Airport screening for ‘Flying while Muslim’ January 30, 2010
Posted by membelaislam in Rights of Muslims.add a comment
Editor’s note: Nafees A. Syed, a senior at Harvard University majoring in government, is an editorial editor at The Harvard Crimson as well as a senior editor and columnist for the Harvard-MIT journal on Islam and society, Ascent. She is chairwoman of the Harvard Institute of Politics Policy Group on Racial Profiling.
(CNN) — It seems that now someone called “Barack Hussein Obama” can be pulled aside and patted down merely because of his name. But while our president has the benefit of Air Force One, millions of us with a “funny name” (Muslim and otherwise) do not. Like me.
I’ve consistently faced “random” selections for extra screening at the airport after I decided to wear the hijab, or Muslim head covering. I’ve been told to take my head scarf off or have my head probed while the passengers in front of me offered pitying smiles as they rushed to their flights.
One time, the woman in front of me had a hairdo that could pose more of a security threat than any head scarf could. Muslim women wear the hijab as a symbol of modesty, to be judged not by their appearance.
The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. dreamed that people would be judged for “the content of their character.” However, the Transportation Security Administration is judging me and other Muslims by the way we look.
The TSA uses the hijab to profile Muslim women, and passengers can now expect a full-body pat-down, an appallingly invasive “enhanced pat-down search that could include the chest and groin, or a planned “mind-scan” that would track people’s reaction to terrorist symbols. What’s next, palm reading?
At an airport with a full body scanner, I can have the image of my body displayed before a stranger — virtual nudity. Do they seriously have a blank check on our bodies? Of course I care about profiling partly because I’m affected. But does one have to face this issue to feel that it’s wrong? After all, it is difficult to imagine ourselves in other people’s shoes when we don’t have to.
It’s hard for me too. Especially over the past month, I’ve been shocked at the comments about my faith, and the sometimes-prejudiced support for racial profiling. Radio host Mike Gallagher said, “There should be a separate line to scrutinize anybody with the name Abdul or Ahmed or Mohammed.” Sorry Paula Abdul and Muhammad Ali, or anyone with the world’s most common name, Muhammad.
For people who aren’t affected by racial profiling at airports, imagine this: The TSA implements a new rule to counter drunken driving, which kills over 13,000 Americans every year. People who are not Muslim have to go through a Breathalyzer test before they can enter their vehicle. Muslims don’t drink alcohol and are, therefore, exempt. Ridiculous? I agree.
I know that what I am going through is just the tip of the iceberg of racial profiling in our country. Thirty-two million Americans report that they have been the victims of racial profiling. Racial profiling violates the U.S. Constitution, is ineffective and trickles down to the workplace, schools and elsewhere.
You also run into problems when you justify profiling nearly one in every four people in the world. There are Muslims of every possible race, making profiling practically futile. Fareed Zakaria said it best: “When you’re trying to find a needle in a haystack, adding hay does not help you.”
Putting ethical and pragmatic reasons aside, it’s hard to justify not caring. Even if racial profiling doesn’t affect us, it affects our friends, family members, co-workers, doctors, television personalities — the list goes on. There are some people who don’t know Muslims and are numb to realizing the effects of profiling. Therein lies the problem.
According to the Pew Research Center, people who know Muslims are less likely to have negative views of them. Co-existence is a dismal possibility unless people go to the source to find out about Islam, not skewed Web sites.
And Muslims, here’s something to think about: If your knowledge of Islam came from common stereotypes, wouldn’t you also be misinformed about the faith and its followers? The Quran says, “[God has] made you into nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another (49:13).” So get to know your fellow Americans.
There are some Americans who think Muslims are terrorists and some Muslims who think that other Americans are willfully ignorant. Neither group deserves such a label. Psychologist Henri Tajfel, who was a Holocaust survivor, explained how we isolate ourselves into an “in-group” and facilitate discrimination of an “out-group.”
Religious profiling boxes Muslims into a category separate from Americans. We can’t accept that distinction. Let’s all think outside of the box.
It’s essential for U.S. security that airport screening be done. But we need to stop the inflation of procedures that make our society more afraid and less secure. The TSA needs to stop and evaluate methods that are more effective, less invasive, and don’t discriminate based on religion or race.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Nafees A. Syed.
U.S. Military Weapons Inscribed With Secret ‘Jesus’ Bible Codes January 28, 2010
Posted by membelaislam in Uncategorized.add a comment
Pentagon Supplier for Rifle Sights Says It Has
‘Always’ Added New Testament References
Monday, January 18, 2010
By JOSEPH RHEE, TAHMAN BRADLEY and BRIAN ROSS
Coded references to New Testament Bible passages about Jesus Christ are inscribed on high-powered rifle sights provided to the United States military by a Michigan company, an ABC News investigation has found.
 At the end of the serial number on Trijicon’s ACOG gun sight, you can read “JN8:12″, a reference to the New Testament book of John, Chapter 8, Verse 12, which reads: “Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” The ACOG is widely used by the U.S. military. (ABC News) |
The sights are used by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the training of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers. The maker of the sights, Trijicon, has a $660 million multi-year contract to provide up to 800,000 sights to the Marine Corps, and additional contracts to provide sights to the U.S. Army.
U.S. military rules specifically prohibit the proselytizing of any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan and were drawn up in order to prevent criticism that the U.S. was embarked on a religious “Crusade” in its war against al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents.
One of the citations on the gun sights, 2COR4:6, is an apparent reference to Second Corinthians 4:6 of the New Testament, which reads: “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”
Other references include citations from the books of Revelation, Matthew and John dealing with Jesus as “the light of the world.” John 8:12, referred to on the gun sights as JN8:12, reads, “Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
Trijicon confirmed to ABCNews.com that it adds the biblical codes to the sights sold to the U.S. military. Tom Munson, director of sales and marketing for Trijicon, which is based in Wixom, Michigan, said the inscriptions “have always been there” and said there was nothing wrong or illegal with adding them. Munson said the issue was being raised by a group that is “not Christian.” The company has said the practice began under its founder, Glyn Bindon, a devout Christian from South Africa who was killed in a 2003 plane crash.
‘It violates the Constitution’
The company’s vision is described on its Web site: “Guided by our values, we endeavor to have our products used wherever precision aiming solutions are required to protect individual freedom.”
“We believe that America is great when its people are good,” says the Web site. “This goodness has been based on Biblical standards throughout our history, and we will strive to follow those morals.”
Spokespeople for the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps both said their services were unaware of the biblical markings. They said officials were discussing what steps, if any, to take in the wake of the ABCNews.com report. It is not known how many Trijicon sights are currently in use by the U.S. military.
The biblical references appear in the same type font and size as the model numbers on the company’s Advanced Combat Optical Guides, called the ACOG.
A photo on a Department of Defense Web site shows Iraqi soldiers being trained by U.S. troops with a rifle equipped with the bible-coded sights.
“It’s wrong, it violates the Constitution, it violates a number of federal laws,” said Michael “Mikey” Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group that seeks to preserve the separation of church and state in the military.
‘Firearms of Jesus Christ’
“It allows the Mujahedeen, the Taliban, al Qaeda and the insurrectionists and jihadists to claim they’re being shot by Jesus rifles,” he said.
Weinstein, an attorney and former Air Force officer, said many members of his group who currently serve in the military have complained about the markings on the sights. He also claims they’ve told him that commanders have referred to weapons with the sights as “spiritually transformed firearm[s] of Jesus Christ.”
He said coded biblical inscriptions play into the hands of “those who are calling this a Crusade.”
According to a government contracting watchdog group, fedspending.org, Trijicon had more than $100 million in government contracts in fiscal year 2008. The Michigan company won a $33 million Pentagon contract in July, 2009 for a new machine gun optic, according to Defense Industry Daily. The company’s earnings from the U.S. military jumped significantly after 2005, when it won a $660 million long-term contract to supply the Marine Corps with sights.
“This is probably the best example of violation of the separation of church and state in this country,” said Weinstein. “It’s literally pushing fundamentalist Christianity at the point of a gun against the people that we’re fighting. We’re emboldening an enemy.”
http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/press-releases/2010/abc_sights.html
Kerana memeluk Islam – 7 beranak sasaran bunuh January 27, 2010
Posted by membelaislam in Rights of Muslims.Tags: ancaman, memeluk Islam, mualaf
add a comment
Oleh Hadzlan Hassan- hadzlan@hmetro.com.my 2010/01/27
KUALA TERENGGANU: Hanya kerana memeluk Islam tanpa restu sanak-saudara kira-kira tiga tahun lalu, kehidupan seorang mualaf berusia 48 tahun bersama isteri dan lima anaknya kini umpama pelarian apabila terpaksa menyembunyikan diri dan identiti semata-mata bagi memastikan keselamatan terjamin.
Lebih menyedihkan, mereka kini terpaksa tinggal dalam lori kerana selain dapat dijadikan tempat berteduh, ia memudahkan mereka melarikan diri jika diserang.
Menurut lelaki itu, mereka enam beranak memeluk Islam dengan mengucap dua kalimah syahadah di Rawang, Selangor manakala anak bongsunya dilahirkan sebagai seorang Islam, tujuh bulan lalu.
Katanya, berikutan tindakan itu, dia sekeluarga terpaksa melarikan diri ke negeri ini untuk meneruskan kelangsungan hidup dan bersembunyi daripada ahli keluarga dan kenalannya yang kurang senang dengan tindakannya memeluk Islam.
“Apa yang ingin saya ceritakan ini hanya untuk memberitahu keadaan sebenar. Tolong jangan siarkan nama atau gambar saya kerana nyawa kami boleh melayang bila-bila masa.
“Jangan tanya mengapa saya tak buat laporan polis, tapi jawab dulu soalan saya, adakah pihak yang mampu memastikan keselamatan keluarga saya 24 jam,” katanya dalam pertemuan dengan Harian Metro yang diuruskan Kongres India Muslim Malaysia (Kimma) Terengganu, semalam. Menurutnya, dia tidak berani memberikan nama sebenar kerana mendakwa ahli keluarganya mempunyai ramai kenalan yang berkhidmat dengan Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN) sehingga membolehkan mereka mengenalinya dengan hanya memeriksa nama baru pada kad pengenalan.
Katanya, selepas sekian lama memeluk Islam, baru-baru ini beberapa ahli keluarganya mengetahui mengenai perkara itu sebelum mereka meluahkan rasa kurang senang dengan tindakannya menyebabkan dia dicerca dan dihina ahli keluarga selain ada yang mengugut mahu mencedera dan membunuhnya dan keluarga.
“Saya sedih kerana adik-beradik yang saya tatang ketika mereka kecil dengan memberi wang dan pendidikan, kini sanggup mengugut kami sekeluarga, malah keadaan menjadi semakin tak keruan apabila keluarga saya turut menerima ancaman bunuh menyebabkan kami terpaksa melarikan diri ke Terengganu,” katanya ketika meluahkan rasa hatinya kepada Pengerusi Kimma Terengganu, Mohamed Salahudin Mohamed Shahabudin dan timbalannya, Shawkath Ali Mohamed Kassim.
Menurutnya, sejak tiga tahun lalu, dia terpaksa menyembunyikan diri di negeri ini dan melakukan pelbagai kerja bagi menyara keluarga selain menerima bantuan tahunan daripada Majlis Agama Islam dan Adat Melayu Terengganu (Maidam) Terengganu.
Bagaimanapun, katanya, kehidupannya sekeluarga mulai berubah menjadi semakin buruk selepas dia hilang pekerjaan, anak pula ditimpa kemalangan dan terbaru ibunya sakit.
Menurutnya, ketika masalah pertama berlaku, dia cuba mendapatkan bantuan Jabatan Hal Ehwal Agama Islam Terengganu (JHEAT) dan mendapat bantuan tahunan berupa duit raya setiap tahun.
Katanya, satu ketika dulu, dia mampu menggunakan lorinya untuk menyara hidup dengan mengangkut barang membuat jalan, namun selepas projek berkenaan selesai, kenderaan itu dijadikan tempat dia sekeluarga berteduh kerana tidak lagi mempunyai sumber pendapatan untuk menyewa rumah.
“Keadaan bertambah buruk apabila anak saya cedera terkena mesin rumput ketika membantu saya bekerja mencari sesuap nasi.
“Selepas tiada sumber kewangan, saya dihalau dari rumah sewa dan kini kami lima beranak tinggal dalam lori. Jadi, saya tak terlalu risau dengan keselamatan keluarga kerana percaya kami tidak akan ditemui kerana tidak menetap di satu-satu tempat secara tetap.
“Saya bukan mahu meminta wang atau simpati orang ramai, tapi mahu mereka tahu ada saudara baru mengalami masalah ini dan mungkin bukan saya seorang. Saya hanya berharap tragedi hitam yang menimpa saya sekeluarga tak berlaku kepada saudara baru lain,” katanya.
Lelaki itu juga mendakwa ibunya yang sakit kini dijaganya dan turut berhasrat memeluk Islam.
“Cuma saya hanya menunggu dia sembuh bagi membolehkannya melafazkan kalimah syahadah secara rasmi di depan saksi.
“Saya kini begitu memerlukan pekerjaan dan mempunyai sebuah lori yang bukan saja dijadikan tempat tinggal, malah digunakan untuk mendapat sesuap nasi selain membayar bil perubatan ibu,” katanya.
Sementara itu, Mohamed Salahudin berkata, pihaknya berharap ada agensi kerajaan berkaitan dapat meringankan bebanan keluarga mualaf itu.
“Kimma akan berusaha mencari pendekatan sesuai dan berharap agensi kerajaan berkaitan dapat meringankan beban mangsa untuk kebaikan saudara baru itu dan keluarga,” katanya.
Hasil Muzakarah Tarekat Ismailiyyah Diserahkan Kepada Jakim January 20, 2010
Posted by membelaislam in ajaran sesat.2 comments
SHAH ALAM, 19 Jan (Bernama) — Jabatan Mufti Selangor akan menyerahkan hasil muzakarah mengenai Tarekat Ismailiyyah kepada Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia (Jakim) berhubung ajaran tarekat itu yang menyimpang daripada agama Islam.
Mufti Selangor Datuk Mohd Tamyes Abdul Wahid berkata muzakarah yang diadakan Selasa mendapati pengasas dan ketua tarekat berkenaan, Mahmud Abdul Rahman masih keliru dan gagal menerangkan kesahihan ajaran yang disebarkan.
“Antara perkara yang masih samar mengenai tarekat ini termasuklah persoalan amalan kebatinan atau kuasa ghaib yang gagal dijelaskan oleh ketuanya serta kekeliruan dalam konsep syariah yang diamalkan,” katanya pada persidangan akhbar di sini hari ini.
Beliau berkata Selangor telah mewarta dan memfatwakan tarekat itu bahawa ia menyimpang daripada ajaran Islam sejak Oktober 1995.
Katanya Tarekat Ismailiyyah mempunyai lapan pusat pengajian yang dinamakan Madrasah Nurul Ain di Kedah, Pulau Pinang, Selangor, Pahang, Johor dan Perak selain 11 di India, Thailand, Singapura, Pakistan dan Indonesia.
Mohd Tamyes berkata Mahmud turut mendakwa mempunyai pengikut di kalangan ilmuwan agama, golongan profesional malah menjadi penasihat agama kepada beberapa pemimpin tertinggi negara dan dunia.
Selain itu, katanya ketua ajaran berkenaan turut mendakwa mendapat wahyu dari langit dan sering bertemu dengan wali dan nabi.
Beliau berkata Mahmud yang berumur 70-an dan berasal dari Kedah mendakwa mendapat pendidikan di peringkat sarjana muda dalam bidang Pengajian Islam dari sebuah kolej di India selain pernah bertapa selama tujuh tahun dalam hutan serta berkawan dengan binatang seperti ular, singa dan harimau.
Ditanya mengapa tiada tindakan diambil terhadap tarekat itu yang masih aktif sehingga kini walaupun telah difatwa dan diwartakan sebagai ajaran yang menyimpang daripada agama Islam, katanya beberapa halangan berlaku dalam usaha berkenaan kerana hal membabitkan akidah adalah sesuatu yang sukar dibuktikan.
“Bila menyebut mengenai penyelewengan akidah ia kadangkala tidak jelas namun perkara membabitkan akidah ini sangat serius kerana walaupun hanya satu amalan bertentangan dengan agama ia tetap salah, seperti nila setitik rosak susu sebelanga,” tambahnya.
Beliau berkata tindakan mewarta dan memfatwa tarekat itu juga tidak seragam di semua negeri, di mana hanya Selangor sahaja yang mendapati ia menyeleweng daripada ajaran agama Islam sebenarnya.
“Bila kita sahaja yang warta dan fatwakan maka ia menjadi halangan di Selangor tetapi tidak di negeri-negeri lain menyebabkan tindakan undang-undang sukar dijalankan.
“Atas alasan itu kita memanggil muzakarah pada hari ini dan hasilnya akan dimajukan kepada Jakim bagi tindakan selanjutnya,” katanya.
Sehingga kini, 23 tarekat telah difatwa dan diwartakan menyeleweng daripada ajaran Islam di Selangor.
– BERNAMA
Understanding the ‘Allah’ controversy January 19, 2010
Posted by membelaislam in Uncategorized.add a comment
IKIM VIEWS
By DR MOHD ZAIDI ISMAIL,
Senior/ Fellow Director, IKIM
The established and verified position of Muslims has always been that the term ‘Allah’ is not an Arabic derivative but is itself revealed by The One and Only God to humankind through His chosen messengers.
BY NOW, Malaysians are generally aware that there have been disputes between the Muslims and the Christians pertaining to the use of the term “Allah” by the latter.
Unfortunately, however, it seems that of the whole controversy most Malaysians can be sure only of that much. The rest, judging from the many viewpoints and contentions raised thus far, seems convoluted and confused to them.
It is pretty clear that the issue revolves around the use of the term “Allah,” as it has been understood and used by the Malays in particular to translate the word “God,” as used particularly in the Bible and as understood by the Christians.
The issue as such pertains to the problem of correct translation and is thus primarily an issue of the correct usage of a language – in this case, the Malay language in relation to the English language and, as Islam is also central to the discussion, the Arabic language.
Comes then the next question: What kind of a term is the word “Allah,” on the one hand, and the word “God” as used in English in relation to the Bible on the other hand?
It is obvious that with regard to the way the Malays have been using the term “Allah” in accordance with what Islam has taught them, it is the “proper name” for the one and only god with all the names and attributes necessary and proper for him and, just like any other proper name, it cannot be translated but rather should be basically maintained as such.
Hence, the sentence “Mr Bush used to be the President of the United States of America,” in correct Malay translation, is very likely to be “Encik Bush pernah menjadi Presiden Amerika Syarikat” and not “Encik Belukar pernah menjadi Presiden Amerika Syarikat”.
On that ground, therefore, one is fully justified to query whether it is correct to translate the respective proper name in the original Bible, if there is any, as “Allah”, let alone if the name concerned is actually merely an appellative noun or a title or, worse still, a general noun.
Furthermore, the very fact that the Christians themselves have not till today reached a consensus as to how to use the term “Allah,” whether in their many translations and versions of the Bible or in their general usage of it, simply demonstrates how contentious and controversial such a usage – particularly pertaining to God’s proper name – has been among them, totally unlike the Muslims who, regardless of sects, schools, race or language, have been unanimous in holding that “Allah” is His Proper Name.
Regarding “Allah” as a proper name, one may further ask whether or not it is derived from any other more basic Arabic word.
Here, notwithstanding certain views which did not survive the rigorous intellectual tests throughout Islamic religious and intellectual history, the established and verified position of the Muslims has always been that the term is not an Arabic derivative but is itself revealed by The One and Only God to humankind through His chosen messengers, Who knows Himself what His Name truly is and without Whom so revealing, man would still be in the dark as to how to correctly call and address Him.
It is therefore pertinent here that one be fully cognizant of the criteria for a term or word to qualify as a proper name, particularly when it concerns the fundamentals of a religion, especially God:
(1) The term needs to be clearly stated in the primary source of the respective religion (for example, the Quran and the Prophetic sayings in the case of Islam and with regard to the term “Allah”);
(2) It does not entertain being plural, both in sense and in reference, in connotation as well as in denotation (unlike “gods,” for instance);
(3) It has been used as such by all the adherents of the religion concerned (for example, the Muslims, in regard to the term “Allah”);
(4) It is exclusive to God and never others.
As to the argument that the term “Allah” had been used even before the revelation of the Quran and the dawn of Islam, the aforementioned position of the Muslims as it is is not necessarily opposed to such a contention.
Yet, since the contention is primarily historical, one cannot simply rely on logic to prove it. Rather one should resort to established and authentic historical evidence to support it.
And such historical evidence should at least shed some light on (1) whether or not the term “Allah” was then used by Christians who shared more or less the same beliefs and practices with the present-day Christians, particularly in Malaysia, and (2) whether or not the term “Allah” was then solely used as a proper name.
Otherwise, the only historical evidence one can reliably rely on is the Quran and the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad in which the term “Allah” is employed purely as a proper name.
As to the many versions of the earlier Malay translations of the Bible, which have been taken to be among the historical proofs to justify the term “Allah” being used as such in its present-day translation, it is particularly noteworthy that they were mainly attempted by the non-Malays – to be more specific, the colonialists.
And to regard as prototypical the usage of a term in a language by a non-native, let alone by one who colonised, surely calls into question the validity of such a position, to say the least.
Unless the answers to all the aforementioned questions and issues vindicate without any ambivalence the position which certain segments of the Malaysian Christian community have been taking, the only sensible way forward in the Malaysian multiracial and multi-religious context is for the parties who have committed such linguistic errors to correct them wherever applicable and appropriate.
Moreover, in dealing with such issues, it is indeed important that the parties involved, abide themselves by the basic rules of correct reasoning which, needless to say, involve the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, wherever relevant.
And despite some parties claiming that logic or reason has a very limited role in solving the controversy, on the contrary, I believe that it can play a pivotal role in helping us delineate the main issues from the non-issues, identify the real problems from the pseudo – albeit distracting – ones, sort out the primary, secondary and totally unrelated matters, and separate the fundamental questions from such which are trivial or, at best, non-essential.
Do You (Really) Believe in ‘Allah’? January 18, 2010
Posted by membelaislam in Uncategorized.1 comment so far
oleh MD ASHAM AHMAD
Everybody knows “Allah” is not a Malay word but nobody would question a Malay using the word to refer to the god that he or she worships because Malays are Muslims, and all Muslims of all nations call Him with this name because He says in the Qur’an that that is His name, and He is to be addressed with that name.
Now we are here talking about “naming” god; we can’t afford to have it wrong. Even ordinary people would feel offended (let alone people like the royalties, politicians or film stars) if their names are not pronounced correctly. Just imagine what they would feel if wrong names or titles were attributed to them!
But why must there be a need to “name” Him in the first place? Should not He, if He ever revealed anything, reveal His own name? And if there is anything worthy of being called the word of god, His name should not be unknown because how can one ever find god if even His name is not known to him?
Muslims do not create names for god or borrow names from whatever language to refer to god. They are not used to that kind of practice because even the name of their religion, i.e. Islam, and the name of those who submit to god by following that religion, i.e. Muslim (pl. Muslimun) are given by Allah Himself, not their own creation, let alone the outsiders. Hence, they do not accept when the Christians called them Mohammedans, and their religion Mohammedanism.
Firstly, Muhammad to the Muslims is not what Jesus Christ is to the Christians; Muslims do not worship Muhammad.
Secondly, Islam is not an ideology created by Muhammad for it to be called Mohammedanism. And thirdly, Muslims were conscious of their own identity from the very beginning, they do not call themselves Muslims because people have been calling them with that name, unlike the Christians who took their name from their enemies, the Romans.
From a Muslim’s perspective, it is not proper for a religion which claims to be a truly revealed religion not to know the name of god whom it calls all mankind to worship. It is even shameful, to say the least, for a religion to borrow the name of god of other religions and even more so if the religion from which the name is borrowed is considered a false or deviant religion!
When the Christians, whose conception of the nature of god is diametrically opposed to that of Islam, insist on their right to use the term “Allah” to denote the Christian god, of course the Muslims would oppose it. It is not that they want to “monopolize” the term as some people claimed it to be the case. On the contrary, the Muslims are demanding the Christians to be precise in their employment of terms that could confuse the public.
Practically they cannot prevent the Christians from using whatever term they like for their god including the term “Allah” or even Mickey Mouse for that matter. Still, they have to oppose because as far as they are concerned the word “Allah” as used and understood in Malay language is not the god of Christianity.
The Christians argue that “Allah” also means the god of Christianity in Malay language because they claim the term was used in an old Malay bible and Christian prayer book. They also argue that the word “Allah” had been used by the Christian Arabs long before Islam.
Suppose that they can prove the existence of the above mentioned documents in which the term “Allah” can be found. We can argue that it does not grant the conclusion that “Allah” also means the Christian god in Malay. It simply means the attempt by Christian missionaries to impose Christian meaning on the term is not something new. Whether the document is old or new is not what matters here because our contention is still the same: the Malays never used the term “Allah” to mean a Christian god, it is the Christians, now and then, who have been trying very hard to make them accept that.
Furthermore, if “Allah” also means a Christian god in Malay there is no point of attempting to “Christianise” the Malays because they were already Christians!
Muslims and Christians claim that their religions respectively are based on the scriptures, the revealed words of god. Muslims’ scripture, the Qur’an, which was revealed in Arabic, clearly mentions Allah as the name of god that every Muslim, regardless of race and nation, worship.
What we know is that the word “Allah” never occurred in the Hebrew, Greek, or Latin versions of the Old and New Testament, and there is no reliable evidence of the existence of any pre-Islamic Arabic translation of the bible. The first and most important Arabic version, which became the standard version for all Jews in Muslim countries was made by Sa’adia ben Joseph (892–942).
Several modern Arabic translations by both Protestants and Catholics were made in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is possible that the term Allah is used to refer to Christian god in these translations. But why “Allah”, not the terms used in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin versions?
Obviously the term Allah is only used in bibles translated into the languages of the Muslim peoples, including Malay, where the term exists as the result of the Islamization of the language and mind of the Malays. One would not find the term “Allah” in Algonquin Bible which was translated for the American Indians in 1663, let alone in English versions like Wycliffe’s, Tyndale, Douay, King James or Confraternity. There is no reason to use the term Allah to refer to the Christian god because “Allah” had never been the god of American Indians or the English people, hence the word do not exist in their languages.
It is thus very interesting to know why some Christians in this country are so adamant in demanding what they call their right to use the term “Allah” citing the usage of the term by Christian Arabs long before Islam. Since when did the Christian Arabs and their language (Arabic) became very important to Christianity and the Christian community as a whole? Arabic is not at all important compared to Hebrew, Greek and Latin when it comes to understanding Christianity from its original sources.
But nobody can understand the Qur’an and the religion of Islam without the knowledge of Arabic, and by Arabic here we mean the Islamised Arabic, the language that was thoroughly transformed with the revelation of the Qur’an. The importance of (Qur’anic) Arabic with regard to the making of the worldview of the Muslim peoples cannot at all be compared with the importance of Arabic in Christianity.
When the Christians here tell the government to let them use of the word “Allah” because pre-Islam Christian Arabs had used the word, the assumption is that the Malays are automatons who will comply with anything that comes from Arabia. They are utterly mistaken. When the Malays use the word “Allah” in their language they mean Allah of the Qur’an, not Allah of the pagan or Christian Arabs.
The Malays had no cultural or religious relation with the pagan or Christian Arabs, before or after Islam. Their special connection with the Arabs and Arabic language is founded upon something that they commonly share, namely Islam and the Qur’an. All the key terms (together with their meanings and significations) that make up the worldview of the Malays are derived from the Qur’an. As a matter of fact these key terms are shared by all Islamic languages, not just Malay language.
Clearly what the Christians are trying to do is to de-Islamise Malay language for missionary purpose. And if they say it is their right to do mission to the Malays (which is not a secret) then shouldn’t we, the Malays, also claim our right to repel any effort to undermine our religious and cultural identity?
Unfortunately it was the Malays themselves who had sabotaged their own culture and religion. They did that first of all by allowing “Bahasa Melayu” to be named “Bahasa Malaysia”.
* Md. Asham Ahmad is a Fellow, Centre for Syariah, Law and Political Studies at the Institute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia (IKIM)
sumber: http://www.iii.com.my/
Mukmin Berhak Pertahan Kalimah Allah January 17, 2010
Posted by membelaislam in Uncategorized.add a comment
Dalam laman web JIL kita dapati misalnya (http://islamlib.com/id/c/gagasan/)(5-12-2004) gagasan yang disebut ‘sesuai dengan prinsip persaudaraan ( al-ikhâ), kesetaraan (al-musâwah) dan keadilan (al-’adâlah); sesuai dengan HAM (hak-hak manusia sejagat) dan tidak bertentangan dengan Deklarasi Universal HAM, juga produk hukum lain seperti Perlindungan kanak-kanak dan Perempuan.
CLD-KHI (satu gagasan) juga demokratis, pluralis, inklusif dan mengutamakan keadilan dan kesetaraan gender”- dengan huraian yang terpengaruh dengan konsep Barat mengenai demokrasi, pluralisme (semua agama sama), ‘incluvisme’ (semua agama boleh diterima oleh orang mukmin), menunjukkan kedudukan utama lelaki, dan persamaan gender (iaitu sama kedudukan dalam semua hal antara lelaki dan perempuan ala Barat) tanpa menghiraukan ketentuan dalam syariat, hidup kerohanian dan akidah Ahli Sunnah.
Dengan kemahuan bebasnya, manusia dapat memilih agama yang diyakininya benar. Manusia harus mengembangkan daya nalarnya agar mampu memahami diri sendiri, untuk selanjutnya membangun secara positif dan konstruktif dengan sesama manusia, serta menjaga kelestarian alam semesta.”
Dalam konteks gagasan seperti ini maka akan muncul fahaman Islam bukan agama yang benar satu-satunya, pemikiran manusia harus tidak didisiplinkan oleh hukum Tuhan, sebab pada mereka yang berfikiran demikian tidak ada apa disebut ‘hukum Tuhan’ itu; yang ada hanya tafsiran manusia. Juga tidak ada perkara akidah yang tetap yang mesti kita tunduk patuh kepadanya; perkara benar boleh berubah-ubah mengikut keadaan; yang baik dan yang buruk juga terletak kepada keadaan dan budaya.
Dalam konteks pemikiran demikian kita tidak hairan ada orang Islam sendiri yang membenarkan penggunaan kalimah atau nama Allah, ismu jalalah, digunakan oleh mereka yang mengamalkan kepercayaan syirik seperti triniti dan yang sepertinya. Pada orang Islam membenarkan pihak yang mengamalkan agama syirik menggunakan nama Allah adalah kesalahan terbesar sekali sebab ia menyentuh tauhid dan kekudusan Tuhan.
Oleh itu, sedaya mungkin, bila Muslimin ada kewenangan, mereka mesti mencegahnya, kecuali ia sudah menjadi budaya yang lumrah seperti yang berlaku di setengah negara di Asia Barat. Hujah-hujah mengenai ini antaranya seperti berikut.
Kesembilan: Kita boleh memahami hal ini dengan menggunakan misalan dan perbandingan. Katakanlah ada seorang raja negeri yang besar; ia sedang berada di Balai Penghadapannya; ramai orang yang berada di Balai Penghadapannya itu. Katakanlah di Balairong Seri, tiba-tiba ada seorang yang datang, dengan diperhatikan oleh raja besar itu, kemudian ia bertemu dengan tukang sapu sampah berhampiran, lalu ia mengadap orang itu. Katanya ‘Tuanku Yang Dipertuan! ‘tentu sekali orang itu akan mendapat murka raja itu. Demikian kedudukannya. Maka kalaulah muslimin membenarkan pihak lain menggunakan nama Allah untuk ‘Tuhan Jesus’ atau untuk ‘Bapa di Langit…’ maka itu adalah tempelak terbesar terhadap Allah Yang maha Esa dan maha Tinggi.
Wallahu a’lam.
Sumber: Berita Harian
Isu ‘Allah’: NGO gesa Majlis Raja-Raja bersidang January 14, 2010
Posted by membelaislam in Uncategorized.add a comment
Muzakarah pemimpin 30 NGO Islam hari ini menggesa Majlis Raja-Raja supaya membuat keputusan muktamad bahawa kalimah Allah hanya boleh digunakan oleh orang Islam sahaja.
Ia adalah antara resolusi yang diputuskan dalam muzakarah itu, yang akan dipersembahkan kepada Yang di-Pertuan Agong untuk tujuan tersebut.
Presiden Teras Pengupayaan Melayu (TERAS), Mohd Azmi Abdul Hamid berkata wakil gabungan NGO itu akan memohon untuk mempersembahkan sendiri resolusi tersebut kepada Seri Paduka.
“Hari ini semacam ada permuafakatan oleh wakil-wakil yang datang bahawa resolusi ini telah diluluskan dan kita akan segera menghubungi pejabat pemegang mohor Majlis Raja-Raja Melayu bagi menentukan tarikh kita boleh menghantar (resolusi).
“Tapi kita akan memohon untuk mengadap sendiri Duli Yang Maha Mulia Yang di-Pertuan Agong dalam masa terdekat,” katanya kepada media selepas selepas forum yang dihadiri lebih 200 orang itu.
TERAS merupakan salah sebuah daripada kira-kira 30 NGO yang menyertai forum tertutup itu di Masjid Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur pagi ini.
Turut berucap forum itu ialah timbalan mursyidul am PAS Datuk Dr Harun Din, felo Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia (IKIM) Mohd Asham Ahmad, dan juga setiausaha agung Persatuan Cina Muslim Malaysia (MACMA) Ang Wan Seng.
Bercakap dalam sidang media yang sama, Mohd Azmi menjelaskan 12 resolusi diluluskan yang secara umumnya menyatakan penggunaan kalimah Allah merupakan hak eksklusif orang Islam sahaja.
“Isinya ialah kita pertegaskan bahawa kalimah Allah ini adalah eksklusif kepada orang Islam dan kita tidak mahu ketegangan ini berterusan.
“Kita memohon dan merayu sungguh-sungguh supaya Raja-Raja Melayu mengambil peranan yang muktamad, tidak membiarkan ini berlarutan dan kami bersetuju supaya pihak Katholik menarik balik niatnya untuk menggunakan Kalimah Allah.
Bagaimanapun, katanya, resolusi tersebut tidak boleh didedahkan buat masa ini, sebelum ianya dipersembahkan kepada Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
Beliau juga berkata muzakarah itu menyatakan kebimbangan atas ketegangan yang kini timbul di kalangan masyarakat berikutan perkembangan isu tersebut yang semakin berlarutan.
“Kita bimbang bukan sahaja tentang keputusan mahkamah, tapi juga sentimen masyarakat, ianya sangat-sangat rapuh.
“Jika dibiarkan lebih lama, keadaan akan menjadi bertambah panas, ada orang akan ambil peluang untuk berbuat sesuka hati mereka,” tambahnya.
Turut bercakap dalam sidang media sama ialah presiden MACMA Datuk Mustafa Ma, yang menyuarakan seruannya kepada masyarakat Katholik.
“Kita merayu, khususnya kepada saudara Katholik kita, supaya menggunakan pengaruh mereka bagi meminta (penerbit mingguan Katholik, Herald ) untuk menggunakan perkataan Tuhan (bagi menggantikan kalimah Allah yang kontroversi),” katanya.
http://malaysiakini.com/news/121858
Kalimah Allah: Antara Nama dan Hakikat January 13, 2010
Posted by membelaislam in Kes Kalimah Allah.Tags: Kalimah Allah, Md Asham Ahmad
2 comments
Oleh MD. ASHAM AHMAD
AKHIRNYA mahkamah memutuskan bahawa gereja Kristian ‘berhak’ menggunakan kalimah ‘Allah’ bagi merujuk kepada Tuhan yang disembah oleh mereka.
Pastinya mereka telah mengemukakan hujah mereka bagi mempertahankan ‘hak’ itu, dan tidak kurang juga golongan Muslim sendiri termasuk golongan ustaz-ustaz yang memperakui kebenaran hujah itu serta menyokongnya pula.
Di kalangan mereka ialah ustaz-ustaz politik yang hanya melihat keuntungan politik ekoran masalah ini. Akibatnya, belum pun mahkamah memutuskan apa-apa umat Islam di negara ini sudah berkecamuk fikirannya dan berpecah-belah pandangannya.
Hujah utama yang dikemukakan bagi mempertahankan hak orang Kristian itu ialah bukti sejarah, bahawa kalimah Allah telah digunakan oleh orang Arab semenjak sebelum Islam, dan terus digunakan oleh orang Arab Kristian khususnya sehingga kini.
Justeru, mereka berhujah kaum Muslimin, lebih-lebih lagi di Malaysia ini, tiada hak untuk melarang penggunaannya.
Sebelum kita mematahkan hujah yang dikemukakan itu perlu dinyatakan dua perkara dasar: pertama, bahawa isu ini berkait dengan penggunaan kalimah ‘Allah’ dalam bahasa Melayu, yakni salah satu bahasa yang tergolong dalam rumpun bahasa Islam.
Kedua, hak menggunakan sesuatu kalimah hanya sah apabila hakikat yang dirujuk dengan kalimah itu tidak lain daripada kenyataan yang dimaksudkan oleh kalimah itu. Justeru menjadi kesalahan bagi seseorang yang meletakkan gelaran Ir. di hadapan namanya jika dia bukan seorang jurutera, dan dia tidak boleh mendakwa itu haknya.
Hujah di atas boleh dipatahkan dengan jawapan-jawapan berikut.
Pertama: kalimah Allah adalah nama khas, bukan kata terbitan daripada mana-mana perkataan Arab. Justeru, ia bukan boleh digunakan sebagai kata ganti bagi menterjemahkan sesuatu perkataan daripada bahasa lain.
Sebagai bandingan seorang yang bernama Mr. Black tidak boleh ditukarkan namanya kepada Encik Hitam kalau kita berbicara tentangnya dalam bahasa Melayu kerana nama itu adalah nama khas yang merujuk kepada orang yang tertentu.
Kedua: memang benar kalimah itu telah sedia wujud dan digunakan oleh orang Arab semenjak sebelum Islam, akan tetapi itu tidak bermakna mereka memahami maknanya yang hakiki.
Sebaliknya mereka telah mensyirikkan maknanya sehinggakan kalimah Allah yang mereka sebut itu sudah hilang hakikatnya, yakni mereka menyebut Allah, tetapi mereka maksudkan yang lain.
Contohnya: sekiranya yang dimaksudkan itu ialah Tuhan yang beranak atau diperanakkan maka itu bukanlah Allah, kerana Allah Maha Esa, tidak beranak mahupun diperanakkan.
Sekiranya mereka berkeras dengan pendapat mereka walaupun setelah nyata kebenaran, maka itu adalah pendustaan dan kekufuran. Justeru al-Quran mengisytiharkan: “Sesungguhnya kufurlah orang-orang yang berkata bahawa Allah itu satu dari tiga” (al-Ma’idah: 73).
Mereka kufur kerana apa yang mereka katakan tentang Allah itu tidak benar, dengan kata lain apa yang mereka maksudkan itu pada hakikatnya adalah pendustaan terhadap Allah.
Ketiga: kedatangan Islam adalah bagi menyucikan kalimah itu daripada penyelewengan makna yang telah berleluasa dan berlarutan zaman-berzaman. Justeru Islam datang dengan kalimah tayyibah (kalimah yang elok): la ilaha illallah, yang mengandungi penafian segala kepalsuan yang dinisbahkan kepada Allah dan pengisbatan bahawa yang layak disembah hanyalah Allah.
Adalah jauh daripada kebenaran mereka yang mendakwa Islam tidak pernah melarang sesiapa pun menggunakan kalimah Allah. Bukankah syirik kemungkaran terbesar yang diperangi oleh Islam? Sesiapa pun yang mensyirikkan Allah pada hakikatnya telah memalsukan makna kalimah itu walaupun mereka tetap menuturkan kalimah itu dengan lidah mereka.
Keempat: oleh kerana bahasa Melayu adalah bahasa Islami, makna yang diisbatkan bagi kalimah ‘Allah’ ialah makna yang dikehendaki oleh al-Quran.
Justeru, usaha memberikan makna yang lain bagi kalimah itu mesti dianggap sebagai usaha merosakkan keaslian bahasa Melayu, dan oleh itu menjadi tanggungjawab orang Melayu dan kerajaan yang dipimpin mereka memelihara kesucian bahasa mereka agar tidak dicemari oleh unsur-unsur asing yang boleh mengelirukan pandangan hidupnya.
Dalam kekalutan menghadapi acahan ini kita melihat langkah sumbang para ustaz yang diharapkan oleh masyarakat untuk meleraikan kekeliruan mereka. Seorang ustaz berkata: bahasa dan kalimah yang disebut tidak penting dalam soal akidah Islam.
Daripada ustaz ini harus dituntut penjelasan apakah perbezaan antara kalimah yang baik (kalimah tayyibah) dengan kalimah yang keji (kalimah khabithah) kerana al-Quran sendiri membangkitkan persoalan ini (Ibrahim: 24-27), dan menegaskan bahawa “Allah menetapkan hati orang-orang yang beriman dengan kata-kata yang sabit (yakni la’ilaha illallah) dalam kehidupan dunia dan akhirat, dan Allah menyesatkan orang-orang yang zalim”.
Apa yang ustaz itu katakan adalah suatu kekeliruan kerana akidah yang benar tidak boleh dipisahkan daripada kalimah yang benar. Alangkah berlawanan sekali apa yang dikatakan itu berbanding seruannya agar umat Islam kembali kepada al-Quran dan Sunnah sedangkan apa yang tercatat pada kedua-duanya itu tidak lain daripada kalimah-kalimah!
Ustaz yang sama juga dengan semberononya menyalahkan ilmu kalam sebagai punca kelemahan akidah kaum Muslimin hari ini. Pada hakikatnya para ustaz yang jahil ilmu kalam seperti beliaulah yang menjadi punca kemerosotan pemikiran Muslim hari ini.
Lantaran kejahilan mereka sendiri, telah memusuhi ilmu kalam dan ahlinya (mutakallimun) yang banyak berjasa itu. Bagaimana boleh dimusuhi ilmu yang memberikan keahlian kepada seseorang bagi memahami Kalam Allah?
Para mutakallimun adalah orang yang amat menginsafi hakikat bahawa bahasa tidak boleh dipisah daripada akal. Justeru al-Quran diturunkan dalam bentuk bahasa kepada makhluk Allah yang berakal kerana hanya yang berakal mampu memahami dan memanfaatkan bahasa.
Sebagaimana Allah mengajarkan kita agamanya dengan perantaraan bahasa, demikian jugalah kita menyampaikannya kepada seluruh manusia. Adakah bahasa yang lebih baik daripada yang disusun menurut tertib berfikir yang sihat? Kerana bahasa juga boleh dijadikan alat menyebarkan pemikiran dan akidah yang sesat.
Di sinilah sumbangan besar ilmu Kalam dan para mutakallimun. Mereka mara ke hadapan menghadapi ancaman pemikiran asing menggunakan bahasa bertertib logik bagi mengisbatkan tauhid dan menghancurkan syirik.
Syirik dalam bentuk penyembahan berhala amat mudah difahami walaupun oleh si badwi yang hidup berkelana di padang pasir. Akan tetapi Islam bukan diturunkan hanya untuk orang yang tahap pemikirannya seperti si badwi itu.
Allah mengangkat darjat orang-orang yang beriman dan dikurniakan ilmu kepada darjat-darjat yang berbagai (al-Mujadalah: 11) kerana tahap akal dan kefahaman mereka tidak setaraf.
Persoalan yang mendasari perbezaan antara agama khususnya antara agama Islam dan Kristian memerlukan kefahaman yang mendalam terhadap dasar-dasar pemikiran, yakni falsafah.
Asas-asas pemikiran yang mendasari kebudayaan Barat yang begitu berpengaruh pada hari ini juga adalah berakar-umbikan falsafah. Justeru, bagi menghadapi mereka, ilmu kalam dan tradisinya perlu dihidupkan kembali bukan diperangi dan diperlekehkan.
Unsur-unsur syirik yang terkandung dalam falsafah dan ideologi tidak mungkin difahami oleh si badwi dan orang-orang yang memiliki tahap pemikiran setaraf dengannya.
Demikian jugalah tauhid, ia hanyalah omongan kosong jika diserahkan pengajarannya di tangan orang yang bukan sahaja tiada kewibawaan tetapi juga terlalu bongkak untuk mengenali dan mengakui empunya wibawa yang sebenar. Inilah masalah sebenar kita.
PENULIS ialah Fellow Pusat Syariah, Undang-undang dan Sains Politik, Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia
Sumber: Utusan Malaysia
dipetik dari http://www.iii.com.my/
Pemimpin Gereja Ambil Pendekatan Gugur Penggunaan Kalimah Allah January 12, 2010
Posted by membelaislam in Uncategorized.add a comment
PUTRAJAYA, 11 Jan (Bernama) — Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom berkata pemimpin-pemimpin gereja di negara ini wajar mengambil pendekatan sama dengan seorang tokoh Kristian di Sabah yang meminta masyarakat Kristian di Malaysia menggugurkan tuntutan penggunaan kalimah ‘Allah’.
Jamil Khir berkata pendekatan sedemikian boleh memberikan ruang bagi meningkatkan kerukunan dan keselamatan negara serta meredakan ketegangan yang timbul berikutan tuntutan penggunaan kalimah ‘Allah’ oleh Gereja Roman Katolik dalam penerbitan mingguannya, Herald.
“Saya amat mengalu-alukan supaya pihak-pihak ini mempunyai kesedaran dan tanggungjawab terhadap keselamatan negara dan keamanan di Malaysia.
“Saya rasa gereja lain juga sewajarnya memahami keadaan dan sejarah (mengenai penggunaan kalimah ‘Allah’ di negara ini) secara mendalam,” katanya kepada pemberita ketika diminta mengulas mengenai perkara itu, di sini Isnin.
Akhbar hari ini melaporkan seorang tokoh Kristian Sabah, Datuk Clarence Bongkos Malakun menyarankan agar Herald menarik balik tuntutan itu demi keharmonian dan keselamatan negara.
Presiden Majlis Jaksa Pendamai Malaysia itu, yang juga Timbalan Presiden Persatuan Kebudayaan Kadazandusun Sabah berkata penganut Kristian di Malaysia tidak wajar mencontohi masyarakat Kristian di Indonesia yang menggunakan kalimah ‘Allah’ dalam urusan agama mereka, sebaliknya harus mematuhi Perlembagaan Malaysia.
Ditanya mengenai insiden membakar gereja di beberapa tempat di negara sejak dua hari lepas, Jamil Khir berkata sesiapa pun tidak wajar melakukan perbuatan ini.
“Kita masih tak tahu siapa yang bertanggungjawab tapi sebenarnya kita tak boleh menyakiti antara satu sama lain dan ini adalah ajaran dan tegasan agama Islam,” katanya.
Beliau berkata dialog-dialog antara agama juga akan diteruskan dan diperhebatkan dari semasa ke semasa supaya rakyat di negara ini akan lebih memahami agama kaum lain.
– BERNAMA
