Locating the outrage It is to say the least bizarre, that a country boasting one of the tallest buildings in the world, an F1 circuit with a city that globally ranks fourth for shopping, that recently hosted a conference of Forbes billionaires at that, can have such staggering inequality. Along with the evidently rising cost of living, it compels the question of how exactly the average Malaysian is getting by everyday. For this, one would have to look at the high rate of borrowing, without which the average citizen here would not be able to own a house, a car or go shopping. The fact that 77% of Malaysia’s GDP is constituted by household debt is often cited enough to much calm. But less noted is how this has been steadily rising throughout the same phase that saw the rise of income inequality in Malaysia: it was 33% in 1997, and then it became 47% in 2000, 67% in 2006 and 76% in 2010. More worryingly is the ratio of Malaysia’s household debt to disposable income which currently stands at 140%, making it one of the highest in the world, above even the US crisis level of 123%. What is tolerating this worrying rate is the somehow sustained confidence by hopeful banks that these debts will be one day repaid. But whether or not that can happen depends on incomes rising, or at least matching levels of inflation. In the meantime, before the days of financial panic sets upon us, debt will fill in the blanks of consumption where stagnant incomes cannot. Put simply, the rising level of debt in the thick of economic difficulties shows the placating effect it has in enabling the consumer to suspend his or her confrontation with economic depression. All this of course says little of the lending that takes place informally, among friends and family, or worse, from independent, unlicensed lenders. But there is only so much that lending and borrowing can do. We know that the poor, be it in times of inflation or austerity, with their meagre savings, with little to no opportunities for investments, already live straightjacketed by hardships. And how much can the middle class conviction in hard work spare, at the end of the day? Most working adults rarely earn in isolation, as eventual expenditure over time will depend on the size and health of his or her family or dependents. With human capital – which cannot be sold, banked or pledged as collateral – counting for very little in the long run, surviving the anxieties of a competitive job market is an uphill battle. Circumstances too, can always intervene: Retrenchment, illness, pregnancy or injury can unsettle the lives of even the most cautious spenders. They can find another job, but whether that will pay better, or even as much, is not always a certainty. Low wage workers, in the meantime, have no real choice but to insist on minimum wages by and large on their own, against the combined resistance of the Malaysian Employer’s Federation and the mass of consumers annoyed at the thought of rising prices. The assurance of a meager RM 900 per month (as including benefits) that the workers finally won speaks volumes on which side the government eventually fell on after ten years of negotiations. Demands for workers’ rights also explains the increasing trend for employers to now legally opt for short term contract labor, which is a loophole to hire and fire at will without at all having to meet any employer insurance obligations. It is a rarity at any rate, that the working class are taken seriously in a country with a sizeable middle class. Indeed, their agendas, however broadly operate in separate trajectories, with the former more inclined towards welfare and social services and the latter by and large aversed to taxes. They are by default marginalized not only by their small numbers but their small purchasing power. This is perhaps particularly more damning in Malaysia, where the poor are made to compete with low paying migrant workers for low skilled employment, which only further strengthens the spatial seperation between the Malaysian haves and have nots. Indeed, the class bubble is in many ways subconsciously self-reinforcing. How much we earn determines a great deal of what we can afford, and this in turn dictates where our money will be spent, effectively segmenting further the social orbits of those of high and low income brackets. The wealthy Malay will be far more likely to end up in the same gated community as the wealthy Chinese than the high density flats where poor Malays live side by side with migrant workers. As Malaysia’s economy slows down, the strain of everyday financial survival will be expressed at some point, somehow. The reality that prosperity and advancement, the promise of any market economy, is a distant dream for millions of Malaysians means that much hard work – which takes up the majority of any earnest employee’s time, if not life – is being unrecognized. Herein lies the real problem, and the point at which the sense of powerlessness ferments. But the absence of class consciousness in Malaysian politics suggests, worryingly, that cultural and ethnic concerns are poised to dominate the discourse of economic insecurities. This is no accident. Class politics have been forcefully suppressed to the wayside of Malaysian discourse over the past thirty years, when national trade unions and left parties were brutally suppressed while the rural Malay poor were actively patronized by the state. This effectively ensured that more and more Malays identified themselves in ethno-sectarian terms while standing behind the strong state that supposedly functioned to protect their interests. As middle class comforts seeped in so were the recently boosted privileges seen in more defensive lenses, appreciated against the possible threat of non-Malay usurpation, aided in no small part by a hegemony that encouraged at best only cold interracial relations. The circumstance to exploit sentiments to cloak economic issues is already ripe at any rate. Malay households constitute 56% of those earning less than RM 1500 a month. A recent study done at IKMAS at UKM showed that an average Bumiputera can rely only on one month of financial reserve in the event of unemployment. Post-script: Possible ways forward Beyond the flawed status quo and wet dreams of an unbridled free market, lies another alternative: Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia and Hakam have come together, with the support of the Islamic Renaissance Front and Projek Dialog, to campaign for the adoption of a Social Inclusion Act. This act calls for the establishment of the Social Inclusion Commission which will be spearheaded by 7 experts on the subject of welfare and growth with equity. What makes this commission unique is that it will be elected by a bipartisan parliamentary committee, effectively creating a bottom up approach in the problem solving process for poverty alleviation, income inequality, institutional discrimination and more inclusive welfare, among other things. True, the social inclusion act is just a modest beginning: it has no pretensions of being able to solve the problem of economic marginization in a country as complex as Malaysia, overnight. But having such a comission will at the very least give the discourse on social exclusion a more centered basis, as it will not merely be determined by the whims of one person, or be so dispersed as to be handled by several ministries at one time, with no real planned coordination on how resources will be spent and to what exact aim. It is a small step for the long march towards a more just and equitable Malaysia, but this need not be seen as a flaw for it is perhaps high time we realize that impatient and hasty development, the very base desire to get rich quickly, at all cost, was what led to this mess in the first place. It is high time that reason and moderation be given the driving seat. For more on the Social Inclusion Act visit: http://www.sayaanakbangsamalaysia.net
]]>Guru besar SJKT milik mutlak kaum India?
Oleh: Uthaya Sankar SB Semasa Konvensyen Halatuju Pendidikan Negara anjuran Yayasan Selangor di Universiti Selangor (Unisel) pada 18 November 2012, antara topik yang dibincangkan adalah mengenai kedudukan Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan Tamil (SJKT). [caption id="attachment_1157" align="alignleft" width="300"] Mampukah guru besar Bukan Kaum India menerajui kepimpinan di SJKT?[/caption] Jiwi Kathiah dari Yayasan Tamil mendedahkan pelbagai kepincangan yang wujud. Pada pandangan beliau, kerajaan pusat – “Barisan Nasional dan UMNO” kata beliau – sedang berusaha secara bersungguh-sungguh dan licik untuk menghapuskan SJKT secara terancang. Semasa mengulas pembentangan beliau pada sesi yang sama, saya mengemukakan pandangan berupa pertanyaan: Adakah mungkin nasib SJKT berubah jika guru besar sekolah-sekolah berkenaan terdiri daripada individu “Bukan Kaum India” dan bukan daripada aliran sekolah Tamil? Pertanyaan yang sama pernah saya kemukakan menerusi ruangan status Facebook pada 5 November 2012 dan mendapat pelbagai reaksi – dan reaksi yang pelbagai – daripada rakan-rakan dan kenalan. Untuk berlaku adil, saya memutuskan untuk memaparkan pandangan mereka sepenuhnya di sini bagi tujuan dialog; dengan sedikit penyuntingan bahasa serta penterjemahan bagi pandangan yang dikemukakan dalam Bahasa Inggeris. Mohd Dawamuddin Abdul Hadi (Bulan Senyum), pelajar IPT, Kuala Lumpur: Ada kepelbagaian bahasa, adat resam, bahasa dan kaum tetapi guru besar SJKT mesti fasih dan pakar dalam Bahasa Tamil. Rosihan Amri Md Zakaria, guru di Bayan Baru, Pulau Pinang: Bagi saya, tak ada masalah asalkan guru besar itu memahami budaya, bahasa dan sistem SJKT. Tapi saya rasa perlu seorang guru besar daripada kaum India kerana mereka lebih memahami. Mungkin satu hari nanti, jika rakyat Malaysia boleh memahami dan menghayati budaya, bahasa kaum lain, orang Bukan Kaum India juga boleh menjawat jawatan guru besar SJKT. Revathi, Kedah: Bagaimana mereka boleh memahami situasi sekolah, masyarakat dan latar belakang murid-murid Tamil jika mereka bukan kaum India? Cara hidup murid Tamil pasti terlalu asing bagi mereka. Saya yakin bahawa ia bukan satu cadangan yang baik untuk meletakkan individu Bukan Kaum India sebagai guru besar SJKT. Mohd Dawamuddin Abdul Hadi: Perlu ada sukatan pelajaran yang sesuai mengikut masa, keadaan, tempat dan sesuai dengan tuntutan zaman. Guru besar itu sendiri perlu berusaha memahami keadaan di sesebuah sekolah. Rosihan Amri Md Zakaria: Rakyat Malaysia mestilah belajar, memahami dan menghormati kaum, bahasa dan budaya orang lain. Apabila memahami dan menghormati, barulah pergaulan dan aktiviti sesama kita dapat dipelbagaikan. Adam Farhan, pekerja swasta, Shah Alam: Seorang ketua atau pemimpin perlu memahami golongan yang dipimpin. Maka, tiada masalah jika beliau “khatam” akan perihal mereka yang dipimpin di SJKT itu. Sesuaikan diri, bak kata pepatah Melayu, masuk ke kandang kambing mengembek. Nagathisen Katahenggam, Jelutung, Pulau Pinang: Tidak wujud masalah asalkan guru besar itu faham budaya Tamil, mampu bertutur Bahasa Tamil dan bersikap neutral tanpa ada agenda halus lain. Tetapi realitinya, agak sukar mencari guru besar dengan kelayakan demikian daripada golongan Bukan Kaum India. Cikgu Suguz, guru, Shah Alam: Oleh sebab hal ini berkaitan dengan bahasa ibunda, saya rasa lebih baik jika guru besar adalah daripada kaum India. Nadia Ali, Pulau Pinang: Tidak menjadi masalah langsung jika guru besar Bukan Kaum India ditempatkan di SJKT. Tapi akan membuatkan pula kita tertanya-tanya ke mana perginya guru besar yang berkelayakan daripada kalangan kaum India. [caption id="attachment_1158" align="alignright" width="300"] Murid-murid di SJKT perlu diberi peluang bergaul dengan guru pelbagai kaum dan budaya.[/caption] Azrul Hisham Abu Said (Hisham Tok Wan), jurutera bunyi, Kota Damansara: Saya rasa tidak ada apa-apa masalah mengenai hal ini. Cuma untuk merealisasikannya, saya rasa amat jauh lagi. Dari segi hukum keagamaan, kenegaraan, hukum adat masyarakat serta hukum falsafah keilmuan, rasanya kita tidak perlu pening-pening memikirkannya kerana pasti boleh dilakukan jika mahu. Apa pun, pendidikan mengenai kepelbagaian budaya dan agama masyarakat Malaysia harus kita fokuskan terlebih dahulu sebagai persiapan ke arah itu. Saya turut mengemukakan persoalan sama untuk didialogkan di laman Facebook milik “Human Rights Party (HRP) Malaysia Support Group” kerana pelbagai topik hangat selalu dibincangkan di sana. Bagaimanapun, hanya beberapa individu tampil berdialog berhubung topik meletakkan guru besar daripada kalangan Bukan Kaum India di SJKT. Siva Sankhar, Batu Caves: Dalam keadaan tenat yang sedang dialami SJKT, memang ini satu cadangan yang baik. Biarlah SJKT diterajui guru besar Bukan Kaum India. Terdapat guru besar kaum India di SK, jadi tak jadi masalah jika ada guru besar Bukan Kaum India di SJKT. Sugu Maran, graduan UPM: Saya tidak setuju dengan pandangan ini kerana guru besar daripada kalangan Bukan Melayu tidak ramai. Bilangan kakitangan kerajaan merangkumi guru besar dan guru-guru SJKT. Maka, jika guru besar SJKT terdiri daripada kalangan Bukan Kaum India, mungkin menjejaskan peratusan kaum India dalam sektor awam. Mathavan Velayutham, pelajar IPTA, Seremban: Sekolah Kebangsaan (SK) boleh diterajui oleh mana-mana kaum yang memahami hasrat dan menguasai bahasa kebangsaan. Manakala bagi SJKT dan SJKC, mestilah diterajui guru besar yang mempunyai kepakaran dalam bahasa ibunda yang menjadi bahasa perhubungan dan bahasa pengantar di sekolah terbabit. Sebagai contoh, seorang doktor boleh memandu kereta tetapi seorang pemandu kereta tidak boleh menjadi doktor. Johnson Doss, Kajang: SJKT dan SJKC perlu diterajui individu yang tahu dan menguasai bahasa ibunda dan budaya kaum terbabit. Memang ada guru besar daripada kalangan kaum India di SK tetapi bagi SJKT dan SJKC, lebih baik jika guru besar daripada kaum itu sendiri yang berkelayakan dan memahami cara-cara mentadbir sekolah dengan baik. Vicknes Loganathan, Shah Alam: Saya percaya bahawa individu mana-mana kaum boleh menjadi guru nesar di SJKT tetapi beliau wajib menguasai Bahasa Tamil. Beliau juga perlu mampu menyesuaikan diri dengan budaya kaum India selain sensitif terhadap budaya Tamil dan keperluan murid-murid di SJKT. Apabila membaca pelbagai pandangan yang dikemukakan, saya mula tertanya-tanya mengapa kehadiran guru daripada kalangan Bukan Kaum India boleh diterima di SJKT tetapi kebanyakan anggota masyarakat kurang setuju dengan kehadiran guru besar Bukan Kaum India. Saya turut mengemukakan pertanyaan tambahan itu untuk mendapatkan reaksi rakan-rakan menerusi Facebook. [caption id="attachment_1159" align="alignright" width="300"] Pencapaian SJKT semakin meningkat dalam pelbagai bidang.[/caption] Vijay Saravanen Vasudevan: Kalau Dong Zong boleh dengan begitu berani dan tegas menolak guru besar Bukan Kaum Cina yang tidak tahu Bahasa Mandarin ditempatkan di SJKC, mengapa pula kaum India perlu melepaskan hak yang serupa dalam hal SJKT? Azrul Hisham Abu Said: Guru biasa boleh diterima tetapi guru besar adalah pemimpin bagi guru dan sekolah berkenaan. Cikgu Suguz: Guru-guru hanya mengajar mata pelajaran tertentu manakala guru besar menerajui kepimpinan sekolah. Nagathisen Katahenggam: Kehadiran guru besar Bukan Kaum India di SJKT tidak harus dijadikan isu. Mereka hanya menjalankan tugas seperti diarahkan kementerian dan jabatan. Kehadiran mereka juga akan mewujudkan suasana majmuk di sekolah serta mencerminkan realiti kepelbagaian bahasa, kaum dan budaya di Malaysia. Antonie William, Pulau Pinang: Apabila bercakap tentang memberi peluang guru besar Bukan Kaum India menerajui SJKT, saya mahu bertanya, bolehkan individu kaum India diberi jawatan guru besar di SK dan SJKC? Fikirkan. Kalidas Muniandy, Pulau Pinang: Saya setuju dengan Antonie William. Sekarang ini pun, berapa ramai guru besar daripada kalangan Bukan Melayu di SK? Kalau mahu amalkan, biarlah adil sama rata. Arivananthan Marimuthu, guru, Puchong: Guru besar Bukan Kaum India boleh ditempatkan di SJKT asalkan mereka boleh bercakap dan menulis Bahasa Tamil. Syarat ini adalah wajar kerana guru-guru kaum India di SK dan SJKC sebenarnya mampu bercakap dan menulis dalam Bahasa Malaysia atau Mandarin. Pandangan-pandangan yang dikemukakan ini memberikan sedikit gambaran asas mengenai sikap dan pendirian masyarakat berhubung cadangan meletakkan individu Bukan Kaum India sebagai guru besar di SJKT. Tentu sahaja segala pandangan dan cadangan ini terbuka untuk dibahas dan didialogkan.
]]>PERNYATAAN SOLIDARITI NASIONAL PROJEK DIALOG DAN PUSAT KOMAS: “KATAKAN TIDAK KEPADA RASISME!”
SOKONG pernyataan ini di sini. Mengiktiraf bahawa Malaysia adalah sebuah negara yang mempunyai ciri sejarah yang kaya dengan nilai kepelbagaian kaum, agama dan budaya yang harmoni, kami:
- bimbang terhadap meningkatnya sentimen ras, kaum dan bangsa dalam arena politik Malaysia,
- gelisah dengan kadar tumpuan positif yang diberikan kepada perspektif rasis oleh akhbar media,
- tertekan dengan kemunculan pertubuhan eksklusif rasis ultra-nasionalis yang menyamar sebagai pejuang bangsa,
- risau terhadap penyalahgunaan agama yang memberi alas an untuk amalan rasis dan politik anti-demokrasi,
- kecewa dengan penindasan yang berterusan ke atas kelompok minoriti di atas nama agama,
- sedih terhadap ketiadaan konsepsi yang inklusif dalam penakrifan identiti rakyat Malaysia
- prihatin terhadap tiadanya usaha yang jitu untuk menghasilkan satu wacana yang kritis, ilmiah dan bermakna ke arah membahas nilai kepelbagaian rakyat Malaysia yang berbilang budaya, agama dan kepercayaan,
- alarmed at the rise of communal and racist sentiments in Malaysian politics,
- troubled at the rate of positive attention given to racist perspectives by the news media,
- distressed at the emergence of exclusive ethnocentric ultra-nationalist organizations masquerading as patriots,
- disturbed at the abuse of religion to legitimize racist and anti-democratic politics,
- dismayed at the continuous persecution of religious minorities,
- saddened by the continued absence of an inclusive conception of Malaysian identity,
- concerned about the lack of sustained attempts to foster real and meaningful conversations about diversity across Malaysians of varying cultures, religions and beliefs,
Ditandantagani oleh rakyat Malaysia dengan sokongan / Signed by Malaysians with the support of:
Aliran
All Women’s Action Society
#Better Penang
Borneo Youth Revolution
Buku Jalanan
BRIMAS (Borneo Resources Institute)
Center for Independent Journalism
CRIPS (Centre for Rights of Indigenous People of Sarawak)
Center for Policy Initiatives
Christian Federation of Malaysia (Persekutuan Kristian Malaysia)
Civil Rights Committee, KL-Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall
Community Action Network (chapter of Pax Romana – the International
Catholic Movement for Intellectual and Cultural Affairs)
Council of Churches Malaysia (Youth)
Diskopi
Friends in Conversation
Islamic Renaissance Front
Kelompok Mas Joko Dan Rakan-Rakan
Lawyers for Liberty
LABS (Legasi Ahmad Boestamam, Burhanuddin al-Helmy dan Pak Sako)
LEAP (Land, Empowerment, Animals, People)
Lim Lian Geok Cultural Development Center
Loka Mitta Buddhist Fellowship Malaysia
Mahasiswa Keadilan Malaysia
The Micah Mandate
Oriental Hearts and Minds Study Institute
PACOS Trust (Partners of Community Organization)
Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor (PSWS)
Perak Women for Women Society
Pusat Komas
Sisters in Islam
Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM)
SUARAM
Women’s Aid Organization
Writer Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI)
Young Buddhists Association of Malaysia
Youth Prep Centre
*For organizations who would like to be listed here, please contact editor@projekdialog.com ]]>Ulasan buku: Tiada Paksaan Dalam Agama
oleh Taha Jabir al-Alwani (terjemahan Yodi Indrayani & Al-Mustaqeem M. Radhi)
Penerbit: Institut Kajian Dasar
Tahun: 2008, Rawang, Selangor
Mukasurat: 192
ISBN: 9789838840873Satu ULASAN BUKU oleh Mohamed Imran Mohamed Taib. “Persoalan riddah adalah melulu persoalan politik. Dulu, sekarang, dan di hari kemudian, faktor agama di dalam persoalan riddah hanyalah faktor sekunder yang tidak ada ertinya dibandingkan dengan faktor politik.” – Taha Jabir al-Alwani [1] Pengenalan Riddah/irtidad atau murtad merupakan perkara yang sangat kontroversial di dunia Islam. Perbuatan meninggalkan Islam seringkali dilihat sebagai suatu pengkhianatan paling tinggi yang memerlukan hukuman keras, termasuk hukuman mati. Di zaman kontemporari, tidak sedikit kes-kes hukum bunuh yang dijatuhkan kepada si murtad di negara-negara Islam, sama ada secara sah mengikut perundangan negara ataupun tidak, dan disorot media ataupun tidak. Jikapun tidak dibunuh, beberapa negara Islam, termasuk Malaysia, mempunyai undang-undang yang membolehkan instrumen perhakiman negara menghukum mereka yang didapati bersalah meninggalkan Islam dengan rela hati.[2] Oleh itu, terdapat perdebatan hangat di kalangan umat Islam dan juga bukan Islam sama ada hukuman murtad melanggar prinsip ‘kebebasan beragama/berkeyakinan’ yang menjadi salah satu dasar penting hak asasi manusia di dunia moden ini.[3] Di kalangan ulama kontemporari, terjadi juga upaya memikirulang korpus perundangan Islam berkaitan hukuman bagi perbuatan meninggalkan Islam, yang rata-ratanya menggariskan hukuman keras termasuk hukum bunuh.[4] Inilah yang menjadi persoalan utama yang dikupas oleh pemikir dan ulama tersohor kontemporari, Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani. Kontroversi Penerbitan Buku Tiada Paksaan dalam Agama adalah terjemahan dari buku bahasa Arab berjudul La Ikraha fi al-Din. Menurut Taha Jabir al-Alwani sendiri (atau ringkasnya, Shaykh Taha), buku ini bermula sebagai sebuah makalah yang ditulis pada tahun 1992. Namun, ianya tidak diterbitkan kerana ada desakan bahawa penerbitan makalah ini akan mendatangkan kesan buruk kepada institusi yang beliau pimpin, iaitu International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). Enam tahun setelah beliau berundur dari IIIT, iaitu sekitar tahun 2002, barulah La Ikraha fi al-Din mula dibaca. Hanya pada tahun 2011, IIIT menerbitkan versi Bahasa Inggerisnya yang diubahsuai dengan judul Apostasy in Islam: A Historical and Scriptural Analysis. Sebagai seorang sarjana dan faqih [ahli fikih], keputusan menyebarkan makalah yang berpotensi mendatangkan kontroversi berpijak dari pendirian penulis bahawa beliau “tidak ingin menyembunyikan apa yang kami [penulis] pelajari hanya kerana takut memicu perpecahan atau silang pendapat.” Baginya, “Turats [warisan/tradisi ilmu] umat kami adalahturats yang kaya. Turats umat kami adalah turats yang tidak takut pada kritikan dan penilaian.” Oleh sebab itulah penulis mengambil keputusan menyebarkan hasil kajiannya yang melawan arus pemikiran umum di kalangan ulama terdahulu bahawa perbuatan murtad merupakan jenayah yang harus dihukum sekeras-kerasnya. Pendapat Taha Jabir al-Alwani merupakan suatu upaya memikirulang dan mengkritik pendapat ulama terdahulu melalui kaedah yang berpijak pada sumber yang sama, iaitu al-Qur’an dan Hadis. Pada masa yang sama, beliau menggali pendapat alternatif yang sebenarnya wujud tetapi terpinggir di dalam warisan fikih Islam. Inilah kekuatan utama karya beliau. Kerana beliau merupakan pemikir, pemimpin dan ulama yang disegani dunia Islam umumnya, hasil ijtihadnya mengenai persoalan murtad wajar diketahui umum dan mendapat posisi penting di dalam perdebatan pembaharuan hukum Islam. Malah, pendiriannya bukanlah sesuatu yang pinggiran di kalangan ulama kontemporari yang tidak diragukan kesarjanaan Islam mereka. Menurut Shaykh Taha sendiri, para ulama yang disegani dunia Islam, seperti Mahmud Syaltut [w.1963] dan Muhammad Abu Zahrah [w.1974], berpendirian sama sepertinya, iaitu mendukung prinsip kebebasan beragama dan menolak adanya hukum bunuh di dalam persoalan riddah. “Namun sayang,” jelas Shaykh Taha, “para ulama tersebut tidak mahu menyuarakan pendapat mereka secara terang-terangan.” Kesannya, pembahasan mengenai isu riddah terbuka di dalam keadaan yang tergantung tanpa adanya penyelesaian tuntas. Perkara ini memboleh golongan yang berkepentingan politik mempergunakan persoalan riddah untuk membangkitkan sentimen awam demi kepentingan masing-masing. Pokok Persoalan Di dalam buku Tiada Paksaan dalam Agama, Shaykh Taha memulakan perbincangan dengan menolak pendapat adanya ‘ijmak ulama’ [kesepakatan para ulama] mengenai hukum bunuh yang wajib dikenakan bagi orang yang murtad. Menurutnya, mereka yang menggunakan argumen adanya ‘ijmak ulama’ sebenarnya mencari jalan pintas untuk menyelesaikan persoalan fikih yang sebenarnya kaya dengan perbezaan pendapat di kalangan ulama terdahulu.[5] Selama tiga abad pertama zaman permulaan Islam, para sahabat Nabi seperti Umar ibn al-Khattab [w.644], Ibrahim al-Nakha’i [w.715] dan Sufyan al-Tsauri [w.778] telahpun bersilang pendapat dan mengatakan tidak wajib menerapkan hadd riddah[hukuman maksimum untuk pemurtadan]. Jadi, mereka yang menggunakan argumen ‘ijmak ulama’ sebenarnya mahu menutup pintu bagi para ulama generasi mendatang untuk mengkaji ulang persoalan riddah ini. Pada masa yang sama, penulis juga mengambil pendirian yang berani dalam mengatakan bahawa “persoalan riddah adalah melulu persoalan politik” dan faktor agama di dalam persoalan riddah hanyalah faktor kedua “yang tidak ada ertinya dibandingkan dengan faktor politik.” Apa yang menarik ialah bagaimana penulis tiba kepada kesimpulan ini melalui pengalamannya sendiri sewaktu Parti Ba’ath yang menjatuhkan pemerintahan Iraq melalui kudeta pada tahun 1963, meminta beliau dan tiga ulama ternama Shi’i dan Sunni lainnya memberi fatwa hukum bunuh terhadap ribuan pegawai negara yang kononnya telah ‘murtad’ atas dasar memegang fahaman dan menjadi anggota parti komunis. Ternyata, fatwa yang diminta mempunyai motif politik, iaitu menghapuskan musuh dan pesaing Parti Ba’ath. Beberapa kes lain yang terjadi di dunia Islam juga disebut sebagai contoh memperkuatkan kesimpulan penulis bahawa persoalan riddah terkait dengan persoalan politik – sama ada politik Barat yang menggunakan isu riddah sebagai bahan memomok-momokkan Islam ataupun politik para penguasa Islam sendiri yang menjadikan isu ini sebagai jalan mudah mendapatkan legitimasi kuasa sebagai penegak hukum Islam.[6] Makanya, kita seharusnya awas setiap kali muncul suara-suara yang terlalu gopoh meneriak hukum bunuh terhadap orang yang murtad atas alasan sudah adanya kesepakatan ulama dalam hal ini. Melalui kajian atas sumber-sumber autoritatif Islam, Shaykh Taha mendapat jawapan sebaliknya yang menyokong pendapat adanya prinsip kebebasan beragama (sesuai dengan keyakinan masing-masing) dan tidak adanya hukuman bunuh bagi orang yang murtad kecuali jika perbuatannya itu berunsur pengkhianatan [treason] yang membahayakan negara atau kelompok Islam yang ditinggalkannya. Sikap dan Nilai dalam Berwacana Satu sudut persoalan riddah ini tidak dapat diwacanakan secara jernih melalui perspektif fikih di dalam masyarakat, ialah terjadinya polarisasi yang menyimpulkan persepsi terhadap pendirian yang menyokong atau tidak akan prinsip kebebasan dalam beragama. Wujudnya polarisasi berdasarkan persepsi sangat kuat sehingga Shaykh Taha sendiri terpaksa menjelaskan bahawa pendiriannya yang mendukung kebebasan beragama “tidak terpengaruh oleh fahaman liberal atau pandangan-pandangan Barat”. Sebaliknya, beliau menekankan bahawa pendiriannya bersumber dari penggunaan kaedah-kaedah Islam yang tulen sebagaimana ulama-ulama terdahulu memperlakukan nas-nas al-Qur’an dan hadis dalam membina hujah. Turats atau tradisi keislaman, menurutnya, kaya untuk digali demi mencari jalan keluar terhadap berbagai macam persoalan kontemporari yang melanda umat Islam. Namun, ianya memerlukan nilai-nilai keilmiahan, keobjektifan dan kejujuran akal dalam menghadapi persoalan kontemporari. Di dalam hal ini, jelas sikap progresif penulis yang menyeru kepada (1) proses penglibatan para pemikir dan budayawan yang mempunyai pandangan keislaman objektif dan ilmiah; (2) membantu dan bekerjasama dengan ikhlas dalam membangun, menyokong dan menjaga lembaga-lembaga masyarakat sivil yang dapat membangun kesedaran ke arah perbaikan dan perubahan; (3) memberi kesempatan para fuqaha dan ilmuwan sosial menilaiturats secara ikhlas dan menggunakan metodologi ilmiah yang objektif; dan (4) membezakan antara turats yang memberi daya dorong kepada umat dengan turats yang menghambat dan menghalang gerak umat. Inti Perbahasan Secara umum, Shaykh Taha memfokuskan perbahasan pada dua sumber utama yang autoritatif di dalam Islam, iaitu al-Qur’an dan hadis. Sesuai dengan kaedah ulama-ulama terdahulu yang memberatkan pendefinisian masalah terlebih dahulu, beliau menjelaskan bahawa istilah hadd di dalam al-Qur’an sebenarnya bermaksud sekadar “syariat dan hukum Allah” yang umumnya beragam [7], dan bukannya “hukuman” secara khusus. Di sinilah kekeliruan berlaku. Oleh kerana hadd (atau majmuknya, hudud) ditakrifkan oleh ahli fikih sebagai sekadar “hukuman yang bentuknya ditentukan”, ianya membuka ruang kepada “Islam Politik” menggunakan syariat Islam secara sempit dan untuk tujuan politik semata-mata. Baginya, peneriakkan jargon-jargon “penerapan syariat” berpunca dari salahfaham akan istilah hadd di dalam bahasa al-Qur’an. Jadi, langkah pertama ialah untuk kita keluar dari penyempitan istilah yang sering digunakan sebagai sarana politik untuk mendapatkan dukungan majoriti yang juga berfungsi untuk “menipu umat” demi kekuasaan. Dengan pengertian syariat dan hukum Tuhan yang lebih luas dan beragam, Shaykh Taha mula meneliti sejumlah ayat-ayat al-Qur’an yang berhubungkait dengan persoalan riddah. Melalui pendekatan tafsir corak maudu’i [bertema] ini, beliau menyimpulkan berikut: “Seluruh ayat yang berbicara tentang riddah dan irtidad…
- Yang pertama, melalui sanad Abu Daud, Nasai, Ibn Hibban dan Ibn Jarir yang meriwayatkan dari Ibnu Abbas, menceritakan kebiasaan wanita Arab jahiliyyah. Ketika anak kecil mereka meninggal dunia, mereka akan bernazar bahawa anak yang lahir selanjutnya akan diyahudikan. Lalu, ketika kelompok Yahudi Bani Nadhir diusir dari Madinah, ada di antara mereka merupakan anak orang-orang Ansar. Apabila orang-orang Ansar mahukan anak-anak mereka yang diyahudikan tidak ikut sama diusir, mereka memaksa anak-anak ini diislamkan. Makanya, turunlah ayat yang menegah umat Islam berbuat demikian atas dasar “tiada paksaan dalam agama”. Mengikut riwayat dari Sa’id bin Jubair, Nabi bersabda setelah turunnya ayat ini: “Allah telah memberi kebebasan memilih kepada sahabat-sahabat kalian. Jika mereka memilih untuk bergabung bersama kalian, maka mereka termasuk golongan kalian. Jika mereka memilih untuk bergabung bersama mereka, maka mereka termasuk golongan mereka.”
- Yang kedua, melalui sanad Ibnu Jarir dan ‘Ikrimah yang meriwayatkan dari Ibnu Abbas, menjelaskan ayat ini turun bagi menegah seorang lelaki bernama al-Hushain dari Bani Salim, yang ingin memaksa kedua orang anak lelakinya yang beragama Nasrani untuk ikut serta memasuki Islam sepertinya.
- Pertama, kebanyakan riwayat yang menjadi sandaran bagi hukum bunuh pesalah murtad merupakan hadis ahad. Maka janggal jika sesuatu perkara yang penting dan kejadian yang melibatkan ramai orang (contohnya, hadis yang mengatakan khalifah Islam, Ali bin Abi Talib telah membunuh orang-orang yang murtad dan membuang mayat-mayat mereka ke dalam api) hanya diriwayatkan oleh satu atau dua orang sahaja. Secara umumnya juga, hadis-hadis ini banyak menimbulkan keraguan akan aspek-aspek berkaitan sanad (jalur perawi), matan (inti hadis), makna, dan maksudnya.
- Kedua, berdasarkan perbahasan dari bukti tulen dan masyhur, ternyata Nabi Muhammad sendiri tidak pernah membunuh seorang murtad pun sepanjang hayatnya.[11] Perkara ini ditegaskan juga oleh Imam Syafi’e yang menyebut: “Pada masa beliau [Rasulullah], ada sebahagian mukmin yang murtad, kemudian mukmin kembali. Kerana itu, Rasulullah tidak membunuh mereka.” Dari sudut sejarah dan dari sekian ramai yang beriman, ada yang menjadi murtad atau munafik (Shaykh Taha membahaskan beberapa contoh). Bahkan, ada juga yang sampai menyakiti baginda dan melakukan kejahatan terhadap beliau dan umat Islam. Tetapi, Nabi tidak pernah sampai membunuh mereka walaupun beliau mempunyai kuasa memperlakukan kekerasan terhadap mereka. Alasannya ialah seperti yang diriwayatkan di dalam satu hadis berkenaan Abu Abdullah bin Ubay bin Salul yang menjadi munafik yang berdendam dan ditanya sama ada mahu dibunuh; lalu Rasulullah bersabda, “Kita akan memperlakukannya dengan baik selama ia bersama kita. Agar tidak ada yang berkata: ‘Muhammad telah membunuhi sahabat-sahabatnya’.”
- Ketiga, dan yang paling utama menurut penulis, ialah persoalan posisi sunnah Nabi yang secara jelas tidak boleh berseberangan dengan apa yang dijelas dan dijamin oleh al-Qur’an (iaitu, kebebasan berkeyakinan serta wewenang Tuhan, bukan manusia, dalam soal hukuman bagi yang murtad – yang hanya terjadi di akhirat kelak). Jadi, tidak sah kalau beberapa buah hadis yang ahad dan didebatkan sanad,matan, makna dan maksudnya, digunakan bagi melewati ayat-ayat al-Qur’an yang jelas dan hampir mencapai jumlah dua ratus ayat yang mendukung prinsip kebebasan berkeyakinan. Di dalam kaedah fikih, penting bagi para pembahas isu murtad ini mengedepankan wahyu (al-Qur’an) daripada sunnah atau hadis-hadis yang lemah dan mendatangkan keraguan.
Bebaskan Ahmad Abdul Jalil
http://stevensim.wordpress.com/2012/11/06/press-bebaskan-ahmad-abdul-jalil-serta-merta/
]]>Malaysia – revisiting the secular state debate
By Dr. Ahmad Farouk Musa, a director at Islamic Renaissance Front. This essay was presented at a dialogue on Islamic State: Which Version, Whose Responsibility at the Full Gospel Tabernacle, USJ Selangor, Malaysia on 3rdNovember 2012 One of the most contentious issues in our country is the debate on Islamic State vis-à-vis Secular State. It should be highlighted at this initial point that the Islamic State concept was borne out only early in the twentieth century after the demise of the Ottoman Caliphate. Irrespective of which divide we are on, one basic fact that we have to agree upon is that the terminology Dawlah Islamiyyahor Islamic State was never mentioned in the Qur’an. However, Islamic State remains the main agenda of political Islam that defines Islam as ad-deen wa-dawlah or “religion and state”. It could be argued that since there is no single predominant interpretation of what an Islamic state is, a vicious contestation still exists among the Islamists about the concept of Islamic State. The realm of as-siyasi – the political It is also worth noting from historical evidence that Muslims have been fighting against each other for centuries over political power. Rachid Ghannouchi leader of Hizb en-Nahda – The Renaissance Party – quotes a renowned Muslim historian, Shahrastani, as saying that it was on a question of political power that Muslims drew sword, fought each other and shed blood of one another. And because of this, Ghannouchi distinguishes what he calls as ad-deeni – the religious, sacred or absolute – to that of as-siyasi – the political, profane or relative. The main problem Muslims especially are facing is in the realm of as-siyasi. Many Muslims including some conservative political activists from the Islamic Party especially in the Ulama’ and Youth wings are insistent on the idea of replicating the Medinan city-state model of the seventh century. The Qur’an is considered as a constitution that spells out everything that is needed to form a “truly Islamic” government. Obviously this understanding is anything but a fallacy. The Qur’an only lays the basic foundation that guides mankind. As the erudite Muhammad Asad said: “Every generation faces different circumstances and thus many laws and ways for society cannot be fixed for all time. This is also why the Qur’an fixes time-less law, ethics and restrictions that are universal in its appreciation. The companions of the Prophet were not left with a set of rules as to how to settle disputes or lead their worldly lives. However they were compelled to perform ijtihad or independent reasoning, using God-given faculty in order to find their own ways. The en-Nahda leader, Ghannouchi argues that if Islam is the final divine revelation to humanity then it is only appropriate that no fixed prescriptions are given for matters that are of a changing nature such as governing a country. Muslims should be able to exercise their independent reasoning to devise suitable solutions for emerging problems. And the result of this exercise, Islam is then suitable for all times and all places. Many Islamists argued that the Qur’an provides a solution to every single problem that faces humanity. Many verses have been cited to prove that Muslims need not find answers anywhere else. Among the most famous is: Today have I perfected your religious law for you, and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender unto Me – al-Islam – shall be your religion.” [al-Ma’idah – The Repast 5: 3]. And another verse is: ‘No single thing have We neglected in Our decree.” [Al-An’am – Cattle 6: 38] In interpreting these verses, Ghannouchi asserted that many misunderstood them to mean that the Holy Qur’an has a solution to every problem whether major or minor. However what these verses really meant is that while some answers are already there, which if considered absolute, belong to the realm ofad-deeni; only guidelines and foundations are provided in the case of as-siyasi,so that Muslims may search for the detailed answers in accordance with the requirements of their respective time and place. To exemplify this, Ghannouchi draws the attention to the Qur’anic declaration that: “And there is no living creature on earth but depends for its sustenance on God”. [Hud 11: 6] For in spite of such a declaration many creatures, including human communities, die of thirst and hunger. Where is then their sustenance? Their sustenance has indeed been stored in the earth and the heavens, but to become readily available, it requires exploring, an exertion of effort, on the part of those to whom it has been destined. The need for human intellectual exegesis Having said that, we have to acknowledge the fact that there exist shortcomings of a great deal of what we may believe to be sacred. The acceptance of God as Lord of the universe does not mean that everything is a priori. Islam is not a panacea that provides ready-made answers to all human problems. Muslim scholars have not solved all the problems of humanity, in history and for all times. Rather, Islam provides a moral and just perspective within which Muslims must find answer to all human problems. Ultimately governing a state is a human endeavor. And there is only one thing that could rescue us from our current impasse: democracy. Democracy is essential for any Muslim group and only democracy could guide Muslim societies towards Islam, where the operation of the community and the demands of Islam are freely debated and refashioned. This point needs further examination because a key and stubborn misperception of Muslims in regard to democracy is based on the notion that in Islam sovereignty belongs to God, while in democracy it belongs to people. This is a naive and erroneous notion or interpretation. God IS the true and ultimate Sovereign, but He has bestowed a level of freedom and responsibility upon the human beings in this world. God has decided not to function as the Sovereign in this world. He has blessed humanity with revelations and His essential guidance. We are to shape and conduct our lives, individually and collectively, according to that guidance. But even though essentially this guidance is based on divine revelation, its interpretation and implementation are human. God does not seek to regulate all human affairs and instead leaves human being considerable latitude in regulating their own affairs. In the Qur’anic discourse, God commanded the angels to honor man because of the miracle of human intellect – an expression of the abilities of the divine. When we humans, search for ways to approximate God’s beauty and justice, we do not deny God’s sovereignty; instead we honor it. But if we were to say that the only legitimate source of law is the divine text, and that human experience and intellect are irrelevant to the pursuit of the divine will, then divine sovereignty will become an instrument of authoritarianism and an obstacle to democracy. And in effect, that authoritarian view denigrates God’s sovereignty. The democratic ideals It should be emphasized that a state has to govern the relations between human beings and the ultimate aim of the state is to set up a society based on justice and benevolence – or ‘adl and ihsan in the Qur’anic terms. ‘Adl andihsan are most fundamental human values and any state worth its salt has to strive to establish a society based on these values. But for this, no particular form of state is needed. Even an honest monarch can do it. It is for this reason that the holy Qur’an praises prophet-rulers like David and Solomon, who were kings and just rulers. But the Qur’an is also aware that such just rulers are normally far and few in between. The governance has to be as democratic as possible so that all adults can participate in it. If governance is left to an individual, or a monarch, the power may corrupt him or her as everyone knows absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is for this reason that the Qur’an refers to democratic governance when it says: “And those who respond to their Lord and keep up prayer, and whose affairs are (decided) by mutual consultation, and who spend out of what We have given them”. [Ash-Shura – Consultation 42: 38] Thus the mutual affairs – those pertaining to governance – should be conducted only by mutual consultation which in contemporary political parlance will be construed as democratic governance. Since in those days there was no well-defined practice of political democracy, the Qur’an refers to it as `amruhumshura baynahum, i.e. affairs to be conducted through mutual consultation, which is a very meaningful way of hinting at democracy. The Qur’an is thus against totalitarian or absolute monarchical rule. This injunction, implying government by consent and council, must be regarded as one of the fundamental clauses of all Qur’anic legislation relating to statecrafts, and is binding on all Muslims and for all times as asserted by Muhammad Asad, in his book, State and Government in Islam. Whether the people will decide to choose the path to heaven or hell is a human decision. Whether they will choose Islam or another path, it is a human decision. Whether people will choose to organize their lives based on Islam or not is a human decision. It can be argued that for making wrong choices in this world, Muslims might be facing negative consequences in the life hereafter. But, still it is a matter of choice; there is no room for compulsion or imposition. Then what happens when the society and leadership faces a conflict where for example the majority of the Muslim society does not want to uphold Islam? It must be emphasized that the leadership cannot coerce the society into what it does not want. There is no compulsion or coercion in Islam. Coercion never delivers sustainable results, and the foundation of Islam cannot be based on coercion. Observe that God IS the sovereign from the viewpoint of Islamic reality, but not from practical standpoint. When our decisions are to be made based on Ijtihad – and we could be wrong; where our constitution and policies would be formulated through human consultation – and we can err; when our judicial system would be guided by the revealed guidance, yet, based on the evidence presented, there would be chance for an innocent to get convicted and a guilty to go free, God is not acting as a sovereign in this world. De jure in contrast to de facto Indeed, ruling a country is human endeavor. Nobody has the right to acclaim that his rule resembles God’s will and wish. Even a Mufti decreeing religious verdict should not assume infallibility. We have seen how a state in this country formulated an enactment that a Mufti’s verdict could not be challenged in the court of law. We shudder to think about the future if such a ruling party that upholds Guardianship of the Jurist or Kepimpinan Ulama rules this country. The recently enacted law was a clear breach of democracy and basically an exploitation of the democratic process towards authoritarian rule. When such an institution declares that God is the sovereign, then they have the legitimacy to impose their own rule or whims in the name of the sovereign. History is full of such abuses even in countries that claimed to impose Sharia. We have seen incidents where Sharia has been enforced for the people, but some powerful members of the Royal family or privileged ruling elites remained above the Sharia. Imposition of Sharia does not warrant a government to assume infallibility and that it is God’s shadow on earth. It is to be noted that we accept the fact that all systems of government are imperfect, and we have to be perpetually vigilant against abuses of any form of government. However, it may also be the case that a genuine and robust democracy is the least imperfect of all imperfect political models today. Again, since no particular Muslim can claim to have a theocratic authority, and since there are all sorts of Muslims with diverse views, ideas and aspirations, the only system that would be fair for all including those who do no profess the faith would be the one that would include all of them in the political process: a democracy. A secular democratic state It is argued then that the best state for Muslims is still a secular state that embraces democracy and will allow people to be Muslim by conviction and free choice, which is the only way one can be a Muslim. Under such a system of governance, it is agreed to respect the fundamental rights of all people irrespective of race and religion or social status without discrimination and without any commitment to religious frames of reference. What matters in such a system is that despotism is checked. One of the great accomplishments of secularism is the space it provides for pluralism and a reasonable degree of coexistence. Muslims have been able to live harmoniously in the majority non-Muslim societies for the first time in such significant numbers simply as a result of the secular revolution that liberated the state from the hegemony of the church. It should also be noted that there is a big difference between a secular state and a secularist one. The former is a state that is neutral to religion and respects the right of its citizens to live by their faith. A secularist state, on the other hand, is hostile to religion and wants to curb its influence in public life, and even in the lives of individual citizens. Accepting a secular state will allow Muslims not only to follow Islam in the way they genuinely believe but also to eliminate the endless discussions over the ideal “Islamic state” and its system like “Islamic economy” or even the disputable hudud laws. We should instead focus on the fundamentals of a civil state such as justice, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, good governance, separation of power, rule a of law, respect for human rights and economic equality. The road forward The issue is not about some mythical blending of “Islam” and “democracy.” All of us, Muslims and non-Muslims, are now citizens of a pluralistic society where we live together as neighbors. We have to begin by realizing the holistic nature of justice, and injustice; that what happens to a minority of us has a profound political and moral impact on all of us. If we are going to insist that Muslims in Europe or other non-Muslim majority countries are full and complete citizens, not merely tolerated guests, then moral consistency demands of us that we recognize the exact same set of rights and responsibilities for non-Muslim citizens in our society in this country. In other words, the fundamental commitment of justice demands that our commitment to democracy goes hand in hand with a robust notion of citizenship that encompasses every citizen of a country regardless of race, religion, gender, class and ethnicity. We have to honor the divine imperative to live justly, learn to be just to ourselves and to others. Constant striving is required to overcome the fragmentation to which most human beings are subjected in the technological age. We also have to embrace pluralism and to eliminate any form of sexism, racism, classism, and all forms of totalitarianism that lead to the injustices and inequities which characterize the country in which we live in today. “Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary!” [Reinhold Niebuhr in The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness]
]]>