PERBEZAAN PENGGUNAAN KALIMAH ALLAH DALAM AGAMA ISLAM

PERBEZAAN PENGGUNAAN KALIMAH ALLAH DALAM AGAMA ISLAM
DAN AGAMA KRISTIAN

PROF MADYA DR KHADIJAH MOHD HAMBALI
JABATAN AKIDAH DAN PEMIKIRAN ISLAM,
AKADEMI PENGAJIAN ISLAM,
UNIVERSITI MALAYA

1. Realiti Nama Tuhan Dalam Agama Kristian

1.1 Penegasan penganut agama Kristian terhadap pemakaian istilah Allah sebagai kata ganti nama “God” dalam kitab-kitab terjemahan dan upacara-upacara keagamaan mereka hanya membuka kelemahan mereka kepada tatapan umum bahawa masyarakat Kristian tidak tahu nama sebenar Tuhan mereka.

1.2 Ajukanlah kepada sesiapa sahaja dalam kalangan penganut Kristian termasuk para paderi, nescaya pelbagai jawapan akan terpacul dari mulut mereka. Sebahagian daripada mereka akan merujuk kepada Jesus atau Yesus (Indonesia) sebagai Tuhan dan segelintirnya merujuk kepada Jeremiah, segolongan lagi merujuk kepada Allah. Terdapat juga penganut Kristian yang merujuk kepada Yahweh, Yehuwa, Yahova atau Jehovah. Ini kerana tidak terdapat satu pun istilah yang menepati dan merujuk kepada Tuhan dalam Bible penganut Kristian. Bible mereka yang terlalu kerap disunting tidak memaparkan nama Tuhan yang wajar disebut dalam ritual keagamaan Kristian.

1.3 Justeru, untuk mengelakkan kesukaran dan kekeliruan, penganut Kristian mengambil keputusan untuk meminjam nama Tuhan yang sering digunakan oleh masyarakat setempat. Sebagai contoh yang diperakui sendiri oleh para pemimpin Kristian Malaysia antaranya Joseph Masilamany yang mengemukakan pendapat bahawa─

“penggunaan perkataan “Allah” untuk merujuk kepada Tuhan dalam kalangan penganut agama Kristian telah diamalkan dengan meluas untuk beberapa generasi di banyak Negara dan bukan bertujuan menyinggung perasaan atau mengelirukan masyarakat Islam.”

1.4 Penyunting akhbar mingguan Katholik tempatan iaitu Paderi Lawrence Andrews dan Setiausaha Agung Majlis Gereja-Gereja Malaysia, Rev. Herman Shastri menyokong kenyataan tersebut. Paderi Lawrence dilaporkan mendakwa bahawa─

“Istilah ”Allah” yang digunakan oleh orang Kristian atau dalam tulisan mereka tidak bermaksud menggusarkan masyarakat Islam atau mencetuskan kekeliruan. Kami mengikut Bible. Bible dalam bahasa Melayu menggunakan “Allah” sebagai terjemahan istilah “God” dan “Tuhan” sebagai terjemahan untuk istilah “Lord”.” (The Sun: 24 Disember 2007)

1.5 Beliau seterusnya mendakwa bahawa─

“mulai awal abad ke-19, para penganut Katholik di Malaya telah pun memiliki buku-buku doa dalam bahasa Melayu dan perkataan “Allah” telah digunakan sebagai terjemahan kepada istilah “God”.”

1.6 Beliau turut menyatakan bahawa─

“para penganut Katholik Malta juga menggunakan perkataan “Allah” untuk merujuk kepada Tuhan dan demikian juga masyarakat Kristian di Indonesia, Pakistan dan Asia Barat.”




1.7 Menurut Rev. Herman Shastri─

“para penganut Kristian yang tinggal di Negara-Negara majoriti Muslim menggunakan kalimah “Allah” apabila merujuk kepada Tuhan dalam upacara doa umum (liturgy) mereka. Biarpun pihak berkuasa tidak membenarkan penggunaan perkataan-perkataan tertentu, pihak gereja akan terus memakainya kerana perkara ini bersangkut-paut dengan buku-buku suci kami.”

1.8 Selain itu, merujuk kepada sebuah buku bertajuk KEBENARAN YANG MEMBIMBING KEPADA HIDUP YANG KEKAL yang diterjemahkan oleh Kumpulan Siswa-Siswa Alkitab (Bible) Indonesia, cetakan tahun 1973, kumpulan penulis buku ini menceritakan tentang usaha mereka untuk menghapuskan semua bentuk “bidaah” yang wujud dalam masyarakat dan amalan Kristian di seluruh dunia.

1.9 Pihak Kristian sendiri mengakui bahawa mereka mengalami masalah besar untuk menentukan nama Tuhan mereka yang sebenar. Menurut mereka, nama Tuhan mereka sebagaimana yang terkumpul dan tercatat dalam kitab-kitab suci yang berada di tangan mereka hanya mencatatkan perkataan “YHWH” (diRomankan dari huruf-huruf bahasa Hebrew yang berbunyi “Yod, He, Vau, He” atau “Yet, Huv, Wah, Huv”). Bahasa Hebrew jarang menggunakan huruf-huruf vokal untuk memudahkan cara pembacaan dan bahasa ini hanya fasih dibaca oleh mereka yang bertutur dalam bahasa tersebut. Justeru, pihak pemimpin agama Yahudi (Rabbi) tidak dapat mengagak bentuk sebutan sebenar perkataan “YHWH” itu. Rabbi-Rabbi Yahudi mengharamkan mana-mana individu Yahudi dari menyebut perkataan “YHWH” tersebut kerana ketidakpastian yang timbul. Sehubungan dengan itu, sebagai alternatif, mereka memasukkan perkataan “Adonai ” atau adakalanya “Elohim” untuk diganti sebut apabila ternampak perkataan “YHWH” dalam kitab mereka. Menurut Rabbi Yahudi, menyebut “YHWH” tanpa mengetahui cara sebutannya yang betul akan mengundang dosa.

1.10 Dalam “New Testament” atau “Perjanjian Baru” pula yang bahasa asalnya adalah bahasa Greek, nama Tuhan disebut dengan perkataan “Kyri.os” yang diterjemahkan dalam bahasa Inggeris sebagai “Lord” dan perkataan “The.os” yang diterjemahkan dalam bahasa Inggeris sebagai “God”.

1.11 Justeru, realiti nama sebenar Tuhan dalam kedua-dua Old Testament dan New Testament (Perjanjian Lama dan Baru) yang terkandung dalam Bible menjadi suatu ketidakpastian sehingga kini. Ia kekal sebagai satu misteri sebagaimana agama mereka sendiri yang penuh dengan misteri-misteri yang tidak boleh dihuraikan oleh penganutnya.

1.12 Selepas abad ke-16, terdapat usaha-usaha daripada pihak sarjana Kristian untuk menyelesaikan masalah ini dengan memperkenalkan cara sebutan terbaik kepada perkataan “YHWH”. Segelintir membacanya dengan sebutan “YaHWeh” dengan memasukkan huruf vokal “a” dan “e”. Sesetengahnya pula menyebutnya dengan sebutan “YeHuWaH. Walaupun begitu, tanpa alasan yang kukuh, sebutan “YaHWeh” dan “YeHuWaH” tersebut bertukar menjadi Jehovah dalam beberapa mazhab Kristian seperti Protestant dan Jehovah Witnesses. Justeru, untuk mengelakkan sebarang kekeliruan, mazhab Kristian lain cuba dengan sedaya upaya mengelak daripada menggunakan perkataan tersebut. Sebagai langkah selamat mereka menggunakan apa saja nama yang biasa digunakan masyarakat setempat bagi menggambarkan identiti Tuhan.

1.13 Isu sebegini sewajarnya tidak timbul jika tiada sebarang percanggahan fakta mengenai nama Tuhan dalam Bible agama Kristian. Dalam Bible (versi King James), Tuhan sebagaimana dalam kitab suci mereka telah beberapa kali memperkenalkan namaNya untuk dikenali oleh masyarakat penganut Kristian dan Yahudi. Sebagai contoh pernyataan di bawah yang dipetik daripada Old Testament ─

Exodus, 6 : 2 & 3 (Bible Versi King James)

“6:2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jaco, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them”.

1.14 Kesimpulannya, pernyataan tersebut menjelaskan bahawa sebelum zaman Nabi Musa, Tuhan hanya dikenali dengan nama “God”, yang merupakan terjemahan bahasa Inggeris terhadap versi asal pernyataan dalam gospel Exodus yang bahasa asalnya adalah bahasa Hebrew yang menggunakan perkataan “YHWH” sebagai kata ganti nama diri Tuhan. Bermula dengan Nabi Musa, Tuhan mula memperkenalkan namaNya sebagai “YHWH”. Tetapi setelah diterjemahkan dan dipersetujui oleh sekumpulan sarjana Kristian, dalam versi King James ini mereka menukarkan “YHWH” dengan nama “Jehovah”. Hakikatnya, menurut sarjana Katholik, nama Jehovah itu sendiri tidak pernah dikenali pada zaman-zaman sebelum ini.

1.15 Sehubungan itu, sewajarnya pihak gereja di Malaysia menggunakan perkataan “Jehovah” atau “YaHWeH” atau “YeHuWa” atau “YHWH” dan banyak lagi nama yang disabitkan dengan Tuhan mereka yang sememangnya tercatat dalam kitab asal mereka dalam bahasa Hebrew dan Greek. Istilah “Allah” merujuk kepada Tuhan yang mempunyai kualiti-kualiti yang sewajarnya dipenuhi terlebih dahulu untuk melayakkan setiap sesuatu yang cuba mendakwa dirinya sebagai Allah. Semua ciri yang sewajibnya wujud pada Allah, sewajarnya menepati ciri-ciri yang disebut dalam surah Al-Ikhlas. Imam Turmudzi, Imam Hakim dan Imam Ibnu Khuzaimah telah meriwayatkan sebuah hadis melalui Abul ’Aliyah, yang ia terima daripada Ubay ibnu Ka’b, bahawasanya orang-orang Musyrik telah bertanya kepada Rasulullah s.a.w.: “Ceritakanlah kepada kami Rabbmu.” Maka Allah menurunkan firmanNya seperti dalam surah Al-Ikhlas─

”Katakanlah: ”Dialah Allah Yang Maha Esa”. Allah, Tuhan yang bergantung kepadaNya segala sesuatu. Dia tiada beranak dan tiada pula diperanakkan. Dan tiada yang setara denganNya”. (Al-Ikhlas : 1 - 4).

1.16 Selain itu, Professor Dr. Syed Tawfik Ali al-Attas telah melontarkan komentar yang amat bernas berhubung dengan penggunaan istilah ”Allah” dari aspek semantik. Beliau menegaskan bahawa cara untuk mempengaruhi pemikiran adalah melalui bahasa dan bahasa memberikan kesan terhadap cara seseorang berfikir. Kita telah diperingatkan oleh dakwaan penganut-penganut Kristian bahawa─

“Bible bahasa Melayu menggunakan “Allah” untuk “God” dan “Tuhan” untuk “Lord”.”.

1.17 Makna-makna bagi istilah tersebut dalam Bible bahasa Melayu yang mereka rujuk adalah jelas salah dan seolah-olah mereka ingin menunjuk dan mengajar orang-orang Melayu mengenai peristilahan yang betul dalam bahasa Melayu. Bahasa Melayu menterjemahkan istilah “Tuhan” untuk merujuk kepada “God” dan bukan istilah “Lord”. Orang Melayu memahami bahawa apabila istilah “ilah” digunakan, ia merujuk kepada istilah Inggeris “God” dan istilah Melayu “Tuhan”, dan apabila istilah Arab “rabb” digunakan, ia merujuk kepada istilah Inggeris “Lord”. Justeru, apabila kalimah syahadah diterjemahkan dalam bahasa Melayu, bunyinya adalah “tiada Tuhan melainkan Allah” yang diterjemahkan dalam bahasa Inggeris sebagai “there is no God except Allah”. Sekiranya istilah “God” diterjemahkan sebagai “Allah”, maka terjemahan tersebut akan berbunyi “Tiada Allah melainkan Allah” (“There is no Allah but Allah”), yang merupakan satu percanggahan. Terjemahan yang sebegitu janggal bukan sahaja mengeruh dan menimbulkan masalah, malah akan mengundang perselisihan dan rasa bingung.

1.18 Walau bagaimanapun, Paderi Lawrence sememangnya sarat dengan percanggahan. Beliau menggunakan rangkai kata “bahasa Malaysia” merujuk kepada bahasa yang digunakan dalam terbitan mingguan mereka untuk memenuhi keperluan “ramai penganut Katholik yang bertutur dalam bahasa Malaysia” di Negara ini. Beliau kemudiannya berhujah dengan menggunakan peristilahan yang terdapat hanya dalam bahasa Melayu dan bergantung kepada fakta dan ketetapan siasah dalam medan siasah yang diputuskan oleh Jemaah Menteri bahawa bahasa Melayu dirujuk sebagai “bahasa Malaysia”. Menurut Professor Dr Syed, apabila seseorang itu merujuk kepada satu bahasa yang mencerminkan faham-faham maknawi ajaran-ajaran atau kelaziman akidah yang tertentu (dalam hal ini bahasa Melayu) dia tidak seharusnya melalaikan pengertian penting bahasa tersebut bernisbah kepada bahasa-bahasa yang lain. Bahasa Melayu khusus bernisbah kepada orang-orang Melayu. Menurut Professor Dr. Syed, bahasa Melayu adalah satu bahasa yang faham-faham utamanya adalah berkenaan dengan hakikat insan dan nisbah antara yang kudus dengan yang nista yang telah dilahirkan dari rahim agama Islam dan kebudayaan Melayu. Budaya Melayu itu sendiri terhasil daripada agama Islam. Oleh itu, jika peristilahan dari agama lain mengenai faham-faham utama diterjemahkan dalam bahasa Melayu, ia wajib mencerminkan kelaziman Melayu yang berpunca daripada agama Islam. (Utusan Malaysia: 6 Januari 2008).

2. Analisis Perbandingan Konsep Tauhid dan Konsep Unitarian Aliran Eastern Church

2.1 Biarpun pelbagai penjelasan telah dikemukakan, pihak gereja begitu tegas dalam penggunaan kalimah Allah. Antara yang telah lama menggunakan istilah Allah adalah Gereja Timur yang sering dikaitkan sebagai gereja yang meyakini unitarian iaitu Tuhan adalah satu.

2.2 Pihak Gereja Timur sering mendakwa bahawa terdapat perbezaan yang jelas berhubung dengan konsep ketuhanan yang dipraktikkan oleh para penganut Kristian Roman Katholik di Negara Barat dengan para penganut Kristian di Negara Arab. Kebanyakan penganut Kristian di Negara Arab mempraktikkan agama Kristian Timur atau dikenali sebagai Eastern Church yang berpusat di Iskandariah atau Alexandariah. Para penganut Kristian Arab ini meyakini konsep ketuhanan mereka adalah unity iaitu tuhan adalah satu atau dirujuk sebagai esa.

2.3 Konsep unity merujuk kepada maksud konsep ketuhanan iaitu Allah (Tuhan) itu tidak mempunyai ciri Bapa, Anak dan “Hantu Suci” (Father, Son and Holy Ghost). Konsep Tuhan yang satu atau unity ini didakwa selari dengan konsep Allah yang Esa seperti yang dianuti dan diyakini oleh Muslim. Walau bagaimanapun, kenyataan atau dakwaan ini wajar diperhalusi untuk mengetahui kebenaran dan ketelusan konsep unity dan konsep tauhid.

2.4 The Encyclopedia of Christianity mendefinisikan maksud Eastern Church sebagai─

“Eastern Church is a relative term that goes back to the division of the – Roman Empire in 395 and denotes the church that developed in the eastern branch and that engaged in – mission beyond its borders. After the schism it came to be synonymous with Orthodoxy, in distinction from the Latin church of the West.” (Fahlbusch E. & Bromiley G.W:867)

2.5 Secara umum, Eastern Churches adalah mana-mana gereja (churches) yang lahir dan tumbuh di luar empayar Rom seperti Parsi, Syria, Armenia, Mesir, Etiopia dan India.

2.6 Apabila ditelusuri dengan lebih mendalam, tiada satu pun Eastern Church yang mempunyai akidah yang sama atau selaras dengan Islam dalam konsep ketuhanan. John Meyendorff, seorang pakar modern Orthodox menjelaskan di dalam bukunya Christ in Eastern Christian Thought bahawa─

“The true concept of God is Trinitarian.- A little ealier we mentioned the Cyrillian christological formula – ‘One of the Holy Trinity suffered in the flesh.’ – A formula sung at every liturgy as part of the hymm ‘Only Begotten Son’.” (Meyendorff J.:181)

2.7 Sergeǐ Nikolaevich Bolgakov turut menjelaskan di dalam The Orthodox Church bahawa─

“There is one fundamental Christian dogma confessed by St. Peter in the name of all Apostles and thus in the name of the Church: “Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This same dogma served as the subject of the Apostles at the time of Pentecost. Jesus Christ is the eternal Word, the Son of God, Who has taken upon Himself human nature, without division or confusion, true God and true man, Who came into the world to save mankind, died on the Cross, rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father, and Who will come again to this world for the Last Judgment and for His eternal reign. Concerning this article of faith there is no different whatever between Orthodoxy and the belief of Catholicism or those Anglicanism – at least Anglo-Catholicism-or those of orthodox Protentantism.” (Bulgakov S.N.:100-101)

2.8 Berasaskan penjelasan-penjelasan tersebut, umumnya, kesemua Eastern Church percaya kepada ketuhanan Jesus Christ dan hanya berbeza pendapat dalam beberapa perkara berkaitan dengan bentuk ketuhanan Jesus. Sebagai contoh dalam persoalan sama ada Jesus adalah sepenuhnya Tuhan sahaja atau sepenuhnya Tuhan pada masa yang sama sepenuhnya manusia.

2.9 Pernyataan-pernyataan tersebut jelas menunjukkan bahawa semua aliran Kristian sama ada Catholics, Protestants, atau Eastern Churches adalah berkonsepkan trinitirian dan bukannya unitarian dalam hal ketuhanan. Oleh itu, kenyataan yang menjelaskan bahawa keyakinan penganut Kristian di Negara Arab lebih menekankan konsep ketuhanan yang esa adalah tidak absah. Malah konsep keyakinannya adalah selaras dengan ketuhanan penganut Kristian di Negara Barat yang meyakini triniti. Apatah lagi, konsep unitarian ini sebenarnya berkembang pesat di Negara-Negara Eropah dan dibawa masuk ke Negara-Negara Arab. Justifikasi yang meletakkan keyakinan yang berasal dari Negara Arab adalah senada dengan keyakinan Islam adalah tidak wajar.

2.10 Selain itu, terdapat sebuah aliran gereja di Negara Mesir dan Syria yang dikenali sebagai Kristian Koptik atau Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria (Iskandariah). Gereja ini merupakan gereja terbesar bagi penganut Kristian di Mesir. Gereja ini juga sering dikaitkan sebagai mempraktikkan ketuhanan yang satu atau unity. Namun begitu, para penganut Coptic Church berfahaman bahawa Jesus Christ adalah tunggal, Tuhan sebenar dan manusia sebenar. Jesus Christ mempunyai sifat Tuhan dan juga sifat manusia (Otto Friedrich August Meinardus:54). Pemahaman dan keyakinan ini dikenali sebagai miaphysitism, iaitu istilah yang berlawanan dengan dyophysitsm yang menjadi keputusan Council of Chalcedon. Walaupun menolak keputusan Council of Chalcedon, jelas di sini Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria telah menganggap Jesus Christ mempunyai sifat ketuhanan.

2.11 Oleh itu, penganut-penganut Kristian di Negara Arab yang menggunakan kalimah Allah untuk merujuk kepada Tuhan yang esa adalah tidak absah dan amat bertentangan dengan konsep tauhid Islam walaupun mereka mendakwa bahawa unitarian lahir dalam Negara Arab yang memahami maksud unity berbanding trinity.

2.12 Allah S.W.T. menegur kesilapan dan kesalahan pemahaman ahli kitab di tanah Arab yang meyakini bahawa Isa al-Masih atau Jesus Christ adalah lebih daripada sekadar nabi dan juga pemahaman bahawa tuhan itu tiga (trinity). Firman Allah S.W.T. di dalam Al-Quran─

“Wahai Ahli Kitab (Yahudi dan Nasrani)! Janganlah kamu melampaui batas dalam perkara agama kamu dan janganlah kamu mengatakan sesuatu terhadap Allah melainkan yang benar; sesungguhny Al-Masih Isa Ibni Mariam itu hanya seorang Pesuruh Allah dan Kalimah Allah yang telah disampaikanNya kepada Mariam dan (dia juga tiupan) roh daripadaNya. Maka berimanlah kamu kepada Allah dan Rasul-rasulNya, dan janganlah kamu mengatakan: (Tuhan itu) tiga. Berhentilah (daripada mengatakan yang demikian) supaya menjadi kebaikan bagi kamu. Hanyasanya Allah ialah Tuhan Yang Maha Esa, Maha Suci Allah daripada mempunyai anak. Bagi Allah jualah segala yang ada di langit dan yang ada di bumi dan cukuplah Allah menjadi Pengawal (Yang Mentadbirkan sekalian makhlukNya).” [al-Nisa’ 4:171]

2.13 Ayat di atas memperlihatkan bahawa fahaman triniti bukanlah sesuatu yang asing bagi masyarakat Kristian di tanah Arab pada ketika itu. Justeru, dakwaan yang menyatakan unitarian lahir di dalam Negara Arab adalah wajar diselidiki.

2.14 Walau bagaimanapun, agama Kristian menegaskan bahawa trinity itu merupakan satu bentuk kewujudan Tuhan dalam tiga individu yang bersatu sebagai Tuhan yang satu. “YaHWeH” yang merupakan Tuhan pertama dalam trinity, wujud dalam bentuk spiritual, tanpa bentuk dan daging. Manakala individu kedua dalam trinity iaitu Jesus Christ adalah Tuhan yang mengambil bentuk manusia yang mempunyai dua sifat. Sifat pertamanya adalah berupa ketuhanan dan sifat keduanya berupa manusia. Manakala, Holy Ghost (Ruhul Qudus) pula wujud dalam bentuk roh dan sering digambarkan dalam mana-mana potret lukisan trinity sebagai burung merpati putih yang terbang dengan cahaya yang bersinar di belakangnya sebagai simbol keamanan atau sebagai puting beliung yang melambangkan simbol kekuatan. Gospel Matthew, 3:16 mengukuhkan kenyataan ini─

“3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, when up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him”.

Kesimpulannya, Tuhan dalam konsep trinity wujud dalam tiga bentuk yang bercanggahan dengan Tuhan Yang Maha Esa sebagaimana yang diyakini oleh Yahudi dalam kitab Perjanjian Lama mereka yang merupakan sebahagian daripada Bible.


3. Realiti Sejarah Penggunaan Kalimah Allah

3.1 Apabila ditelusuri aspek sejarah, tidak dapat dinafikan bahawa penggunaan kalimah Allah ini telah lama digunakan dalam kalangan bangsa Arab sebelum lagi penurunan al-Qur’an mahupun perlantikan nabi Muhammad s.’a.w. sebagai nabi dan rasul. Ini bererti dalam aspek sejarah masyarakat Arab, Timur Tengah dan Asia Barat, istilah Allah telah lazim digunakan oleh setiap individu biarpun agama anutannya bukan ajaran Islam.

3.2 Penggunaan kalimah Allah itu merujuk kepada Tuhan yang satu iaitu tuhan yang diyakini sebagai tuhan sembahan masyarakat ketika itu. Bahkan penggunaan kalimah Allah adalah milik sejagat. Tidak terhad hanya kepada etnik atau kaum tertentu.

3.3 Apabila nabi Muhammad s.’a.w dilantik sebagai nabi dan rasul dan al-Qur’an diwahyukan, penggunaan kalimah Allah terus diguna pakai dalam mengekalkan pengertian Tuhan yang satu iaitu kalimah yang telah lazim diyakini dan difahami oleh manusia sejagat waktu itu. Kalimah Allah juga merupakan istilah Arab yang digunakan oleh umat manusia Arab, Bani Israel (Yahudi, Nasrani, Najran dan sebagainya waktu itu dan juga dalam penulisan kitab suci mereka waktu itu) sebagai merujuk Tuhan yang disembah dan istilah yang selamat bagi tujuan mengekalkan pengertian Tuhan yang satu. Pun begitu, al-Qur’an telah memurnikan kalimah Allah dengan menegaskan bahawa kalimah Allah adalah merujuk kepada Allah yang Maha Esa, Allah itu mutlak dan abadi, Allah itu tidak memperanakkan dan tidak diperanakkan dan Allah tidak disetarai oleh siapa pun dan apapun (Surah al-Ikhlas). Ini merupakan sifat-sifat asas Allah yang wajib difahami dan diyakini oleh umat Muslim selain daripada 99 sifat Allah yang lain (Asma’ al-Husna). Tuntasnya, kalimah Allah digunakan sebagai istilah yang paling selamat untuk terus mengekalkan dan menyatakan konsep ketauhidan yang telah ditegaskan al-Qur’an dan ajaran Islam. Ini bererti al-Qur’an dan Islam telah menegaskan kualiti kalimah Allah dengan prinsip dan sifat asas yang sempurna bagi Allah yang Maha Esa.

3.4 Keadaan ini adalah amat berbeza di sebelah nusantara khususnya Tanah Melayu. Ini kerana Islam disebarkan dengan roh Islam. Ini bererti kalimah Allah yang diguna pakai sebagai merujuk Allah yang Maha Esa itu adalah dalam bentuk yang telah dimurnikan dan ditegaskan oleh al-Qur’an sebagai Yang Maha Esa. Roh Islam telah mewarnai dakwah Islam waktu itu. Worldview masyarakat Muslim nusantara khususnya Tanah Melayu adalah berpaksikan hakikat roh Islam. Justeru, worldview masyarakat Muslim Tanah Melayu adalah berbeza sama sekali dengan masyarakat Arab. Atas alasan ini, walaupun kalimah Allah telah lazim digunapakai di sebelah Arab tetapi persekitarannya adalah berbeza dengan Tanah Melayu-Malaysia. Umat Muslim Malaysia telah ditanamkan dengan budaya dan pemikiran yang jelas dan murni bahawa kalimah Allah adalah milik ajaran Islam dengan merujuk kepada Allah yang Maha Esa dan bukannya Allah triniti dan sebagainya. Sensitiviti ini yang wajar difahami dan dipelihara agar maslahah umat Muslim di Malaysia terus dipelihara dan ketenangan dan keharmonian dapat dicapai dalam masyarakat majmuk Malaysia. Justeru, keputusan Kerajaan seperti yang dinyatakan dalam kertas kerja bertajuk “Hujah Menolak Penggunaan Kalimah ‘Allah’ oleh Kristian” tulisan Mohd Aizam bin Mas’od (rujuk lampiran) adalah amat relevan.

3.5 Sehubungan itu, ‘penjenamaan semula’ kalimah Allah yang cuba dibawa oleh pihak gereja dan Kristian adalah bukan lagi merujuk kepada kualiti konsep ketauhidan Allah sebagai Yang Maha Esa. Tetapi ia turut merujuk kepada konsep triniti yang jauh berbeza dengan uniti dan apatah lagi tauhid. Kualiti tauhid telah tiada dalam penjenamaan kalimah Allah dalam ajaran Kristian kini. Atas faktor ini telah menyebabkan kualiti kalimah Allah terjejas dan tercalar. Penyelewengan penggunaan kalimah Allah telah mengakibatkan istilah tersebut turut terheret kepada pengertian yang lemah dan tidak sempurna. Iaitu Tuhan disetarakan dengan makhluk. Tuhan tidak lagi Yang Esa tetapi Yang Tiga walaupun Tiga tadi dikatakan sebagai Yang Satu. Namun ia adalah berbeza walaupun kalimah Allah digunakan sebagai merujuk konsep kepercayaan Kristian.

3.6 ‘Peniruan’ penggunaan kalimah Allah yang tidak original ini hanya menjejaskan pengertian tauhid dalam kalimah Allah yang ditegaskan oleh al-Qur’an dan ajaran Islam. Analogi yang sama diguna pakai dan sebagai contohnya; dalam memperlihatkan jenama Calvin Klein yang asli dan yang tiruan. Kualiti adalah amat berbeza walaupun jenama tiruan seolah-olah mampu menyamai jenama asal dan tidak dapat dibezakan oleh individu awam tetapi individu pakar dapat merasai perbezaan ketara. Bahkan jenama tiruan boleh ditolak dan disaman hanya kerana menghasilkan suatu produk yang tidak setaraf dan merosakkan imej yang asli. Tegasnya penggunaan kalimah Allah yang digunakan oleh pihak gereja dan Kristian tidak menggambarkan keaslian maksud kalimah Allah tetapi telah berubah kepada maksud dan falsafah ajaran Kristian. Ini menjejaskan keaslian kalimah Allah yang telah sedia difahami dan diyakini umat Muslim Malaysia.

4. Realiti Tauhid

4.1 Kalimah Allah digunakan dalam konsep ketauhidan Islam adalah dengan tujuan penegasan bahawa Allah adalah yang Maha Esa. Tiada penyekutuan. Allah juga digunakan bagi menghindari daripada pengertian yang tidak sewajarnya bagi Allah. Perkara yang tidak wajar itu adalah:

a. Tuhan yang tidak beridentiti umpama tuhan dalam kepercayaan pantheisme yang meletakkan tuhan adalah segala-galanya dan segala-galanya itu adalah tuhan.Ini memperlihatkan tiada perbezaan antara tuhan dan makhluk. Tiada beza antara tuhan adalah pemilik segalanya dan segalanya adalah milik tuhan.
b. Tuhan sebagai entiti yang tidak mutlak.Tuhan tidak memiliki identiti yang jelas.Kabur dan tidak dapat dijelaskan dengan rencam.

c. Tuhan yang disifatkan dengan sifat makhluk iaitu bergender, makan, minum dan sebagainya.

d. Tuhan sebagai jelmaan iaitu tuhan dijelmakan dalam bentuk objek, patung dan umpamanya bagi memudahkan komunikasi antara mahkluk yang menyembahnya.

e. Tuhan yang diangkat iaitu tuhan yang ditarafkan statusnya sama seperti tuhan.

4.2 Berasaskan ketidakwajaran tersebut memperlihatkan bahawa Allah adalah kalimah yang mutlak bermaksud Tuhan yang satu dan satu-satunya (Cowan, 24). Atau dalam erti kata lain, Tuhan dalam bentuk nama dan identiti khas terkandung dalam pengertian Allah iaitu Esa. Sekiranya tuhan digunakan sebagai merujuk kepada Allah bererti, istilah tersebut boleh diubah menjadi tuhan (t kecil) atau Tuhan (T besar), tuhan-tuhan (ramai) atau tuhan (satu) dan penambahan nama terbitan seperti ketuhanan dan sebagainya. Analogi ini boleh diguna pakai dalam istilah god dengan meletakkannya sebagai satu, ramai, umum, khas dan bahkan ‘memperempuankannnya (godmother) atau melelakikannya (godfather) dan sebagainya.

4.3 Ini berbeza dengan kalimah Allah yang tidak boleh dijadikan umum, banyak atau ramai atau sedikit dan sebagainya. Tuntasnya, istilah Allah tidak boleh dimanupulasikan dalam apa metode sekalipun dalam bahasa asalnya (Ahmad Deedat, 1981, 33). Ini bererti dari aspek linguistik, istilah Allah adalah ‘superior’ daripada apa jua istilah, apa jua bahasa sebagai satu bentuk memelihara dan mempertahankan secara dalaman (in built) pengertian keEsaan dan keunikan satu-satunya Tuhan yang layak diyakini dan disembah.

4.4 Sehubungan itu, sekiranya Allah yang ingin diguna pakai oleh pihak gereja dan Kristian sebagai merujuk kepada pengertian triniti bererti “Tuhan yang satu sebagai tiga” atau ‘Tiga dalam satu’ yang merujuk Allah tuhan bapa (To be Omnipotent implies that God is transcendent (the Father), Allah tuhan anak (To be a Sustainer of mankind implies that God is incarnate (the Son) dan Allah tuhan Roh Kudus (To be Omnipresent implies that God is immanent (the Holy Spirit) yang dikatakan tidak bercanggah dengan konsep keMahaEsaan Allah menurut Islam bahkan memutlakkan keEsaan Allah itu (Joachim Ng 1987, 11) wajar diperhalusi. Ini kerana kelogikan triniti sentiasa dipersoalkan. Umpamanya sekiranya Allah dalam penjelmaan anak, siapa pula yang menjaga perjalanan alam semesta sedangkan alam ini sentiasa diketahui dalam pengurusan Allah. Persoalan kritikal seperti ini tidak dapat dihuraikan oleh agama Kristian dan gereja dengan rencam kerana penjelmaan Tuhan sebagai anak bukanlah secara simbolis tetapi secara realiti dengan berjasad manusia. “His (Jesus) resurrection from the dead, more than anything else convinced His disciples that He was indeed the Son of God” (B.C Ang 1980, 99).

4.5 Tuntasnya, tauhid dan pengEsaan Allah yang sebenarnya tidak memadai dengan hanya menyatakan perakuan bahawa Allah yang disembah itu adalah Allah yang satu. Pengertian Maha Esa bukanlah hanya bersifat kuantitatif iaitu dari aspek bilangan Tuhan tidak melebihi satu tetapi wajar dari aspek kualitatif iaitu memperlihatkan bahawa sifat-sifat dan identiti Allah adalah tersendiri dan sama sekali tidak setaraf dan setara dengan makhluk-makhluk ciptaanNya walau dalam apa bentuk dan cara sekalipun. Ini bererti bahawa mentauhidkan Allah adalah dengan memelihara pengertian dan konsep ketuhanan daripada sebarang bentuk dan cara sama ada dari aspek teori, amali, lahir atau batin yang boleh menjejaskan pengertian keEsaan dan keunikan Allah.

5. Terjemahan Dan Penggunaan Kalimah ’Allah’ Yang Hakiki

5.1 Secara umum, Syariah merujuk kepada maksud memelihara agama. Menurut kaedah fiqh, kemudaratan adalah wajar dicegah. Justeru, pencegahan adalah lebih baik daripada isu penggunaan kalimah Allah ini terus berkembang.

5.2 Saya menyatakan bahawa penggunaan kalimah Allah oleh pihak gereja di dalam kitab-kitab pengajaran agama Kristian terbitan gereja-gereja ini mendorong kitab tersebut dibaca dengan mudah oleh individu Muslim. Kebimbangan ini adalah berasaskan seandainya individu Muslim tersebut kurang mendapat pendidikan agama dan mempunyai sikap toleransi beragama yang amat tinggi, kitab-kitab ini boleh mencetuskan kekeliruan akidah Muslim tersebut dan mendorong mereka untuk berpendapat bahawa Tuhan adalah sama.

5.3 Istilah “Allah” dan bukannya “Tuhan” digunakan oleh umat Islam untuk mengelakkan dari makna-makna lain yang tidak dikehendaki seperti Tuhan yang tidak beridentiti daripada fahaman pantheisme iaitu Tuhan adalah segala-galanya dan segala-galanya adalah Tuhan, Tuhan sebagai entiti yang tidak mutlak dan kabur daripada pandangan idealist, Tuhan sebagai sifat makhluk yang mempunyai jantina dan perlu memenuhi kehendak-kehendak biologi seperti makan, minum dan berkeluarga, Tuhan yang mempunyai kehendak sosial seperti berkawan, berkelompok, berpolitik dan beragama, Tuhan sebagai satu bentuk manifestasi atau jelmaan iaitu yang dijelmakan dalam bentuk objek-objek yang dapat dilihat dan Tuhan yang asalnya bukan Tuhan diangkat menjadi Tuhan seperti harta benda, kekayaan, sanjungan dan kedudukan. Semua sifat-sifat ini bukan ciri ketuhanan yang dikehendaki.

5.4 Umat Islam wajib melafazkan perakuan keimanannya secara formal, iaitu “La Ilaha illa Allah” yang bermaksud “Tiada Tuhan yang disembah melainkan Allah” dan “Muhammadur Rasulullah”, yang bermaksud “(Nabi) Muhammad itu Pesuruh Allah”. Umat Islam tidak melafazkan perakuan tersebut sewenang-wenangnya seperti “Tuhan yang saya sembah adalah Allah” atau “Allah adalah Tuhan saya”. Ini menjelaskan bahawa seseorang Muslim tegas membuat perakuan ketuhanan mereka dalam bentuk negatif iaitu menegaskan perakuan kewujudan satu Tuhan yang Esa yang dinamakan dan dirujuk sebagai Allah di atas penafian tuhan-tuhan lain. Unsur penafian tuhan-tuhan lain ini adalah tunjang konsep ketuhanan dalam Islam iaitu ketauhidan. Ini merupakan intipati tauhid iaitu penegasan tentang pengesaan Allah dalam konsep ketuhanan Islam yang dititikberatkan dalam akidah Islam.

5.5 Istilah Allah secara mutlak daripada Al Quran bererti “Tuhan yang satu dan satu-satunya” yang merupakan satu nama khas dan bukan ganti nama. Allah tidak boleh digunakan dalam bentuk atau makna-makna lain. Perkataan “Tuhan” sebagai bukan nama khas adalah “Ilah” dan bukannya Allah. Allah adalah nama khas bagi Tuhan yang identitinya adalah keesaan. Penggunaan perkataan Tuhan boleh diumumkan dan boleh dibanyakkan dengan menggantikan “T” besar kepada “t” kecil. Sebagai contoh, adalah dengan memanusiakan pengertiannya seperti ”godfather”, “godmother” atau mewanitakannya dengan “goddess” atau memperkecilkannya dengan “godling”. Ini adalah jelas bahawa istilah “Allah” merupakan kata nama khas. Justeru, kalimah tersebut tidak boleh dimanipulasikan daripada bahasa asalnya (Ahmad Deedat, 1981: 33). Istilah Allah adalah lebih agung daripada semua istilah dan bahasa kerana ia mempertahankan dan memelihara makna keesaan dan keunikan satu-satunya Tuhan yang layak disembah.

5.6 Selain itu, istilah Allah adalah mushtaq iaitu kata nama khas. Ini kerana sekiranya istilah Allah digandingkan dengan istilah “Ya” dalam bahasa Arab yang bermaksud kata seruan “Wahai”, istilah Allah tetap kekal. Huruf “alif”, “lam” dan “lam” sebagai konotasi nama khas tidak boleh dibuang. Ia tidak boleh disebut sebagai “Ya Lahu”. Ini berbeza dengan kalimah “Al-Rahman” yang meupakan antara sifat Allah iaitu pengasih/penyayang. Apabila ia digandingkan dengan istilah “Ya”, alif lam makrifah (kata nama khas) wajar dibuang dan menjadikannya sebagai “Ya Rahman”. Ini membuktikan bahawa istilah Allah adalah kata nama khas atau mushtaq. (Ibn Manzur, t.t.)

5.7 Surah Al-Ikhlas membahaskan mengenai konflik yang berlaku di kalangan masyarakat penganut agama ketika itu. Masing-masing mendakwa bahawa agama mereka menyembah Allah. Persoalannya siapakah sebenarnya Allah yang dituturkan dan disembah oleh agama-agama tersebut; Adakah ia tepat dan benar dengan konsep “Allah” yang dirujuk sebagai Tuhan sembahan mereka? Imam Ibn Kathir menukilkan kata-kata Ikrimah berhubung dengan faktor sabab al-nuzul (sebab penurunan ayat) tersebut─

Ikrimah: “Ketika orang Yahudi mengatakan: “Kami menyembah U’zair anak Allah”. Orang Nasrani menyatakan: “Kami menyembah Al-Masih anak Allah”. Majusi mengatakan: “Kami menyembah matahari dan bulan”. Orang Musyrikin pula mengatakan: “Kami menyembah berhala”. Lalu Allah s.w.t . menurunkan ke atas Rasulullah s.a.w. surah Al-Ikhlas yang bermaksud: “Katakanlah wahai Muhammad bahawa Allah itu Esa, Allah itu tempat bergantung segala makhlukNya, Allah itu tidak beranak dan tidak diperanakkan dan Allah itu tiada bagiNya sekutu”.

5.8 Perbincangan tersebut, membuktikan bahawa maksud kalimah Allah yang digunapakai oleh para penganut bukan Muslim adalah amat berbeza dengan maksud kalimah Allah yang dijelaskan oleh Islam. Islam menegaskan ketauhidan Allah. Manakala agama-agama lain mempunyai konsep yang berbeza iaitu keyakinan terhadap ketuhanan tuhan yang satu yang dimulai dengan angka sifar dan dilanjutkan dengan angka yang berikutnya. Justeru, adalah tidak wajar sekiranya kalimah Allah ini digunakan dengan sewenang-wenangnya tanpa memahami realiti maksud kalimah ini yang merujuk kepada zat Allah yang Agung dan Maha Esa. Penggunaannya amat wajar dipantau dan dipelihara oleh kerajaan untuk mengelak daripada kekeliruan di kalangan individu Muslim dengan nama Allah Yang Maha Esa dan Yang Maha Agung.

6. Kesimpulan

6.1 Berasaskan perbincangan-perbincangan tersebut, ternyata bahawa pihak Kristian menggunakan metode penghujahan bahasa. Namun, oleh kerana kita menghujahkan hakikat bahawa bahasa dan fikiran adalah saling mencerminkan satu sama lain, sebarang istilah dari satu tradisi pemikiran, apabila diterjemahkan perlulah membayangkan tradisi pemikiran yang asal, jika tidak makna sebenar peristilahan yang diterjemahkan akan menjadi kacau bilau. Dalam hal ini, mereka menghujahkan bahawa menurut tradisi pemikiran Katholik, istilah “God” diterjemahkan dalam bahasa Melayu sebagai “Allah”, satu kalimah yang mencerminkan tradisi pemikiran Islam. Justeru itu, makna sebenar istilah asal “God”, seperti tergambar dalam tradisi pemikiran Katholik dengan sengaja sedang dikelirukan.

6.2 Tuntasnya, pihak Kristian tidak memiliki hak atau keizinan untuk menterjemahkan peristilahan yang terdapat dalam satu tradisi pemikiran akidah agama dengan menggunakan ungkapan-ungkapan tradisi pemikiran akidah agama yang lain, khususnya ungkapan-ungkapan yang merujuk kepada siapa itu Tuhan yang tidak ada faham tasdiqnya dalam tradisi agama Kristian. Rasa hormat perlu diperlihatkan kepada istilah-istilah penting dan erti-erti maknawi yang mencerminkan agama Islam dalam bahasa Melayu, persisi sikap orang Islam yang menghormati istilah dan faham dasar agama Kristian. Masyarakat Muslim Malaysia tidak merujuk tempat pemujaan non-muslim sebagai masjid, tetapi sebagai gereja, kuil, candi dan sebagainya. Masyarakat turut tidak menganggap pemimpin sembahyang berkumpulan non-Muslim sebagai imam, melainkan selaku paderi, sami dan seterusnya. Namun, atas dasar toleransi beragama, masyarakat Muslim Malaysia tidak menafikan hak mana-mana golongan penganut agama lain menterjemahkan buku suci masing-masing dalam bahasa Melayu. Cuma, seandainya ada yang hendak berbuat demikian, maka golongan tersebut mestilah memiliki ilmu dan keahlian mengenai bahasa Melayu, cukup berdaya cipta dan kreatif untuk menggunakan peristilahan yang benar-benar mencerminkan tradisi pemikiran akidah agama masing-masing.

6.3 Sehubungan dengan itu, adalah wajar bagi pihak gereja Roman Katholik dan seumpamanya untuk bersikap lebih teliti, waspada, berhati-hati dan memahami sensitiviti warga Muslim Malaysia dan dunia.

6.4 Secara umumnya dan ilmiahnya, adalah harus kepada non-Muslim menggunakan kalimah Allah kerana kalimah tersebut adalah milik umat manusia sejagat. Namun persoalan di sini bukannya boleh atau tidak boleh non-Muslim menggunakan kalimah Allah. Namun, persoalan di sini ialah sejauh mana telusnya penggunaan kalimah Allah oleh pihak gereja dan Kristian yang secara halusnya cuba memplagiat kalimah Allah dengan maksud tidak lagi menjaga kualiti kalimah tersebut sebagaimana yang ditegaskan Islam dan al-Qur’an tetapi dengan maksud cenderung kepada memperlihatkan falsafah ajaran Kristian. Ini dilihat telah mencabuli hak worldview Islam di Malaysia dan sekaligus boleh menjejaskan perpaduan dan keharmonian. Perkara ini wajar dipertahankan agar kalimah Allah tidak digunakan dengan maksud yang berbeza daripada worldview Islam.

6.5 Umat Muslim Malaysia wajar memahami perpaduan dan keharmonian nasional adalah penting. Namun, jati diri tidak boleh digadai dan dijual beli. Akidah Tauhid adalah dasar dan tunjang umat Muslim yang wajib dipertahankan. Umat Muslim wajar mengetahui perbezaan adalah penting dan memahami bahawa perbezaan wajar wujud dalam penggunaan kalimah Allah. Umat Muslim wajar memahami mengapa kalimah Allah dipertahankan adalah kerana kemampuan kalimah Allah dan konsep ketuhanan Islam memelihara kesucian ketauhidan Allah dan bukannya atas sebab keangkuhan dan etnosentrik mereka.

6.6 Tuntasnya, perpaduan dan keharmonian di Malaysia masih mampu dijayakan dalam keadaan wujudnya perbezaan agama yang ada dengan syarat wujudnya sikap saling ‘hormati perbezaan dan halusi persamaan’. Ini bererti, slogan yang menyatakan bahawa One God, Many Paths bukanlah satu-satunya metode yang baik untuk menyelesaikan masalah perpecahan agama dan sekaligus mampu memupuk perpaduan etnik demi kesejahteraan Malaysia. Tetapi sikap saling menghormati dan memahami mengapa umat Muslim itu memilih untuk berbeza dalam penggunaan kalimah Allah yang sewajarnya hanya digunakan oleh Muslim dan bukannnya pihak gereja dan Kristian itu yang perlu diperhalusi. Sekaligus juga, adalah wajar memperjelaskan mengapa umat Muslim Malaysia begitu beriya-iya mempertahankan kalimah Allah hanya eksklusif kepada mereka walhal realitinya kalimah Allah adalah untuk umat manusia sejagat. Wajar juga dijelaskan mengapa baru sekarang pula pihak gereja dan Kristian begitu beriya-iya untuk menggunakan kalimah Allah dalam maksud yang berbeza dengan realiti maksud kalimah dan kualiti kalimah Allah sebagaimana yang dijelaskan dalam perbincangan ini. “Perbezaan adalah suatu rahmat dan bukannya suatu yang keramat”.

RUJUKAN
-Al-Qur’an al-Karim
-The Holy Bible Containing Old Testament and New Testament, Grand Rapids.
- The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, Utah, U.S.A.
- Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Qur‘an, Brentwood, Maryland: Amana Corporation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Ahmad Deedat (1981), Atnatu; a Novel Concept of God, Durban: Islamic Propagation Centre.
-Aliran (1980), One God, Many Paths, Penang.
-Amriah Buang (Prof) (2009), Mengapa Kalimah Allah?”, Interactive Muslimah Association.
-Ang, B.C (1980), One God, Many Paths, Aliran:Penang.
- Bulgakov S.N (1988). The Orthodox Church (Translation by Pravoslavie), St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.
- Chandra Muzaffar (1980), One God, Many Paths, Aliran: Penang.
-Chandra Muzaffar (1987), Islamic Resurgence in Malaysia, Petaling Jaya: Fajar Bakti.
- Enakmen Ugama Bukan Islam (1988), (Kawalan dan Perkembangan Di Kalangan Orang Islam).
-Fahlbusch E. & Bromiley G.W. The Encyclopedia of Christianity, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
-Ibn Kathir (t.t.), Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim, Beirut: Dar al-Kitab.
-Ibn Manzur (t.t.), Lisan al-‘Arab, Beirut.
-Jakim (2009), Kalimah Allah, bukan bermakna "God Semata-mata, Cawangan Aqidah, Bahagian Penyelidikan JAKIM.Perlembagaan Persekutuan
-James Hastings (1913), Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Edinburgh: T&T
Clark.
-James Ng (1987) “Knowing what the Trinity is”, The Sunday Mail, March1, 1987.
- Khadijah Mohd Khambali @ Hambali (1993), “Konsep Trinity Menurut Kristian: Analisis Ilmiah: dalam Jurnal Usuluddin, Bil. 2, Kuala Lumpur: Akademi Islam, Universiti Malaya.
-Mangalam (1980) “A Hindu Views”, One God, Many Paths, Aliran: Penang.
- Meyendorff J (1995). Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.
-Otto Friedrich August Meinardus (2007), Two Thousand Years of Coptic Christianity, American Univ in Cairo Press.
-S.P Subramaniam (1980), ‘A Hindu View”, One God, Many Paths, Aliran: Penang.
-T.C The (1980), “A Buddhist View’, One God, Many paths, Aliran: Penang.
-The Star, 28 December 2007.
-The Sun, 24 December 2007.
- Utusan Malaysia, 6 Januari 2008.

Civilising role of Islamic education

Tuesday January 5, 2010
Civilising role of Islamic education
Ikim Views
By DR MOHD SANI BADRON

Education in Islam refers to knowledge which makes the soul alive, drawing together all good disciplines so man is led to excellent intellectual and moral qualities.
WILLIAM Godwin, a renown English political philosopher, once declared that man’s “moral improvements will keep pace with his intellectual” progress, as long as “sound reasoning and truth (are) adequately communicated” to him.
Godwin’s statement is remarkably parallel to some aspects of Dr Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas’ definition of education in Islam.
In the latter’s The Concept of Education in Islam, we have the famous definition: “education is adab progressively instilled into man”; disciplinary, in regard to human potentialities; selective, in regard to his intellectual and spiritual attributes; corrective, in regard to his action; and qualitative, in regard to his preservation from judgemental errors.
Instilling adab first and foremost refers to “the disciplinary action”, as it involves action to discipline the body, mind and soul of the education-recipient.
This definition found support in the past by the author of al-‘Inayah, who referred to education’s content as “the drawing together of all good disciplines whereby man is led to excellent intellectual and moral qualities (kull riyadah mahmudah fa-yakhruju bi-ha al-insan ila fadilah min al-fada’il)”.
That the author employed the term “man” rather than “Muslim” in that definition is reflective of the fact that Islamic education draws out our common humanity more than its superficial differences.
Second, adab also refers to “the selective acquisition”, as it involves acquisition of the good qualities and attributes of mind and soul of the education-recipient.
That proposition concisely formulates various descriptions given by authoritative works like Fath al-Qadir, which stated that adab is “al-khisal al-hamidah”; or like Bahr al-Jawahir, which defined it more comprehensively as “husn al-ahwal wa husn al-akhlaq wa ijtima‘ al-khisal al-hamidah”.
That the aim of Islamic education is to put the student in full possession of all his physical, intellectual and spiritual potential has also been emphasised by Abu Zayd as well as the author of al-Bahr al-Ra’iq, both of whom identified adab as “malakah”, viz., trait of character.
Both authorities also described adab as “al-sifah al-rasikhah li al-nafs (the stable, firmly established attribute of the self)”.
Third, adab means “the correct performance”, as it is to perform the correct as against the erroneous action, right or proper as against wrong.
For Shah ‘Abd al-Haqq al-Dihlawi (d. 1052/1642), in his Risalah Hilyat al-Nabi, adab in this context refers to “the path which is approved by God and is good” (al-tariqah al-maqbulah wa al-salihah), values of which were taught by Him to the Prophet, in order to be emulated by humanity in general and Muslims in particular.
Fourth, adab requires “the qualitative preservation”, as it is the preserving from disgrace in terms of errors of judgement and subsequently wrong action.
Al-Tahanawi has reported that for ahl al-hikmah or sage, adab refers to “the preserving of the self (siyanat al-nafs)”, while for Abu Zayd, adab is “an aptitude which protects its owner from what that disgraces him (malakah ta‘sumu man qamat bi-hi ‘amma yushinu-hu)”.
Sharif al-Jurjani (d. 843/1413) formulated the definition of adab as “special knowledge that preserves one against all types of errors (ma‘rifatun ma yuhtaraz bi-hi ‘an jami‘ anwa‘ al-khata’)”.
As there are limits which have been prescribed through revelation by God (hududullah), the same Shah Abd al-Haqq al-Dihlawi’s Risalah Hilyat al-Nabi also defined adab as ri‘ayah hadd kull shay’: “guarding the limit of each and every thing”.
Adab, as special knowledge, as the food and life of the soul, is to be approached by means of lofty conduct. This knowledge, which makes the soul alive, is the content of education.
If education is a process of civilization, ta’dib is more than qualified to play the civilizing role among the people. As mentioned in al-Talwih, instilling adab refers to “refinement of ethics and amelioration of habits (tahdhib al-akhlaq wa islah al-‘adat)”.

7 New Year resolutions that will change your organisation

Saturday January 2, 2010
7 New Year resolutions that will change your organisation
PSYCHOLOGY AT WORK
By DR GOH CHEE LEONG

IN the spirit of new beginnings and change that typically blows past us every once a year, I’ve decided to propose a list of seven resolutions that organisations should adopt.
1. Take the selection process more seriously
For goodness sake, stop hiring staff that will create more problems than they solve. We’re killing our organisations by rushing to fill vacancies with staff who are either incompetent or unsuitable for the demands of the organisation.
Managers need to work closely with the human resources department (HRD) to ensure that the recruitment process is rigorous. We need a well-balanced process that will both recognise unfulfilled potential and talent while being honest and clear about the capabilities of our organisation to tap and realise this potential.
Too many interviews are conducted with rose-tinted glasses by bosses who are so desperate to fill immediate vacancies that they are willing to overlook even the most glaring flaws and gaps.
The HRD needs to be more aggressive in identifying and hunting down top talent proactively rather than reactively when a vacancy arises.
All good organisations have already lined up five or six potential replacements for every key position in the organisation, at any one time. This way, they don’t need to scamper for crumbs, and settle for mediocrity.
2. Develop an on-site development programme for your staff team
Most experts in talent management will tell you that less than 20% of “true development” can be attributed to offsite training programmes, which will include most of the seminars, conferences, workshops and team-building camps we usually send our staff to in order to use up our training budgets.
About 80% of real staff development happens on-site, meaning at the workplace itself.
For example, you want your staff to develop project management skills, then start giving them projects to manage. You want them to learn negotiation skills, then take them along the next time your are negotiating a deal with your partners.
You want your staff to improve customer service, then spend one hour every week observing how they deal with customers, and spend 30 minutes giving them in depth, detailed feedback about what they’re doing wrong and how they can do better.
The workplace is the ultimate training setting. It may take a lot of our time, but it is still cheaper and more cost effective than the dozen of off-site training programmes we spend our money on anyway.
The basic process is very simple:
Step 1: Assign a project/task.
Step 2: Observe.
Step 3: Provide feedback and facilitate a process of reflection so that they learn from the experience.
3. Be honest with your staff evaluations
Do you want your staff to start growing up and take responsibility for their work and their potential? Then stop treating them like children.
Tell them the honest truth about what they’re doing right and what they’re doing wrong. Tell them what you admire about their performance and what you’re concerned about. Let them defend themselves, let them disagree. That’s fine, they’re entitled to their own opinion, as long as they know you are entitled as their boss to share your honest and frank observations.
Place the entire conversation in the context of their own career development, so that it’s clear that this is not about your personal agenda, but about their own future success.
When employers and employees can have mature and open conversations about work performance, then things look promising for the organisation.
4. Identify the ambitions of your staff
Do you want to motivate your staff? Then find out what they really, really want in their careers. Everyone is ambitious. They may have different ambitions, but everyone in the workplace has ideas about where they want to be in the future.
It’s important as their boss that you know exactly what it is they want. Spend 30 minutes with each of your staff and get them to share this with you.
And after listening to them, tell them that your role is to help them achieve this ambition. Give them your commitment to doing whatever is within your power to help them make this a reality.
Now, of course, you will need to remind them that the climb is tough. No pain, no gain.
To succeed, they will need to be stretched, they will need to take on new tasks and new roles, beyond their normal work scope, and you will need to be honest and sometimes critical in your evaluations of them; but all of these will help them make it to where they want to be.
5. Start an employee-assistance programme
Make no mistake about it, stress affects your bottomline. Organisations are losing some of their top talents to stress-induced burnout.
I was just talking to a senior partner of a top law firm in Kuala Lumpur who had just lost three of his partners due to work-related stress; two had bypasses and one quit because the work was affecting his family adversely.
As a result, top organisations are realising that it’s a lot cheaper to pay RM4,800 (RM200 x 24 sessions) to send a senior staff to see a psychologist or counsellor, than to lose this staff and have to find a replacement.
Employee-assistance programmes (EAPs) are becoming popular among many international and local firms, as they realise that mental health is just as important as physical health.
6. Encourage people to disagree with you
If you want your organisation to be sharp in its decision making, then once and for all kill off the culture of “yes men”. Stop surrounding yourself with people who just agree with you.
Surround yourself with the smartest, sharpest thinkers, who know what they’re talking about, and who are not scared to disagree with you. These are people who are loyal to the organisation, not the boss, and will not hesitate to tell you the truth as they see it.
A strong leader does not feel threatened by dissenting opinions.
7. Bring psychology graduates into your team
I can’t resist finishing with a short pitch for my graduates. For the last 12 years, I’ve been in the business of training psychology graduates, and preparing them to add value to any organisation they join.
Unbeknownst to most people, about 45% of our psychology graduates actually end up in the corporate sector, many of them joining HR and marketing departments; training companies; head-hunting, advertising and public relations firms; and other people-related positions.
At last count, I have over 2,000 psychology graduates in the business sector all over Malaysia. From time to time, I meet up with some of them and have been very pleased at how they have applied their knowledge of psychology to helping their organisations grow and develop, particularly in the areas of talent and people management.
Some of them have, in the last 10 years, risen high up in some of the largest multinational and government-linked companies in the region, a testimony to their quality and skills.
Market leaders like GE, Shell, Petronas, HSBC, Sime Darby, Leo Burnett, Accenture, Hewitt Consulting and many others have been hiring psychology graduates for years and with great success.
So what unique qualities does a psychology graduate add to your organisation? Let me list the main two:
l No one understands people better than a psychology graduate. That’s what psychology is – the science of understanding how people think, feel and behave in all settings. This knowledge can be used to powerful effect in general as well as HR management.
l No one does research better than a psychology graduate. This is one of their core competencies. Be it designing a survey or a naturalistic observation, or a controlled experiment, a psychology graduate will figure out a way to answer almost any question on human nature that you can conceive of.
With that, I bid you a Happy New Year. I hope it will bring the fresh new energy and impetus you seek in your organisation and I wish you a bright 2010!

•Dr Goh Chee Leong is vice-president of HELP University College and a psychologist.

Building the right character

Saturday January 2, 2010
Building the right character
At your service
By TAN SRI MOHD SIDEK HASSAN

Good character is built from a decision made within us. It comes from a heart of wanting to make a difference in the time we are here – and doing the right things.
AS adults we have grown up believing, and naively so, I would add, that the young in our societies are minimalist and insignificant to the goings-on in an adult world.
We have been conditioned to believing only grown-ups make earth-moving, life-changing pinnacle decisions. No one else can manage this seemingly gruelling charge.

Supporting role: What you make of your education today will decide the future of this country. As inconsequential as you may think it is, decisions you make for yourselves today, may in fact alter the face of Malaysia directly.
The exponential growth and progress globally, in the last decade alone, has proved this theory, Oh so wrong! The momentum to change has altered the dynamics of decision-making; crushing the assumptions the world traditionally operated from.
When it once took us centuries to get from dye print press to print and then decades to telephone, it now only takes months to get from personal computers to palm top gadgets. Singular pen drives can today store the knowledge that could run nations and markets.
The emergence of friendsters, chatline, messengers, Facebook and Twitter demonstrates that the young have embraced these revolutionary changes faster than baby boomers.
That the young have been more adaptable to the market revolutions, they have been able to effect and impact change through these mediums much more effectively than us baby boomers.
The impatience of the young to yesterday’s theories and the “used to be’s” is fast defining the growth of technology and economies. Their haste to answers, I must add, is also directly changing the face of socio-political environment in markets; developed and otherwise.

The learning never stops
This said, I often take cognisance that in an environment driven by fast-changing external demands, one that is often out of our direct control, the proverbial question of doing the right thing at the right time emerges. The struggle nonetheless is – what constitutes the right thing? Is the right thing for the moment, the right decision that would endure the times?
The most important thing I have learnt is – the characteristics that make us are the sum of the many individual decisions we take in our lives. It begins and ends with the sum of all the choices and actions we bear in our journey.
I have found that the essence to a rich learning is one that is driven by purpose. In such an instance every small action taken each day and everyday is cast back to a purpose we each choose for our journeys. It is these small actions and decisions that culminate to making us and the future we build for ourselves. It cultivates the character and attitude we will each sow in our own unique and individual paths.
No matter what we choose to do, we require knowledge and education in a form and fashion. Be that medicine, law, drama and arts, journalism or even taking up public service. It is this knowledge and learning that provides the much needed common sense in our daily choices. Common sense comes with much knowledge, learning and exposure.
When we choose a purpose-driven path of seeking knowledge, learning becomes a culture and a habit. The excellence we aim in education no longer intimidates. It is within our reaches and grabs. The world before us becomes a globe filled with learning opportunities no matter the difficulties.
I am convinced that it is the strength of education and knowledge that will have you shine as individuals in a noisy room of talents. By talents I don’t mean the listing of As, but that, and much more. That you stand out as individuals aware of global happenings. You are well read and you have honour as a human being.
You exude maturity and wisdom, regardless of age, in your decision makings. This is reflected in how you treat yourselves and others, especially the weakest amongst us. You are able to handle differences maturely and accept criticisms positively as a tool to growth. You are well adapted and adjusted to serve and shine wherever you travel in the world.

The subject of character
In reminiscing our lives and choices we make, we will find that the one thing evident every time in all situations is our character. In each and every situation we participate in, our character is always mirrored in that situation.
I cannot overemphasise how important this period of your life is. The learning of good morals and setting of crystal clear boundaries of rights and wrongs will define the path and pattern you will set for your own journeys and how that journey shall impact the world around you.
It has been said – “Good character is more to be praised than outstanding talent. Most talents are to some extent a gift.
Good character, by contrast, is not given to us. We have to build it piece by piece — by thought, choice, courage and determination.”
Character is built from a decision made within us. It comes from the heart of wanting to make a difference in the time we are here. Where there is strength in character, you will execute the same sound actions whether being watched by many, by one or by no one.
It will not matter whether your parents are watching over you, your teachers and lecturers are grading you, your peers judging you or your bosses checking on you. You will act and deliver to form, with or without an eye over you. This is the fundamental to being true to yourself; it is the crux of good character-building – it is doing the right thing, every time.
In the final analysis, it is your day-to-day decisions that will reveal your true self and potential to the world.
It is this self that will beckon opportunities and open doors. It is this self that will attract sustainable success and senior investments of trust by many in you. It is this strength in character that will stay long after you are gone. The work and deeds that you leave behind will speak louder than your own voices.
That is what our places of education must imbue and instil in our young and youth. Individuals with the strength in character of doing the right thing!
Heartbeat of nation’s future
Youths are the heartbeat of Malaysia’s future. As its heartbeat, you must each build and focus on good character building. Higher learning institutions must concentrate, motivate and reward good character building in all their curriculums. A character that will have you excel as individuals in your studies, excel in being a good child and a parent in time to your own children, a character that contributes to the building of our nation, its society and its future.
A character that will brave times and situations because the core is founded with strength and substance of knowledge!
No matter the teachers who have stood to inspire you or the leaders who have influenced your ideas and views of life, the responsibility of your lives lies with you. Governments can set standards of achievements, society can offer moral support in your quest of knowledge and lecturers can demand excellence through teachings and assessments of you.
But even with the most devoted parents, the most dedicated government policies and actions, the most encouraging educators and the best universities – none matters if you don’t decide the fundamental questions for yourselves – the life you wish to lead, the character you wish to carry and the responsibilities you want to fulfil as individuals given the blessings to experience this life.
The responsibility of your life starts with you. What you make of your education today will decide the future of this country. As inconsequential as you may think it is, decisions you make for yourselves today, may in fact alter the face of Malaysia directly. How you see education and respond to the learning of life will determine whether as a nation we can meet our greatest challenges set by the future.

The future in your hands
These are times when what seemed impossible a few years ago is now passé. We can barely fathom the waves of change that are to be. We could redefine medical, science and technology landscapes to heights not known to the minds today. But none of these achievements and conquests will come to serve well if in your youth today, you do not set the stage for what you wish to be remembered for. You do not set the purpose to your own lives here and beyond.
The exposure, knowledge and discipline you build in your youth will serve an immeasurable asset in your adult life. It is this asset that will define and decide your own impact on yourself, your families, the society and nation.
Lasting success, I am convinced, always knocks on the doors of those who choose knowledge, responsibility, fairness and humility as their partners. It is our duty to ensure that the young who make over 35% of our population are blessed with good knowledge and education.
It is my hope that the topic of character will be placed rigorously in panel sessions on KPI, KRA for Nation Building. That KPIs and KRAs are built based on the essence of good character – one that will always have them do the right thing each time, every time. One that will have you go to bed a better person than the one who woke up that morning.

> This is an excerpt of the Keynote Address delivered by Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan, Chief Secretary at the KSN Lecture 2009 at Universiti Teknology Mara.

Why more woman are petitioning for divorce

Tuesday December 15, 2009
Why more woman are petitioning for divorce
IKIM Views with PROF DATUK DR ZALEHA KAMARUDDIN

IN order to understand the concept of divorce, one must appreciate the different nature of marriage from the Islamic perspective. The difference in the concept of marriage is reflected in the approach adopted for divorce.
In Western society, marriage is viewed from the perspective of individual happiness. If the notion of romantic love and individual happiness are not realised in a marriage, divorce is seen as an easy option.
In Islam, however, the welfare of the family as a unit is given greater emphasis than individual happiness. In modern Malaysian Muslim society, though the marriage institution still plays an important role, its stability has been challenged.
Various studies have shown that the trend towards individual happiness is more pronounced now due to many factors. These challenges must be addressed seriously by policy makers to ensure that the family, which is the foundation of society, remains stable on all fronts.
Despite the fact that the aim of the Shari’ah is to establish a healthy family unit through marriage, Islam does recognise divorce. Divorce is, however, couched in the context of important moral and human principles. Islam commands husbands and wives to consort with each other with kindness or to part from each other with kindness.
Notwithstanding Qur’anic affirmations of equality and justice, rationality and strong moral exhortation, studies show that women were not given adequate access to the divorce process. Despite reforms in legislation which have been passed in a majority of Muslim countries to correct abuses in Muslim society, there is widespread exploitation of divorce laws, and Malaysia is said to be no exception. It is therefore pertinent to see whether there is empirical evidence to support this contention especially in relation to access to the divorce process.
A national study on divorce conducted by the Department of Shariah Judiciary in 2005 shows that females made up the majority of applications presented in the Shariah courts of all states in Malaysia.
Zaleha in her 2008 research indicated that although the husband may not wish to institute divorce proceedings, neither does he have much interest in the marriage itself. This indifference on the part of the husband may motivate the wife to petition for divorce.
Where women are economically dependent on their husbands, this in many cases acts as a deterrent to divorce in Malaysia. However, since there has been an increase in female participation in the labour market of Malaysia (46.7%), women have gained more economic power. The options open to them also increased with divorce being one such option.
Another factor which may explain why more women are petitioning for divorce in some states of Malaysia is the changing role of women in the family. Besides being economically independent, there is an awakened consciousness of equality and non-discrimination. Women are increasingly becoming more vocal about inadequacies in their marriage. They are choosing to pursue their careers and higher education, thus giving themselves more opportunities to participate in activities outside traditional stereotypes, which confine them to roles as home-makers and mothers.
Legal aid, which was introduced to Malaysia in 1971 with the prime objective of assisting litigants with limited means to initiate legal proceedings, including divorce, has also assisted women to petition for divorce.
Although there are some states with higher incidence of male petitioners, possible explanations for this must be explored. One study (Kuchiba et.al., 1979) which tends to support the trend for males being more likely to institute divorce proceeding in Malaysia shows that in most cases in Malay society, the wife is the one who instigates the divorce by persuading the husband to expedite matters through divorce via talaq. It would appear on paper that the men are petitioning, but, in reality, both parties agree to divorce. Due to the process being expedited via divorce through talaq, the husband seems to be initiating the divorce.
The discrepancy in the percentages of female plaintiffs between states directly correlates with legal provisions, implementation of these provisions, education levels, exposure on marital rights and responsibilities and the socio-economic status as well as the local culture. With the increase in the number of women gaining more financial independence, the percentages of female divorce plaintiffs are expected to increase in the future.
Another factor which cannot be ignored when considering the low number of women petitioning for divorce is linked to economic dependency. Although there are many women currently in the work force, one study on Americans (Weitzman, 1985) reveals that compared to men, there are more unemployed women. Upon divorce, these women are faced with a higher chance of being plunged into poverty. So whilst economic dependency may remain hidden during marriage, it becomes a public problem when women are confronted with poverty.
The financial loss suffered by women upon divorce is more often than not far greater than that suffered by men. Women will be more concerned about division of property, settlement of maintenance, and arrangements regarding children. Since women are more likely to retain the care of children, these matters are of more concern to them.
All the above empirical evidence shows that generally Muslim women in Malaysia do have equal access to divorce. The next important question would be where they would go from there. The future seems so bleak.

A teacher or a Trojan horse?

Tuesday June 29, 2010
A teacher or a Trojan horse?
IKIM VIEWS
By Md ASHAM AHMAD
Fellow, Centre for Syariah Law and Political Science

Many Muslim thinkers and leaders today, being educated in the West and severed from their religious intellectual tradition, do subscribe to the idea that all religions are the same, subject to development and changes.
EVERY way of life is based on a certain way of looking at life. The way one looks at life is one’s philosophy, and since there are many ways of looking at life, there are many philosophies.
So, what is called “western” philosophy is the western way of looking at life and why should a Muslim follow it when Islam has its own philosophy? In the first place why should he listen to the West? Western ideas are not necessarily correct, the best, or relevant to everybody.
What a rational person would do to an idea is to subject it to rigorous examination and criticism. Take for example the western notion of freedom and human rights. A proper thinker would want to know the reason why western people think the way they do about those issues. Philosophy is human reaction to the problems of life; it cannot be separated from history.
Western idea of freedom has to do with their experience with Christianity. Taking a cue from the history of Europe, a western thinker would not hesitate to conclude that neither freedom nor civil society is conceivable as long as there is religion. Experience tells him that individual freedom can only be guaranteed when the role of religion is curbed to the effect that it does not interfere in social and political life the way it used to be in the Middle Age.
Some writers even believe that human condition is more tolerable under the pagan religion while the scriptural, doctrinal and universal religion may only cause disaster to human society.
Such an attitude towards religion is peculiarly western and is relevant as far as the history of the western people is concerned. According to Will Durant, all notable western historians like Gibbon, Renan, Ferrero and E.L. White blame Christianity for the downfall of the Roman Empire.
The Renaissance saw a widening gap between the medieval structure of thought (based upon the doctrines of Christian theology) and a growing yearning for a free inquiry into the areas of humanity and nature, using methods and assumptions not directly derived from religion.
Humanism, which is so characteristic of the Renaissance and modern philosophy is in essence secular and signifies ultimately the independence of man from religion and his freedom on earth outside the laws and dictates of God and revelation. From humanism comes individualism which teaches that individual right is supreme, above the rights of God, even of society to a certain extent.
Modernity demands that Chris¬tianity be secularised – something which was very much feared of and consistently opposed by the early Christians. Religious belief can no longer be the basis of morality because it is antithetical to the spirit of enlightenment. They now believe that religion was only useful when human culture was still in the early stage of development because at that stage, they were not yet capable of building an exclusively rational moral system.
Is it possible to build a moral philosophy based purely on reason? Marx argues that religion is an obstacle to human freedom and to full moral responsibility. Freud believes that morality based on belief in the afterlife is impermanent because that belief will soon disappear with the advancement of reason. He also believes that religion, which among others, forgives sins is a catalyst to immorality.
The western people believe that their culture and civilisation is the most developed and refined, and they want others to think that their cultures and civilisations will also undergo the same historical development. Many Muslim thinkers and leaders today, being educated in the western way of thinking and at the same time severed from their religious intellectual tradition, do think like that. Out of sheer ignorance they subscribe to the idea that all religions are the same, subject to development and changes.
Professor Ali Mazrui, an ardent believer in historical relativism, thinks that Islam, like all other religions, also undergoes development and changes. Mazrui thinks that doctrinally Islam is a synthesis of three religions – Judaism, Christianity and the message of Muhammad. He holds that Islam as a civilisation began with a religious synthesis, and just as Islam had been receptive to Judaism and Christianity in the sphere of religious doctrine, so did it demonstrate receptivity to ancient Greece in the secular field.
To him Prophet Muhammad is just another prophet and he is equal to all other prophets.
The reason why Islam recognises so many prophets (nabiyyun) and so many messengers or apostles (rusul), according to Mazrui, is because Allah reveals himself in “instalments” across time and across space. To him Prophet Muhammad was the last messenger (rasul) only in the form of a human being, whereas time is “a continuing cosmic rasul”. So history, to him, is a continuing revelation of God, and expanding science a “non-carnate messenger of God”.
If God reveals Himself incrementally, and if history is a continuing revelation of God, he argues, should we not re-examine the message of Muhammad in the light of new instalments of divine revelation?
By new instalments of divine revelation, Mazrui means new findings in science, and based on that we should be able to reinterpret not only Qur’anic verses about astronomy, but also Islamic verses about what he calls “ancient punishments” (hudud). He argues that the expansion of human knowledge is not only about the stars, it is also about human beings themselves and their behaviour. Hence, he concludes that if we now know more about the causes of crime, we also know more about the limits of culpability and guilt.
If God has been teaching human beings in instalments about crime and punishment, and if there were no police, prisons, forensic science, or knowledge about DNA 14 centuries ago, the type of punishments needed had to be truly severe enough to be a deterrent. Hence the hudud. Since then, however, God has taught us more about crime, its causes, the methods of its investigation, the limits of guilt, and the much wider range of possible punishments. Therefore, he strongly believes that Muslims will be less and less convinced that the amputation of the hand is a suitable punishment for a thief under any circumstances.
He then directs his attack on the companions of the Prophet, whom he believes have been “idealised too much by the Muslims”. To him this is a grave error because the companions were not themselves prophets, and most of them were not even saints. They are simply ordinary human beings and the usual mixture of vices and virtues. Citing the assassination of Islam’s first four Caliphs and the civil war that broke out within little more than a decade after the Prophet’s death, Mazrui concludes that the behaviour of the companions “was often neither liberal nor moderate”.
Next comes his attack on the scholars of Islam (ulama’), which is directed at their “fallibility”. If the Prophet’s disciples could be fallible, he argues, so could the founders of the Schools of Law (madhahib). Not only that, he also points at the fact that for 14 centuries the Qur’an and the tradition of the Prophet have been interpreted almost exclusively by men, which makes Islamic Jurisprudence “male-centric”, making it guilty of subjectivism.
We have merely outlined here the gists of Mazrui’s thoughts about the religion of Islam, the Prophet, his companions, and the scholars. We shall describe his thoughts as plain ignorance disguised as scholarship. To accept them simply means to reject Islam and Islamic scholarship as a whole.
What Mazrui seeks to achieve is creating doubt about the truth, authenticity and finality of Islam, about the hierarchy of valid authority in the interpretation of Islam and its sources culminating in the authority of the Prophet, and reducing all to historical relativism and subjective interpretation.
For those who know and understand, and are not easily impressed with whatever that comes from the west or that is sanctioned by western institutions, Mazrui should be seen as a Trojan horse, not a teacher.

What makes a syarie lawyer?

Tuesday June 8, 2010
Ikim Views
By DR WAN AZHAR WAN AHMAD
Senior Fellow/Director, Ikim

A non-Muslim who wants to practise as a syarie lawyer must believe in all fundamentals prescribed by Islam and understand as many Islamic teachings, principles and tenets as possible.
LEGAL dualism in Malaysia is reflected by the application of two sets of laws – syariah and civil. The former has been practised centuries prior to the invasion of the colonialists, while the latter was introduced after the coming of the British to this land.
Now, there exists two groups of lawyers – syarie and non-syarie legal practitioners. Under certain circumstances, a section of them may practise in both systems provided certain requirements are met.
To become a civil lawyer, one must obtain the Bachelor of Laws degree from any tertiary institutions recognised by the Government. After being called to and admitted by the Bar or any other relevant body, one may serve as an advocate and solicitor in the country.
For syarie lawyers, they have to fulfil a number of additional conditions, which are generally the same throughout the country, but there are some minor variations in some states.
For example, Rule 10 of the Peguam Syarie Rules 1993 (Federal Territories) clearly provides that a person may be admitted to be a syarie lawyer if he
(i) is a Muslim and has passed the final examination which leads to the certificate of bachelor’s degree in Syariah from any university or any Islamic educational institution recognised by the government of Malaysia;
(ii) is a Muslim member of the judicial and legal service of the Federation; or, (iii) is a Muslim advocate and solicitor enrolled under the Legal Profession Act 1967.
Section (c) of the same Rule states that the aspiring applicant must be of good behaviour, while Section (e) stipulates that as an advocate and solicitor, he or she must pass the Sijil Peguam Syarie examination.
Considering the provisions mentioned, can a non-Muslim apply to become a syarie lawyer? The answer is obviously a categorical “No”.
But, we cannot solely rely on law and its legal provisions to deny any application, as people see no rationale justifying such a rejection.
Here, at least two rationales can be given to fill the seemingly lacunae. Firstly, in Islamic tradition, the terms “Islam” and “Syariah” have been applied interchangeably as synonyms.
Though the latter is generally perceived as more technical referring mainly to legal matters, in reality it covers all aspects of human life – theology, law, politics, economics, ethics, and so forth – to form a complete religion and way of life known as Islam.
Therefore, knowledge about syariah implies knowledge about Islam and vice versa.
In addition, Islam is a divine religion meant and brought to all mankind by Prophet Muhammad. Those who accept his call, recognise and believe in him as the last Messenger of God are known as Muslims.
Should disputes arise among them, possible solutions must be obtained within the parameters specified or recognised by the religion. It may be reached either inside or outside the formal court of justice establishable by syariah.
Realising the above framework, the duty of a syarie lawyer “is not only to present and argue a case for the interest of his client but, more importantly, to assist the court to arrive at a just and fair decision even if the decision of the court may not be in favour of his client”. (Farid Sufian Shuaib, Administration of Islamic Law in Malaysia, 2001).
In doing so, he must constantly refer to the primary and secondary Islamic legal sources, namely, the Quran, the Sunnah of the Prophet, consensus (ijmak), analogy (qiyas) and other methods agreed upon by Muslim jurists and scholars.
Therefore, for a non-Muslim to become an effective syarie lawyer, he must first of all believe in all fundamentals prescribed by Islam. He must make efforts to understand as many Islamic teachings, principles and tenets as possible and outwardly put them into practice.
He is also required to adequately master the art of applying and deriving conclusions from all those primary and secondary sources of Islamic law. And it takes years for one to sufficiently learn all the necessary processes.
How best can a non-Muslim “syarie lawyer” fight for the interests of his Muslim client if he himself actually does not sincerely believe in Islam and practise the religion?
Understanding Islam based on unguided readings or attending sporadic short courses is far from enough for one to claim so. A 150-hour course in Islamic law, for example, does not guarantee that one understands syariah to the extent that he is qualified enough to talk confidently in the area.
By analogy, can a non-Christian like me, after claiming some knowledge in the religion, apply to become a priest without changing my religion? By the same token, can I apply to be a Hindu or Buddhist monk just by having a certain diploma in certain respects of these religions without abandoning my original faith?
No religious authorities would allow that “encroachment” to take place as that would only create suspicions, problems and confusion in their respective groups in particular and in the masses in general. It does more harm than good.
“Accepting” Islam cannot be compared with accepting something non-religious or cultural in nature. Thus one may enrol as a martial arts student in silat, tae kwan do, kungfu, etc, irrespective of one’s religious or racial background.
Similarly, a non-Malay may adopt a Malay wedding ceremony; a Malay-Muslim may become involve in a certain Hindu arts, or join a Chinese Opera group. All these can be done, I believe, without having to compromise one’s religious beliefs.
Secondly and in brief, literature on Islamic law is abundantly written in Arabic. A good syarie lawyer will have to master the language for him understand the syariah better. Quranic and prophetic texts as well as juristic opinions are all preserved and recorded in Arabic.
Considerable works may be translated into and available in many other world languages but a tremendous amount of material remains in Arabic.
In Malaysia, I believe there is no non-Muslim lawyer who understands Arabic good enough that may help or enable him to comprehend syariah better to qualify him to practise in that field. Even if one manages to acquire and fulfil this requirement, his understanding of Islam remains doubtful.
Generally, for those who do not sincerely believe in Islam or do not properly practise the religion, and those who do not have the linguistic skill of Arabic, they are advised not to indulge in Islamic law as their profession, fully or partially, even if they are Muslims. Let alone if they are non-Muslims.

What makes the Muslim leader

What makes the Muslim leader
2010/05/31

A plenary session on leadership at the recent sixth World Islamic Economic Forum explored the traits necessary to overcome new challenges, writes MOHAMMAD HASHIM KAMALI

"LEADERSHIP challenges for the new era" was the subject of a plenary session at the sixth World Islamic Economic Forum in Kuala Lumpur. The topic generated a lively discussion among a panel of eminent speakers. Surin Pitsuwan, secretary-general of Asean, moderated and referred in his opening remarks to the Quranic phrase ulil-amr (those in charge of affairs, Q.4:59), raising the question as to who were the ulil-amr of today, who could usher us into the new era.

The first panellist, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, rightly stressed the role of education and recounted a question he was asked during a recent visit to the Middle East, on how Malaysia had become a success story among Muslim countries. He responded that Malaysia allocated a big portion of its budget to education, an area where the country set a different record. Then he spoke passionately of the importance of grounding our youth in good values.

The former Pakistan prime minister, Shaukat Aziz, emphasised incorruptibility and transparency. He referred to prevailing problems -- financial crises, terrorism, climatic degradation -- which were the result evidently of bad decisions, and thus a shortage of good leaders.
Dr Ahmad Muhammad Ali, president of the Islamic Development Bank, recommended a bottom-up approach whereby leaders arise from the grassroots as opposed to the elite-based top-down model.

The moderator addressed the floor with a remark on why the young were so preoccupied with qualifications and career matters and uninvolved in public affairs -- only to invoke an energetic rebuttal from many youth speakers: youth everywhere are crying for attention, they want to be involved, but their voices fall on deaf ears. It's the leaders who are not opening up.

In my brief intervention, I explored the Islamic dimension of our discussion a little further, on which I elaborate here. Surin's quotation was reminiscent of another Quranic guideline: "...their (Muslims') affair is a matter of consultation among them" (42:38). Consultative leadership as such entails engagement, communication and partnership, also implying that leaders are connected, interactive, and maintain good relations with their grassroots.

Furthermore, wali al-amr is generic and inclusive of anyone in charge of community affairs. A company director, judge, member of parliament, minister and head of state all qualify. It has in turn been adopted into the juristic usage wilayah (plural wilayaat) to signify public authority. All government authorities are thus known as wilayaat.

The Muslim leader should be friend and protector, and must remain open to sincere advice (nasihah) and constructive criticism (mu'aradah).

A renowned hadith states that "every one of you is a custodian and responsible for what is in his custody... the ruler is responsible for what is in his custody and so is every man and every woman".

The prophet also instructed: "Be not weak in character nor simply do what others do, whether good or bad. Rather make up your own minds: you may follow others in good deeds but not when they do something wrong."

What we see then is open and accessible leadership, not of a single person, but one in which everyone can take charge of what is placed under his custody. The prophet also praised a leader who empathised with his people, reaching out to them and aligning with them around their needs and interests, and denounced leaders who distance themselves from the grassroots.

Humility and dedication to service run through Islam's guidelines on leadership, as in the hadith: "The leader of a people is (veritably) their servant." The second caliph, Umar al-Khattab, added his voice to say that "there is no pomp and ceremony in Islam".

Leaders must also listen. Thus, when someone rudely criticised Umar in the presence of senior companions, one of them asked for permission to deal with the intruder but the caliph responded: "No, let him speak. No good will come of us if we do not listen."

One should also admit perhaps that mediaeval Islamic history is littered with despotic leadership and grave neglect of basic guidelines.

Age is not a determining factor of leadership. Ali, later the fourth caliph, was the youngest of the companions but was a leading voice and a minister to the prophet.

Similarly, when the prophet appointed the l8-year-old Usama Zayd to lead an army expedition, elder Companions acceded, and events showed he was a good choice.

Gender should also not be a hindrance, as there is no prohibitive injunction on it, but issues have arisen due mainly to mediaeval society practices. The prophet's wife Aishah was a learned and leading figure among the companions, and later Caliph Umar appointed a woman, Shifa Abdullah, as market inspector of Madinah.

The only exception Muslim scholars have made is for the head of state, as he leads the army, but material changes in warfare and leadership make it inadvisable now for a head of state to lead the army in battle.

Al-Mawardi (d.1058), author of a renowned text on governance, enumerates many qualities of a good leader, which he summarises into three: knowledge, just character, and wisdom (ilm, adalah, hikmah).

Leadership arises from knowledge, insight and virtue, a vision of the good, courage, humility, commitment, and God-consciousness. These are the ingredients of hikmah in a good leader. Knowledgeable leaders exuberate clarity of purpose and persuasiveness. The Quran thus instructed the prophet: "Take not a stand on something you are not knowledgeable about" (17:36).

Firasah (farsightedness) is a synonym of hikmah, often used in the context of siyasah shar'iyyah (judicious policy), which affords the leader flexibility in the management of public affairs -- to make effective decisions in emergencies and fast unfolding scenarios. When calamity strikes, for instance, and looters take people's properties, the leader must act, and not, as it were, await legal technicalities of evidence and proof.

The writer is founding chairman of the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS) Malaysia

Blasphemy can lead to apostasy

Tuesday May 25, 2010
Blasphemy can lead to apostasy
Ikim Views
By DR WAN AZHAR WAN AHMAD
Senior Fellow/Director, Ikim

Though Islamic tradition offers no exact equivalent for the term blasphemy, Muslims without proper knowledge who criticise the religion may fall into infidelity or apostasy.
BLASPHEMY, derived from the Greek term meaning “speaking evil”, is contemptuous or irreverent words or speech about God or things regarded as sacred.
Its synonyms, among others, are abuse, desecration, execration, profanation, repudiation, derogation, denunciation, heresy, insult, impiety, sacrilege, scurrility and reviling.
“To blaspheme” is to speak about the Divine or those sacred things impiously, disrespectfully.
In Islam, words that pierce the Almighty God with insults (sabb), insinuate the Prophet Muhammad, or mock any part of the Revelation constitutes religious crimes.
Though Islamic tradition offers no exact equivalent, these situations are analogous or comparable to blasphemy. The Quranic term that comes fairly close to blasphemy is “words of infidelity” (kalimat al-kufr).
Theologically speaking, blasphemy may overlap with or lead to infidelity, i.e. deliberate rejection of God and Revelation.
To a lesser degree, but equally destructive, expressing religious opinions at variance with the standard established Islamic worldview or creed could easily be looked upon as blasphemous.
And this blasphemy may also be defined as any verbal expression that possibly gives grounds for apostasy (riddah).
Blasphemy can also be considered as equivalent to heresy (zandaqah). This pre-Islamic Persian term is employed in Islamic literature to describe the heretics (zindiqs) whose teaching becomes a threat to the state and religion. Originally zindiqs was used to refer to the followers of Mani (d. 277 AD) who deviated from the original teachings of Zorostrianism.
From the inception of Islam, the religion has been confronted with a lot of opposition. The Prophet Muhammad himself encountered vehement rejection from the Arab people and leaders of Mecca. They disputed, abused, rejected and ridiculed many Quranic teachings brought by him. They not only mocked his claim as the prophet of God but also accused him of many derogatory names and professions.
Based on the Noble Quran and Sunnah, the nature and conditions for blasphemy have been elaborated upon by scholars. They describe it as the expression of denigration, contempt or scorn for God, the Prophets, the Quran, the angels, or the traditional religious sciences based on Revelation.
The list goes to those remarks that offend the qualified and true religious scholars. Insults to the authoritative religious scholarship is tantamount to rejection of religious knowledge itself. It implies that the Revelation is untruthful, implicating the Prophet and ultimately Almighty God.
The aforementioned antagonism has been taking place in Islamic history since the time of the Prophet. It is still happening today and will continue to the future.
What is more unfortunate, is that it is done by Muslims themselves, the confused ones. They question the rationale and even validity of certain religious pronouncements, claiming injustices and discrimination, for example, against gender, as well as violation of human rights on the part of Islam.
The terms blasphemy and heresy are invoked here to remind and caution many modern educated Muslims who are inclined to follow the footsteps of those early blasphemers and zindiqs by criticising their religion without having proper knowledge.
It appears that those educated but ignorant Muslims become zindiqs or “free thinkers” making their external profession of Islam not sufficiently sincere due to improper guidance.
Therefore, Muslims must always be careful with their intentions, words and actions. They are supposed to be sensible enough to realise that whatever they do, it must be done in accordance with the true teachings of Islam.
All arguments must be constructed upon premises based on right knowledge. And true Muslims must always be ever willing to come back to the right path and correct themselves if what they are holding to is proven wrong.
Blasphemous Muslims must be aware that they may fall into infidelity or apostasy if they choose to remain obstinate after being told the truth.