3) Distorted Imagination – lessons from the Rushdie affair. Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies, Grey Seal books 1990
4) Understanding Islam. Fritjof Schuon, Mandala Books 1976
5) The cultural atlas of Islam. Ismail R al Faruqi and Lois Lamya al Faruqi, MacMillan 1986
6) Muhammad, Prophet and statesman. Montgomery Watt. Oxford University Press,1961.

Swelling the ranks of latter day surrogate orientalists Part II
by Dr. Mazeni Alwi & Dr. Musa Mohd. Nordin

Swelling the ranks of latter day surrogate orientalists Part II
Dr. Mazeni Alwi & Dr. Musa Mohd. Nordin
Muslim Professionals Forum

We read the responses that ensued MPF’s “Swelling the ranks of latter day surrogate orientalists” with much amusement. We have always held the view that much of what thrives in cyberspace is 80% junk and the bloggers were true to form!

Quite a few have a vocabulary problem, restricted to 4 letter words I might add. One “True Muslim” is probably experiencing a schizophrenic crisis (pardon our cyberspace diagnosis). He had the audacity to write; ” Also, very strangely, there is no mention of your name or that of your office bearers anywhere in your website. Why are you are all in hiding?” And by the way “True Muslim”, if you were to peruse more carefully, with calm and serenity, you would find the list of our board members, fully transparent, unlike many the likes of you, who choose to hit and run more than often in a variety of irresponsible modes – irreligious, islamophobic, racist, pornographic etc

We welcome the opportunity for an intellectual discourse in a civil and responsible manner. Those that breach the norms of civilised and cultured cyber communication is only deserving of the delete button and the thrash bin.

Part 1 was very much generic in nature addressing the bigger picture of the discourse. Part 2 attempts to dissect some of the major issues raised by Petra and offer our perspective of the mainstream view. There are many other points raised by Petra that merit rebuttal but that would make this too long.

1) Page 2, paragraph 3

“Muhammad not only followed but believed in their generations-old religion…”.

This depiction of the prophet’s cut and paste of the religions of old is a favourite pastime of some orientalists and European biographers of the prophet. They made a meal about the prophet’s brief sojourn with Buhaira, the Christian monk, from whom they alleged the prophet learnt all about monotheistic beliefs and teachings of Islam which he later unfolded after a spell of 30 years – the prophet was only 9 years old during the caravan trip to Syria. The French orientalist Carra de Veaux was even more imaginative. He wrote a whole book on “Bahira, the author of the Quran” in which he tried to demonstrate that Buhaira narrated the entire Quran of 114 chapters to the prophet. Petra’s is but a watered down version of the orientalist craft.

The leading Muslim sociologist Ibn Khaldun articulates succinctly the mainstream view that prophets are both chosen and prepared for their prophetic role by Providence, the essence being to communicate Divine Guidance to their respective peoples. In his Muqaddimah, on the phenomenon of prophecy, he discusses the nature and criteria of a genuine prophetic experience. The universal consensus is that Muhammad, by Divine Grace was spared from rituals and practices of fellow Meccans that smack of shirk (polytheism). The age of Jahiliyah (Ignorance) which enveloped Arabia was steeped in ungodliness and there were scarcely a few Hanif, those who had abandoned pagan practices to seek Hanifiyah (semitic tradition), the true monotheistic religion of Abraham. Ibn Ishaq mentioned four such men whilst Ibn Qatadah mentioned six. Muhammad’s unease with the polytheism of the Meccan Arabs and quest for truth led to his frequent and long meditational retreats in a cave on Mount Hira towards his 40th year.

All true prophets produce miracles and the miracle of Muhammad was the Quran. It was both the Divine Revelation and the miraculous proof of that Revelation. If as alleged the Quran was a product of human endeavours, a mumbo jumbo of Muhammad’s mix of ancient religions, then something comparable to its charm, nobility, the elegance and gloriousness of its style must be produced or readily reproducible then, now and forever. Petra in his many blog messages has demonstrated his talents and finesse in poetry. Maybe he’d like to take up the divine challenge, “And if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to our servant, then produce a Surah like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (if there are any) besides God, if your (doubts) are true. But if you cannot-and of a surety you cannot-then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones- which is prepared for those who reject faith.” (Al-Baqarah:23-24; see also Yunus:38; Hud:13).

2) Page 2, paragraph 4

“Muhammad never claimed he was introducing a new religion. In fact he did not introduce a religion at all … What Muhammad introduced was the doctrine of the one God – ‘There is no God but God’. Everything else down to the rituals was inherited from pre-Islamic days”.

Raja Petra is half correct. ‘There is no God but God’ is one half of the Kalimah Shahadah (proclamation of faith), the proclamation one makes to become a Muslim. The other half is ‘Muhammad is the messenger of God’. The first half is the doctrine of Tauhid (Unity of God) but genuine acceptance of the doctrine also requires outward “submission” to the rituals (ibadah), practices, moral, economic transactions (muamalat), social norms (munakahat), law and enforcement (jinayah), siyasah (politics and governance) as exemplified by the Prophet Muhammad, broadly called the “Shariah” . This is elaborated through the academic discipline of fiqh and usul fiqh (principles of jurisprudence), derived in turn from Ulumul Quran and Ulumul Hadith (sciences of the Quran and authentic traditions of the Prophet), Ijma (consensus) and Qiyas (analogy), known as the Masadir al-Shariah (sources of the Shariah). It is the “Shariah” that gives Islam the outward expression that makes it a distinctly new religion very different from Christianity and Judaism although the underlying message of monotheism is shared. Muslims with identity crisis wishing to re-interpret Islam for the modern age (against mainstream scholarly and lay consensus) have no problems accepting the first part of the Shahadah, but submitting to the Shariah of a 7th century Arabian prophet seems a huge problem. Of course there are areas where adaptation to the modern condition is a necessity such as politics and statecraft, economics and social organization, and the Shariah provides for this, hence the richness and diversity of juristic opinions and edicts.

Petra’s choice of Farid Esack to reinforce his thesis makes interesting reading. Abdal Hakim Murad, whom we not too long ago engaged in KL, in his review of Esack’s, Quran, Liberation and Pluralism, writes “Esack’s campaign against the Shariah is a manifestation of his apparent conviction that in every case where the ethos of the Quran appears to conflict with that of modern liberalism, then it is the Quran which must give way. Liberals who demand the abolition of Quranic guidance on inheritance, marriage, divorce, custodianship of minors, and indeed any other social issue, must be set in authority over the Ijma (consensus) of the Ummah, past and present…So well has Esack lubricated the canons of Fiqh that anything is now possible. Should the next item be homosexual imams? New regulations for Wudu’ (ablution)? Shariah marriages for consenting incest partners. Once the canon is broken, this year’s extremism is easily transformed into next year’s pioneering innovation. Islam itself is emptied of normative content and self destructs.”

3) Page 3, paragraph 3

“The argument that Muhammad set up an Islamic state and introduced Islamic law is certainly not true. The laws were pre-Muhammad and even Muhammad was forced to honor them … there was no Shariah or Islamic laws during the time of Muhammad”.

Of course the post-Westphalian modern nation-state had not yet been in existence at the time of Prophet Muhammad. That allows room to debate whether the prophet had any role as a statesman with political responsibilities apart from his mission of conveying the message of Tauhid and inviting people to worship the one God. On the one hand people with Sufi inclinations tend to downplay or deny his “secular” role as a statesman and on the other Islamists (proponents of political Islam) sometimes exaggerate that role above that of his spiritual mission. Those who oppose the Islamist project of seizing power in modern politics to set up the Islamic state also use the argument that the prophet had no political role or responsibilities. There is enough in the literature to support the view that the prophet was also a political leader. The most well known work is by Montgomery Watt, “Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman”. Even Fritjof Schuon, whose writings on Islam focus on its metaphysical aspect and Sufism, wrote in his classic ‘Understanding Islam’, “To Europeans, and no doubt to most non-Moslems, Christ and Bhuddha represent perfections that are immediately intelligible and convincing. By contrast the Prophet of Islam seems complex and uneven and hardly compels recognition as a symbol except within his own traditional universe. The reason is that, unlike the Bhuddha and Christ, his spiritual reality is wrapped in certain human and earthly veils and this because of his function as a legislator for this world … Looked at from outside, most of the Prophet’s marriages, had, moreover a ‘political’ aspect – politics having here a sacred significance connected with the establishing an earth of a reflection of the ‘City of God’ …”.

Not too long ago, someone had famously argued that the Prophet could not really be considered a statesman because the realm he governed (Madinah) is no bigger than the Bukit Beruntung township where he lives. That might be true the day the Prophet arrived from Mecca, but by the time of his death the entire Arabian Peninsula was united under the Islamic polity and at its peak ruled one third of the world.

Muslims are educated in the tradition of prophet Abraham, who declared : “Say: Surely my prayers and my devotions, and my living and my dying are for Allah, Lord of the Worlds” (al-An’am:63).

Islam meaning total submission to God, totally rejects the Christian maxim : “Render unto God what is God’s and unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”

Muhammad’s Hijrah (migration) from hostile Mecca to the embrace of the citizens of Madinah sets in motion the process of nation building, the establishment of Dar al-Islam (state of Islam) as a religious obligation. The prophet himself dictated the document, al-Sahifah, the covenant of Madinah, later ratified by the major factions of the city. The first party to the covenant being the prophet himself, the second party consisted of:

1. The Muhajirun (emigrants from Mecca)
2. The Ansar (helpers, citizens of Yathrib)
3. The Jews of Yathrib

The Jews as full citizens of the Muslim state were obligated, under the terms of the agreement to fight alongside the Muslims and share in the war expenses should Madinah be attacked. In return, they were accorded complete religious freedom and fiscal autonomy.

The conclusion of the Sahifah reflects the prophet’s triumph as a politician and statesman. He laid the foundations of a new society and state on a firm legal basis. Despite their divergent mindsets and political aspirations, the prophet was able to knit them together into one political system which fostered political agreement, harmony and unity. The state of Madinah exemplified Islamic political theory.

Zakaria Basheer, whom we had the opportunity to share a speaking platform some 20 years ago in the UK, in his book Sunshine at Madinah, gives a very interesting insight into the political import of the Sahifah, “It is very interesting that the Madinan state, though founded by the prophet and came into existence in the wake of a religious conflict and revolution, should have as its constitution a document stipulating a pluralist, multi-racial and multi-cultural, society, comprising two distinct religious communities, Muslim and Jewish. Thus the Sahifah provided for the Madinan government a basis that was civic and political rather than religious and sectarian. The prophet was recognized as the ruler by non-Muslim as well as Muslim citizens of Madinah. The Madinan society and state was declared as one, unified Ummah, on the basis of the ratification and enforcement of this document.”

Modern writers would point to this as proof of the existence of Islamic polity with the Prophet as its leader and Muslim writers would claim – not without basis – the Covenant of Madinah as the first written constitution in human history.

Although the Shariah (Islamic law and jurisprudence) as a field of specialized study only came to be recognized as it is today some 200 years after his death, just like other branches of the religious sciences like Hadith, Quranic commentary, Kalam (Theology) and Tasawwuf, verses of the Quran and Hadith that point to the role of the Prophet as what Schuon said as ‘legislator for this world’ are well known.

Suffice to quote verse 41, Chapter XXII, which was revealed before the prophet’s Hijrah to Madinah and its eventual transformation into Dar al-Islam; “Those who, if We establish them in the land, establish regular prayer and give regular charity, enjoin the right and forbid the wrong. And to Allah belongs the sequel of events.”

4) Page 5, paragraph 4

“It must be remembered that in pre-Islamic Arabia, caravan raiding was not considered robbery but a legitimate means for the poor to benefit from the rich … These raids allowed Muhammad’s followers, who had lost everything when they emigrated from Makah to earn a living … This famous war, the Badar war, a caravan raid turned awry, was the turning point and is marked by Muslims as the first holy war … “.

The Muslims based their legitimacy of attacking the caravans of the Meccan Quraysh (not just any caravan) on the revelation of verses 39-40, chapter XXII; “Permission to fight is given unto those who fight because they have been wronged; and God is able to give them victory. Those who have been driven from their homes unjustly, for no cause other than for their saying : Our Lord is God …”. The Muslims were in a state of war with the Meccan Quraysh for the above reason and also the plot to assassinate the Prophet before his migration to Madinah. Otherwise theft and highway robbery are serious crimes in Islam. The large caravan returning from Syria (not going to Palestine from Mecca) belonged to Abu Sufyan, one of the most hostile of the Meccan chieftains who severely persecuted the Muslims. He eventually surrendered and accepted Islam with the conquest of Mecca.

5) Page 3, para 4

“Before Muhammad died he did not name a successor and while Ali (his close companion, cousin and son-in-law, all in one) bathed his body and prepared it for burial, Abu Bakar ‘grabbed’ power, so to speak and became the First Caliphate (Caliph or Khalifah) after Muhammad. The pro-Ali movement, now known as the Shi’ah claim to this very day that Ali was ‘robbed’ of this right. Abu Bakar then appointed Umar as his number two and disinherited Ali and his wife Fatimah … It must be noted that Abu Bakr’s selection as caliph was not unanimously agreed as it was done in a closed-door meeting attended by only a handful of Muhammad’s prominent companions … They justified by-passing Ali on the excuse that he was too young. The Banu Hashim and Ansar clans both protested bitterly and refused to swear allegiance to the new caliphate”.

A careful reading of sirah would suggest that even though the prophet did not explicitly name a successor, there was overwhelming evidence to infer that Abu Bakar was his obvious choice. These include:

1. He asked Abu Bakar to lead the prayers when he was very ill, just before his death. From his bed he smiled, pleased seeing Abu Bakar leading the companions in prayers.
2. He said “If I were to have a Khalil (companion) other than Allah, I would have chosen Abu Bakar”
3. Further He said “Close all inlets to the mosque other than the inlet of Abu Bakar”.
4. In Bukhari, on the authority of Abdullah ibn Umar narrated that after Rasulullah, the best in our eyes was Abu Bakar. And after Abu Bakar the best in our eyes was Umar and after Umar the best in our eyes was Uthman.
5. In the Book of Fudail Sahabah in Sahih Bukhari, Abu Musa Al-Ashaari said that Rasulullah entered into a garden and said to Abu Musa, “Stand at the gate of the garden.” A man came asking permission to see Rasulullah and Rasulullah said “Give him permission to come in and tell him that he is one of the people of paradise.” And he turned out to be Abu Bakar.” The same sequence of events happened twice and the person seeking permission to enter were Umar later followed by Uthman.

The wisdom of the prophet’s omission in the choice of the first caliph was to educate his ummah in the process of musyawarah (mutual consultation) to decide and elect their leaders.

And true to the prophet’s implicit choice, Abu Bakar demonstrated utmost calm and composure during one of the most critical episodes in the history of the ummah, the prophet’s death. The news of the prophet’s demise fell like a thunderbolt on his companions. Without exception, all were stunned because of the ardent love and esteem they had for him. Ali (RA) and Fatimah (RA) were so sad that they could not leave their house when they were told of the news. Uthman was so silent to the extent that people took him by his hand to move him from one place to another. Umar was adamant that the prophet had not died and threatened to cut the feet and hands of those who said otherwise. Allah had chosen Abu Bakar for this most difficult moment. He kissed the prophet, ascended the mimbar, praised Allah and delivered the classical sermon “O people, whosoever worships Muhammad, let him know that Muhammad has died. But whosoever worships Allah, then Allah is alive and dies not.” Then Abu Bakar read verse 144 from Surah Al-Imran:

“Muhammad is but a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) have passed away before him. Will it be that, when he dies or is slain, you will turn back on your heels? He who turned back do no hurt to Allah, and Allah will reward the thankful”

All the companions who were present later stated that when Abu Bakar recited the verse, it was as though the verse had only be revealed on that sad day. When they returned to their senses some of the original people of Madinah (the Ansars or helpers) felt that the leadership should go to them or at least there will be two caliphs – one from Quraish and one from Ansar. They were gathered at the house of Sa’d Ibn Ubadah to pledge their allegiance to him. The following is from Martin Lings (chosen for his simplicity, clarity and beauty of language). “Umar urged Abu Bakr to go with him to the hall and Abu Ubaydah went with them. Sa’d was ill and he was lying in the middle of the hall, wrapped in a cloak. On behalf of him another of the Helpers was about to address the assembly when the three men of Quraysh entered, so he included them in his speech, which began, after praise for God, with the words: “We are the Helpers of God and the fighting force of Islam; and ye, O Emigrants, are of us, for a group of your people have settled amongst us’’. The speaker continued in the same vein, glorifying the Helpers, and while giving the Emigrants a share of that glory, deliberately failing to recognize the unique position that they held in themselves as the first Islamic community. When he had finished Umar was about to speak, but Abu Bakr silenced him and spoke himself, tactfully but firmly, reiterating the praise of the Helpers, but pointing out that the community of Islam was now spread throughout Arabia, and that the Arabs as a whole would not accept the authority of anyone other than a man of Qurasyh, for Quraysh held a unique and central position amongst them. In conclusion he took Umar and Abu Ubaydah each by a hand and said: “I offer you one of these two men. Pledge your allegiance to whichever of these ye will”. Then another of the Helpers rose and suggested that there should be two authorities, and this led to a heated argument, until finally Umar intervened, saying: “O Helpers, know ye not that the Messenger of God ordered Abu Bakr to lead the prayer?” “We know it,” they answered, and he said: “Then which of you will willingly take precedence over him?” “God forbid that we should take precedence over him!” they said, whereupon Umar seized the hand of Abu Bakr and pledged allegiance to him, followed by Abu Ubaydah and others of the Emigrants who had now joined them. Then all the Helpers who were present likewise pledged their allegiance to Abu Bakr, with the exception of Sa’d, who never acknowledged him as caliph, and who eventually migrated to Syria”.

To suggest that Abu Bakar “grabbed power” is a poor reading of history. Abu Bakar unequivocally demonstrated his superlative qualities of leadership despite his personal grief of the loss of his “companion in the cave during the Hijrah.” Whilst others were in a state of shock, not knowing what to do, he prepared the minds of the people to accept one caliph instead of two in the same manner he consoled them into the acceptance of the prophet’s death. Only when the issue of the caliphate was resolved, were preparations made to conduct the burial of the prophet illustrating the pivotal significance of the clarity of leadership of the ummah and not jostling for power and position as insinuated by Petra. Even the burial place of the prophet was a potentially explosive issue that threatened to split the ummah and yet again Abu Bakar saved the day. Imam Malik in his Muwatta’ said : people prayed individually on the jenazah of the prophet and some of them said “Let us bury him in Baqi”. But Abu Bakar said, “Prophets are to be buried where they had died.”. And after they performed salatul janazah, Rasulllah was buried the following day in the room of Aishah (RA). His immediate action to dispatch Usamah ibn Zaid to fight against the Romans and his firm actions against those who refused to pay zakat drew protests from some of the companions including Umar. And yet, his policies which superficially appeared erroneous and dangerous, proved against all odds to be correct. Is it any wonder that he was the first of the rightly guided caliphs and as prophesised, the first to join the prophet in paradise?

6) Page 4, paragraph 3

“Uthman replaced all the existing Amirs throughout the Muslim land with his own family members … plus he dipped into the state treasury to hand over large sums of money to his family members … Now, one very significant thing that Uthman did in his time was that he compiled the Quran into a book. In 650, Uthman, as the “Successor to God” authorized a single universally – binding the text of the Quran. In doing so, he antagonized many other Muslim communities … Uthman then instructed that all the different variations of the Quran be brought to Medina where he had them burned. And anyone who questioned this or disputed it was branded an unbeliever of kafir”.

Actually Petra, there were 18 allegations made against Sayyidina Uthman bin Affan (may Allah be pleased with him) and the people responsible for his assassination (Saba’iyin) claimed that he deserved to be killed since he had transgressed the Shariah.

i. Uthman and Muawiyah (may Allah be please with both of them) were both from Banu Abdi Shams and they were cousins. Muawiyah had been made the amir (governor) of Sham at the time of Abu Bakr, Umar and also Uthman. The prophet himself had appointed Muawiyah for certain posts because he was one of the trusted companions who used to transcribe the revelations from the prophet. Similar accusations was levelled when Uthman appointed Abdullah ibn Amir ibn Quraiz as amir. Ibn Quraiz’s mother was from Banu Hashim and his father from Banu Abdi Shams. The Saba’iyin might have a point if he was completely from Bani Abdi Shams, but this was not so and the Arabs always paid due respect to the mother’s lineage. These trumped allegations paled into insignificance when one is reminded that the prophet made special dua (supplication) for Ibn Quraiz and he was a companion who possessed karamah (unique qualities of foresightedness), extremely generous and demonstrated valour in the battlefields i.e. he met the job specifications. And the same story line is repeated with Al-Walid ibn Uqbah and Marwan ibn Al-Hakam. Of course there were many other people appointed and they were not from Bani Abdi Shams. And Bani Abdi Shams had also been appointed at the time of the prophet and Abu Bakar and Umar acted similarly. Do you still have a problem with Uthman’s alleged nepotism?

ii. The Saba’iyin accused Uthman as the burner of mushafs (copies of Quran). Abu Bakar ibn Arabi said that this is the best deed that Uthman had endowed to the ummah and the compilation into a single Quranic text had saved the Muslims from the fate which befell the holy books of the Jews and the Christians. In Tarikh Al- Quran, Ali bin Musa, a Shiah, narrated that Ali bin Abi Talib said, “O people fear Allah, never say that Uthman is the one that burnt the mushafs. By Allah he never burnt it, he burnt it only in front of the companions. Uthman collected us and asked us, “What do you say about people from Iraq and Shams and each one has one single and different kira’ah (readings of the Quran) written in their mushaf; when they meet each other they are calling each other kafir? What do you say about this matter and what shall we do?” Then Uthman said, “Write one mushaf. If you differ about it today, tomorrow you will have more, unless you have one single book which contain all the mushafs.” And then he carried it out after consultation and consensus from the companions. Sayyidina Ali said when Uthman burnt the other Mushafs, “If Uthman did not do it, I would have done so”. The insinuation that Sayyidina Uthman burnt “rival copies” and the canonization of the Uthmanic Mushaf as politically motivated is nothing short of parroting the Saba’iyin and more recently the orientalist Arthur Jeffery. Aren’t you glad Petra, that we both read the same exact and immutable copy of the Quran?

iii. “… plus he dipped into the state treasury to hand over large sums of money to his family members…” This would have to be allegation number 19 which even the plotters of the assassination have failed to enumerate ( the closest would be the Saba’iyin’s allegation that he gave Khums to Marwan which was an outright slander). These are outrageous accusations against one of the rightly guided caliph who in his life time has been a showcase of philanthropy and altruism. He contributed generously to the construction of the mosque of the prophet. And when gripped by the economic monopoly of the Jews in Madinah, Uthman an astute businessman, virtually turned ‘dust to gold”, gave the Jews a run for their money and bought the well in Madinah with his very own money to give the Muslims a fighting chance to compete with the Jews. And in the preparations for the expedition to Tabuk, Uthman virtually armed half of the army and the prophet invoked God’s blessings for him. Besides, Uthman is one of the 10 companions of the prophet, the Al-Mubasyirun, those given the glad tidings and promised of an abode in paradise in the various Mutawatir Hadiths (authentic traditions reported by a large number of people in different times as to make it impossible for any falsehood to creep in). The prophet said “For any prophet there is a friend in paradise and my friend in paradise is Uthman” (Tirmidhi). Though not infallible , I am sure you would not like to be unkind to Uthman let alone slanderous.

The companions of the prophet, best described by Sayyid Qutb in his book, Milestones, as the “Unique Quranic Generation” ( Jeel Quran ) were unrivalled in their service to God and their devotion to the mission of the prophet. This testimony is uncontested and it is based on the evidences from the Quran and the Sunnah.

“Thus we have appointed you a middle nation, that you may be witness upon mankind, and that the messenger maybe a witness upon you …” (Al-Baqarah : 143)

Allah exalted the Sahabah (companions) to this role of being Syuhada’ Alannas, the witness over mankind. They embraced Islam before other people and Allah called them the Sabiqin i.e. people who have won the race and these were near to Allah and exalted in paradise.

“And the first to lead the way, of the Muhajirin and the Ansar and those who followed them in goodness, Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him…” (At-Taubah:100)

“And the foremost in the race, the foremost in the race: Those are they who will be brought nigh. In the gardens of delight.” (Al-Waqiah:10-12)

Abu Said al-Khudri reported that Prophet Muhammad said, “Do not revile my Companions; by Him in Whose hand my soul is, if one of you contributed the amount of gold equivalent to mount Uhud, it would not amount to as much as a scoopful of one of them, or half of it”. (Abu Dawud).

Let alone accusing the prophet of various misdeeds and casting aspersions on the divinity and authenticity of the Quran. Wallahu alam ( God knows best ).

References:
1. Guillaume A. The Life of Muhammad (Translation Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah) London, 1995
2. S. Abul Hasan Ali. Muhammad Rasulullah – Apostle of Mercy.Lucknow, 1982
3. Zakaria Basheer. Sunshine at Madinah. Leicester 1990
4. Zakaria Basheer. The Meccan Crucible. London 1978
5. Abu Bakar ibn Arabi. Immunity from the backbone breakers. Commented by Muhibbudin Al-Khatib. London, 1980

Wajah Islam Manakah Yang Kita Mahu?
by Manan Razali

Saya adalah seorang usahawan profesional yang terlibat dalam bidang terknologi tinggi dan mempunyai pengalaman luas dalam hubungan perniagaan antarabangsa. Pada masa yang sama, saya juga cinta kepada Islam dan mahu Islam diletakkan pada tempatnya yang tinggi dalam segala aspek kehidupan kita baik dari sudut politik, ekonomi dan sosial serta dijadikan rujukan utama dalam menangani segala persoalan yang dihadapi oleh manusia sejagat.

Sejak akhir-akhir ini, beberapa kenyataan mengenai isu-isu semasa yang dikeluarkan oleh Mufti Perlis – Dr. Mohd. Asri Zainul Abidin, telah mendapat perhatian oleh berbagai lapisan masyarakat di negara kita termasuk media cetak dan elektronik. Oleh kerana kenyataan-kenyataan beliau tidak selari dengan pemahaman konvensional yang sudah sebati dengan masyarakat umum terhadap Islam, maka berbagai-bagai reaksi telah timbul hasil dari kenyataan-kenyataan tersebut. Ada yang menyokong, ada yang marah, dan tidak kurang juga yang keliru. Saya termasuk dari kalangan pihak yang menyokong kenyataan-kenyataan dan usaha-usaha Dr. Asri kerana saya mengenali beliau secara dekat, tahu latarbelakangnya dan halatujunya.

Secara ringkas, Dr. Asri berkelulusan PhD. dalam bidang Hadith dan merupakan seorang pendokong Sunnah yang sedang gigih berusaha untuk memperbaiki imej Islam tanpa berkompromi dengan asas-asas aqidah yang bertunjangkan kepada Al-Quran dan As-Sunnah. Cuma bezanya ialah dulu Dr. Asri hanya pensyarah biasa di universiti, tetapi sekarang beliau sudah jadi Mufti negeri. Oleh itu, apa yang dikata olehnya sekarang mendapat liputan meluas dan perhatian orang ramai berbanding dulu.

Bagi sesiapa yang mengenalinya dan rajin mengikuti kuliah-kuliahnya, kenyataan-kenyataan umum yang beliau lontarkan kepada masyarakat akhir-akhir ini bukanlah isu-isu pelik untuk mencari publisiti murah. Sebaliknya, isu-isu yang diutarakannya adalah isu-isu serius yang harus diperbetulkan jika kita mahu Islam masih terus relevan sebagai satu cara hidup yang bersifat universal untuk manusia sejagat yang semakin gawat kedudukannya hari ini kerana terpaksa berhempas-pulas dengan berbagai-bagai isu kontemporari kronik yang tidak pernah wujud sebelum ini.

Kita semua sedia maklum bahawa imej Islam dari pandangan masyarakat bukan Islam, baik di negara kita mahupun di peringkat antarabangsa, adalah terlalu teruk sejak kebelakangan ini. Hampir tidak ada apa-apa yang baik diperkatakan mengenai Islam sekarang. Semuanya negatif saja. Tidak perlulah saya huraikan lebih lanjut mengenai hal ini. Memadai sajalah untuk saya katakan bahawa Islam hari ini kelihatan terlalu jauh tersasar dari keindahahan yang sering dilaung-laungkan oleh pihak-pihak yang begitu ghairah mahu mempromosikan Islam, tetapi tidak berkemampuan dari segi ilmu dan akhlak untuk mempraktikkannya. Realiti yang wujud pada hari ini ialah Islam hanya indah khabar dari rupa. Ia kelihatan kolot dan tidak bertamaddun akibat dari sikap orang-orang Muslim yang telah mencemarkan kesuciannya melalui tindak-tanduk mereka sendiri yang amat bertentangan dengan apa yang dibawa dan diajar oleh Nabi Muhammad SAW.

Pada hakikatnya, Islam bukan milik sesuatu kaum atau golongan sahaja. Sebaliknya, Islam adalah agama wahyu untuk manusia sejagat. Islam yang diutus kepada Nabi Muhammad SAW untuk disampaikan kepada manusia adalah mudah dan bersifat universal kerana ia selari dengan fitrah manusia yang dijadikan oleh Allah, selaku Rabb semesta alam. Jika Islam susah dan mengelirukan, sudah tentu arab-arab badwi yang berterabur di padang pasir kira-kira 1400 tahun lalu yang hobi mereka adalah berperang sesama sendri tidak boleh menerimannya dalam jangkamasa pendek selama 23 tahun.

Tetapi oleh kerana Islam itu mudah diterima oleh akal yang sihat dan jiwa yang murni, dan tidak membebankan untuk dipraktik, maka arab-arab badwi yang tidak bertamaddun dan keras hati itu pun boleh terkulai layu dengan Islam sehingga merobah mereka dari satu bangsa yang hina pada asalnya kepada satu bangsa yang penyantun, mulia dan dihormati dunia pada zaman kegemilangan Islam satu ketika dahulu.

Malangnya, Islam yang diamalkan oleh umatnya sejak beberapa kurun kebelakangan ini dan oleh kita hari ini sudah jauh tersasar dari bentuknya yang asal. Ia telah dijadikan sebagai satu agama bersifat ritual yang dipenuhi dengan berbagai-bagai amalan bidaah dan khurafat yang tidak pernah diajar atau dipraktikkan oleh Rasulullah SAW dan para sahabat baginda dahulu. Disebabkan ini, maka agama dan cara hidup yang pada asalnya sangat mudah, indah dan luas skopnya baik dari aspek ibadah dan juga muamalat telah diubah menjadi susah, lesu dan sempit hingga tidak kelihatan relevan pada zaman yang serba canggih sekarang kerana ketulinannya telah dicemari.

Salah satu masalah yang utama di Malaysia ialah hampir semua dari kita selaku orang Melayu berfikir bahawa Islam adalah milik bangsa kita sahaja. Kita tidak mahu fikir bahawa Islam juga adalah milik bangsa lain kerana mereka juga ada hak untuk memahami dan menerima Islam selaku insan bergelar manusia yang dicipta oleh Tuhan yang sama. Tetapi bagaimana kita mahu terangkan Islam kepada mereka jika aqidah kita sendiri tunggang langgang? Bagaimana kita ingin menarik perhatian mereka jika akhlak kita menjelekkan? Bagaimana kita hendak pikat mereka jika Islam yang kita gambarkan berwajah keras yang hanya mahu mencari kesilapan orang dan menghukum sahaja?

Jika bercakap, kita hanya tahu beremosi sahaja. Ilmu, adab dan akhlak langsung entah ke mana dicampaknya. Hikmah dan kebijaksanaan yang sepatutnya ditunjukkan ketika berdakwah adalah sesuatu yang sangat asing bagi kita. Kita sibuk berkokok di sana sini bahawa orang Islam perlu kembali kepada Al-Quran dan As-Sunnah, tetapi pada masa yang sama apa yang kita praktikkan, langsung tidak seperti apa yang dikata. Kalau ada mana-mana pihak yang cuba memperbetulkan keadaan ini dengan membawa hujah berlandaskan dalil-dalil yang sahih, kita akan berhempas pulas cuba menolaknya dengan berbagai alasan dan pandangan-pandangan lemah untuk menjustifikasikan pendirian kita walaupun ia jelas bercanggah dengan Al-Quran dan As-Sunnah. Maka hasilnya ialah Islam yang sepatutnya mudah difahami dan diamalkan itu bertukar menjadi sangat mengelirukan dan membebankan.

Oleh yang demikian, jangankan orang bukan Islam saja yang takut kepada Islam. Orang Melayu yang tidak mempunyai latarbelakang Islam yang mencukupi pun tidak yakin kepada Islam dan sudah berani menolaknya secara terang-terangan sejak akhir-akhir ini. Laungan bahawa Islam adalah satu cara hidup yang lengkap dan mampu menjana kemajuan rupa-rupanya tidak lain dari hanya satu slogan yang bersifat retorik sahaja. Hakikatnya ialah sebahagian besar dari kita jahil mengenai agama kita sendiri dan sikap bodoh sombong kita yang tidak sedarkan diri hanya memburukkan lagi keadaan ini.

Disebabkan inilah apabila Dr. Asri baru singgung sedikit tentang isu mengintip orang berkhalwat yang tidak pernah diajar atau disuruh oleh Rasulullah SAW, ribut orang beri komen di sana sini menuduh beliau menggalakkan orang buat maksiat pula. Padahal, apa yang Nabi ajar ialah jalan kepada apa-apa yang boleh menggalakkan kepada berlakunya maksiat itu perlu dihalang dan ditutup terlebih dahulu. Di sinilah sepatutnya usaha kita dipusatkan. Bukannya mengintip orang yang membuat maksiat dan kemudiannya mengaibkan mereka dikhalayak ramai. Perbuatan seumpama ini tidak pernah tercatat di mana-mana bahagian dari sirah Rasulullah dan di zaman pemerintahan para sahabatnya dahulu. Samada kita suka atau tidak, inilah hakikatnya kalau kita rujuk kembali kepada As-Sunnah. Oleh itu, jika kita benar-benar jujur mahu memertabatkan Al-Quran dan As-Sunnah, kita mesti terima kenyataan ini dan ubah cara kita untuk menangani masalah khalwat walaupun kita mungkin rasa janggal mengenainya.

Selain ini, adalah sangat menyedihkan apabila ada pihak yang memperlekehkan setiap usaha yang cuba digerakkan oleh Dr. Asri untuk menjalankan program-program pemurnian aqidah di Perlis dengan mengatakan bahawa kononnya itu semua adalah hal-hal remeh berbanding dengan usaha mereka untuk menguasai pemerintahan. Serangan demi serangan ditujukan kepada beliau hanya kerana beliau dilantik menjadi Mufti oleh kerajaan yang ingin mereka tumbangkan. Maka bagi mempertahankan dirinya, Dr. Asri telah menjawab sedikit sebanyak serangan itu di dalam media apabila ditemu-ramah. Malangnya, hasil dari kenyataan-kenyataan tersebut, beliau semakin teruk dihentam dan dipanggil dengan berbagai-bagai nama yang tidak wajar dikeluarkan, lebih-lebih lagi oleh orang-orang yang berlatarbelakangkan pendidikan agama.

Saya termasuk dari kalangan orang yang bersimpati dan menyokong perjuangan mereka sebelum ini. Sebenarnya, ramai orang dari golongan profesional juga berpendirian begini demi cinta kita kepada Islam dan mahu Islam dimertabatkan di negara ini. Tetapi sikap yang diambil oleh mereka untuk bermusuhan dengan Dr. Asri yang sedang cuba memertabatkan Islam melalui ruang yang ada padanya telah membuat saya rasa sungguh terkilan kerana ia mencerminkan betapa dengkelnya pemikiran dan kurang matangnya peribadi mereka dalam memperjuangkan matlamat dan idealism mereka yang murni. Perasaan simpati saya kepada golongan ini sudah mula pudar kerana saya tidak dapat lihat bagaimana saya boleh bersama membangunkan masyarakat dengan orang-orang yang hanya ghairah melayan emosi dan tidak ada kerja yang selain dari mencaci-maki orang yang mereka tidak setujui dengan mempamerkan akhlak yang buruk.

Saya juga mahukan negara yang memerintah berdasarkan hukum-hakam syariah kerana bercita-citakan matlamat ini merupakan satu tuntutan yang wajib bagi setiap individu yang mengaku Muslim. Jika tidak, maka rosaklah aqidah kita. Ini bukan hal main-main. Tetapi saya juga bersikap realistik dalam hal ini kerana matlamat yang suci ini tidak akan tercapai dan mustahil dapat dilaksanakan dengan baik jika masyarakat masih tidak bersedia kerana jahil dan bingung dengan bagaimanakah wajah Islam yang akan memerintah dan mentadbir negara dan hidup rakyat kelak jika pihak-pihak yang kesana kemari memperjuangkan Islam tidak mampu menjaga adab dan perilaku mereka.

Rasulullah SAW memerintah di Madinah selepas 13 tahun mendidik kaumnya dengan penuh kesabaran di Mekah mengenai tauhid dan asas-asas aqidah. Pada masa yang sama, baginda menghantar wakil ke Madinah untuk menyampaikan ilmu ini sebelum berhijrah ke sana. Setibanya di Madinah, tampuk pemerintahan negara terus diserahkan kepada baginda dengan cara sukarela oleh rakyatnya kerana tersangat yakin kepada keindahan dan keadilian Islam walaupun sebahagian besar dari mereka tidak pernah berjumpa Rasulullah SAW.

Mengapa boleh jadi begini? Jawapannya mudah : Ia berlaku kerana aqidah mereka mantap kerana mereka sudah kenal siapakah Tuhan mereka. Ilmu tauhid yang dipasak dalam dada mereka oleh para sahabat Rasulullah yang mewaklili baginda di Madinah sebelum baginda sampai telah berjaya memberi kesan yang besar dan luarbiasa kepada jiwa mereka. Mereka dapat lihat wajah Islam yang bersifat penyayang, adil dan indah itu melalui akhlak dan peribadi insan-insan yang menyampaikan ajaran Islam kepada mereka. Disebabkan ini, mereka yakin bahawa jika Islam memerintah dan mentadbir hidup mereka, maka tentulah mereka akan mendapat kebaikan, kesejahteraan dan keberkatan di dunia dan akhirat.

Saya yakin Islam yang diajar oleh wakil-wakil Rasulullah SAW ini mudah untuk difahami dan dihayati. Jika ia berbelit-belit untuk difahami dan orang-orang yang menyampaikannya itu bersikap kasar, tidak bijaksana, pengotor, cakap tak serupa bikin, serta mempamerkan sikap-sikap negatif yang lain, sudah tentu penduduk Madinah tidak akan menerima mesej yang hendak disampaikan itu walaupun mesej itu benar. Dengan erti kata lain, sesuatu yang baik dan berkualiti tinggi itu mesti juga dipakej dengan cantik dan menarik jika kita mahu ia laris disambut dan dibeli oleh pelanggan. Sebaliknya jika “packaging” nya buruk, jangan harap orang akan berminat untuk membelinya walaupun isinya mungkin bagus.

Seterusnya, apabila ayat-ayat syariat dan hukum-hakam diturunkan oleh Allah kepada mereka melalui Rasulullah SAW selama 10 tahun berikutnya di Madinah untuk dipraktikkan, mereka langsung tidak membantah walau sedikit pun. Sikap mereka ialah “Wa samiqna, wa atoqna” yang bermaksud : “Aku dengar dan aku patuh”. Mustahil mereka boleh bersikap demikian jika aqidah mereka kabur. Maka disebabkan inilah Islam gemilang pada zaman itu dan di zaman para sahabat. Ia bukan saja difahami dan dihayati dari segi teorinya, tetapi ia berjaya diamalkan dan dipraktikkan dengan penuh kecantikkan, sesuai dengan tujuan mengapa Allah menurunkannya kepada manusia.

Inilah sikap mukmin yang kita juga inginkan pada hari ini tetapi keadaan ini tidak boleh dicapai dengan sekelip mata kerana syarat asas kepada ini ialah aqidah yang murni dan mantap. Aqidah begini hanya boleh dibentuk jika penerangan dan penyampaiannya adalah berdasarkan kepada ilmu yang jelas dengan penuh hikmah mengikut contoh dan tauladan yang telah ditunjukkan oleh Rasulullah SAW dan para sahabat baginda dahulu.

Dalam membicarakan hal ini, saya bukanlah seorang lurus bendul yang hidup dalam alam khayalan. Saya akui bahawa apa yang digambarkan di atas tidak mudah dilaksanakan di celah-celah kepincangan yang berlaku dengan meluas dalam sistem politik, ekonomi dan sosial dalam masyarakat kita hari ini. Umum mengetahui bahawa kepincangan-kepincangan inilah yang telah menyebabkan amalan rasuah, maksiat dan pelbagai penyakit sosial begitu serius melanda negara kita sehingga membuat hidup seharian kita menjadi sangat gawat. Tindas menindas berlaku di mana-mana saja dan segala usaha yang menjurus kepada “amar maaruf nahi mungkar” dihalang sementara program-program kemungkaran pula diberi sokongan dan galakkan. Di samping ini, untuk hidup dan menyara keluarga di negara ini sekarang bukanlah satu urusan mudah disebabkan oleh kos sara hidup yang meningkat setiap hari akibat dari sikap tidak amanah oleh pihak-pihak tertentu yang menyebabkan berlakunya pembaziran yang berleluasa.

Tetapi ini adalah lumrah hidup yang sudah berlaku sejak zaman berzaman. Tidak ada bezanya apa yang berlaku hari ini berbanding dengan apa berlaku di zaman arab jahiliyyah dulu. Watak-watak yang terlibat dalam drama bersiri ini sama, cuba pelakonnya saja yang telah bertukar. Kalau dulu Abu Jahal dan Abu Lahab pakai jubah dan serban, hari ini pelakon-pelakon yang memegang watak yang sama pakai kot atau bush-jacket pula. Masalah ini berlaku kerana ramai manusia sombong, angkuh, takabbur dan tidak sedar diri kerana mereka tidak kenal siapa Tuhan mereka dan seterusnya tidak terfikir apa yang bakal menanti apabila mereka dipanggil menghadap Rabb yang mencipta mereka satu hari nanti. Maka apabila mereka mempunyai sedikit kuasa yang diamanahkan oleh rakyat, mereka mengkhianati amanah ini dengan penuh kerakusan demi memuaskan hawa nafsu yang telah dididik dengan sempurna oleh iblis.

Oleh yang demikian, sementara kita bersama-sama berusaha tanpa jemu untuk mencari jalan membenteras penyakit ini dan memperbetulkan kepincangan yang berleluasa di negara ini melalui saluran-saluran yang ada, peranan dakwah untuk mengajak orang ramai mengenal Tuhan yang Satu dan memperbaiki imej Islam melalui akhlak yang baik tidak boleh diabaikan. Kedua-dua usaha ini mestilah seiring. Ia adalah tugas yang telah diwariskan oleh Rasulullah SAW kepada seluruh umatnya dan adalah tanggung-jawab kita untuk melaksanakannya dengan baik.

Pada masa yang sama, kebijaksanaan dan kelunakkan kita dalam melaksanakan aktiviti-aktiviti dakwah supaya Islam kelihatan cantik dan menarik kepada orang ramai janganlah disalah-ertikan sebagai langkah-langkah yang ingin meliberalkan Islam. Golongan yang berfahaman liberal menafsirkan Al-Quran dan As-Sunnah mengikut selera nafsu tanpa mengambil kira batas-batas aqidah, manakala apa yang disarankan oleh Dr. Asri melalui kenyataan-kenyataannya adalah bertunjangkan kepada As-Sunnah walaupun ia mungkin kelihatan seperti satu langkah yang “liberal” dari pandangan mata kasar. Kekeliruan Ini timbul kerana majoriti dari kita memang tidak cukup terdedah kepada sunnah-sunnah Rasullullah SAW. Di sebabkan ini, maka kita akan memusuhi apa yang kita jahil tentangnya dan cepat sekali menuding jari kepada orang lain untuk menyalahkannya.

Islam harus ditegakkan dengan ilmu yang sahih dan akhlak yang tinggi, bukannya dengan sangka-sangkaan yang tidak berteraskan kepada dalil-dalil yang sahih dan emosi yang tidak terkawal. Maka adalah sangat perlu untuk kita memahami dan mempraktikkan Islam mengikut Al-Quran berdasarkan kepada contoh-contoh dan acuan yang telah ditunjuk-ajar oleh Rasulullah SAW dan para sahabat baginda tanpa perlu kita monokok-tambah atau mengurangi apa-apa darinya supaya ketulinan Islam dapat dipelihara bagi mengelakkannya dari menjadi sempit, mengelirukan dan membebankan.

Jika kita dakwa bahawa Islam itu relevan dan mampu menyelesaikan pelbagai masalah sosial, ekonomi dan kehidupan manusia sejagat, maka sudah sampai masanya kita buktikan bahawa Islam itu adil, praktikal, progresif, penyayang, menasabah dan boleh diterima oleh akal yang sihat supaya ia mampu menarik minat setiap manusia yang berjiwa murni untuk mendekatinya. Dengan lain perkataan, imej dan wajah Islam harus diperbaiki serta dipakej dengan menarik bukan hanya dengan slogan tetapi dengan tindakan-tindakan berkesan berteraskan kepada Al-Quran dan As-Sunnah yang mempunyai skop yang sangat luas.

Islam itu sememangnya sempurna dan berwajah cantik. Tindak tanduk kitalah yang akan menentukan samada ia kekal cantik dan menawan atau pun hodoh dan dibenci.

Manan Razali
Subang Jaya
Selangor.
Email : manan@aliyatech.com