Monday, January 25, 2010

Change the reality and perception abbout Islam

Recently, in reaction to some of the events surrounding some Muslim youths that have been in the spotlight due to being supposedly involved with terroristic activity, Sister Jannah wrote a "letter" aimed at such individuals, expressing how much their actions are not in tune with Islam and how it hurts the Ummah as a whole. As you can imagine, this sparked some strongly-worded and harsh comments by some individuals, accusing Sister Jannah wrongfully. Given that statement, you can correctly assume that I was in full support of the sentiments that Sister Jannah expressed in this "letter," which I have, with her permission, reproduced below. Please let me know what you think and check out her blog here.

Ma'salaam / Peace be with you.

A letter to a would-be terrorist.
Dear 'Muslim' Terrorist,

What exactly did you think you'd be gaining? Like for real, did you think your name would be up in lights? Did you think people would think you're the savior of the Muslim world or something? Did you think you were correcting all the injustices against Muslims in the world or even avenging them?

No you're rather pathetic. First of all you did not think at all when you 'concocted' your stupid plan. Did you even bother to read about what Islam said about the issue? Yeah, don't bother reading some lone crazy Fatwa someone like you with wack ideas and has no backing came up with. But did you even bother to ask a single real scholar of Islam? Like the hundreds and thousands of mainstream Islamic scholars out there. --Guess what they say-- That killing innocent people is Haram. Wow didn't get that bulletin did you. What's that you say, the whole world is against Islam, so it's ok to kill indiscriminately. Yeah so why don't you just kill yourself then (somewhere alone). You know why. Yes, it's because killing yourself is also Haram in Islam!! Life is sacred in Islam and belongs to God, not people! Yet you still dare to go against that and do it to others?!

Anyways I just don't get it. These young "Muslim" guys had so much going for them. They could have done so much to change society and the world around them. To spread the real message of Islam and justice. Justice does not come from violence. It doesn't. Justice comes from change. Change in thought and ideas. And you cannot get this change by violence. Especially stupid plans like blowing up planes and killing innocent people.

Really, what did those five boys from Virginia get for traveling to Pakistan to supposedly join up with some 'Jihad camp'. Did they save the Muslim world? They destroyed five families and an entire community. What did the Ft. Hood shooter get? Nothing except probable torture and execution. Did he make a point? Besides that Muslims can't be trusted anywhere. No he did not. The 7th July English bombers? The Mumbai bombers? Zip except a whole lot more problems for the Muslims in their countries. What did the 'underwear' bomber get. Nothing except a humiliating nickname and the same as above. Even if he had been successful what would he get? Nothing except a lot of hate. From every Muslim in the United States and every non-Muslim. Thanks a lot buddy. Every amount of progress we had made since Obama came into office just went down the toilet. What point were you trying to make again? No one has heard it because we now have to stand in line two hours more for every flight undergoing invasive full body scans at every airport thanks to you! Now every innocent person from 13 Muslim countries will endure more hardship because of you. Now every single person in Yemen (an entire country! and not even your country!) will suffer because of you.

This kind of "Jihad" just does not work. It does not help our brothers and sisters dying every day in Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine and everywhere else. It just doesn't. A terrorist might think they are bringing the oppression over there to the forefront of people's minds here. But it's actually just making them feel more justified. The "threat' is what made them go over there in the first place and you are just adding more proof to their argument. Did the "vengeance" you caused make them sit down and chat about making things better for Muslims? Or did it allow them to cause more oppression?

How did the 9/11 terrorists help Muslims? By killing 3,000 innocent lives (which BTW included some Muslims) and then by causing the killing of hundreds of thousands of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan and Gaza. Yes, all justified by 9/11. Who is to blame if your action causes great tragedy and injustice. They might carry it out but it is YOU who caused it by your stupid wrong actions. You must understand, this is not a level playing field. It may be unfair, but Muslim blood is cheap. And other's suffering causes them to seek vengeance upon us tenfold. Terrorism as a strategy does not work. It will never bring about the justice we are looking for.

See it's like that movie Umar Mukhtar... the colonizers were there all raping/killing and the Muslim army captures two as prisoners and one of the Muslim soldiers wants to just kill them. He raises his gun and Umar Mukhtar puts his hands over the rifle and pushes it down. "We do not kill prisoners" (an Islamic principle), he says. Well "*They* do it to *us*!" is the answer. Umar Mukhtar says, "They" are not our *teachers*!

Do you see? They are not our teachers. See we EXPECT retartedness from them. We expect wrong and evil and oppression. This is expected in the world. A lot of people do not like justice or fairness or the way of life that is Islam. That is how it is. But how can we become them? How can we compromise our Deen taught to us by our beloved Prophet (s) and our Holy Quran. Can you imagine if you said to Muhammad (s): Yeah they're killing us so I'm just going to go over there and blow up a mall/plane/business full of innocent people... men, women, children, xtian, muslim or jew... doesn't matter... it probably won't even help our cause and just makes things worse...but who cares... i might be doing it out of revenge or because i'm depressed or messed up psychologically but hey..._I'm doing it for you._ Does that make any sense to you? Can you imagine what he (s) would say.

That you're an idiot. Yes. Even worse... you are a person that does not think. And Islam, above many things, is especially a religion for those who think. We are taught to think about our actions and reactions and responses. That's what it's all about isn't it? Actions = hereafter. Doing sins has a response, we're accountable for it. The grave and dust is not the end of all things. "All this" means something. And one day we will see the truth of everything. So why didn't you think? Why didn't you think of the consequences? About whether or not you were actually helping Muslims? Why didn't you think of better ways that can bring about change in this world? To show people what Islam is really about? To work on yourself first and become a better Muslim? To help the community around you and the larger Muslim community that is suffering... instead of making it suffer more? I mean can we not THINK as Muslims and come up with rational, real effective ways of helping Muslims overseas. Why can't you do that instead of coming up with stupid irrational vigilante justice scenarios.

Ok I'm done now. My anger is spent. It's not even for myself. I expect this life not to be easy for a Muslim. We will have hardships and challenges and we will have to live through them and gain our resolve and fight for justice in *thinking* ways. And in the end we may have to wait for our justice in the Hereafter. But it just upsets me that you would damage the name of our beautiful Deen and the image of Muslims. Another crime in so many crimes, and yet you still think you're in the right?

Sincerely, your friend and fellow Muslim (as long as you don't turn into a terrorist),



Saturday, January 16, 2010

Muslim scholars: Seek Islamic spirit, not Islamic state

Some Muslim theologians represent an obstacle to Islamic ethics and values
The Islamic state is a controversial issue in the West, as recent news confirms.

Thursday, January 7,2010 00:30

Isabelle Dana Common Ground News Service

The Islamic state is a controversial issue in the West, as recent news confirms. Last October, an imam was killed and six men arrested by the FBI in Detroit for allegedly conspiring to establish an Islamic state in the United States. In the United Kingdom, government officials worry that extremist groups like Hizb-ut-Tahrir have infiltrated Muslim schools to propagate their vision of an Islamic state.

Public opinion in the West reflects the fear that radical Muslims are trying to impose their values on the rest of the world. But the nebulous term "Islamic state" is not merely a concern for the anxious Western world, it is actually a point of discord and contention within the Muslim world itself.

For many Muslim theologians, the Islamic state actually represents an obstacle to Islamic ethics and values. In Iran, pre-eminent scholar Abdulkarim Soroush, also a former political figure, emphasises how difficult it is to sustain civil, political and religious rights in the current Islamic Republic of Iran. Even the new wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt believes that an Islamic state is not feasible in today's world.

Increasingly, Muslim scholars across the world are calling for alternative systems that can foster an Islamic vision of society and simultaneously accommodate our increasingly pluralistic societies. They believe that pluralism and the universal democratisation of human rights are at the heart of the Qur'an. There are diverse opinions about the nature, shape and purpose of an Islamic state, ranging from the conservative to the very progressive. However, Islamic states as we know them today have largely failed in creating political systems that respect such ideas.

As a result, Mohamed Talbi, a Tunisian writer and intellectual, calls on Muslim societies to abandon the Islamic state paradigm and instead strive for a global ummah, a global community that shares the core values of freedom and justice. To him, Islam is embodied in the concept of "differences within unity", namely pluralism. He writes, "I am a Muslim atom within a human molecule. My ummah is humanity, and I do not make any distinction between confessions, opinions, colour or race; all human beings are my brothers and sisters." This time of globalisation represents to him a rare opportunity to work towards this ideal.

Farid Esack is another Muslim scholar, from South Africa, who argues against an Islamic state in today's world: if Islam's message is to fight for oppressed communities, then Islamic states as we currently know them are anything but Islamic. He came to this conclusion as a result of his personal experiences-first, as a student in Pakistan when he witnessed the persecution of poor and marginalised non-Muslim communities and, later, as an activist in South Africa, when he experienced solidarity with people from all faiths against apartheid. A close ally of former South African president Nelson Mandela, Esack also proposes a different form of Islamic influence embodied in a global ummah that does not simply tolerate differences but also unites humankind beyond race and religion for a specific purpose: justice.

Esack believes that the ummah cannot be defined by kinship but by acts of faith: the real ummah is a united inter-religious struggle against oppression in all its forms.

Abdullahi Na'im, a Sudanese Muslim intellectual who had to flee Khartoum for following the open religious doctrine of Mahmoud Taha, a Sudanese theologian and political figure who advocated political and liberal religious reform, is convinced that an Islamic state is doomed to failure and that secularism-rooted in freedom of religion, ethics and morality, and rights and duties-is by far the best system for Muslims throughout the world. This form of secularism would have to be inclusive of different worldviews and could only be built through the dialogue and exchange of a global civil society.

The importance of the ummah over the Islamic state demonstrates a shift from the state-the political apparatus-to individuals and communities who become active agents responsible for implementing Islamic ideals in their pluralistic societies. This interesting proposition, rooted in an Islamic worldview, could be a more fluid and suitable framework for our globalised world.

Wrtitten by Isabelle Dana ( is a professional in communications and media with a focus on Africa, the Middle East and Islamic studies. This article is part of a series on Islamic law and non-Muslim minorities written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

tags: The Islamic State / United Kingdom / The Muslim Brotherhood In Egypt / Muslim Scholars

Let's seeking for Islamic Spirit and Islamic State all together

Abu Muhammad El-Merbawiy, MY

Dear sister Isabelle Dana, The world had apprehended that how the secular states had been constructed in the west till they turned into what we called them "Western Civilization". The premier concept that was accepted among European societies was SECULARIZATION - from which Muslims in the world had precisely understood that this Nations has been built by separating religion out of worldly life.So, this civilization was applicable to those who wanted to live here in the world ONLY without any connection to world of here after. If you think that, the human civilization is for "secular people" then nothing wrong to impose Islam as you said " Islamic Spirit but not Islamic State. So why couldn't I speak aloud to the world that Israelite also has to venture in Israelite Spirit not the State of Israeli in Palestine land.Yet Israel was established within the framework of Secular State and Zionist Ideology which was nothing to relate with any kind of religion, this was understood by all people in the world. My dear sister, I sincerely ask you to understand Islam in very crystal clear. We as Muslim rejected your proposal because the religion of Islam is the religion of heaven, came to us from God - Allah almighty must be included the Spiritual aspect and the power for governing State we call it - Islamic State, because we Muslim wanted purely display to the world that Muslim won harm any body if they are going to study Islam from the right point of view, not try to study Islam from western point of view.What ever you said and argued all about, the nature of Islam that I believed must be included both way of how to construct the human civilization; from the angle of Islamic Spirit and establishing the Islamic State all together. Otherwise, ISLAM COULD NEVER BE UNDERSTOOD AS TRUE RELIGION AND COULD NEVER ESTABLISHED THE NATURE CIVILIZATION FOR ENTIRE HUMAN BEING ON THIS PLANET.

Friday, January 15,2010 17:26



Ammatu Allah

"all human beings are my brothers and sisters" If the people who are killing your muslim brothers and assaulting your sisters in the whole world are your brothers and sisters then I am not honored that you're one of my muslim brothers. If you're a true muslim then you'll know that there are no such thing as an islamic state today,and if the real state has arised then all humanty will see nothing but justice and mercy. "Na'im is convinced that an Islamic state is doomed to failure and that secularism-rooted in freedom... "well guess what, your word is nothing compared to the word of Allah the AL-Mighty ,and inshaallah soon enough the khilafah will rise and the prejudice and injustice will come to an end.Now the question is when this happen inshaallah where you will be?and in judgement day what will you say to your lord about your failure in supporting your religion?you should prepare the answers from now!!!

Friday, January 8,2010 12:06

Friday, January 15, 2010

Beza Antara Merebut Nama Allah Dan Mempertahankan Akidah

Fri, 27 June, 2008 19:17:11From:

adis elmerbawiy ( )

View Contact

Assalamu'alikum wrmt wbrt,

Akhi Zain ar-Rijal,

Ana menyokong agar enta melihat ruang "prevention is better than cure via Malaysian Law provisions" and according to the wisdom of our religious administrators to avoid some sort of the most chiotic circumstances of the religious practices in Malaysia. So, let's examnine my sharing oppinion as written below;

1. Mengapakah isu terjemahan “Allah” ke bahasa Melayu itu penting kepada pihak Borneo Catholic Society di dalam bible Melayu?, sedangkan bangsa Melayu tidak boleh diseru kepada agama Kristian berdasarkan ketetapan cegahan oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Ini mencanggahi undang-undang negara ini.

2. Kalau benar hendak terapkan “Allah” atau dalam bahasa Inggerisnya “God” ke dalam bahasa Melayu standard, memadai memakai dengan perkataan “tuhan” (bukan t huruf besar – CL) kerana “Tuhan” (dengan T huruf besar – CL) telah memberi maksud Allah swt di dalam penggunaan bahasa Melayu standard dan penggunaan akademik. Maka BSC cukup dan memadai memakai terjemahan Tuhan sahaja, tidak “Allah swt” kerana “Allah sawt” daripada bahasa Arab – dalam istilah agama Islam “lafdzul Jalaalah Malikul A‘dzam” – suatu lafaz Kebesaran kepada Penguasa yang Maha Agong, SUATU NAMA DAN ISTILAH KHAS BUAT UMAT ISLAM (Umat Muhammad saw).

3. Jika dibahas secara terperinci hakikat ketuhanan Kristianiti dan ketuhanan Islam, hanya bersatu pada nama panggilan sahaja jika di bahaskan di dalam bahasa Arab. Ianya tidak sama dari sudut hakikat dan Zat. (the entity and essence). Ketuhanan Kristianiti melibatkan “Aqnum” yang tiga – (trinity of oneness in unity ), sedangkan Allah swt bagi Islam adalah ketungggalan pada zatNya (unicity of oneness). Itulah jawapan Allah swt berikan bila Nabi saw di tanya oleh delegasi Kristian Najran ketika hayat baginda dengan surah al-Ikhlas, ayat 1-4 bermaksud : “Katakanlah (wahai Muhammad ) bahawa Dialah Allah swt itu Esa – Arb., ahadun (ketunggalan – bukan terdiri daripada gabungan entiti berlainan) (1) Allah sahaja tempat tumpuan pengaduan insan – Arb., as-Somadu (2) Dia tidak beranak dan tidak juga diperanakkan – Arb., lam yalid wa lam yuulad (3) Dan Dia juga tidak ada PERSAMAAN dengan sesuatu yang lain – Arb., lam yakun lahuu kufwan ahad (4).”

Jelasnya penganut Kristian ketika itu memahami kelainan Tuhan Muhammad saw (Allah swt) berbanding dengan tuhan golongan Kristian ketika itu. Oleh itu mereka tidak menerima Islam ketika itu kerana menyedari anutan ketuhanan yang berbeza dan kenabian Muhammad saw yang berbeza.

4. Jadi bolehkah secara agama kita turut terlibat dalam menyibarkan pembohongan dan pendustaan kepada manusia terhadap identiti Tuhan sesuatu agama tersebut?. Dalam Islam sudah pasti Dosa Besar dan Keluar agama dalam istilah “Zindiq” – hukumannya murtad. Begitu jugalah dengan agama Kristian tentang pendustaan atas nama Tuhan adalah satu kesalahan.



----- Original Message ----
From: zainulrijal
Sent: Monday, 23 June, 2008 9:46:41 AM

Subject: RE: [kolejislam] Re: Beza Antara Merebut Nama Allah Dan Mempertahankan Akidah

Waalaikum salam,

Sebagai tambahan kepada ulasan syeikh al qurawiy, sebenarnya mereka tidak
berhenti dengan kalimah Allah sahaja. Sidang Injil Borneo telahpun
memfailkan permohonan untuk menggunakan kalimah Baitullah, Kaabah dan solat bagi penggunaan agama mereka. Nanti mereka kata Setiap pagi ahad saya pergi ke baitullah untuk menunaikan solat mengadap kaabah sedangkan maksud mereka ialah setiap hari ahad mereka ke gereja bersembahyang di biara. Tidakkah ia sangat mengelirukan orang Islam. Saya petik sedikit persoalan yang

"Persoalan yang patut kita fikirkan, sehingga bilakah kita akan
mampu terus hidup hanya berbekalkan oksigen dari saluran undang-undang
sehingga kita yang majoriti, dengan segala peruntukan yang ada; TV,
radio, berbagai-bagai institusi dan agensi yang dilindungi, masih
takut kepada gerakan minoriti? Di manakah kehebatan Islam yang selalu
kita sebut dan ceritakan sejarah kegemilangannya? Atau sebenarnya,
kita tidak memiliki Islam seperti hari ia diturunkan? Maka kempen
Islam kita selalu tidak berkesan."

Jawapannya: kita mesti bergantung kepada saluran undang-undang selagi mana
ia menyebelahi Islam. Ini juga strategi musuh Islam. Buat masa ini kehebatan
dan kegemilangan Islam hanya tinggal di dalam catatan sejarah sahaja.
Kenapa? Kerana Islam tidak diamalkan sepenuhnya di Malaysia. Kempen orang
Islam memang tidak berkesan dan kita sering terperangkap dalam perangkap
orang kafir. Memang berul kita tidak memiliki Islam seperti hari ia
diturunkan sebab itulah kita tidak patut memberi ruang untuk orang lain
mengelirukan umat Islam yang sudahpun terkeliru ini.

Sebagai peguam, kami dilatih untuk melihat the worst scenario dan kami
dapati jika dibenarkan umat Islam akan kucar kacir. Ini adalah kerana method
dakwah kita tak berkesan. Kita gagal menjeadikan umat Islam di Malaysia kuat
dan hebat. Salah siapa? Tanyalah diri kita sendiri. Semua ini berlaku kerana
kelemahan umat Islam sendiri.

Zainul Rijal

From: kolejislam@yahoogro [mailto:kolejislam@yahoogro] On
Behalf Of alqurawiyy
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 6:10 PM
To: kolejislam@yahoogro

Subject: [kolejislam] Re: Beza Antara Merebut Nama Allah Dan Mempertahankan Akidah


Ya intellektual Islam memang pandai bagi pandangan dan ulasan yang
komprehensif. But bagi kami yang bertanggungjawab dalam hal
undang-undang ni soalannya satu saja...

"Penganut Kristian Katholik meminta mahkamah tinggi membuat
perisytiharan bahawa mereka juga berhak menggunakan kalimah Allah
dalam bible Melayu bagi maksud perkataan God yang digunakan dalam
bible Inggeris."

Kalau jawapannya boleh, kami akan concede, tak payah lawan lagi.

Kalau di masa-masa akan datang orang Kristian berdiayah kepada orang
Islam bahawa Kalimah Allah yang orang Islam sanjungi sebagai nama khas
bagi tuhan yang esa itu hanyalah kata nama am yang sama ertinya
dengan perkataan tuhan, maka kita dengan segala hormatnya menjemput
para cerdik pandai ini untuk berhadapan dengan puak-puak Kristian ni.

Hadapilah sendiri keadaam seperti di Indon, apabila khatolik berkempen
kepada orang Islam, Allah tuhan kamu itu pun ada dalam agama kami.

Berhujah for idealisme tidak sama dengan menghadapi cabaran secara
realistik. U got to know what they are fighting for rather than
membuat andaian atau igauan yang sangat berbunga2.

We are not there in the court to differentiate aqidah Islam or aqidah
Kristian Khatolik. We are there to decide whether Kalimah Allah itu
nama khas bagi tuhan yang kita sembah atau kata nama am yang berhak
digunakan oleh khatolik dalam kitab mereka.

al Qurawiyy

In kolejislam@yahoogro ,
muhammad mad wrote:

Beza Antara Merebut Nama Allah Dan Mempertahankan Akidah
Posted on Apr 27, 2008 under Akidah |

Hendaklah kita jelas bahawa yang membezakan akidah Islam dan
selainnya bukanlah pada sebutan, atau rebutan nama Allah, sebaliknya
pada ketulusan tauhid dan penafian segala unsur syirik.
Banyak pihak mendesak saya memberikan pandangan tentang penggunaan
nama Allah oleh agama lain khususnya agama Kristian di Malaysia ini.
Pada awalnya, saya selalu mengelak, cuma memberikan pandangan ringkas
dengan berkata: "Isu ini bukan isu nas Islam, ianya lebih bersifat
pentadbiran atau tempatan.

Peraturan ini mungkin atas alasan-alasan setempat seperti kenapa
sekarang baru ditimbulkan isu ini? Kenapa hanya Bible dalam bahasa
melayu sahaja yang hendak menggunakan panggilan Allah, tidak pula
edisi inggerisnya? Adakah di sana ada agenda tersembunyi? Maka
wujudnya tanda soal dan beberapa prasangka yang mungkin ada asasnya.
Maka lahirlah kebimbangan terhadap kesan yang bakal timbul dari isu
itu nanti.
Namun, akhir-akhir ini saya terus didesak. Saya kata: jika anda
hendak tahu pendirian Islam bukanlah dengan falsafah-falsafah tentang
akar bahasa itu dan ini yang diutamakan. Rujuk terdahulu apa kata
al-Quran dan al-Sunnah. Lepas itu kita bincang hukum berkenaan
bertitik tolak dari kedua sumber tersebut.
Kadang-kala kesilapan kita dalam mempertahankan perkara yang tidak
begitu penting, boleh melupakan kita kepada isu yang lebih penting.
Isu yang terpenting bagi saya adalah kefahaman mengenai keadilan dan
kerahmatan Islam yang mesti sampai kepada setiap rakyat negara ini,
muslim atau bukan muslim. Supaya gambaran negatif yang salah terhadap
Islam dapat dikikis dari minda mereka yang keliru.
Di samping itu, hendaklah kita jelas bahawa yang membezakan akidah
Islam dan selainnya bukanlah pada sebutan, atau rebutan nama Allah,
sebaliknya pada ketulusan tauhid dan penafian segala unsur syirik. Di
samping, kita mesti bertanya diri kita: mengapakah kita sentiasa
merasakan kita akan menjadi pihak yang tewas jika orang lain memanggil
tuhan Allah? Mengapakah kita tidak merasakan itu akan lebih memudahkan
kita menyampaikan kepada mereka tentang akidah Islam?. Maka, apakah
isu ini bertitik tolak dari nas-nas Islam, atau kebimbangan disebabkan
kelemahan diri umat Islam itu sendiri?

Jika kita membaca Al-Quran, kita dapati ia menceritakan golongan
musyrikin yang menentang Nabi Muhammad s.a.w juga menyebut nama Allah
dan al-Quran tidak membantah mereka, bahkan itu dijadikan landasan
untuk memasukkan akidah Islam yang sebenar. Firman Allah: (maksudnya)
"Dan Demi sesungguhnya! jika engkau (Wahai Muhammad) bertanya kepada
mereka: "Siapakah yang menciptakan mereka?" sudah tentu mereka akan
menjawab: "Allah!". (jika demikian) maka bagaimana mereka rela
dipesongkan? Dan (Dia lah Tuhan Yang mengetahui rayuan Nabi Muhammad)
yang berkata: Wahai Tuhanku! Sesungguhnya mereka ini adalah satu kaum
yang tidak mahu beriman!" (Surah al-Zukhruf ayat 87-88).

Firman Allah dalam ayat yang lain: (maksudnya) "Dan sesungguhnya
jika engkau (Wahai Muhammad) bertanya kepada mereka (yang musyrik)
itu: "siapakah yang menurunkan hujan dari langit, lalu dia hidupkan
dengannya tumbuh-tumbuhan di bumi sesudah matinya?" sudah tentu mereka
akan menjawab: "Allah". Ucapkanlah (Wahai Muhammad): "Alhamdulillah"
(sebagai bersyukur disebabkan pengakuan mereka yang demikian), bahkan
kebanyakan mereka tidak menggunakan akal (untuk memahami tauhid)
(Surah al-Ankabut ayat 63).

Ayat-ayat ini, bahkan ada beberapa yang lain lagi menunjukkan
al-Quran tidak membantahkan golongan bukan muslim menyebut Allah
sebagai Pencipta Yang Maha Agung. Bahkan Nabi Muhammad s.a.w disuruh
untuk mengucapkan kesyukuran kerana mereka mengakui Allah. Apa yang
dibantah dalam ayat-ayat ini bukanlah sebutan nama Allah yang mereka
lafazkan, sebaliknya ketidak tulusan tauhid yang menyebabkan akidah
terhadap Allah itu dipesongkan atau bercampur syirik.

Justeru, soal bukan muslim mengakui Allah tidak dibantah oleh
Islam, bahkan kita disuruh bersyukur kerana pengakuan itu. Cuma yang
dibantah ialah kesyirikan mereka. Umpamanya, jika kita mendengar bukan
muslim menyebut "Allah yang menurunkan hujan, atau menumbuhkan
tumbuhan", maka kita tentu gembira kerana dia mengakui kebesaran Allah.

Apakah patut kita kata kepadanya: awak jangan kata Allah yang
menurunkan hujan, atau mencipta itu dan ini, awak tidak boleh kata
demikian kerana awak bukan muslim, sebaliknya awak kena kata tokong
awak yang menurun hujan". Apakah ini tindakan yang betul? Tidakkah itu
menjauhkan dia dari daerah ketuhanan yang sebenar? Kita sepatutnya
berusaha mendekatkan dia kepada ajaran yang benar. Namun, jika dia
berkata: "Tokong ini adalah Allah". Saya kata: "Awak dusta, itu tidak
benar! Maha suci Allah dari dakwaan awak".
Maka, ketika Allah menceritakan peranan peperangan dalam
mempertahankan keamanan dan kesejahteraan manusia, Allah menyebut:
(maksudnya) "..dan kalaulah Allah tidak mendorong setengah manusia
menentang (pencerobohan) setengah yang lain, nescaya runtuhlah
tempat-tempat pertapaan serta gereja-gereja (kaum Nasrani), dan
tempat-tempat sembahyang (kaum Yahudi), dan juga masjid-masjid (orang
Islam) yang sentiasa disebut nama Allah banyak-banyak dalam semua
tempat itu dan sesungguhnya Allah akan menolong sesiapa yang menolong
ugamanya (ugama Islam); Sesungguhnya Allah Maha Kuat, lagi Maha
Perkasa. (Surah al-Hajj ayat 40).

Ayat ini mengakui tempat-tempat ibadah itu disebut nama Allah.
Adapun berhubung dengan orang Kristian, Allah menyebut: (maksudnya)
"Sesungguhnya telah kafirlah mereka yang berkata: "Bahawasanya Allah
ialah salah satu dari yang tiga (triniti)". padahal tiada tuhan (yang
berhak disembah) melainkan Tuhan Yang Maha Esa..(Surah al-Maidah ayat
73). Ayat ini tidak membantah mereka menyebut Allah, tetapi yang
dibantah adalah dakwaan bahawa Allah adalah satu dari yang tiga.

Justeru itu kita lihat, orang-orang Kristian Arab memang memakai
perkataan Allah dalam Bible mereka, juga buku-buku doa mereka. Tiada
siapa pun di kalangan para ulama kaum muslimin sejak dahulu yang
membantahnya. Jika ada bantahan di Malaysia, saya fikir ini mungkin
atas alasan-alasan setempat yang saya sebutkan pada awal tadi. Cuma
yang diharapkan, janganlah bantahan itu akhirnya memandulkan dakwah
Islam dan menjadikan orang salah faham terhadap agama suci ini.

Saya selalu bertanya sehingga bilakah kita di Malaysia ini akan
begitu defensive, tidak memiliki anti-bodi dan tidak mahu berusaha
menguatkannya dalam diri? Akhirnya, kita terus bimbang dan takut
kepada setiap yang melintas. Padahal itu bukan sifat Islam. Islam
agama yang ke hadapan, misi dan intinya sentiasa disebarkan. Sehingga
Allah menyebut: (maksudnya): "Dan jika seseorang dari kalangan
musyrikin meminta perlindungan kepadamu, maka berilah perlindungan
kepadanya sehingga dia sempat mendengar keterangan-keterang an Allah
(tentang hakikat Islam itu), kemudian hantarlah dia ke tempat yang
selamat. Demikian itu (perintah tersebut) ialah kerana mereka itu kaum
yang tidak mengetahui (hakikat Islam). (Surah al-Taubah ayat 6).

Ada orang tertentu yang berkata kepada saya: nanti orang Islam
keliru kerana sebutan nama Allah itu sama antara mereka dan Islam.
Lalu rosak akidah orang Islam kita nanti. Saya berkata kepadanya:
"Jikalaulah sebutan nama tuhan itulah yang menentukan akidah Islam,
tentulah golongan musyrikin Mekah tidak memerlukan akidah yang dibawa
oleh Nabi s.a.w. Mereka telah sekian lama memanggil tuhan dengan
panggilan Allah.

Lihatlah bapa Nabi kita Muhammad bernama 'Abdullah yang bermaksud
hamba Allah. Tentu sekali bapa baginda lahir pada zaman jahiliah
sebelum kemunculan baginda sebagai rasul. Nama itu dipilih oleh datuk
Abdul Muttalib yang menjadi pemimpin Quraish pada zaman dahulu.
Quraish pada zaman jahiliah juga bertawaf dengan menyebut:
LabbaikalLahhumma yang bermaksud: Menyahut seruanMu ya Allah!

Al-Imam Muslim dalam sahihnya meriwayatkan hadis mengenai
perjanjian Hudaibiah antara Nabi s.a.w dengan Quraish Mekah, seperti
berikut: "Sesungguhnya Quraish membuat perjanjian damai dengan Nabi
s.a.w. Antara wakil Quraish ialah Suhail bin 'Amr. Sabda Nabi s.a.w :
barangkali aku boleh tulis Bismillahirrahmanir rahim. Kata Suhail:
Adapun Bismillah (dengan nama Allah), maka kami tidak tahu apa itu
Bismillahirrahmanir rahim. Maka tulislah apa yang kami tahu iaitu
BismikalLahumma (dengan namaMu Ya Allah!)". Dalam riwayat al-Bukhari,
Nabi s.a.w menerima bantahan tersebut. Ternyata mereka menggunakan
nama Allah.

Maka yang membezakan akidah Islam dan selainnya adalah tauhid yang
tulus yang menentang segala unsur syirik. Ketidak jelasan dalam
persoalan inilah yang menggugat akidah jenerasi kita. Mereka yang
berakidah dengan akidah Islam sangat sensitif kepada sebarang unsur
syirk agar tidak menyentuh akidahnya. Bukan semua yang mengakui Allah
akan dianggap beriman dengan iman yang sah selagi dia tidak
membersihkan diri dari segala unsur syirik.

Lihat, betapa ramai yang memakai serban dan jubah, berzikir sakan
tetapi dalam masa yang sama menyembah kubur-kubur tok wali tertentu
dengan cara menyeru dan merintih pemohonan darinya. Ini yang dilakukan
oleh sesetengah tarekat yang sesat. Apa beza mereka ini dengan yang
memanggil nama-nama berhala yang asalnya dari nama orang-orang saleh
juga, yang mati pada zaman dahulu.

Firman Allah: (maksudnya) Ingatlah! Untuk Allah agama yang suci
bersih (dari segala rupa syirik). dan orang-orang musyrik yang
mengambil selain dari Allah untuk menjadi pelindung (sambil berkata):
"Kami tidak menyembah mereka melainkan supaya mereka mendekatkan kami
kepada Allah sehampir-hampirnya. Sesungguhnya Allah akan menghukum
antara mereka tentang apa yang mereka berselisihan padanya.
Sesungguhnya Allah tidak memberi hidayah petunjuk kepada orang-orang
yang tetap berdusta (mengatakan Yang bukan-bukan) , lagi sentiasa kufur
(dengan melakukan syirik). (Surah al-Zumar ayat 3).

Di Malaysia kita pun ada yang memakai gelaran agama menentang
pengajaran tauhid rububiyyah, uluhiyyah, asma dan sifat. Mereka ini
menyimpan agenda musuh-musuh dakwah. Padahal pengajaran tauhid yang
sedemikianlah yang mampu menjadikan muslim memahami dengan mudah
hakikat tauhid. Mampu membezakan antara; sekadar mempercayai kewujudan
Allah dengan mentauhidkan Allah dalam zatNya, ibadah kepadaNya dan

Persoalan tauhid anti syirik ini begitu mudah dan ringkas untuk
memahaminya. Nabi s.a.w telah menyebarkannya dengan begitu pantas dan
mudah. Seorang badawi buta huruf yang datang berjumpa baginda mampu
memahami hanya dalam beberapa sessi ringkas. Bahkan mampu pulang dan
mengislamkan seluruh kaumnya dengan akidah yang teguh. Namun, di
kalangan kita, pengajaran akidah yang dinamakan ilmu kalam begitu
berfalsafah dan menyusahkan.

Bukan sahaja badwi, orang universiti pun susah nak faham. Sehingga
seseorang bukan bertambah iman, tetapi bertambah serabut.
Bertahun-tahun masih dalam kesamaran. Diajar Allah ada, lawannya
tiada, dengar lawannya pekak, lihat lawannya buta..lalu ditokok tambah
dengan falsafah-falsafah dan konsep-konsep yang menyusahkan. Padahal
penganut agama lain juga menyatakan tuhan itu ada, melihat, tidak
buta, mendengar, tidak pekak dan seterusnya. Apa bezanya jika sekadar
memahami perkara tersebut cuma?

Maka anak-anak orang Islam kita gagal memahami hakikat tauhid
anti-syirik yang sebenar. Padahal ianya begitu mudah semudah memahami
kalimah-kalimah akidah dalam surah al-Ikhlas yang ringkas. Kata Dr
Yusuf al-Qaradawi: "Tambahan pula, perbahasan ilmu kalam, sekalipun
mendalam dan kepenatan akal untuk memahami dan menguasainya, ia
bukannya akidah.Lebih daripada itu perbahasan ilmu kalam telah
terpengaruh dengan pemikiran Yunan dan cara Yunan dalam menyelesaikan
masalah akidah. Justeru itu imam-imam salaf mengutuk ilmu kalam dan
ahlinya serta berkeras terhadap mereka" (Al-Qaradawi, Thaqafah
al-Da'iyah, m.s. 92 Beirut: Muassasah al-Risalat). Dahulu kelemahan
ini mungkin tidak dirasa, tetapi apabila kita hidup dalam dunia
persaingan, kita mula menderitai kesannya.

Jika akidah jenerasi kita jelas, apakah mereka boleh keliru antara
ajaran Islam dan Kristian? Adakah mereka tidak tahu beza antara ajaran
yang menyebut tuhan bapa, tuhan anak dan ruhul qudus dengan akidah
Islam yang anti-syirik, hanya disebabkan adanya sebutan Allah? Begitu
jauh sekali perbezaan itu! Bagaimana mungkin sehingga mereka tidak
dapat membezakan antara malam dan siang? Apakah juga nanti kita tidak
membenarkan pihak lain menyebut nama nabi Ibrahim, Ishak, Ya'kub, Daud
dan lain-lain kerana budak-budak kita akan keliru lagi. Akidah apakah
yang mereka belajar selama ini di KAFA, JQAF dan berbagai lagi
sehingga begitu corot. Kalau begitu, sama ada sukatan itu lemah, atau
tenaga pengajarnya perlu dibetulkan.

Maka sebenarnya, isu ini adalah isu kelemahan kita umat Islam
dalam memahami akidah yang sebenar. Jenerasi kita tidak mempunyai
benteng akidah yang kukuh. Lalu kita semua bimbang mereka keliru
dengan akidah orang lain. Untuk mengatasi masalah ini, kita cuba
mengambil pendekatan undang-undang. Agar dengan halangan
undang-undang, kelemahan akidah generasi kita dapat dipertahankan.

Persoalan yang patut kita fikirkan, sehingga bilakah kita akan
mampu terus hidup hanya berbekalkan oksigen dari saluran undang-undang
sehingga kita yang majoriti, dengan segala peruntukan yang ada; TV,
radio, berbagai-bagai institusi dan agensi yang dilindungi, masih
takut kepada gerakan minoriti? Di manakah kehebatan Islam yang selalu
kita sebut dan ceritakan sejarah kegemilangannya? Atau sebenarnya,
kita tidak memiliki Islam seperti hari ia diturunkan? Maka kempen
Islam kita selalu tidak berkesan.

Bagi saya, bukan soal nama Allah itu yang terlalu perlu untuk
direbut atau dijadikan agenda besar. Tetapi, gerakan membina semula
akidah yang sejahtera dan memahamkan generasi kita wajah Islam yang
sebenar agar mampu bersaing dan menghadapi cabaran zaman.


Stand Point of Kalimah Allah swt (almighty)

Re: [kolejislam] The A, B, C of God by Dr Farish A Noor
Thu, 10 January, 2008 17:33:40From:Adis El-Merbawiy
View Contact


Assalamua’alikum wrmt wbrt;

Akhi Wan Khairul Anwar,

The answer on behalf of some Malaysian ministers, the public loyal Muslims and many more parties in Malaysia regarding to Dr. Farish A Noor’s statement via JARING website at http://www.jaring. my.

I do agree with you Dr. Farish that the height authority of Islam to be a universal religion and in such way very competible to everybody in the palanet was accepted. Yet they (people), have to understand the crux and the reality of Islam nowadays especially in post-modern era where by this religion had been labelled by European Pax-authority of great powers as the most conservative, backwardice and terrorrist sermons of allient followers in the world.

Dr. Farish could claim that the legacy of Islam with the great religious forums or debates were performed and had counter attacked the deviant allies or group of Christians and Jewish people that had kept arguing Muslim scholars about the preachings of Islam and the Muslims had countered them easilly and later on, they were back to live peacefully and harmonious condition in the past thausand years. That was true statement that Egyptian Coptic Christians are allowed to recite ‘Allah’ like bismillah every where during performing their ceremonial and religious activities. Here Dr. Farish should excellently know about the Egyptian Coptic Christians who had been used Arabic as their medium in their daily life even in requiring knowledege, daily communication and the religious scriptures of Bible reknown established in Arabic. So, Allah for them has been exclusively referred to the God in Christianity either those who believe in one God orthodoxically or in the Trinity. In term of the crux of Cristianity for this Egyptian Christians was wellknown by Muslims in Egypt and every where in Muslim world. Nothing to be worried about.

We have always admitting to the ultimate truth in the religions of other than Islam where by their followers were indepted believe in their own religion loyally and faithfully. We did before, recently and fore ever. But one thing, if the reciting and the writing or rather the printing of ‘Allah’ itself has a secret agenda – to pull Muslim crowds or Muslim laytees to Christianty whenever this strategy had not been used before in Malaysia, but rather in Borneo and Indonesia, then this would be a problematic phase of the reality in Malaysia. In Islam, the judgements are always been conducted systematically and precisely according to the factual, reality and the most recent ultimate truth at immidiate course of time being and circumtances, so the judgement must be fair or justice to all parties and all times. The answer to your critics is very clear that, we as Malaysians were not being at that kind of lower knowledge about Islam that force us to study A, B, C of Islam and God or Allah almighty, but we rather aware the secret and hidden strategies that had penatrated our Malaysian government to allow Christianity been propagated to Muslims in Malaysia easilly and fluently.

Any way, Dr. Farish thank you to your excellent critics upon our fellow Malaysians to make us aware about the prestigous and the greatness of Islam and Muslim every where in the planet. I think you have to agree that we love Islam as our way of life, but rather, do not potray Islam and deliver any kind of decision making in such silly way or misunderstood mode of discussion. Thank you very much.

Abu ‘Amrullah Muhammad ADIS El-Merbawiy
Perlis Darus Sunnah.


A comment from Dr. Faris A Noor about the usage name of word Allah in the Catholic publication of the Herald Weekly Bulletine which was banned by the Malaysian Government.


It has been a month now since Malaysia has been gripped in one of the most obscure and arcane of controversies over the use of the word 'Allah' by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

This must seem odd to foreigners for elsewhere in the world Muslims (such as the Muslims of Egypt ) have no problem with their Coptic friends and neighbours using the word 'Allah' to refer to God. Why, even during the Coptic Christmas on 7th January the Coptic Pope delivered his Christmas sermon with phrases like 'Bismillah' time and again. So why are the Muslims of Malaysia so obsessed with the idea of claiming a singular word for themselves?

For those who have studied the fundamentals of rational metaphysics in Islam, one of the first themes that is covered is often that of semantics and semiotics. Odd that many courses on rational metaphysics begins with the most fundamental of subjects itself: meaning and the relationship between the Signifier and the Signified, but then again as any scholar will alert you, one cannot even begin to embark on the social production of knowledge without the ground rules of meaning and signification established in the first place.

The startling thing that the student learns soon enough may seem commonsensical, but crucial nonetheless: That signification is a socially determined, historically conditioned, relative and subjective phenomenon. Words mean what they do simply because the rules of signification have come to be settled by convention over time. There is no essential reason why the idea of a tree has to be referred to with the word or symbol 'tree'; but once that association is made then the rule for that sign is set (not necessarily in stone perhaps) and we stick to it. Otherwise even the most basic of conversations beginning with the word 'Hello' would not get off the ground, and we wouldn’t get very far would we?

The real difficulties arise, however, when we embark on discussions on loftier, more abstract matters like virtue, aesthetics, divinity and of course God. Here is where rational metaphysics gets sticky to a point.

For hundreds of years the Muslim world has witnessed the on-going polemic and contestation between the verificationists-positivists and the nominalists: In plain English, this refers to the dispute over how one reads scripture and how the mortal human mind interprets divine revealed knowledge. On the one hand there are the positivists who insist on empirical referents to everything that is said or signified, and who hence argue that complex concepts like virtue and beauty are, literally, meaningless. Then on the other hand there are the nominalists who take the view that words mean what they do as we intend them to, and while empirical referents are not necessarily close at hand, the words nonetheless have meaning because they are understood in a determined social context.

The Sufis or Muslim mystical philosophers who belong to the age-old tradition of Muslim metaphysics honed this principle to a high art, and in the lyrical ruminations and speculations of Maulana Rumi and his peers, we find the concept of divinity interrogated, explored, laid bare, adorned, embellished, dissected – all for the sake of trying to get to the Truth of the matter which the human mind, with its limited faculties, cannot encompass in its entirely. That is why, as the Sufis will remind you, there are so many names of God: From 'Allah', to 'Gamal', 'Rahim', 'Rahman' and so forth, each of which point to a singular attribute of a divinity that is infinite. Perhaps one of the most enigmatic names of God is 'Hu'; which during the dzikrs (recitations) of some Sufi mystics such as the followers of the Naqshabandiyya order, is pronounced 'Who'. The Naqshabandis do not merely pronounce the word Hu, they even exhale and empty their lungs completely in a rhythmic sequence, again and again, to signify that even speaking the name of God entails totally emptying – thus negating – your human self in the process; as if to suggest that God is all and the human is nothing.

With such a rich and complex history that points to an obvious understanding that the word 'Allah' is merely a symbol or sign and not the thing itself, why is it that the Muslims of Malaysia still demonstrate an understanding of normative Islam that is not only shallow, but also parochial and exclusive? To suggest that the word 'Allah' can only be used by Muslims as some of Malaysia 's leaders have done would suggest that God requires a copyright, and that God would not be understood if you cannot get its name right.

Yet Islam, if it is to be the universal religion that it is, does not need an official language or uniform. Nor does it need to claim copyright to universal signifiers that are, after all, part of the common currency of public language. Once again, despite claims to being a 'moderate' Islamic state, the Malaysian government (or rather some of its leaders) have demonstrated a third-rate understanding of the subjects they are wont to prattle about. That this doesn’t say much about their understanding of Islam, linguistics and philosophy is bad enough; but worse still is how this reflects on Malaysia 's vainglorious ambition to present itself as a model Muslim state for others to follow. Perhaps the leaders of the country should get back to the basics, and focus more on the A, B, Cs of Islam once again…

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
This e-mail has been sent via JARING webmail at http://www.jaring. my