Islam and Democracy are destined to coincide

Keynote address by Anwar Ibrahim, Parliamentary Opposition Leader of Malaysia at Brussels, 28th September, 2010

First and foremost, there is essentially no problem in terms of compatibility, not a foundational problem at least that would make it impossible for a country with a majority of Muslims to be governed according to the requirements of a constitutional democracy. In other words, the notion of Islam being diametrically opposed to democracy and its principles is a fallacy.

Islam enjoins the faithful to uphold equality, justice, and human dignity. If violence and terror are being spread by Muslims in the name of Islam then it is an aberration reflective of such people and the focus should rightly be on the underlying causes of such actions, not Islam. Blaming Islam won’t solve the problem as long as the underlying causes are not addressed and resolved.

But detractors say that Islam not only condones but urges the faithful to commit acts of violence in the name of jihad. This is nonsense. But they cite chapter and verse to support this view. Yes, but it is only by extreme distorting of the textual interpretation. On the contrary, the truth is that Islam prohibits violence and terror by virtue of the principles of moderation and the protection of life, limb and property. This is subsumed under the doctrine of the maqasid al-Shari’ah, a most crucial and significant tool for the progress of Muslim societies, a tool which unfortunately has been much ignored. By virtue of this doctrine for example, jihad is a call to the faithful to fulfill the tenets of the religion by doing good and averting evil, establishing justice, promoting charity and helping the weak and the marginalized. It is not a battle cry for war, let alone one to justify mayhem and murder. Above all, jihad enjoins Muslims to maintain peace and harmony and safeguard the sanctity of life and property. These are ideals completely in consonance with the dictates of democracy.

But what about this incarceration/liberation dichotomy? The answer lies in debunking the school of ideological rigidity which is largely responsible for making the religion very rigid and exclusive. The fact is that Islam is amenable to adapting to modern times with its defining feature being its inclusive nature. Empirically, we know that Islam in Southeast Asia is a case in point. So is Turkey though the same may not be said about the Islam of the Middle East but that ought to be seen in the context of the geopolitical situation there.

The modernity of Islam in Southeast Asia is reflected for instance in the adoption of the principles of freedom and democracy for the establishment of an independent state. In this regard, the region’s transition to democracy debunks the notion of incompatibility between Islam and democracy.

As for equating Islam with intolerance and violence, that again finds no basis in reality. Muslim rule for centuries in Spain remains in the history books as clear testimony to the tolerance and spirit of convivencia among Muslims, Christians and Jews. In Southeast Asia, traders and Sufis spread the religion through their accommodative style of proselytizing which attracted adherents who have also kept some significant aspects of their pre-Islamic cultures. This explains why multi-cultural and multi-religious societies evolved in Muslim majority countries.

Today, those who call for violence and terror in the name of jihad can find little traction for their brand of Islam. A case in point is Indonesia two elections back when the people overwhelmingly rejected the radicals who rode on the jihad ticket. This is significant in debunking the notion that democracy in a Muslim majority nation can be easily hijacked by extremists and radicals.

Turkey is a fine example of what a Muslim nation can achieve if its leaders remain steadfast in observing the basic tenets of Islamic statecraft: modernist, moderate, progressive and tolerant with justice and the rule of law as a motto for governance. The recent referendum of the Turkish people in favor of fundamental constitutional changes to further strengthen democracy speaks volumes. In this regard, Turkey’s leaders stand in sharp contrast to the autocrats and dictators in some other Muslim countries who continue to deny the people democracy by raising the hijacking by extremists’ spectre.

The question arises as to whether there has been any real progress in political reform in the Muslim world apart from Turkey and Indonesia? Isn’t it true that certain states continue to be under one-man or one-party rule despite the trappings of reform? And even though certain states appear to moving on the path to real democracy, the rhetoric often exceeds the reality. There must therefore be greater resolve for Muslim countries to embrace constitutional democracy and translate that into reality: hold free and fair elections, ensure the separation of powers and guarantee fundamental civil liberties including allowing the full participation of women in political life. Vindictive prosecutions, arbitrary arrests, and the use of the state apparatus to silence political dissent must be a thing of the past. Unless and until such reforms are in place, the convergence of Islam and democracy will only be a mirage.

As for the process of democratization itself, there is the troubling question of the real intention of certain Western powers. You cannot turn a blind eye to blatant human rights violations in some countries and condemn these practices in others. You cannot say to one country, give us your support in this current war we’re waging, and we won’t interfere in your administration. The “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” diplomacy may be good realpolitik but it is a betrayal of the cause of democracy and freedom.

Unfortunately, however, it is partly because of this hypocritical approach to democratization that we still see many Muslim societies languishing under sham democracies. These are governments with the trappings of democracy but are in fact masquerades perpetuating injustice, human rights abuses and corruption. These ‘democracies’ employ the entire state apparatus and exploit the people’s hard earned money to promote their personal and vested interests. They plunder the state coffers, parcel out vast tracts of prime commercial land to relatives and cronies, and expropriate millions of hectares of virgin forests transforming them into wasteland.

So, the truth is that the assault on freedom and democracy is not from Islam, though the bulk of the perpetrators are Muslims. Indonesia and Turkey have demonstrated that democracy is not only acceptable but essential to Islam and that the enemy of Islam is not democracy but injustice, corruption, tyranny and greed. Indeed, freedom and democracy is part and parcel of the self-evident truths that would set mankind apart from the rest of God’s creatures.

The real issue is not whether Islam and democracy are destined to coincide but whether those in power in Muslim majority countries will uphold freedom and democracy, respect the rule of law and fulfil their duties to the people. If that doesn’t happen then it is incumbent on us to make it happen. And that is a cause worth fighting for.

Thank you.

Good Deeds

From Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) who said that Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) said:
"Charity (sadaqah) is due upon every joint of a person on every day the sun rises. Administering justice between two people is an act of charity; and to help a man concerning his riding beast by helping him on to it or lifting his luggage on to it is an act of charity; a good word is charity; and every step which you take to the prayer is charity; and removing that which is harmful from the road is charity."
(Hadis reported by Bukhari and Muslim)

So if the servant (of Allah) is able to spend all his days and nights in obedience to Allah and in doing actions pleasing to Him then let him do so ! He should not let Satan cause him to refrain and avoid good deeds! This is not abstemiousness (zuhud) as pointed out by Sheikhul-Islam Ibn Taimiyyah, rather it is a deception which Satan is only able to perpetrate upon those who are weak with regard to the Religion, lacking certain conviction, so that you find Satan sitting comfortably upon his heart, erecting his throne upon it! So the more good deeds which the Muslim performs the closer he will draw to his Lord, the One free and far removed from all imperfections and his love for Him will increase.

Furthermore even though abstemiousness is to be given special attention by the rich due to their ability to spend, and their wealth, as opposed to the poor, then this will not prevent the Muslim, rich or poor, from having a contented and rich soul, since: The Muslim is Contented and Satisfied.

Hendaklah Kamu Zuhud Dengan Dunia

Nabi Muhammad SAW dalam sebuah hadis, telah membuat perbandingan antara dunia dan akhirat, antara kedua-duanya bagaikan seseorang yang mencelupkan jari-jarinya ke dalam lautan, maka dunia (seperti air) akan melekat pada jari-jarinya itu. Namun demikian baginda SAW tidak menganjurkan agar manusia meninggalkan dunia sama sekali.

Nabi SAW juga bersabda, lebih kurang maksudnya, “Jika kamu hendak dikasihi Allah maka hendaklah kamu zuhud dengan dunia.” Hadis ini menerangkan kepada kita bahawa untuk mendapat kasih sayang Allah SWT maka yang perlu kita perbuat di dunia ialah zuhud kepada dunia. Yang dikatakan zuhud itu bukanlah boleh diukur kepada miskin atau kaya.

Sesetengah orang berpendapat bahawa miskin itu zuhud dan kaya itu tidak zuhud. Tidak sebegitu dan tidak semestinya. Malah ada juga yang menyatakan zuhud itu menolak atau membuang dunia, satu tafsiran yang perlu diperbetulkan. Zuhud itu terletak dihati. Dikatakan zuhud bila hati tidak cinta dunia. Hanya bahawasa nya dunia itu dijadikan sebagai saluran untuk membesarkan dan mengagungkan Allah SWT. Jika kaya, kaya digunakan untuk jalan Tuhan. Biar pun miskin hatinya tetap dengan Tuhan dan tidak terikat dengan dunia. Maksudnya disini ialah orang zuhud bukanlah menolak dunia. Dunia itu diambil sekadar keperluan dan selebihnya digunakan dijalan Allah SWT.

Diriwayatkan bahawa pernah Sayyidina Ali pergi melihat sebuat mesjid dan dilihatnya disitu ada halaqah pengajian. Yang mengajar ialah Hasan Basri, seorang remaja belasan tahun umurnya walhal orang-orang yang mendengar itu kebanyakannya orang dewasa, yang lebih tua. Timbullah niat dihati Sayyidina Ali untuk menguji apakah Hasan Basri benar-benar layak mengajar. Ditanyakannya kepada Hasan Basri, “apakah yang boleh menyelamatkan manusai?”. “Zuhud” jawab Hasan Basri secara spontan. Maka yakinlah Sayyidina Ali yang Hasan Basri itu mempunyai kelayakan untuk mengajar hanya kerana dapat menjawab dengan tepat soalan beliau. Pengajaran daripada kisah ini dapatlah kita ketahui bahawa zuhud adalah kunci kepada keselamatan manusia. Manakan tidak, hadis diatas juga telah meletakkan orang zuhud sebagai orang kesayangan Allah SWT. Sudah pasti orang kesayangan Allah SWT itu akan terselamat di dunia dan juga di akhirat. Selama mana seseorang itu oleh zuhud selagi itulah dia akan terselamat.

Firman Allah SWT, “…Allah tidak sekali-kali menjadikan seseorang mempunyai dua hati dalam rongga dadanya…” (Quran 33:4). Hati manusia ini kalau lah tanpa zuhud, nescaya akan diisi dengan cinta dunia. Amat malang jika hati terarah kepada cinta dunia maka tiadalah lagi keselamatan buat manusia itu. Benarlah sabda Nabi SAW tentang dunia ini iaitu: “Cinta dunia adalah kepala bagi segala kejahatan.”

Daripada cinta dunia lahirlah berbagai kejahatan lain seperti hasad dengki, pemarah dan sombong. Semua ini bukan saja akan merosakkan empunya diri tetapi boleh juga merosakkan orang lain. Hakikatnya krisis dan perpecahan ummah yang berlaku hari ini adalah disebabkan oleh penyakit cinta dunia ini. Selagi penyakit cinta dunia ini tidak diungkai daripada hati manusia, selagi itulah manusia akan terus berkrisis dan bersengketa. Tidak akan aman dunia ini dengan adanya manusia-manusia yang bersarang cinta dunia dihati mereka.

Bila dikaji dan diteliti hadis ini, orang zuhud itu disayang Allah SWT kerana hati orang zuhud itu sudah tidak terikat lagi dengan dunia. Maksudnya, bila dunia sudah masuk ke hati maka rasa-rasa dengan Tuhan akan menjauhi. Tapi bila dunia itu sudah dibuangkan daripada merajai hati maka mudahlah rasa-rasa dengan Tuhan itu masuk dan menguasai hati. Justeru selari lah rasa hati seseorang itu dengan kehendak-kehendak Tuhan, Allah SWT. Jadi lah dia itu orang yang memahami kehendak dan peranan Tuhan dalam kehidupannya.

Zuhud itu mengambil dunia sekadar perlu. Dan selebihnya digunakan untuk jalan Tuhan. Itu ilmunya tetapi hendak berbuat tidaklah semudah yang diceritakan. Ianya perlukan mujahadah, kena benar-benar mengekang nafsu daripada berkehendak kepada yang tidak perlu. Kena benar-benar merasai kesusahan orang lain agar mudah harta dunia itu dialihkan kepada orang yang susah. Kena benar-benar ada jiwa untuk memperjuangkan Tuhan baru lah dunia itu akan disalurkan untuk perjuangan fisabilillah. Kuat mujahadah, maka lemahlah nafsu mencintai dunia. Sebaliknya bila lemah mujahadah jadilah nafsu itu kuat dalam mencintai dunia.

Demikian juga gambaran yang dberikan oleh Nabi SAW tentang dunia yang bagaikan penjara bagi orang yang beriman, yang bermaksud kehidupan manusia ini adalah mengikut peraturan yang mesti dipatuhi dan tidak boleh lepas bebas. Sebaliknya dunia bagaikan syurga bagi orang yang mengingkari kewujudan Allah SWT kerana menganggap dunia adalah tempat yang menyenangkan dan bebas hidup tanpa ada batasan yang mengikatnya.

Nabi SAW menyatakan dunia dibahagikan kepada tiga bahagian, satu pertiga dimakan, satu pertiga dipakai dan satu pertiga lagi disedekahkan; hanya yang ketiga ini akan dipetik hasilnya.

Persoalannya, dapatkan manusia memisahkan dirinya sama sekali daripada harta dan bentuk kesenangan duniawi? Bukankah para sahabat utama Rasulullah SAW seperti Abu Bakar, Uthman dan Abdul Rahman bin Auf adalah orang kaya. Kezuhudan mereka ini ternyata tidak menghalangnya untuk mencari kekayaan duniawi.

Maka itu zuhud bukan bererti semata-mata tidak mahu memiliki harta dunia tetapi zuhud sebenarnya adalah pemikiran yang tidak mudah dipengaruhi oleh kesenangan duniawi dalam tujuan mengabdikan diri semata-mata kepada Allah SWT.

Pengertian zuhud seperti ini amat dekat dengan maksud firman Allah SWT yang bermaksud:
“ (Kamu diberitahu tentang itu) supaya kamu tidak bersedih hati akan apa yang telah luput daripada kamu, dan tidak pula bergembira (secara sombong dan bangga) dengan apa yang diberikan kepada kamu. Dan (ingatlah), Allah tidak suka kepada tiap-tiap orang yang sombong takbur, lagi membanggakan diri.” (Quran 57:23)

Justeru, pemilikan harta benda tidak dilarang tetapi harta tersebut tidak boleh mempengaruhi seseorang dalam mendekatkan dirinya kepada Allah SWT. Lebih mendalam lagi, makna zuhud dalam kaitannya dengan akhlak Islamiah ialah bagaimana sikap batin seseorang itu dalam menghadapi dunia ini. Dalam konteks kehidupan sosial contohnya, bagaimana kezuhudan seseorang itu dapat menyelamatkan manusia daripada sesuatu yang boleh menghancurkan kehidupannya.

Hakikat pemaknaan zuhud dalam kehidupan sosial ialah sikap protes seseorang terhadap dunia seperti ketempangan sosial, politik dan ekonomi. Kezuhudan Abu Dzar (sahabat Nabi) yang memprotes kehidupan mewah pemerintahan Khalifah Uthman boleh diberi makna sebagai gerakan protes sosial.

Pemaknaan zuhud sebagai reaksi terhadap situasi setempat yang bobrok dan penuh kemaksiatan ini juga yang mempengaruhi Hasan al-Basri, Rabiah al-Adawiyah, Ibrahim Adham, Al-Ghazali sehingga bertindak mengasingkan diri, yang dianggap sebagai satu protes.

Demikian juga konsep kezuhudan Al-Farabi yang menitikberatkan kepada intelektual dan analisis. Seseorang itu dapat mencapai makrifat Allah SWT apabila mampu meningkatkan kualiti intelektualnya. Konsep ini sesuai dengan kehidupan intektual Islam pada masa itu yang sedang di puncak kejayaan.

Jelas bahawa pemikiran ulamak sufi, baik ulamak klasik atau pertengahan tentang zuhud dapat difahami sebagai akhlak Islam dan gerakan sosial yang dilihat berbeza-beza sesuai dengan konteks sosial pada zaman masing-masing.

Perilaku zuhud menurut Prof. Dr. Hamka, ia tidak bererti eksklusif daripada kehidupan duniawi kerana Islam menganjurkan semangat berjuang, berkorban dan bekerja keras. Bagi Hamka, kekayaan hakiki ialah mencukupkan apa yang ada, sudi menerima walaupun banyak, sebab ia nikmat dari Allah SWT. Dan tidak pula kecewa jika jumlahnya berkurang, sebab ia semua daripada Allah SWT.

Jika kekayaan melimpah untuk diri, ia perlu digunakan untuk membantu dalam perkara kebajikan dan membina keteguhan hati beribadah kepada Allah SWT. Harta tidak dicintai kerana itu adalah harta. Harta hanya dicintai sebab itu adalah pemberian Allah SWT. Terlampau menumpahkan cinta kepada harta benda semata-mata, menyebabkan hilang pertimbangan, sehingga hilang cinta kepada bangsa, tanah air, agama dan Allah SWT.
Zuhud bukan menghindar kenikmatan duniawi tetapi tidak meletakkan nilai yang tinggi padanya. Dan inilah definisi zuhud daripada Rasulullah SAW.

Bukanlah zuhud itu mengharamkan yang halal, bukan pula mensia-siakan harta, tetapi zuhud dalam dunia ialah engkau tidak memandang apa yang di tanganmu itu lebih utama daripada apa yang ada di sisi Allah SWT. Kekayaan, kekuasaan da kemasyuran semuanya berubah, tidak tetap dan akhirnya anda harus ditinggalkan. Lalu apa yang ada di sisi Allah SWT? RahmatNya yang meliputi segala sesuatu.

“(Sebenarnya) apa yang ada pada kamu akan habis dan hilang lenyap, dan apa yang ada di sisi Allah tetap kekal; dan sesungguhnya Kami membalas orang-orang sabar dengan memberikan pahala yang lebih baik dari apa yang mereka telah kerjakan.” (Quran 16: 96)

RahmatNya meliputi apa saja yang dapat membantu manusia memperoleh keredhaan Allah SWT, yang mendekatkan manusia kepada Dia termasuk akhirat, walaupun hal-hal tersebut nampak seperti urusan-urusan termasuklah perdagangan, pertanian dan industri, dll.

Kerajinan yang ditujukan bagi mendapatkan nafkah untuk keluarga, bersedekah untuk kesejahteraan orang miskin dan melarat, dan menghindar diri daripada kebergantungan kepada bantuan orang lain adalah sifat-sifat yang terpuji yang menjurus kepada kezuhudan.

Semua kegiatan ini dimaksudkan untuk akhirat, walaupun ada yang menganggapnya untuk dunia. Sebaliknya, latihan-latihan disiplin kerohanian yang betentangan dengan sunnah, walaupun dilakukan dengan penuh kekhusyukan dan pengabdian, dihitung untuk dunia sahaja. Ini kerana tindakan itu menyebabkan pelakunya terasing daripada Allah SWT dan tidak membawa manusia lebih dekat kepadaNya.

Demikianlah kesimpulannya bahawa orang zuhud ialah orang yang hidup di dunia, tetap tidak meletakkan hatinya di dunia. Mereka bekerja di dunia untuk dunia dan juga untuk akhirat.

Sikap zuhud dapat memberikan ketenangan kepada seseorang. Ianya adalah benteng dari sikap sombong, kikir, serakah dan bermewah-mewahan. Kehancuran seseorang dan bahkan sebuah bangsa boleh disebabkan oleh keempat-empat sikap tersebut.

Bagaimana caranya agar kita boleh zuhud? Imam Al-Ghazali mengesyorkan tiga cara.

Pertama, memaksa diri untuk mengendalikan hawa nafsunya, mencegah dari cinta dunia.

Kedua, sukarela meninggalkan kemewahan dunia kerana dipandang kurang penting.

Ketiga, tidak merasakan zuhud sebagai beban, kerana dunia dipandang bukan apa-apa dan tidak perlu bagi dirinya.

Sementara itu, Ibrahim bin Adham pernah ditanya oleh seorang lelaki, “Bagaimana cara engkau mencapai darjat orang zuhud?” Ibrahim menjawab,”Dengan tiga cara, Pertama, aku melihat kubur itu sunyi dan menakutkan, sedang aku tidak menemukan orang yang dapat mententeramkan hatiku di sana. Kedua, aku melihat perjalanan hidup menuju akhirat itu amat jauh, sedangkan aku tidak memiliki cukup bekalan. Ketiga, aku melihat Robb Yang Maha Kuasa menetapkan satu keputusan atas diriku, sedang aku tidak punya alasan untuk menolak keputusan itu.” (Abu Ishak Ibrahim bin Adham Al Balkhi)

Racism Or Extremism

Racism is the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Racism is discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Although the term racism usually denotes race-based prejudice, violence, dislike, discrimination, or oppression, the term can also have varying and contested definitions. Racialism is a related term, sometimes intended to avoid these negative meanings.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group or racial groups.

The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines racism as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority or inferiority of a particular racial group, and that it is also the prejudice based on such a belief.

The Macquarie Dictionary defines racism as: "the belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule or dominate others."

According to Charles V Hamilton and Kwame Ture (aka Stokely Carmichael) it (racism) is the predication of decisions & policies on considerations of race for the purpose of subordinating a racial group (ethnicity) and maintaining control over that group.

Wikipedia explains racism as the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Racism's effects are called "racial discrimination". In the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or receive preferential treatment.

Racial discrimination typically points out taxonomic differences between different groups of people, although anyone may be discriminated against on an ethnic or cultural basis, independently of their somatic differences.

The UN does not define "racism", however it does define "racial discrimination": according to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life

This definition does not make any difference between discrimination based on ethnicity and race, in part because the distinction between the two remains debatable among anthropologists. Similarly, in British law the phrase racial group means "any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin".

Therefore according to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnicity discrimination.

There is some evidence that the meaning of the term has changed over time, and that earlier definitions of racism involved the simple belief that human populations are divided into separate races. Many biologists, anthropologists, and sociologists reject this taxonomy in favour of more specific and/or empirically verifiable criteria, such as geography, ethnicity, or a history of endogamy.

In plain simple English, “extremism” means the condition or act of taking an extreme view, and the taking of extreme action(s).

According to Wikipedia, extremism describes the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political centre of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common moral standards. In democratic societies, individuals or groups that advocate the replacement of democracy with a authoritarian regime are usually branded extremists, in authoritarian societies the opposite applies.

The terms “extremism” or “extremist” are almost always exonymic — i.e. applied by others to a group rather than by a group labeling itself.

Rather than labeling themselves as extremist, those labeled as such might describe themselves as, for example, political radicals. There is no political party that calls itself "right-wing extremist" or "left-wing extremist", and there is no sect of any religion that calls itself "extremist" or which calls its doctrine "extremism".

The term extremist is used to describe groups and individuals who have become radicalized, in some way, even though the term radical originally meant to go to the root of a (social) problem. The term radical is one not normally regarded as pejorative and, unlike extremist, is sometimes used by groups in their description of themselves.

The term “extremist” is often used with reference to those who use or advocate violence against the will of society at large, but it is also used by some to describe those who advocate or use violence to enforce the will of the social body, such as a government or majority constituency. Those described as extremist would in general not accept that what they practice or advocate constitutes violence and would instead speak in terms of acts of "resistance" or militant action or the use of force. The word “violence” cannot be regarded as value-neutral. Ideology and methodology often become inextricably linked under the single term extremism.

The notion that there is a philosophy which can be described as extremism is considered by some to be suspect. Within sociology, several academics who track (and are critical of) extreme right-wing groups have objected to the term extremist, which was popularized by centrist sociologists in the 1960s and 1970s. As Jerome Himmelstein states the case: "At best this characterization tells us nothing substantive about the people it labels; at worst it paints a false picture." (Himmelstein, p. 7).

The act of labeling a person, group or action as extremist is sometimes claimed to be a technique to further a political goal — especially by governments seeking to defend the status quo, or political centrists. In any event, the term extremist — like the word violence— cannot be regarded as value-neutral.

The very word Islam, which means "surrender," is related to the Arabic salam, or peace. When the Prophet Muhammad pbuh brought the Quran to the Arabs in the early 7th century A.D., a major part of his mission was devoted precisely to bringing an end to the kind of mass slaughter we witness today.

Because the Quran was revealed in the context of an all-out war, several passages deal with the conduct of armed struggle. Warfare was a desperate business on the Arabian Peninsula. A chieftain was not expected to spare survivors after a battle, and some of the Quranic injunctions seem to share this spirit.

Muslims are commanded by God to "slay [enemies] wherever you find them!" (Quran 4: 89). Extremists like to quote such verses but do so selectively. They do not include the exhortations to peace, which in almost every case follow these more ferocious passages: "Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them" (Quran 4: 90).

In the Quran, therefore, the only permissible war is one of self-defense. Muslims may not begin hostilities (Quran 2: 190). Warfare is always evil, but sometimes you have to fight in order to avoid the kind of persecution that Mecca inflicted on the Muslims (Quran 2: 191 and 2: 217) or to preserve decent values (Quran 4: 75 and 22: 40). The Quran quotes the Torah (Taurat), the Jewish scriptures, which permits people to retaliate eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but like the Gospels (Bibles), the Quran suggests that it is meritorious to forego revenge in a spirit of charity (Quran 5: 45). Hostilities must be brought to an end as quickly as possible and must cease the minute the enemy sues for peace (Quran 2: 192-3).

Islam is not addicted to war, and jihad is not one of its "pillars," or essential practices. The primary meaning of the word jihad is not "holy war" but "struggle." It refers to the difficult effort that is needed to put God's will into practice at every level, personal and social, as well as political. A very important and much quoted tradition has Muhammad pbuh telling his companions as they go home after a battle, "We are returning from the lesser jihad [the battle] to the greater jihad," the far more urgent and momentous task of extirpating wrongdoing from one's own society and one's own heart.

Islam did not impose itself by the sword. In a statement in which the Arabic is extremely emphatic, the Quran insists, "There must be no coercion in matters of faith!" (Quran 2: 256). Constantly Muslims are enjoined to respect Jews and Christians, the "People of the Book," who worship the same God (Quran 29: 46). In words quoted by Muhammad pbuh in one of his last public sermons, God tells all human beings, "O people! We have formed you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another" (Quran 49: 13), not to conquer, convert, subjugate, revile or slaughter but to reach out toward others with intelligence and understanding.

The Quran is full of stories and lessons from the history of humanity as a whole. The Gospels (Bibles) and the Torah (Taurat) are referred to; Jesus and Abraham are mentioned. In fact there is more mention in the Quran of the Prophet Moses than of any other. It acknowledges the coexistence of other faiths, and in doing so acknowledges that other cultures can live together in peace. "There is no compulsion in religion," it states, meaning that people should not be compelled to change their faith.

The Quran also states, "To you, your religion; to me mine." (Quran 109:6). Respect for religious values and justice is at the Koran's core. The Quranic history we teach provides ample examples of inter-religious and international relationships; of how to live together.

But some extremists take elements of the sacred scriptures out of context. They act as individuals, and when they cannot come together as part of a political structure or consultative process, you find these dissident factions creating their own rules, contrary to the spirit of the Quran - which demands that those recognised as being in charge of Muslims must consult together regarding society's affairs. There is a whole chapter in the Quran entitled “Consultation”; in Arabic the word for that is “Shura” (Quran, 42).

Communal well-being is central to human life, so there is a concept in Islam called Istihsan, which means "to look for the common good". Even though the Quran may lay down a diktat, scholars are also supposed to consider the circumstances prevalent at the time. Sometimes that means choosing the lesser of two evils or even suspending legislation if necessary.

Prophet Muhammad pbuh said, "Ruined are those who insist on hardship in faith," and, "A believer remains within the scope of his religion as long as he doesn't destroy (or kill) another person illegally." Such knowledge and words of guidance are desperately needed at this time, to separate fact from falsehood, to counter the elements of racism and/or extremism which undermines peace and social/religious cohesion, and to recognise the Last Prophet's own definition of that which makes a person representative, or otherwise, of the faith (religion) he lived and the one we are doing as best as we can to propagate and uphold.

Menghidupkan Proses Demokrasi

Proses pemilihan Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) pada kali ini (tahun 2010) untuk memilih barisan kepimpinan di peringkat Cabang (atau Bahagian) dan di peringkat Pusat bagi tempoh 2010-2013 benar-benar mencerminkan representasi sebenar rakyat Malaysia, mencerminkan sebuah parti yang rupa dan wajahnya Malaysia di mana setiap anggota berhak mengundi - satu anggota satu undi.

Dari lebih kurang 400 ribu ahli PKR yang berdaftar, 60% ialah pengundi Melayu, 23% pengundi India, 12% pengundi Cina dan 15% pengundi dari kaum-kaum lain di Sabah dan Sarawak, kesemuanya berhak menentukan kepemimpinan parti.

Selangor mempunyai keanggotaan seramai 108 ribu ahli atau 30 peratus, diikuti oleh Sabah (66 ribu), Perak (33 ribu), Pulau Pinang (31 ribu), Sarawak (22 ribu) dan Kuala Lumpur (17 ribu) yang masing-masing sedang mencorakkan kepemimpinan di peringkat Cabang (Bahagian), Negeri dan Pusat.

Kerusi Presiden PKR yang kini disandang oleh Datin Seri Dr. Wan Azizah Wan Ismail bakal menyaksikan dua pencalonan yang layak, iaitu DS Dr Wan Azizah sendiri dan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim yang juga Ketua Umum PKR. Datuk Seri Anwar sudah layak untuk bertanding jawatan pada kali ini dan akar umbi parti telah memilih untuk mencalonkan beliau walau pun beliau telah menyatakan hasrat untuk tidak menerima pencalonan.

Setelah YB Senator Dr Syed Husin Ali, Timbalan Presiden PKR mengumumkan pada 14 September lalu bahawa dia tidak akan bertanding mempertahankan jawatnnya dalam pemilihan pada kali ini, maka kerusi Timbalan Presiden menjadi rebutan, dengan menyaksikan 4 orang calon yang layak bertanding, iaitu Azmin Ali, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, Mustaffa Kamil Ayub dan Tian Chua. Pertandingan jawatan ini adalah dijangkakan satu lawan satu iaitu diantara Azmin Ali dan Datuk Zaid Ibrahim manakala yang 2 orang lagi mungkin akan menumpukan perhatian untuk merebut jawatan Naib Presiden, dimana 4 kerusi dipertandingkan.

Seramai 15 individu layak bertanding untuk mengisi 4 kerusi Naib Presiden.
Mereka yang layak adalah Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, Tian Chua, Chua Jooi Meng, Fuziah Salleh, Dr. Lee Boon Chye, Dr. Mansor Othman, Azmin Ali, S. Manikavasagam, Sivarasa Rasiah, Zaid Ibrahim, Dr. Xavier Jayakumar, Mustaffa Kamil Ayub, Yahya Shaari, Nurul Izzah Anwar dan Samsul Iskandar Md Akin.

Sebanyak 67 Cabang dari 84 Cabang menyaksikan pertandingan sempena musim pemilihan kali ini. Seramai 74 orang calon layak bertanding untuk mengisi 20 kerusi Majlis Pimpinan Pusat (MPP) PKR. Ini ialah bilangan calon yang layak bertanding setakat ini, samada mereka mahu bertanding atau tidak, itu terpulang kepada masing-masing calon. .

Jawatankuasa Pengelola Pemilihan (JPP) PKR turut membuka peluang seluas-luasnya kepada semua calon menggunakan portal rasmi parti untuk berkempen. Tidak cukup setakat itu saja, Jawatankuasa juga bercadang menganjurkan forum dan debat supaya pengundi mengundi berasaskan politik maklumat. Semua anggota parti (pemilih) akan berpeluang berinteraksi dan bermaklumat dengan semua calon-calon.

PKR mahu menjadikan pemilihan kali ini sebagai pelantar ujian bagi menghadapi musim Pilihan Raya Umum Ke-13 (PRU13) yang dijangka akan diadakan tidak lama lagi. Pembelajaran ini benar-benar asli kerana parti pelantarkan sistem pemilihan ini seolah-olah mereka (pengundi) menghadapi pilihan raya yang sebenar.

Ada isi borang calon, isi borang penamaan calon, bayar deposit, pamer borang penamaan calon, tempoh bantahan, bantahan diterima, kertas undi dicetak dengan tertera nama calon, mengundi dan keputusan diumumkan.

Pemilihan kali ini adalah berasaskan maklumat, menjadikan PKR benar-benar mengiktiraf kuasa undi setiap anggota parti. Menurut Setiausaha Agong PKR, ianya adalah suatu proses pembelajaran di mana proses pemilihan adalah secara terbuka dan bebas tanpa naungan atau pengaruh daripada mana-mana pihak, dan ini benar-benar menghidupkan proses demokrasi dalam sebuah parti politik di Malaysia.

Problems? Get Rid Of It

I remember reading this somewhere but can't remember where...

A professor began his class by holding up a glass which contained some water in it. He held it up for all to see and asked the students, ‘how much do you think this glass weigh?’ ‘50gms!’…’100gms!’…’125gms’…the students answered.

‘I really don’t know unless I weigh it,’ said the professor, ‘but, my question is: What would happen if I hold it up like this for a few minutes?’ ‘Nothing’ the students answered. ‘Ok what would happen if I hold it up like this for an hour?’ The professor asked. ‘Your arm would begin to ache,’ said one of the students.


‘You’re right, now what would happen if I hold it for a day?’ ‘Your arm could go numb, you might have severe muscle stress and paralysis and have to go to hospital for sure!’ Ventured another student and all the students laughed.


‘Very good. But during all this, did the weight of the glass change?’ Asked the professor. ‘No,’ answered most of the students. ‘Then what caused the arm to ache and the muscle to stress?’ The students were puzzled. ‘Put the glass down!’ Said one of the students. ‘Exactly!’ Said the professor.’ Life’s problems are somewhat similar to this.


Hold it for a few minutes in your head and they seem ok. Think of them for a long time and they begin to ache. Hold it even longer and they begin to paralyze you. You will not be able to do anything. It’s important to think of the challenges (problems) in your life, but even more important to ‘put them down’ at the end of every day before you go to sleep. That way, you are not stressed, you wake up every day fresh and strong, and would be able to handle any issue, any challenge that comes your way!'

What lesson to be learned?

Eid Mubarrak, Syawal 1431 Hijrah

Today is the 29th day of the month of Ramadan in the year 1431 Hijrah (the year 2010) and tomorrow will the last day of Ramadan fasting for all Muslims.
On Friday will dawn the 1st day of the month of Shawal and every Muslim will on this day celebrate the Eid Mubarraq, celebrating triumph and victory over personal urges for food and drink and other forbidden temptations including abstaining from lustful desires such as making love to one's spouse, during daytime hours from dawn to dusk.

Hari Raya Aidilfitri (Eidulfitri) as is normally known in this part of the world is being welcomed and celebrated with a lot of preparations for families and communities in order to ensure each and every one, Muslims as well as non-Muslim guests, get to the Eid celebration with joy and happiness.

Happy Eid and Selamat Hari Raya Aidilfitri to family, friends and everyone inclusive