29 April, 2008
IKIM must stress that jihad is your personal war. It is a war against your own heart. It is a war to resist all forms of temptation. It is a war to evict ego, lust, greed, envy, jealousy, vanity and all forms of diseases of the heart. It is a war very few win.
NO HOLD BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Jihad with its multitude of branches has very strict rules, especially when it relates to confrontation with an enemy.
ONE cannot find words strong enough to condemn the Sept 11, 2001 tragedy. It is not human if one does not share the pain and suffering that the affected families are going through and will endure for a long, long time to come.
Those who choose to define this violent act as jihad or “holy war” need to know that Islam is such a structured and comprehensive guidance that even the procedure to attend to the call of nature is explicitly taught to us by the Messenger of Allah. If one follows those rules while going to the bathroom, it becomes an act of worship.
Islam had nothing to do with this action (Sept 11), even if, after a thorough investigation, those that perpetrated it turned out to have Muslim names or had come from Muslim lands.
Islam does not permit violence. Unfortunately many ignorant Muslims and non-Muslims are not fully aware of this fact, or choose not to acknowledge it.
Jihad with its multitude of branches has very strict rules, especially when it relates to confrontation with an enemy. Indiscriminate killing or harming of women, children, old men, people who take refuge in their houses, animals and even plants, especially those of economic value, is forbidden at all cost.
War is permitted in Islam, just as it is permitted in many other religions, provided it is a pure act of defending the religion, life and state.
************************************************************************************
While I am very careful about disputing or debating the opinions of religious scholars (because many view me as a ‘deviant’ Muslim not worthy of commenting on matters related to Islam), I cannot allow the above piece to pass without some form of ‘engagement’.
If you were to carefully note the gist of the article, it is apparent that the term ‘jihad’ has been taken only in the context of war, in particular a holy war in defence of Islam. No doubt IKIM has taken pains to mention that war is allowed by Islam, a necessary evil of sorts, but it must be waged only in defence of one’s life, limb, property and religion and not as an act of aggression. This can be interpreted as war is not only allowed, but becomes necessary, when one is the victim.
There is nothing Islamic about this at all. Whether one is a Muslim or not, this same concept would apply. You have a right to defend your property and your territory, your life and that of your family, your country and the freedom of your nation, your religion plus the freedom to practice your religion, and so on. Oppression and persecution must be opposed and it is the duty of mankind, Muslims not excluded, to come to the aid of others, even if they are not Muslims, who suffer oppression and persecution. This means, if a Muslim nation is acting unjustly towards non-Muslims, then Muslims must oppose their Muslim ‘brothers’ in defence of the oppressed non-Muslims.
Opposition to oppression and persecution must cut across religious lines. The oppressors must be opposed at all costs. It does not matter who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed. Muslims must fight the oppressing Muslims even if those oppressed are not of the Islamic faith. This is something the IKIM article did not mention.
Most importantly though, what the IKIM article did not mention is that jihad has nothing to do with war. There are many renowned Muslim scholars who disagree that jihad means war. Others would argue that there are two forms of jihad, one being war. Then, of course, there are those who equate jihad to war. Which of the three schools of thought is correct is up to one’s interpretation of Islam. The jury is still out on which is the correct interpretation. And rest assured that there are many interpretations of Islam and everyone believes that his or her interpretation is correct while the others are all wrong.
This not only holds true for Islam. All religions suffer from this and that is why we have many sects in most religions. And the different sects of the same religion would solve their differences by going to war and by killing each other. And, until today, the wars are still going on and millions die just because they have interpreted their holy book differently.
Anyway, the jihad that I am talking about -- which many scholars view as the correct interpretation and which IKIM did not elaborate -- is the ‘war’ against oneself. “Get thee behind me Satan,” some would say. The three ‘religions of the book’ believe that when Satan was evicted from Heaven, he made a ‘deal’ with God that he would mislead mankind to prove that humans, who are made from clay, are weak compared to Satan, who is made from fire. God agreed and challenged Satan to do his worst.
Since that day on, Satan has been attempting to inflict mankind with the ‘disease’ of greed, lust, vanity, jealousy, and much more. And this is the greatest penyakit (sickness) facing mankind. And God wants mankind to fight all forms of temptation that lurk in our heart.
Bearing arms in defence of God, King and Country is easy. Defending your life, family and property is also not that difficult when push comes to shove. But fighting against oneself is the true test of the pudding. We all have egos. We all feel lust. We all suffer from greed. Everyone is vain to a certain extent. And who does not get jealous? In some countries, crimes of passion are not a crime since it is very difficult to fight emotions, in particular jealousy.
So the greatest jihad is the war against your own heart. Some say that this is the only ‘war’ while others says that this is the greater jihad and armed conflict the smaller jihad. Nevertheless, this is the most difficult jihad and many lose this war, miserably.
Just look at what is going on in Malaysia. Just look at all those mosque-going, church-going and temple-going Malaysians. Many ‘religious’ people are the most corrupt. Rape, murder, corruption, abuse of power, oppression, persecution, etc., are committed by not only those who profess a religion but also by those who practice their religion to a fault (in particular leaders in government cum heads of religion). But some of these people are the worst people on the face of this earth. And the perfect gentleman appears to be those atheists and agnostics who are good because they are good at heart and not because they want to go to Heaven -- in fact they do not even believe that there is a Heaven and Hell.
IKIM must stress that jihad is your personal war. It is a war against your own heart. It is a war to resist all forms of temptation. It is a war to evict ego, lust, greed, envy, jealousy, vanity and all forms of diseases of the heart. It is a war very few win. It is a war that even the most religious Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. fall victim to in the battle against Satan.
The new de facto Minister of Law has many enemies, especially in Umno. His critics call him a drunk and an apostate (at least they don’t call him a womeniser, as what most Umno people are). But then I too have been accused by Umno people of the same ‘crime’; so it is no surprise. When Malays want to discredit you, they use these arguments against you. But Zaid is more Islamic than most Malays. At least Zaid opposes ‘un-Islamic’ laws, which most Malays support and defend as necessary.
Syeds are supposed to be descendants of the Prophet -- at least this is what Malays believe. But Syed Hamid Albar says that the ISA shall stay while the ‘drunkard apostate’ Minister is opposed to it. Who is more Islamic? Who is the better follower of Islamic teachings? Give me a ‘dunk apostate’ over the ‘Prophet’s descendant’ anytime. They are certainly better people.
This was what The Sun reported yesterday:
Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Zaid Ibrahim says he finds the Internal Security Act (ISA), which has been regarded as draconian by the Opposition and the legal fraternity, unacceptable.
"I am against any unjust and harsh law, and ISA and OSA (Official Secrets Act) are unacceptable to me," the de facto law minister said of his stand on the two Acts during an interview with Nanyang Siang Pau.
"In fact, I have stated my stand (on these laws) in my books," he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment