Islamic state...

Secular state limits religion? Hogwash! Islamic state limits Islam? Definitely !
I have been busying myself in Malaysia Today lately. Politics interests
me a lot but at present I am more inclined to be quiet on this topic.
There is a lot of deals going on at the backstage at this moment so I
am not going to spoil the fun.

However, the popular topic of religion, Islamic state vs Secular state
interest me deeply. I have been engaging one regular commentator in MT
who goes by the nick cabearth.

You can view it here: 'Syariah Court Ruling on Siti Fatimah Tan Is A Step In The Right Direction'

The issue is this. In one of his postings, he said

'What Malik Imtiaz and Haris Ibrahim is doing is to try to impose limitation normally imposed by secularism on all religion.'

Now how many of Muslims out there heard this from Ustadzs before?

Often. And in some cases, always.

These Islamists reasoning is simple. According to them, Secularism
impose limitation on religion, or ad-deen which is defined as way of
life, thus Secularism is, in cabearth's word, "100% contradictory to
Islam." Their conclusion is this, Muslims need an "Islamic State" to
'properly' adhere to the tenets of religion.

Does it?

So I pick up the challenge and argue with him, in which till this
article is written, no rebuttal came from him yet. If he did in
different website, please do highlight it to me.


My argument;

1. Islam is made up out of so many sects (Mazhabs) and school of
thoughts. We have Sunni, Syiah and Wahabi. And under them we have many
Mazhabs, such as Syafie, Maliki, Hanafi for the Sunnis, Jafariyah,
Imamiyah for Syiah. And under one Mazhabs, we have different school of
thoughts.

2. Let's take Malaysia as an example. The proposed 'Islamic State' by the local Islamists is based on Syafie rulings.

3. Among the criteria of this effort is this, the Syariah Law which is
going to be enforced would be based on Syafi'e rulings (Mazhab Syafi'e)

4. When this happen, it means that Syafi'e ruling would be enforced upon all Muslims regardless of their Mazhab.

5. Islam is not equal to Mazhab Syafi'e. Those who follows other Mazhabs are also Muslims.

6. When the Syafi'e rulings are enforce upon the followers of different
Mazhabs, it means that the proposed 'Islamic State', which is actually
a 'Syafi'e State', is in actual fact pose limitation on Islam.


Case study : The Ruling of marriage.

In Syafie's ruling, a single Muslim lady must have the permission of
her father before she can enter into any marriage. The father as a
'wali' have a final say. In some school of thought in Mazhab Syafi'e,
the father can even marry the daughter to anyone he pleases without the
permission or knowledge of the daughter and the marriage is legally
recognized and binding on the lady.

In Hanafi ruling, it is completely different. A single Muslim lady is
recognized as independent and can make decision on her own completely.
She can choose to marry whomsoever she pleases and she does not need to
get permission from anyone. The father does not have any legal right to
prevent the marriage. Even if her father protest, she could go on with
the marriage without any hassle.

The Malaysian Syariah Law on marriage is based on Syafi'e ruling. The
bride would need to get permission from her father to enter into
marriage.

The question now is this, what if there is a Muslim lady from the
Hanafi sect, who wants to get married to a man whom she chooses but
unfortunately her father does not agree to her choice?

In her own Mazhab, she could carry on with the marriage without any
hassle. The state will automatically marry her with the man of her
choice. And the marriage would be legally recognized.

But in Malaysia, she would be forced to accept Syafi'e ruling. She
would have to obtained permission from her father. All of this is
against the decree of the Hanafi's.

Enforcing the ruling of one particular Mazhab on to the followers of
different Mazhabs clearly imply one thing, an 'Islamic State' pose a
clear 'limitation on Islam' by discriminating other sects.

Syafi'e is not equal to Islam.


Secularism 101 for dummies

The main contention among the fundamentalists is this; secularism limits religions and thus it is anti-religion.

This is as good as saying that Islam is equal to Mazhab Syafi'e.

The truth is there is no one single secular concept for all. Secularism
itself varies in principles and practices and this is manifested in the
different nations throughout the world.

Take secularism in France and Sweden for example. We have a clear
example what constitute a hard secularism like in France or a soft
secularism in Sweden.

I still remember few years ago, there were some hue and cry from the
Islamists over the ruling that no French public schoolchildren should
be allowed to wear anything that symbolizes religion such as hijab for
Muslims, crosses for Christians and etc.

This incident is used by Islamists as evidence that secularism limits religion.

They got it all wrong.

In 2004, a court in Sweden sentenced an Iranian man to pay Mahr
(Islamic dowry) to his Iranian wife in a divorce case. The man accused
his wife of infidelity . In the decision, the court decided that since
both the plaintiff and defendant are Iranians, the court will then
adopt the Iranian law (in this case Syiah's Sharia Law) in its ruling.

Sweden is a secular state. It disestablished its state religion way
back in 2000. But it is well known that Sweden is adopting a soft
secularism approach. And the court case is an example of Sweden trying
its best to promote multiculturalism and tried to accommodate the
rulings from different traditions.

We should ask whether Malaysian Syariah Court or rather Malaysian
Syafi'e Court would be as accommodating to the Syiah's as the Swedish
court.

The Malaysian Syafi'e Court only cater the needs of Muslims from
Syafi'e sect. It discriminates other sects by enforcing rules from
Syafi'e on Muslims from other sects. With this in mind, how does a
secular state limits religion more than an Islamic State?


Conclusion

1. Secularism limits religion is a sweeping statement. There are many types of secularism.

2. Any Islamic state, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (and maybe Malaysia
in future) limits Islam itself by enforcing ruling from certain Mazhabs
only on all Muslims regardless of their mazhabs affiliation.

3. The claim that Syariah Law is to cater the needs of Muslims is
therefore FALSE. The existing Syariah Law, or more appropriately should
be call Syafi'e Law, will only cater the needs of Muslims from the
Syafi'e sect while discriminating other Muslims from different Mazhabs.

4. In comparison between Sweden and the present Malaysia, the secular
Sweden is more accommodating to Muslims compared to Malaysia.

5. Since secular Sweden is more accommodating to Muslims from different
mazhabs compare to Malaysia, which is more Islamic in nature? Malaysia
or Sweden?

ORANG KA wrote:SAUDARA MUD mencabar sya untuk menunjukkan dalil bahawa terdapatnya dalil bagi mewujudkan negara islam,bahkan saudara mempertikaikannya, perlu saudara ketahui bahawa kadang2 dalam quran tidak disebut secara detail tentang sesuatu hukum jadi didatangkan hukum dan dibolehkan ijtihad apabila tidak ada ketentuan hukum dalam quran dan sunnah.

Berkenaan dengan dalil kewajipan membina daulah islam saudara boleh rujuk Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradhawi dalam kitabnya "Min Fiqh Ad Daulah Fi al-Islam" muka surat 15.

Tak perlu saya detailkan di sini kerana harapan saya adalah supaya saudar MUD dapat baca sendiri dan faham dengan sebaiknya apa yang dimaksudkan oleh al-qaradhawi.

siru ala barakatillah

1. Daulah Madaniyah merujuk kepada Islam

-Daulah madaniyah yang berkuasa atas nama Islam, berdiri berdasarkan
bai'at dan mesyuarat orang-orangnya dipilih yang kuat dan dapat
dipercaya dapat dihandalkan dan berpengatahuaan.


2. Negara yang berdasarkan Hukum syariat dan konstitunal

-Daulah yang merujuk kepada syariat. Perlembagaan tercermin dalam
prinsip2 Islam dan hukum2 syariat yang disebutkan dalam al Quran dan
dijelas kan Sunnah Nabawi baik dalam masalah aqidah, ibadah, akhlak,
mu'amalah dsb


3. Daulah yang berdasarkan mesyuarat dan bukan kekuasaan ala kisra.

-Daulah Islam bukan kekuasaaan ala kisra dan kaisar, tidak berdasarkan warisan.


4. Daulah yang memberi petunjuk.

5. Daulah yg melindungi orang2 lemah

6. Daulah yang melindungi hak dan kebebasan

-Iaitu hak untuk hidup, hak milik, hak berkecukupan dalam hidup, hak dn kebebasan.


7. Daulah yg berperinsip dan berakhlak

Di bulan Ogos ini kira bulan kemerdekaan bagi kebanyakan negara di
rantau ini yang rata-ratanya mendapat kemerdekaan selepas peperangan
dunia kedua. Begitu juga sebilangan besar negara Islam di tempat yang
lain pun mendapat kemerdekaan. Setelah merdeka ertinya mereka bebas
dalam melaksanakan halatuju negara masing masing mengikut kehendak
mereka sendiri tanpa campurtangan pihak asing lagi.Ertinya bebaslah
dari cengkaman penjajah yang mana mengaut hasil usaha negara jajahan
untuk mengkayakan penjajah.

Baru2 ini timbul kembali isu negara
Islam atau sekular. Rata rata memahami sekular itu memisahkan ajaran
agama dengan dunia atau mana yang membawa keduniaan itu dikatakan
sekular.Pernah dahulu dikatakan sekolah yang ada adalah sekolah sekular
kerana mementingkan pelajaran akademik yang bersifat keduniaan dan
jika belajar di sekolah agama atau Arab atau pondok bukan pengajian
sekular. Bila sebut sekular terbayang kita akan hal dunia sahaja.Maksud
sekular yang sebenar adalah memisahkan urusan agama dengan dunia.
Ertinya segala urusan hal keagamaan dipisahkan dari hal dunia . Jadi
fahaman ini bertentangan dengan Islam kerana kita tidak boleh
memisahkan agama dalam kehidupan dan tiada pemisahan urusan agama dan
urusan dunia kerana Islam itu merupakan amalan hidup kita bukan sekadar
kepercayaan dan upacara tertentu sahaja

Maksud yang lebih luas
lagi jikalau sesuatu amalan yang tidak ada hubung kait dengan agama
adalah sekular.Fahaman sekular dianuti di negara barat kerana mereka
menolak agama disangkutkan dengan politik.Walaupun begitu tetapi

* Queen Elizabeth adalah ketua negara British dan ketua agama bagi Church Of England

* Turki ditolak permohonan untuk menganggotai EU kerana penduduknya Islam dan majoriti di Eropah adalah Kristian


* Kerajaan tidak memberi bantuan secara rasmi kemana mana pembinaan
gereja atau mana-mana instuisi agama tetapi mereka membantu atas projek
khidmat yang dilakukan oleh man- mana agama
* Lagu Kebangsaan British “Tuhan Selamatkan Permaisuri”(God Save The Queen)
* Motto negara USA “In God We Trust”

Inilah
beberapa contoh negara yang mengatakan mereka sekular begitu juga
fahaman komunis yang menolak Tuhan dan Agama, tetapi negara Russia
diterima menjadi pemerhati bagi OIC. Komunis amat popular bagi
sesetengah negara Arab .Mereka tidak mengambil komunis mungkin terlalu
ekstrim tetapi mengambil sosialis sebagai fahaman.Pernah ada salah
seorang ustaz saya temui mengatakan dia menyokong sosialis kerana
hampir sama dengan Islam.

Ada juga orang kata yang Astora Jabat
tu pun fahaman sosialis juga(nama asalnya Asae Tomaree, Jabat tu nama
kampungnya di Selatan Thai) Libya nama rasmi negaranya Jumhuriyah
Islamiyah Isytrakiah Libya(Republik Islam Sosialis Libya) bagi negara
yang meletakkan Islam sebagi nama rasmi negara hanyalah Iran dan
Pakistan sahaja di dunia ni. Bagi setengah negara lain pula meletakkan
Islam sebagai Agama Rasmi negara .Mungkin semua maklum akan hal negara
ini apakah benar benar melaksanakan Islam? Negara Islam bukan setakat
untuk melaksanakan Hudud sahaja.

Sebenarnya setiap apa amalan
kita yang tidak dikaitkan dengan Tuhan itulah sekular walaupun dilihat
mengerjakan ibadah.Contohnya dia menguruskan jenazah adalah ibadah
tetapi bila diniatkan kerana upah bukan lagi ibadah namanya dan
banyak lagi boleh diumpamakan . Ataupun bila sesorang untuk menuntut
ilmu dan dia tidak mengaitkan dengan Tuhan itupun dikatakan sekular
juga walaupun dia belajar ilmu untuk mengenal Allah SWT.S ebenarnya
semua ilmu itu datang dari Tuhan juga dan tidak hairan diwaktu dahulu
umat islam mengusai semua ilmu kerana mereka tidak memisahkan dirinya
kepada Tuhan.

Begitu juga dalam apa jua halnya pada diri dan
masyarakat dan negara jikalau telah memisahkan dengan agama(tuhan)
sudah dinamakan sekular tanpa disedari.

Jamal Zahalka,
PhD, a member of the Israeli Knesset (Balad Party - Arab), in a Feb.
28, 2007 interview posted on Z-Net online political magazine titled "A
State of all its Citizens," said:


"The
state should be the state of all its citizens, in equality. That’s
modern democracy, based on the equal human being, not the hierarchical
human being. This is so important that no one in Israeli politics can
ignore it. It explores the real nature of the Israeli state. Not just
equality between Jews and Arabs, but the very nature of the state.
Israel is not a secular state – it has not even reached the point of
separation of religion and state. You can’t separate religion and state
so long as the state is defined as a Jewish state. To come to the point
of separation of religion and state, the state should be the state of
all its citizens."



Feb. 28, 2007 -
Jamal Zahalka, PhD

James M. Wall, Senior Contributing Editor of the Christian Century, in a May 2, 1984 commentary titled "Placing Blame in a Religious State," wrote:



"It [Israel] was founded as a religious state and continues to measure itself by religious standards."



May 2, 1984 -
James M. Wall

awana87 wrote:

ORANG KA wrote:SAUDARA MUD mencabar sya untuk menunjukkan dalil bahawa terdapatnya dalil bagi mewujudkan negara islam,bahkan saudara mempertikaikannya, perlu saudara ketahui bahawa kadang2 dalam quran tidak disebut secara detail tentang sesuatu hukum jadi didatangkan hukum dan dibolehkan ijtihad apabila tidak ada ketentuan hukum dalam quran dan sunnah.

Berkenaan dengan dalil kewajipan membina daulah islam saudara boleh rujuk Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradhawi dalam kitabnya "Min Fiqh Ad Daulah Fi al-Islam" muka surat 15.

Tak perlu saya detailkan di sini kerana harapan saya adalah supaya saudar MUD dapat baca sendiri dan faham dengan sebaiknya apa yang dimaksudkan oleh al-qaradhawi.

siru ala barakatillah

saya menyokong tulisan saudara.mud ni mmg suke pertikai mcm2.lubang hidung yg busuk 2 pn dpn mata je.

mr.its wrote:hoih...hampa sembang paa laaa...orang ka and mud...ish...aku nk tgk 2 ekoq ni dok debat..mcm best jaa ampa nih...

mud_skipper wrote:

awana87 wrote:

ORANG KA wrote:SAUDARA MUD mencabar sya untuk menunjukkan dalil bahawa terdapatnya dalil bagi mewujudkan negara islam,bahkan saudara mempertikaikannya, perlu saudara ketahui bahawa kadang2 dalam quran tidak disebut secara detail tentang sesuatu hukum jadi didatangkan hukum dan dibolehkan ijtihad apabila tidak ada ketentuan hukum dalam quran dan sunnah.

Berkenaan dengan dalil kewajipan membina daulah islam saudara boleh rujuk Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradhawi dalam kitabnya "Min Fiqh Ad Daulah Fi al-Islam" muka surat 15.

Tak perlu saya detailkan di sini kerana harapan saya adalah supaya saudar MUD dapat baca sendiri dan faham dengan sebaiknya apa yang dimaksudkan oleh al-qaradhawi.

siru ala barakatillah

saya menyokong tulisan saudara.mud ni mmg suke pertikai mcm2.lubang hidung yg busuk 2 pn dpn mata je.

ini ler gune porum yob...bukan untuk menghentam oghang...cube kome buat percambahan minda sikit..