Mogok Lapar: Penjelasan Dr. Mohd Asri

Dalam Islam matlamat tidak menghalalkan cara (the ends do not justify the means). Apa sekalipun hasrat baik tidak boleh dihalalkan dengan cara yang tidak diterima oleh syariat. Mogok lapar adalah satu penyeksaan diri sendiri yang mempunyai ‘nilai ketidakcerdikan’ yang amat sangat.

Memang, pada zaman Nabi ia pernah dibuat oleh ibubapa kuffar Quraish bagi membantah anak-anak mereka menganut Islam. Namun itu adalah kebodohan kaum Quraish. Para Nabi a.s. dan pengikut mereka telah menentang berbagai sistem dan kezaliman, tiada seorang pun di kalangan mereka yang melancarkan mogok lapar. Allah tidak pernah mensyariatkan hal itu sama sekali.

Mungkin Gandhi pernah menjadi contoh dalam hal itu. Tetapi tidak para pejuang Islam. Jika ada pun seseorang berpuasa dengan cara yang diajar oleh Allah dan RasulNya. Bukan untuk membantah sesiapa, tetapi mendekatkan diri kepada Allah. Itupun dilarang ‘wisal’ dalam puasa, maksudnya berterusan tanpa buka setelah masuk waktu berbuka.

Malanglah, jika umat Islam terpengaruh dengan pendekatan yang bukan Islamic, bukan memperkenalkan kematangan pemikiran Islam. Jika seseorang mati dalam mogok lapar, ia termasuk dalam hukum membunuh diri. Ini seperti dalam hadis al-Bukhari, dalam sebuah peperangan, ada seorang pejuang telah berjuang dengan hebat sehingga dia dipuji oleh para sahabat. Nabi memberitahu mereka dia ahli nereka. Mereka hairan. Namun apabila diperiksa didapati dia membunuh diri kerana tidak sabar atas kecederaan yang dialaminya.

Dengan itu, bagi saya jika ‘pejuang mogok lapar’ mati dia termasuk dalam hadis ini. Orang politik mungkin menghalalkan apa sahaja untuk politik mereka, tetapi para pejuang prinsip hendaklah berpegang kepada prinsip tanpa mengira siapa pun.

Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin, Lampeter, UK.

Will You Ever?

I don't think you will

Ever fully understand

How you've touched my life

And made me who I am

I don't think you could ever know

Just how truly special you are

That even on the darkest nights

You are my brightest star

I don't think you will ever fully comprehend

How you've made my dreams come true

Or how you've opened my heart

To love and the wonders it can do

You've allowed me to experience

Something very hard to find

Unconditional love that exists

In my body, soul, and mind

I don't think you could ever feel

All the love I have to give

And I'm sure you'll never realize

You've been my will to live

You are an amazing person

And without you I don't know where I'd be

Having you in my life

Completes and fulfills every part of me

Never I Have Fallen

Your lips speak soft sweetness

Your touch a cool caress

I am lost in your magic

My heart beats within your chest

I think of you each morning

And dream of you each night

I think of your arms being around me

And cannot express my delight

Never have I fallen

But I am quickly on my way

You hold a heart in your hands

That has never before been given

If.....

If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you

But make allowance for their doubting too,

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,

Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,

Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,

And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream and not make dreams your master,

If you can think and not make thoughts your aim;

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster

And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken

Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,

And stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings

And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,

And lose, and start again at your beginnings

And never breath a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew

To serve your turn long after they are gone,

And so hold on when there is nothing in you

Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on!”

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

Or walk with kings nor lose the common touch,

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;

If all men count with you, but none too much,

If you can fill the unforgiving minute

With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,

Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,

And which is more you’ll be a Man, my son!

Happy Teacher's Day

Ucapan Selamat Hari Guru kepada semua guru di seluruh dunia. Terutama sekali kepada semua guru-guru ku. Terima kasih atas tunjuk ajar mu, didikan mu dan sudah tentunya segala 'ilmu pengetahuan yang telah dicurahkan kepadaku. Ucapan terima kasih ku pada semua.

Guru SKSM: Puan Hajah Samilah, Puan Zuraidah, Puan Masitah Adnan, Encik Zainuddin, Encik Adami, Puan Hajah Aspah Jamin dan lain-lain.

Guru SMAPK: Puan Amnah Labib, Puan Kamarul Hazani, Puan Hajah Saadiah Haji Shamsuddin, Encik Johari Kassim, Encik Bakru Rozi, Puan Rahimaton Haron, Puan Zarifah Said, Puan Mahimun, Tuan Haji Saim bin Ithnin, Puan Hajah Jumaiyah, Tuan Haji Ishak Ibrahim, Puan Norah dan lain-lain.

Guru Matrikulasi: Puan Isfadiah, Puan Siti Khadijah, Encik Muhammad Rashad Bakashmar, Dr. Md. Yousuf Ali, Dr. Wahabuddin Ra'ees dan lain-lain.

Guru UIAM: Prof. Dr. Mohamed Aris Haji Othman, Prof. Dr. Jamil Farooqui, Prof. Dr. Ahmad Abd al-Rahim Muhammad Nasr, Prof. Dr. Fatimah Daud, Prof. Dr. Saiyad Fareed Ahmad, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hazizan Md. Noon, Dr. Noor Azlan Mohd Noor, Dr. Pute Rahimah Makol-Abdul, Dr. Rohaiza Rokis, Dr. Nurazzura Md. Diah, Ms Nor Azlin Tajuddin, Mdm Nor Aisah Areff, Mdm Norasikin Basir dan Dr. Fathi Jumaa' Ahmad.

The Perak DUN Fiasco

I was at the Perak State Legislative Assembly on an official duty on 7 May only to witness the ugliest scene in Malaysia's legislative history. It was expected that some kind of ruckus would happen in the DUN on that fateful day but what I witnessed was beyond my imagination. I was shocked to see DAP and PKR assemblymen crossed the aisle (a very unparliamentary act) to harrass BN and Independent assemblymen and prevented them from speaking. The shove and scuffle in the Dewan, which lasted for more than five hours, with intermittent break in between, made similar experience in Taiwanese parliament a storm in a tea pot.

By now, the Malaysian public already knew the what and how of the ruckus. What matters now is how they perceive it. Let me deal with some of the perceptions and give my own eyewitness account.

1. Sivakumar was deprived of his right as a Speaker.

No, it was not true. Nobody stopped Sivakumar from doing his job as a Speaker when the Dewan convened. He entered the Dewan and sat on the Speaker's Chair. He then ordered the seven BN assemblymen who had earlier been suspended, including the MB, and the three Independents to leave the Dewan. This was despite the court's decision which declared the suspension of the seven BN assemblymen was illegal. No reason was given as to why he ordered the ten assemblymen to leave. He also refused to allow Datuk Seri Tajol Rosli who had been standing for more than 15 minutes to speak. As the Speaker, he was the most powerful man in the Dewan he said. This means he is 'untouchable" and could do anything he wanted in the Dewan. So who deprived whose right?

2. The sitting was never convened because Sivakumar refused to begin the sitting unless the 10 ADUNs leave the Dewan.

Yes, Sivakumar did say that he would never begin the sitting unless the 10 ADUNs leave the Dewan. But he erred in law. Order 13(1) of the Standing Order clearly states that the order of business begins with the entry of the Speaker. Speaker's announcement is item no 4 in the order of business. So when Sivakumar entered the Dewan, sat on the Speaker's Chair and made "announcements" that the 10 ADUNs should leave the Dewan, the Dewan was already in sitting.

3. If Sivakumar was not deprived of his right as a speaker, then why was his microphone turned off?

Get the fact right. The microphone was turned off only after the motion to remove Sivakumar as a Speaker was duly passed by the Dewan. This means, when the microphone was turned off, Sivakumar was no longer the Speaker. He therefore had no right to speak as a Speaker. He should have honourably left the Speaker's Chair and taken his seat as an ordinary ADUN. By refusing to vacate the Speaker's chair, he actually obstructed the new Speaker from discharging his duties. In fact, it was a necessity that the microphone was turned off. Sivakumar kept shouting "saya tidak dengar apa-apa, saya tidak dengar apa-apa, saya tidak dengar apa" when Menteri Besar YAB Datuk Seri Dr. Zambry Abdul Kadir moved the motion to remove him. Don't we think that it was an obstruction of the business of the Dewan?

4. The Speaker cannot simply be removed.

If an MB can be removed, why can't a Speaker? A Speaker can be removed by a motion passed by a majority of the members of the house. On May 7, the MB used his authority under Order 13(2) of the Perak DUN's Standing Order to move a motion to remove the speaker. It is as simple as that. And it would be against the public interest if a Speaker cannot be removed.

5. The BN wanted to remove the Speaker because he is a member of the Opposition. This is unfair.

How would you run a Westminster system of parliamentary government if a Speaker who is a member of the Opposition cannot be removed. The scenario would be like this. Whenever the government wants to introduce a Bill in the Dewan, the Speaker will find fault with government assemblymen and suspend them for one or two weeks, or worse still, for 12 or 16 months. (Don't rule out the possibility of arbitrariness in suspending the assemblymen as this is what Sivakumar exactly did in the suspension of the seven BN assemblymen previously). The Speaker will make sure that the number of government assemblymen he suspends would be enough to reduce them into a minority. No government Bill can be passed. What if the Bill is a Supply Bill. The government will be in a "loss of supply" position, i.e. having no money to spend constitutionally. Don't we think that this will lead to the collapse of a constitutional government? Removing the Speaker in the Perak case is a matter of necessity.

6. The police had acted arbitrarily by dragging Sivakumar out from the Dewan.

The police had been very cautious in taking action aginst the trouble makers. I bumped into a high ranking police officer outside the Dewan during the recess. Someone asked him why the police did not go in to stop the ruckus. His answer was that the police had taken enough heat in handling the protesters outside the Dewan. Interfering in the business of the Dewan would only worsen public perception toward the police. But why did the police finally come in and dragged Sivakumar out of the Dewan? The answer is simple. The situation was totally out of control. A Bentara was injured when he was trying to remove Sivakumar from the Speaker's Chair. The Speaker had no choice but to call the police in. And that was after five hours of shove and scuffle in the Dewan. My hunch is the PKR and DAP assemblymen purposely wanted the police to come in as part of their perception play. In fact the whole drama is just part of their perception play.

7. Democracy is dead

No. Democracy is not dead. It just overworked. Some people had just stretched the limit of democracy. In fact, it is bordering on anarchy. Yes, I mean it. It is anarchy with some leftist-leninist strand! Are some people slowly showing their true colors now? But throughout the ruckus, I was wondering why PAS assemblymen sat quietly in the Dewan. Some were SMSing and others just looked poker faced. Hmmmm ....

Note: All views expressed in this article are solely of my own and not of the institution(s) that I am currently attached to.

Written by:

Dr. Marzuki Mohamad

Assistant Professor
Department of Political Science
International Islamic University Malaysia
Currently he is the Special Officer for Deputy Prime Minister

Religion and Politics in America: The Rise of Christian Evangelists and Their Impact

This book by Muhammad Arif Zakaullah was published and released by Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies and Consultations (Beirut-Lebanon) in February 2007. It discusses the dimensions and interactions of both, religion and politics, in the United States of America (USA), and more specifically the strong influential role of Christian Evangelists in determining the US policies. Though the subject was previously explored by several writers, this book is special in analyzing the historical background and the roots of Christian Evangelism, all the way till their present status and power. Remarkably, the author presents "in perfect doses" a blend of ideology and events, past and present (updated till late 2006), all tied up in a well organized concise approach.

Zakaullah produced a highly academic, documented and objective study. Being a Muslim, he managed to present his study from a different perspective, trying to establish a better understanding of the policy-making process in the USA in the Muslim world, and calling for a constructive inter-civilizational dialogue.

The author starts with a look on the current situation between America and the Muslim World, which “has been exploited by extremists in both camps endangering world peace in the first decade of the 21st century.”

Then he justifies the major reasons behind his research:

“The peace loving majorities in both the West and the Muslim world want to know the causes of this problem to resolve it. The hawks in the West have developed a number of approaches (e.g. Islamophobia, clash of civilizations, etc.) to explain this situation to their people and the world at large. These approaches put the entire blame on Muslims and Islam. On the other hand in the Muslim world it is the other way around as all the explanatory models put the entire blame on the west and Israel. This blame game has been going on for quite some time leading to actions by each side that, instead of solving problems, have caused further deteriorated of the situation. This reality calls for a different approach. The Muslim world has to learn to appreciate that in Western societies the bottom line is the public opinion and not the wishes of the President/Prime Minister and his cabinet.”

All through the book, Zakaullah discusses the rise of Christian Evangelists within “this democratic context” and the various challenges they faced and dealt with.

In its first chapter, the book presents the 2000 and 2004 US presidential elections as a clear example of the democratic political system in the USA, and that public opinion does play the major part in shaping the US policies. The book then proceeds with a brief historical background of Christianity in America. In there, key teachings of Martin Luther and John Calvin are presented, as well as a brief survey of the various political, economic and social factors that set off many Christians from Europe to the “New World”, during the 15th and 16th century. The early American society thus had a conservative protestant majority. Here again, Zakaullah discusses key social and economic issues that led to another change in the characteristics of the American Society, this time towards “contemporary Christian Fundamentalism” causing conservatives to become a minority.

This “contemporary Christian Fundamentalism” movement was then engaged in intellectual, educational and organizational fronts, in which it relied heavily on media. Nonetheless, it maintained its “non-involvement in politics” policy.

While the early chapters focus on the rise of Christian evangelism (fundamentalism) in the ideological and social context, chapters five and six discuss the circumstances that led them into politics. It was the era that followed Watergate Scandal and the 1976 presidential elections that paved the way for the Christian Fundamentalism (and later Christian Evangelism) towards political power. Jimmy Carter won the 1976 presidential elections with a vast support from evangelists. Though he didn’t stick to his “evangelist agenda”, his victory reflected a great deal of power and influence for Evangelists within the American public.

The latter was noticed and employed by the Republican Party, whose focus used to be primarily on a conservative economic agenda. In Zakaullah’s words, “the Marriage of Economic and Christian Fundamentalisms” took place and led to “A ‘Born Again’ Republican Party” whose major challenge was “winning the coming 1980 presidential elections.”

Here again, Zakaullah genuinely goes through the 1980’s presidential elections campaign to illustrate the rise of Christian Evangelists. “They realized that in order to unite right wingers of all shades and colors, this agenda would have to encompass economics, morality and pro-family issues as well as being anti-homosexual and anti-abortion. The party strategists knew that they already had the expertise, manpower and networks to promote the pro-market economic agenda but they were also aware that they had neither the expertise, the organization, the networks, nor the volunteers to articulate and sell effectively the pro-family evangelical agenda among the voters. The only way they could succeed was to unite all the fundamentalists across all the religions and denominations.”

Reagan did win the 1980’s presidential elections. He was then succeeded by George Bush (sr.). The Republicans realized that “president is not enough because it was the Congress and the bills that make policies” and they even succeeded in having a majority in both houses.

In its last part, the book discusses the rise of “Christian terror in the ideological war” and even some Christian terrorist organizations, the most dangerous of which is the “Army of God” organization. Such movements were justified by the fact that “16 years wait under these presidents (1976-1999) did not deliver the goods the frustrations started running high and many radical fundamentalists lost all hope” according to the book.

The author then goes briefly past issues like Millennialism, G.W. Bush presidency, to discuss more in depth the current views of the Muslim world regarding America and American Politics. The Muslim world perceives the American foreign policies as a result of external factors, pro-Israeli, biased against Muslims, disregarding the power of the American public opinion in shaping these policies. The only internal factor that they might consider, if any, would be the Jewish lobby inside the USA. No serious efforts were made into understanding the dynamics behind this lobby’s influence, that is the actually, the power of American public opinion in policy-making.

The Author then concludes with “The Need for a New Intellectual Culture in The Muslim Academia and Beyond”, what he calls: “A Wakeup Call”:

“The Muslim world has to learn to appreciate that in Western societies the bottom line is the public opinion and not the wishes of the President/Prime Minister and his cabinet. Muslim intellectuals, media and policy makers should be engaged in the exercise of understanding the way Western societies work. They should interact with the Western public opinion in a constructive way. This would in turn result in a genuine, meaningful and effective inter-civilizational dialogue on issues of mutual concern.”

This, according to Zakaullah, “would cause even the long standing divisive issues would have a much more conducive environment for a peaceful and mutually beneficial conflict resolution.”

The author, Muhammad Arif Zakaullah is an Associate Professor at the Department of Economics in the International Islamic University, Malaysia. His ongoing research focus is the contemporary political economy of the United States. He is also the author of: The Cross and the Crescent: The Rise of American Evangelicalism and the Future of Muslims (Kuala Lumpur: The Other Press, 2004). Being only 160 small pages, the book is strongly recommended for those who would like to have an updated “eye bird’s view”, that is yet comprehensive and worthy, of religion and politics in America.